Talk:Israel and apartheid/Archive 40

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Interesting source

I think that this might be an interesting source for the article: http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/you-have-to-demolish-them-while-they-re-small.premium-1.483761 PerDaniel (talk) 10:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Does the source mention apartheid somewhere? --Dailycare (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it is about unequal treatment of jews and palestinians. PerDaniel (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If it doesn't explicitly tie into apartheid, you may run into some resistance if you propose to use the source here. --Dailycare (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

JEWISH ONLY ROADS IS FALSE I have another source related to the roads in the West Bank and how they became off limits to Arabs of the PLO. The PLO Arabs were using these roads to suicide bomb in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2010/12/05/the-myth-of-jewish-only-roads/ The roads are not closed to Muslims or citizens of Israel. They are only closed to PLO. This is certainly not apartheid. I also would like to include the Fogel Family Massacre as well, since the murders of this Jewish family were committed just after Israel caved into taking some of its checkpoints down. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/14/fogel-family-massacre-israelis-palestinians What people don't seem to understand is that this is a war situation, not an apartheid one. --Zanadov (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

That's nonsense. The roads are closed to all except Israeli citizens, settlers and tourists. All Palestinians from the West Bank are excluded, whether they are Muslim or Christian, PLO or Hamas, or of any other religious or political persuasion. RolandR (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Zanadov, as a new editor, you may not be familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines. Commentary magazine is not considered a reliable source with respect to issues of fact (only opinion). Also, Talk pages such as this are intended for discussing improvements to the article, not discussing the subject of the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

So we're not supposed to talk about our sources here? So I should just put the link and not say what they are? I think you're a little too quick to get on my case. I'll simply find another source for the roads if that one isn't good enough. Is the Washington Post ok or is that excluded too? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/27/AR2010012704853.html?referrer=emailarticle If you scroll down you'll see the WP had to correct themselves.--Zanadov (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Read what Malik wrote again. He wrote "Talk pages such as this are intended for discussing improvements to the article, not discussing the subject of the article". If you don't comply with that requirement, people will get on your case. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who has spoken in such a manner and yet I can see that because my sources don't go with the gist of things here they are quickly jumped on. I asked a question. Did you answer it or did you jump on me? You jumped on me. I read what he wrote. You think I didn't read it? You just want to start a fight so I'll leave you to it. You have no right to start with me since I 1) asked a question and 2) gave a source. Maybe I should have a signature that says "People may not like the truth, they might not like gravity either." Now, I'll ask you, do you have anything to say about my sources as it relates to the heading of this section or are you going to continue? You're not being helpful at all.--Zanadov (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. It's true that you are not the only person who misuses talk pages by writing irrelevant personal opinions like "What people don't seem to understand is that this is a war situation, not an apartheid one." What matters is that you understand that talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not discussing the subject of the article so that in future you keep your personal opinions off this page and all article talk pages. I have no interest in the content issue. I'm sure others will respond on the content issue in due course. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

So we're not supposed to talk about our sources here? So I should just put the link and not say what they are? These are old questions that haven't been answered. Instead the same thing is said to me. I am here with sources that yes, do not support the apartheid article. Zanadov (talk) 13:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Jewish Only Roads, Sources That Offer the Contrary and Other Issues

I'm starting this new part because I'm tired of arguing and trying to get sources out. Now if people want to talk about sources instead of stupid quarreling, I'm all for it. I've asked this question and did not get an answer. My question is, is this page for inserting sources with a brief explanation of the source and what it states? Or are we just to put links here and not say a word about what they say about the thesis of the page (which I think is misleading as has been argued above)? As far as I can see, this page is due to the fact that the main page is biased. Looking at this talk page, I can see why. Now I'm going to post my source material again that shows there are no Jewish roads only and that any Israeli, Muslim or not, can drive on too. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/27/AR2010012704853.html?referrer=emailarticle The next source is about checkpoints and a murder of a Jewish family that took place after a dismantling of checkpoints due to pressure by people who think the checkpoints are 'apartheid' http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/14/fogel-family-massacre-israelis-palestinians Yes, these sources do not support the assertion that Israel is an apartheid state in this regard. I have read this entire page and agree with those who have said that having a page using misleading language about Israel being an 'apartheid' state is wrong. I think the language should be changed as well. I don't know if there have been any arguments to determine if that page should even exist according to the definition of apartheid and whether Israel is or not. Can someone answer that question? Has an unbiased group of people been found to even make the decision to have the page? I see also that someone snippingly said that the page will never disappear no matter what. Someone also made the statement that the title of the page was a compromise. Compromising on whatever the truth is? So even if you can argue with sources that Israel is not an 'apartheid' state we still have to compromise and say it anyway? If I have to explain what's wrong with that then we really have a problem.--Zanadov (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Where does the article say there are Jewish only roads ? Marokwitz (talk) 08:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The article is about some relationship people have 'compromised' on in order to relate Israel to an apartheid state. Therefore, the wider implication of using sources like this is to contradict one of the main elements that would make Israel an apartheid state. So I have a source that contradicts this and would also like to put a source regarding the murders of the Fogel family which would also show that Israel needs the separation fences to prevent murder.Zanadov (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The viewpoint that the measures are in place for security reasons is represented in the article, including in the lead. This isn't different from South Africa's apartheid policies, though, since the South Africans too said their measures were needed for security. Even the US labeled the ANC a "terrorist organization" for a long time. --Dailycare (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between the apartheid and israeli roads. the facts are, that the roads that are closed for PLO citizens to travel, aren't closed for Palestinians who lives in israel, and have israeli citizenship. making it pretty impossible to be a racist segregation, since israeli-arabs are allowed to drive in them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.72.225.222 (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Population Registry Law

The Population Registry Law has been cast out since 2002, and since then the israeli identification cards doesn't shows which nationality you are, or what is your religion. and only shows blanks in this area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.72.225.222 (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Baby steps

I saw the substantial edit with the edit summary "Cleaned up intro, made it more neutral pov, removed non-rs" (and the subsequent revert). It's not easy to see what has been changed from the diff, for example, it seems that a news report by the UN about a security council meeting was removed as a non-RS but people like Steinberg and Dershowitz remain. This could be confusing. Since this article must be one of the most controversial in Wikipedia, can I suggest that edits are made as a series of small consecutive incremental changes that remove specific sources, change specific sentences etc so that each diff can be examined and it will be clear to editors exactly what has been changed. This is good practice in ARBPIA. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sean.hoyland, thanks for your comment. I totally understand. When the editing bug gets you, sometimes it's hard to stop. But I see what you are saying, especially regarding the sensitivity surrounding this topic. Baby steps and small edits are important. I didn't mean to remove the UN source, I was having some editing issues with all the tags in the article (i.e. broken links that led to disappearing texts). Thanks for your suggestion. Best SimplesC (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

"Famed South African Judge Richard Goldstone, one of the key individuals responsible for ending the South African apartheid,"

... is nothing but fluff. We have Wikilinks for readers who wish to learn more about who a person is.

Why does no other figure in the article have such a description? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Unlike Sean.hoyland, I never said Goldstone is "biased and dishonest" or "famed and key". I just said he is a recognized authority to speak about apartheid, since he helped to end it. The article should reflect that. But if not, I'm going to remove this:

"Anglican Archbishop and Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu"--IranitGreenberg (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Huh? Please read the title of this thread, which is the text you added to the article. "Famed" and "key" indeed.

And with respect to Tutu, those are facts, not embellishments. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You are right. "Famed" and "key" are unnecessary adjectives, but Goldstone's role in the apartheid era is a fact.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 04:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Which role would that be? The apartheid-era executions that pro-Israel hacks tried for months to add to his name wherever it was mentioned? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You win the discussion, I give up. But... what are you talking about? Goldstone executed people? Could you show me such editions or references? I won't take responsibility for every alleged "pro-Israel" edition is this encyclopedia, but you have to admit Wikipedia is full of pro-Palestinian biased editions, some of them completely ridiculous.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 04:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Adding content from a United Nations source to replace a copyright violation that was removed by someone, not because it was a copyright violation, but because the person who removed it couldn't understand simple English, is not "completely ridiculous". I appreciate that it may not be possible for you to understand the difference between reflecting sources according to policy and "pro-Palestinian biased editions" but an inability to understand isn't important until it presents a risk to the integrity of the encyclopedia's content. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Original Research in the lead

There is a large amount of original research in the lead citing sources whose relation to the topic is not made by the source itself, but by opinion of editors involved in the article. I made a start removing the worst cases but was reverted by another editor, presumably because he/she has no awareness of the core policies and standards by which we write the encyclopedia. See WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH: "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Dlv999 (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The reliable reference you want to remove is about discrimination against Palestinians in Arab countries, one of the reasons to reject the "Israeli apartheid" analogy. With your invented criteria, you should also delete a lot of pro-Palestinian sources that inform about certain facts but don't mention the "apartheid" term in any place. For example, this one:

The human rights NGO B'Tselem has indicated that such policies have isolated some Palestinian communities.^[1]--IranitGreenberg (talk) 06:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

A better citation for B'tselem position would be their publication on Israel's discriminatory road policy: "Forbidden Roads Israel’s Discriminatory Road Regime" [1] See pg 3: "The regime, based on the principle of separation through discrimination, bears striking similarities to the racist apartheid regime that existed in South Africa until 1994." I would fully support using the better B'tselem source for their view on the issue, but I don't see what this has to do with deleting the OR from the lead. Dlv999 (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

^ Forbidden Checkpoints and Roads at B'Tselem

Analysis by Adam and Moodley WP:UNDUE Section

This has been discussed before and there was an agreement that this section should be changed to reflect the breadth of scholarship on the topic and not just one single academic publication. As it stands devoting over a page (in my browser at least) to one single piece of scholarship is WP:UNDUE, unless we are going to have a page length section for every significant piece of scholarship that has been published on the topic (which of course would be untenable). I have tagged the section with the aim of moving this section towards a broad review of academic coverage rather than a detailed and lengthy exposition of one single academic publication that discussed the topic. Dlv999 (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Cutting back on the weight given to this piece would be a welcome way to shorten the article. --Dailycare (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't read this, and thus repeated the point below in a, now, repetitive section. Yes. The simplest way to fix this is to reposition it down the page for the time being, once the overall synthesis of the topic has been laid out. It certainly needs trimming.Nishidani (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

OR or not

I have moved this to the talk page :

Some critics consider the analogy defamatory and reflecting a double standard when applied to Israel and not neighboring Arab countries, whose policies towards their own Palestinian minority have been described as discriminatory.^[5]^{[failed verification]}

Whether it is in the source and it should be moved inside the article (not in the lead) whether it is not and it must simply be removed. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

"controversial"

This has been attempted to forced into the first sentence of the article for some time, and, funny thing is, I dont see one word about the change on the talk page. That isnt how things are done here, the people trying to make the change need to gain consensus for the change, not line up and one at a time try to revert it back in. For the record, I oppose that adjective in the introduction. As Im sure many would oppose opening lines like Zionism is a controversial form of nationalism or New antisemitism is a controversial concept or ... nableezy - 19:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It should be there in the opening, for the simple reason that if it wasn't controversial, you wouldn't have so much criticism of it in the article. Right now it just opens with "is a comparison" which gives a false impression that the allegations are facts. Yuvn86 (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

If that is the impression you get, then I'm afraid that is a case of confirmation bias. This article is here to describe the apartheid analogy neutrally, not to characterize it as controversial, nor to cement it as factual. We discuss the analogy, who makes it and why, and then who criticizes it and why. Nothing more. Tarc (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yuvn86, the same reasoning would apply to Zionism too, as Nableezy argues above. The lead describes the analogy, and also opinions critical of it. This is how things work around here. --Dailycare (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This perennial maneuver has come up yet again, today by "SimpleC". I forgot about the old 1RR, so self-reverted. Consensus is abundantly clear on this, though. Tarc (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not debating whether or not the word controversial, is controversial, but rather I just added what the source clearly states...which is that the "apartheid analogy is a controversial analogy...since 1985" It's not me making a judgement call, it's what the source said. But let's be real people...it is a controversial analogy...regardless of your position on it. For those who don't want to go through the scholarly article, I posted the paragraphs where it clearly cites the analogy as controversial in more than 2 places SimplesC (talk)

"The comparison of South Africa with the Israel/Palestine situation was not new when Locke and Stewart published Bantustan Gaza in 1985. A controversial analogy even then, it was as apt to stop argument as to promote deliberation. It has been no less controversial over the last decade during a time when the barrier in the West Bank was dubbed “apartheid wall,” and Desmond Tutu was disinvited as a university speaker because of statements connecting Israeli policy and apartheid."

"The application of analogy that might initially be seen as incongruous, or certainly understood as controversial, is carefully structured in the film to seem apt and justified, not hypothetical, exaggerated, or inappropriate."

You could find a variety of sources that say just about anything is controversial, and just as many that say it is overblown and not a controversy at all. How people spell "yoghur" is controversial. This is a biased, one-sided point-of-view that does not belong in the lead of this article. Tarc (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The lead describes the controversy. Zionism is controversial, but you dont see anybody rushing to put that up. nableezy - 14:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I won't fall for the strawman arguments. The source clearly cites it as controversial. That's what it states. It's very clear. You can argue with it, you can disagree with it. But I'm just accurately quoting the source. If this upsets you, bring up a source stating that the analogy is NOT controversial SimplesC (talk)

"Israel and the apartheid analogy is a comparison between Israel's treatment of the Palestinians to South Africa's treatment of non-whites during its apartheid era is a simple statement of fact that per WP:LEADCITE shouldn't even be cited anyways, so just remove it. All it does is say what the controversy is, it doesn't need to say it is a good analogy or say it is a controversial analogy, it just states a fact. Leave it to the body of the article to further explain the analogy, who makes it, who rejects it, and why. An encyclopedia article exists to report on a topic, not judge it. Tarc (talk) 12:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Why the prominence (Undue weight etc) of Adam and Moodley

The positioning, and exposition of the contents, of this 2005 book is very odd. It does not figure highly in the specific technical literature on the analogy, and consists of, in our paraphrase, a meta-analysis, rather indifferent to details, of the ostensible POVs of those who use the analogy. Thus it is showcased to prove a point, i.e. that the analogy is political.

Logically, having set forth the historical development of the analogy, one would move to a thematic analysis of the points drawn between the two systems (87% of South Africa's land was reserved for whites/93% of the land in Israel (and not the OPT) is for Jewish use, etc.)

That done, one would then go to the challenges and debates over the descriptive adequacy or not of each of these points. The ID system differs, the race marking of SA differs from the religious-denominational one in Israel; Palestinians vote in Israel for national elections, Bantustan denizens didn't, etc.Nishidani (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

[untitled section]

The main discussion area for this series of articles was at: WP:APARTHEID

I wanted to correct the English of "is likely to gain further legitimacy in upcoming years" to 'is likely to gain further legitimacy in coming years' but the article is semiprotected. Could someone do it for me, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.106.160.221 (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Is Dennis Prager a reliable source?

I was told to ask this here before I use him as a source. Thanks, Shalom11111 (talk) 12:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

A professional noise maker. Obviously not reliable. Zero^talk 12:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I think a professional radio talk show host, syndicated columnist, author, and public speaker is a much more correct and proper description of him. Does anyone else have an opinion here? If he's not allowed in the article, then I'll go over its sources and remove other citations of similar "professional noise makers". Shalom11111 (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Dennis Prager is a reliable source for his own ultra-right views (which have been described by the Anti-Defamation League as "intolerant, misinformed and downright un-American"), and for nothing else. The fact that he holds particular, presumably unfavourable, views on this analogy is unlikely to be relevant or worth adding to this article. And a threat to engage in tit-for-tat disruptive editing in other articles is not going to win the argument for you, but could lead to a ban from editing. RolandR (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

He is reliable source regarding his own views, if properly attributed. He is also a public figure and it is irrelevant what individual editors thinks about his political views. I dont know on what policy based arguments, his views regarding the subject of this article are not allowed in. His view is certainly more relevant than a view of one activist named Michael Tarazi (which btw I dont know how got to this article)--Tritomex (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

After reading the entire article I am shocked in what status of POV pushing it is written. It lacks basic elements of standard neutrality more closely resembling a political pamphlet than a Wikipedia article.--Tritomex (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:SPS. If Prager's views were important, they would be published by a third party. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes they are published by Political journals [2] and by the world biggest and most prominent Jewish organization [3] among others. His other views unrelated to subject are cited, criticized or supported by numerous publications, journals, blogs and books.--Tritomex (talk) 06:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

RonaldR, accusing me of making threats shows lack of understanding of what I said, because my intention is simply making sure the article is as neutral and balanced as possible. To MalikS, Tritomex just answered your response. Thanks for pointing out these facts Tritomex, now it's all solved Shalom11111 (talk) 10:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

RonaldR is reverting me and Tritomex for some reason. Tritomex has just proven that Prager has been used by third party sources, while pointing at another similar speaker who is used for citation. Nothing but complete WP:COI can prevent using him as a source for something he said. If the actual content isn't relevant here then I'll simply add it to the proper article. Shalom11111 (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The Real Clear Politics link is to an opinion piece written by Mr. Prager, it is not coverage of his position on Israel. The WJC is certainly notable itself, but the video is just one of a large gallery of similar ones, there's no commentary or discussion to assert notability. Absent reliable sources that note Mr. Prager as an expert in the subject area, his views are really not relevant to this article. Tarc (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

There are hundreds of fanatics around with similar status to Denis Prager. They offer nothing except their own opinions. The fact that people who share their opinions like to quote them doesn't mean we have to. Zero^talk 12:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Based on what source you call Denis Prager a fanatic? Tritomex (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't be calling any living people "fanatics", actually. Let's all dial it down a notch. Tarc (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

If there are no double standards on this issue, how this claim "Jamal Dajani of Link TV has asked "How long can Israelis live in this denial and pretend that apartheid-like conditions do not exist?" sourced with Jamal Dajani himself, got into the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs)

Jamal Dajani is an award-winning journalist and producer, with years of work and involvement in Middle East news and affairs. His credentials to speak as an expert in the field are unquestionable. Tarc (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Dajani is an award wining producer and a journalist of the Arab talk radio in San Francisco and a Palestinian political activist, Prager is a syndicated talk show host, a Jewish political activist a founder of Prager University who majored in Middle Eastern Studies and graduated History at Brooklyn College He also has years of work and involvement in Middle East news and affairs. Prager views on Israels apartheid analogy are btw covered by secondary sources like Jewish press [4]--Tritomex (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The Jewish press link is a blog, one that mentions Mr. Prager in a single sentence. His interest in Israel and the Middle East is personal, more of a hobby, rather than recognized by any 3rd party for his input or expertise; as opposed to Mr. Dajani, who has. As for the "Prager University", it is unfortunately a bit less grandiose than its name implies. All it is is a series of videos, hosted by Youtube and others, of his speeches and personal opinions. There is no coursework, no classes, and no accreditation despite the claims on his website (as an aside, all the material is currently offline and unavailable). I don't want anyone to have the mistaken notion that Mr. Prager is the president or provost of an actual institution of learning. Tarc (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

We have in WP:SPS established policy for deciding whether someone is notable in his own right. If he has published in reliable third-party sources concerning the subject, then he is and a Google Scholar search would seem to indicate Prager hasn't. --Dailycare (talk) 14:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

According to Encyclopedia of Judaism By Sara E. Karesh, Mitchell M. Hurvitz Dennis Prager is a "well respected author and talk show host and a leading American socially conservative spoksman" [5] The Encyclopedia devotes two whole pages to his work. His work is mentioned by numerus authors like in Radio After the Golden Age: The Evolution of American Broadcasting Since 1960 by Jim Cox P:122 His works on Jewish and Israeli questions are cited by numerous authors like The Case for Jewish Peoplehood by Erica Brown, ‎Misha Galperin [6] philosophical literature like 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology: Shattering Widespread Misconceptions By Scott O. Lilienfeld, Steven Jay Lynn, John Ruscio, Barry L. Beyerstein[7] and The Power of Character Michael S. Josephson, ‎Wes Hanson P: 276 [8] He is coauthor of Jewish religious literature Readings on Conversion to Judaism By Lawrence J. Epstein P:6, considered by many as expert on Middle Eastern wars "War and Words: Horror and Heroism in the Literature of Warfare" War and Words: Horror and Heroism in the Literature of Warfare [9] His views are offen cited even by his opponents "Punishment and the Moral Emotions: Essays in Law, Morality, and Religion" By Jeffrie G. Murphy [10] and so on and so on. Based on this there is absolutely no justification to censor an author who has been widely cited by dozens of other authors.--Tritomex (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Tritmox, that research you just did on him is absolutely outstanding and well done. We know we're right and so do they, but this argument is pointless and I intentionally dropped it in the beginning, it just isn't worth our time. I'm surprised myself by how notable and reliable Prager turns out to be, undoubtedly more than at least half of the people used for citation in this article. Tarc and Zero, you either didn't watch that video or you didn't listen to what was said in it if you call it an "opinion piece" by a fanatic. Where in that video did he even say his opinion? It's all flat facts! Fanatic? wow, where should I even start... Don't worry guys, I'll not bother you and Prager will be used elsewhere, your article won't be touched... PeaceShalom11111 (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Non-reliable sources citing each other in circular fashion does not establish notability, unfortunately. I would advise caution in adding this person as a source to any article but his own, as it may be viewed as disruptive activity. Rejection of this person as an opinion-holder on Middle East issues is not limited to this article alone. Tarc (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Yam but this is now case of principal policy regarding Wikipedia guidelines and neutral editing. Tarc, Based on what policy based arguments and evidences you are claiming that this sources and authors are not reliable? After I showed more than enough evidences that Prager is widely cited I think this is now case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and as per WP:NPOV has to be marked.--Tritomex (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Tritomex. I'll ask my question again: Where in that video did he share his opinion? Everything he said was verifiable facts, it's really that simple. Now, Zero and Tarc, why don't YOU give me a source that says Prager is "fanatic"? Can you even provide a source that says anything close to such accusation about him? Tarc, are you aware of the fact that dozens of "opinion holders" are cited in this article? It may be a little embarrassing for you to try answering these questions, but this is the reality and a perfect example of WP:BIAS. Shalom11111 (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Prager is cited by non-reliable sources, or by some reliable sources fleetingly; as I said, a circle of non-RS calling each other notable doesn't actually confer notability as we recognize it in this project. As for "fanatic", you will note above that I asked Zero to not use such language, as it runs afoul of our WP:BLP policy, which provides protection to living people from attack in article-space and in talk-space. So I cannot really give a source for a claim which I do not condone or believe in. Tarc (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

You cant continue to call dozens of authors and books unreliable without any evidence. This is is against Wikipedia rules and guidelines. As it was said, there is a WP:SPS based policy that an author notability is established in regard of his published works and citations from reliable third-party sources. It is out of question if Prager and his work is cited or not by reliable sources. Also, as I have said this claims of unreliability for dozens of authors and books without providing any evidence at all, is violation of Wikipedia policy. It is also not upon us to like/dislike Prager views. He is a widely cited public figure and an author and there is no policy based argument to exclude him.--Tritomex (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Tarc, it's obvious you're trying to get around here, and it's even more obvious that Prager is a reliable source for Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if it was you or Zero who called him by that name, because both of you seem to openly talk about him as if he really is fanatic. Also, there's no such thing as "fleetingly" citing him, you just made it up. If he's cited by reliable sources, as Tritomex proved above, and because of who he is as Tritomex said also, there's no shade of doubt he's a good reliable source. I mean, on the same hand it would be a little ironic if I opposed using Norman Finkelstein for citation on Wikipedia. Shalom11111 (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

That may be obvious to you, and you are entitled to your opinion; I'm sorry that you're becoming so agitated about this, but I and others simply disagree....though it is really rather bad form to keep throwing the "fanatic" label into the mix when I have explicitly rejected it. As for Mr. Finklestein, if you have a case to make for his removal then by all means begin a new section below this one. Tarc (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Even if he would not be cited by dozens of authors and books how the view of an author who has regular columns in newspaper such as Los Angeles Times Washington Examiner National Review Online, Jewish World Review Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles is censored from this article?This maybe should go to WP:RS noticeboard.--Tritomex (talk) 03:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Tritomex, so are there any cases of reliable third-party sources publishing Prager's work in the relevant field? The field is not psychology. For example, has be published in respected academic journals that relate to international law? --Dailycare (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, this discussion about whether Prager is a reliable source or not is beside the point. Nobody is suggesting that Prager's comments be construed as a statement of fact or as an academically-based analysis of the issue, but rather an undisguised expression of opinion. And no one argues that Prager is not a reliable source for his own point of view.

The question, then, is not whether Prager is reliable. The questions are: (a) Has Prager expressed an opinion that isn't already amply covered in the article? and (b) Is Prager himself such a notable commentator that his words are, in themselves, worthy of quotation? My own answers to these questions are: (a) No, nothing in Prager's comments say anything that isn't already said in the article. (b) I don't think Prager is that notable a commentator that his words are in themselves worthy of quotation. On the other hand, he does speak as a representative of the American religious right. One representative of that group, Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein, is already cited, and I would suggest that Prager is a more prominent spokesman for this group than Adlerstein. So I would suggest replacing Adlerstein's comments with Prager's.

On the other hand, it is important that any citation of Prager specify his political inclinations, in order to give proper weight to his opinions. Note that Adlerstein's political affiliations are not mentioned, giving the false impression that he is speaking objectively. Ravpapa (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not think that this question is solely related to intl law. I guess 90% of those quoted in this article have no expertise in intl law. We have a section devoted to public and media figures who are not necessarily experts of International law. I agree that Prager's comments do not say anything that isn't already said, in fact rarely anyone on both sides says anything that is not being said. However, Prager is widely cited author, (among others as shown above regarding Middle Eastern conflicts as well,) a public figure and described by encyclopedic sources as leading "American socially conservative spokesman" and his views on subject, with proper attribution certainly hase importance. Yitzchok Adlerstein is one of the leading Ortodox Haredi rabbis, representing another part of the society, barely related to Prager's. Adlerstein's views although may have some importance regarding Haredi Jewish position on issue, certainly have no such credentials as Prager's views.--Tritomex (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Then perhaps we could add a sentence like, "Dennis Prager, a prominent and controversial commentator whose views are representative of the American religious right wing, has also expressed his opposition to the analogy." That pretty much covers it, no?

Also, in light of what you write, we should also qualify Adlerstein's quote. Something like, "Rabbi Yitzhok Adlerstein, a spokesman of the American ultraorthodox Jewish community which is avidly supportive of Israel, has written " and so on. Ravpapa (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the best desecration of Prager as (per Jewish encyclopedia)is a leading American socially conservative spokesman or just American socially conservative author (of course if neutral sources claims that he is controversial too, I have nothing against adding this too.) It depends on sources.

The proper attribution of Yitzhok Adlerstein would be probably an American orthodox rabbi.--Tritomex (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

If someone is covered in a reliable secondary source e.g. the BBC, s/he doesn't need to be an expert on international law since that situation wouldn't involve WP:SPS. This case does involve WP:SPS. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

.:Prages is covered by reliable sources, indeed he is a columnist for some of the most respected magazines. This case does not involve SPS. In this particular case he published his views in Realclearpolitics--Tritomex (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think material on RCP is subject to any editorial control as such, the place is mainly just a collection of links to opinion/editorial texts. So appearing on RCP doesn't amount to appearing in a reliable source. This particular piece is marked "Copyright 2011, Creators Syndicate Inc", Creators Syndicate for its part is described on this project as "Creators Syndicate (a.k.a. Creators) is an American independent distributor of comic strips and syndicated columns to daily newspapers, websites and other digital outlets." Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Worst article title on Wikipedia?

It's certainly up there. Isn't there something better? john k (talk) 06:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps Racism in Israel? Or maybe Human rights in Israel? Oops, those names are already taken. Funny that there should be three articles covering pretty much the same thing. But then we have Arab salad and Israeli salad. We have Anti-Israel lobby in the United States, Opposition in the United States to the Israeli Occupation and Arab lobby in the United States. Why so many articles about the same topic? See my essay Tilt!. Ravpapa (talk) 06:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think my objection is necessarily the same as yours. Probably you're right that Racism in Israel or Human rights in Israel could deal with most of these issues. But if we're going to have an article on the specific idea of Israeli treatment of the Palestinians being akin to South African apartheid, surely it could have a better title than "Israel and the Apartheid analogy", which is just unbelievably awkward. john k (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Considering the article is about Israel and the apartheid analogy, I'd say it's the perfect article title. What were you expecting? — Richard BB 14:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the current title is okay although I wouldn't care if it were moved to something like "Israel's benevolent conservation of geographically separate and culturally distinct peoples" for a while to give people something new to complain about and demonstrate that nothing here actually matters. To respond to Ravpapa, as a matter of wiki-tradition, incorporating much of this material into articles with titles like Racism in Israel or Human rights in Israel would probably be opposed on the basis of the implicit neo-colonialist absorption of the oPt into Eretz Yisrael via the "in Israel" part of the titles. On the other hand, many wiping-Palestine-off-the-map hobbyists enjoy contributing to Wikipedia so it might find favor. Sensible policy-minded editors who stick around are critically endangered in topic area so whatever the article is called, and whatever it contains, there's bound to be a substantial number of editors who object to it. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The literature makes extensive use of the comparison, hence the title. I think it is fairly well established that the apartheid analogy does not work with Israel proper - in fact analytically it breaks down and disproves its utility as a heuristic tool there, but tends to begin to work as the intrinsic tendency of policy, settlement and development in colonization of the West Bank. That is why the title separates the two entities: 'Israel and the apartheid analogy' is perhaps clumsy, but the article should make clear that the analogy, while thrown at Israel, fails there, but comes to make sense as a policy dilemma for Israel in its occupational policies. 'The apartheid analogy to Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories' or something like that would be perhaps better.Nishidani (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify: my comment is not to be construed as taking a position one way or another on the substantive question, but only on the dynamics of adversarial editing, a mode of creating articles that was invented by Wikipedia and which has (to me) fascinating and often surprising consequences.

As to the substance of the matter, if it was up to me, I would call the article "Apartheid in Israel", and I am already sorry I wrote that. Ravpapa (talk) 05:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

That title would exclude the West Bank, where proto-apartheid policies, in the wake of Sharon's famous 'bantustanization' declaration, are widespread. Israel has a 20% Palestinian Arab constituency, which votes, and is represented in parliament, and that key fact makes the Zionism=Apartheid analogy break down, irrespective of issues like racism and discrimination, which are widespread, but not peculiar to Israel.Nishidani (talk) 12:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

that key fact makes the Zionism=Apartheid analogy break down -- We are not here to determine facts or to figure out what is true. We are supposed to simply compile an encyclopedic overview of the published sources on the subject matter. If you believe otherwise, you should recuse yourself from editing in contentious areas. --89.0.242.114 (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the comparison being made is sometimes with the international law definition of apartheid rather than the regime that used to exist in South Africa. See, for example: Jonathan Cook - How come Uri Avnery knows so little about Israel, or apartheid?, 4 November 2013: According to the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, apartheid comprises inhumane acts “committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime”. ← ZScarpia 16:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Planed Apartheid of Future Palestinian State

There is no reference to the fact the that Palestinian leadership have stated quite clearly many times that they will not allow any Jews to live in their country[11]. This is as opposed to Israel policy which gives full rights to Israeli Arabs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.8.119.37 (talk) 06:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

That's because this article is based on factual statements verifiable in reliable sources, not on politically-motivated smears and speculations based on unreliable partisan sources. RolandR (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Big news! As soon as Abbas gets the Palestinian State he'll never get, he'll strip Ofer Bronchtein and Daniel Barenboim of their Palestinian passports, and kick Uri Davis out of Fatah, since he never noted they were Israeli Jews!Nishidani (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2014

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "Opponents of the analogy claim it is intended to delegitimize Israel." to "Opponents of the analogy claim that the comparison is factually and historically inaccurate and intended to delegitimize Israel." 148.87.19.218 (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 19:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Very good suggestion, I just added it and provided reliable sources. Shalom11111 (talk) 08:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@Shalom11111: Please review WP:Identifying reliable sources. What makes those sources reliable? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

These sources are used to supposedly say what "opponents" think about the analogy. The Jewish Federations of North America is undoubtedly a reliable opponent to use their opinion for it, and the same thing goes for NGO monitor. Shalom11111 (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there evidence in the form of secondary source coverage to demonstrate that these opinions have more than zero weight from a WP:DUE perspective ? The world is full of opinions. I'm especially concerned at the direct citation of NGO Monitor as if their opinion is automatically a 'significant viewpoint' and based on a reliable assessment of the facts. This is an organization that has used its staff to infiltrate Wikipedia and engineer content. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland I understand that you demand I meet the highest requirement standards for citing the sentence "Opponents of the analogy claim that the comparison is morally, factually and historically inaccurate and intended to delegitimize Israel", so the challenge was accepted:

Shalom11111 (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Discrimination sidebar

This has been a part of the article for ~5 years now, and should not be subject to flippant removal. Users are free to begin a new discussion as consensus can change after all, but i nthe meantime it should not be removed. Tarc (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact that this sidebar was there for five years doesn't justify its use in the article and doesn't make it right. And there was never an "official" consensus to include it, which your comment seems to imply.

Just the article's name is a sufficient reason not to include this sidebar. Unlike Apartheid South Africa, this article is not called "Apartheid Israel", and rightly so. This article is about the comparison between Israel and the apartheid analogy, a comparison which is highly disputed, criticized and denied, not only by Israel itself. So we cannot present it as a fact and link to that discrimination sidebar, as this violates WP:NPOV in the most serious way possible. Shalom11111 (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If one was to delete all of the article's text that dealt with discrimination we would be left with a blank article. Sepsis II (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

This is similar to the perennial misconception that just because the Wikipedia has an article about the Israeli apartheid analogy, that means that the project is saying that the analogy is true. The Wikipedia is not making a judgement or determination that what Israel does is apartheid or is discriminatory; the sidebar simply provides navigation to similar topics and discussions. Tarc (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Tarc, I'm glad you acknowledge that. So according to your last sentence, I could add the sidebar Template:Antisemitism as this analogy as well as many of its believers are very often regarded as antisemitic by official sources. Also, according to you, another "similar topic" to link to would be Template:Anti-cultural sentiment, which should also be included in the article since it links to the "Anti-Zionism", a term often very closely associated with those supportive of the Israeli apartheid analogy.

So either the discrimination sidebar be removed or these two templates be added (and other ones, if needed, to balance the article). Because as it is now, it clearly violates Wikipedia's core principles. -Shalom11111 (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Apartheid, the subject of the article, is discriminatory. If we're going to start adding templates by degrees of relation then let's add a Kevin Bacon template as well. Sepsis II (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

As such additions would be an exercise in WP:POINT-making rather than adding legitimate content to the article, they would likely be reverted, with sanctions on the editor to follow. Tarc (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sepsis, of course apartheid is discrimination, but you're missing the point again. Apartheid is not the subject of the article - "Israel and the apartheid analogy" is the subject, and there's a huge difference. By including the discrimination bar, the article implies that there's really apartheid in Israel. If the article' name was "Apartheid in Israel" or "Apartheid Israel", then that would be fine, but this isn't the case here as the analogy is disputed more often than not, and since many officials say apartheid does not exist in Israel (some argue that the opposite is the truth and that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is better than what they get in Jordan, or that they live better than most Muslims in the Arab world) and therefore we cannot use that bar, which clearly advances a certain point of view. And I wasn't saying I'm going to add these two other template, I was explaining why by Tarc's logic they should be added to the article as well. Shalom11111 (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "By including the discrimination bar, the article implies that there's really apartheid in Israel...". No, it does not. Again, a perennial misconception about what navigation templates are and what purpose they serve. Tarc (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

According to you, it's okay to add the template Nazism to the article 'Arab nationalism' because of the established ties between the two, right? See WP:NAV - "If the articles are not established as related by reliable sources in the actual articles, then it is probably not a good idea to interlink them". Many (if not most) of the reliable sources in this article claim that apartheid/discrimination and Israel are not related, and that Israel is not an apartheid state. So placing it like that in the lead is is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and I'll report it at the proper board if needed. Shalom11111 (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC

Keep the sidebar. I think that the navigation template is appropriate. This article contains multiple undisputed reliably sourced statements about various kinds of discrimination in Israel against Palestinians. Some say there is discrimination, some say there is not. Some say the putative discrimination is like apartheid, others disagree. Whether or not there is discrimination, and whether or not that discrimination, if it exists, is like apartheid, are not relevant. Obviously the article is about discrimination, so the navigation template is appropriate. How can anyone seriously deny, based on the sources in the article, that the article is about discrimination, even if there is no discrimination for it to be about? Thus the suggested guideline for template inclusion in the essay WP:NAV is satisfied: If the articles are not established as related by reliable sources in the actual articles, then it is probably not a good idea to interlink them. Actually, now that I think of it, the converse of that statement is satisfied, as there are reliable sources in the article that establish the relationship. It's just an essay, though, so I suppose we can assume that the statement is meant as an if and only if rather than an implication.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Keep the sidebar. In addition to what has been already written, please notice that the discrimination bar includes "manifestations" such as Antisemitism, Arab supremacy and reverse discrimination; so even if the sidebar were read as implying discrimination (and it does not imply that, as already staed), one could see it as discrimination by Israeli towards Arabs, but also as false allegations by Arab supremacists to justify their antisemitism. Therefore it is ambivalent, and hence neutral. -- LNCSRG (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Neutral I see no actually reason to have it but I can find no objection to keep it. There certainly is information about Discrimination in the article but...Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
RFC Comment: Which question is being posed in this RFC? Assuming it is "should the sidebar be kept?", I'd say yes, the sidebar should be kept since apartheid and the various discriminative policies (preferential access to judicial systems or natural resources) are, well, discriminating. --Dailycare (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Keep Apartheid is discrimination so the sidebar is justified. It does not imply anything. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep the sidebar It's pretty obvious that all sides of this issue circulate around the idea of discrimination. It really should stay in. Simonm223 (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep - As apartheid is a form of discrimination, it is helpful to navigate to similar topics. Tarc (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep - but if the sidebar is included shouldn't this article also be listed in the template itself? Downwoody (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Article

Recent piece in Expressen (major daily newspaper in Sweden), by Göran Rosenberg, http://www.expressen.se/kultur/goran-rosenberg/en-apartheidstat/ . A key piece which could be used in the article, translated, "When three Jewish youths were kidnapped and killed recently by an dubiously identified Palestinians, the Israeli army launched a military operation, arresting hundreds of Palestinians and killing five. When a Palestinian boy a few days later was burned alive a regular police operation was launched. When the Israeli military believed they had identified some suspected Palestinian perpetrators their family residences were blown up. When the Israeli police apprehended suspected Jewish perpetrators nothing was blown up. The Palestinian perpetrators will be convicted by an Israeli military court under military occupation laws. The Jewish perpetrators will be tried in a civil court under civilian Israeli law.

Different laws for different groups of people is the definition of apartheid, not to talk of separate territories. Since the two-state solution in practice is run over (or overbuilt), it is therefore the state of Israel that solely responsible for two and a half million severely discriminated inhabitants." --Soman (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

One State Solution vs Two State Solution

Where does the one-state vs two-state argument come into play in this analogy? While the the phrase Apartheid is accurate in describing the de facto situation in Palestine those who want to see a two state solution to this crisis would object to the usage of the apartheid analogy because it implies that the two entities in question, Israel and Palestine, ought to be one state.

Do you have examples of reliable sources that describe the views of notable people who have objected to the usage of the apartheid analogy on the grounds that they think it implies that Israel and Palestine ought to be one state ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I recall reading an analysis that opposed the two-state solution, and endorsed the one-state solution, on the grounds that the two-state solution was seen as a formalization of the apartheid model of separateness. South Africa tried but failed to obtain UN membership for the bantustans. So this analysis endorsed both the one-state solution and the apartheid analogy, but I can't remember where I read that which does limit the usefulness of this comment, sorry. --Dailycare (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Vanguard Leadership Group

Any reason why this section is being kept? I was under the impression that the debate of whether or not to include it in the article was already settled. Inthefastlane (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Dubious Mandela reference

It would appear that the recently entered Mandela reference was from a mock memo that has turned into something of a hoax. See Mandela memo:How it started?. I'd delete the reference myself if I found something more authoritative than a tumblr page. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The text figures here http://books.google.com/books?ei=PZTFU8-UAcbG0QWS5YGwDw&hl=en&id=bOMhAQAAIAAJ , p. 41, with the source given as Sowetan Sunday World, May 19, 2002, p. 18. Notably, whilst the tumblr account says it started in 2001, this text (which is not entirely clear who published it either) given 2002 as year of publication. --Soman (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's not any tumbler: it's Arjan El Fassed's, and his claim of authorship is also reproduced on The Electronic Intifada, who'd be to happy if indeed Mandela'd really said that. I think that's evidence enough that the quote is not from Mandela. Adʁijɛ̃ (talk) 04:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hafrada

User:Plot Spoiler, please explain your removal of the comparison with the term Hafrada. As with the rest of this article, noone is passing judgement as to whether such a comparison is fair or not. But many scholars have made the comparison, and that is clearly notable. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems a bit strange that Hafrada is not mentioned anywhere in the article but the lead. Why is it notable? I do not know much about the issue, so I am asking. Generally stuff should only be in the lead if it is in the body, per MOS:LEAD. If there is a discrepancy, it should be resolved by either reducing the lead or enlarging the body. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, clearly violates WP:LEAD. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Even when it is remedied, as it eventually will be, by a section of the article about Hafrada, there's no need for a "See also" at the top of this article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all and good point. A section has been added as suggested. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. Why not simply WP:transclude the lead of Hafrada in this section? Seems to be covering same material. Kingsindian ♝♚ 19:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2014

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Israel and the apartheid analogy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the protection template to show a visible icon indicating the protection level of this article. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 04:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC) 65.94.171.225 (talk) 04:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Analysis by International Legal Team

OK, can someone please tell why this new information isn't encyclopedic? -- Kendrick7^talk 04:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Concerns were raised in this edit summary [12], which you failed to respond to in either of your two reverts or here. Again per WP:BRD, the burden is on the proponent. You also violated WP:1RR and you should self-revert and then initiate discussion in good faith. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you for engaging on the talk page. Still, per WP:PRESERVE the content which was removed should be moved here so we known what we are discussing. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

And I'll remind you WP:BRD is an WP:ESSAY, WP:PRESERVE is a WP:POLICY. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Kendrick, as long as we are noting policy: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy... Everyone seems to know what we are discussing. For those who don't, a relevant dif has now been linked to here on the talk page. The text in question is in the article history, and can easily be retrieved. There is no need to cut and paste the entire text of the section here on the talk page. Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that a new heading International (or Academic) Analysis be entered and both Analysis by Adam and Moodley and Analysis by International Legal Team be subheadings and controversial wording can be edited so that both subsections can be contrasting and equal.Cathar66 (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I'm sorry if I get paranoid, but back in the day an editor who declared he was merely intent on improving this article via reorganization sneakily deleted almost half of the sources in the process. And then he put it up to WP:AfD for lack of reliable sources. I try to assume good faith that we're all here to write an encyclopedia, but there are enemies in our midst. Keep up the good work. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Israel and the apartheid analogy-- an awkward phrase for an article title and difficult to form an opening sentence around.

I changed the opening line "Israel and the apartheid analogy is a comparison between Israel's treatment..." to Israel and the apartheid analogy refers to comparisons between Israel's treatment....." for several reasons 1/ it is not one comparison that is involved but many.

2/ The phrase itself "Israel and the apartheid analogy" is not a comparison.

3/ The original feels gramatically incorrect.

Malik Shabazz changed it back because WP in general does not like the verb "refers" - principally for being wooly. Hootie and the Blowfish IS a band but not a comparison. In this instance I think refers trumps is. Maybe both or neither of us is wrong or right. Either wording is inelegant and feels not quite right. Anyone got a better way ? New article title altogether ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 00:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You're right: the opening is inelegant. My point was that the analogy is a comparison.

With respect to the article's title, I seem to recall several page moves before we arrived at this current title, which has been stable for several years. But consensus can change, so feel free to start an RfC if you think another title would be better. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I am being a bit anal about analogy- !

An analogy is a comparison so therefore the phrase "Israel AND the apartheid analogy" cannot be one. Maybe the solution is to drop "Israel "from the start of your version and make the sentence begin" The "apartheid analogy" is a comparison.....? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 08:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit request: mark as dubious/fact-check 1961 Rand Daily Mail, RE: Verwoerd quote.

The following links to a journalist for the Rand Daily Mail, an anti-apartheid newspaper, as he disputes this article's quote of former P.M. Verwoerd, claiming that the 23 Nov 1961 print of the Rand Daily Mail did not quote Verwoerd as saying such a thing.[13] This author IS critical of Israel's policy toward the Palestinians[14], yet he points out that Verwoerd said no such thing in the 1st link that I gave.

Here's why the Rand Daily Mail source is important: The article states: "In 1961, the South African prime minister, and the architect of South Africa's apartheid policies, Hendrik Verwoerd, dismissed an Israeli vote against South African apartheid at the United Nations, saying, "Israel is not consistent in its new anti-apartheid attitude ... they took Israel away from the Arabs after the Arabs lived there for a thousand years. In that, I agree with them. Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state."[27]" and reference #27 is from A.J. Clarno, and Clarno himself cited the 1961 Rand Daily Mail as HIS (Clarno's) source), the same Rand Daily Mail which the above journalist who WORKED AT The Rand Daily Mail says is a bogus 1961 ref.'

The author cited by Wikipedia (A.J. Clarno) also was recently arrested for pro-Palestine street-activism[15], and was trained (intern, as the last clickable link says) by The Jerusalem Fund, whose senior officers are activists, and known for making their own now-falsified claims, e.g. here's one of the leaders who trained A.J. Clarno stating that Hamas usage of Human Shields is just a racist myth[16], yet The U.N.'s personnel in Gaza recently admitted that Hamas DID use Human Shields in U.N. buildings within Gaza[17], so this WP article is quoting a guy, A.J. Clarno, who was trained by verified lying activists, and is so biased that he took to the streets & got arrested to support the Palestinian cause (in contrast to Pogrund not even being in favor of all of Israel's policies, let alone never biased enough to do street-protests for either the Israeli or Palestinian side). Every other source (besides Clarno) who I've found using this dubious quote of Verwoerd are also activists, all of whom either don't cite anyone, or cite that problematic 1961 Rand Daily Mail date. 72.183.52.92 (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

THe authenticity of this quote does not depend on one citation alone, regardless of whether the source is reliable (as I would argue). It has been frequently cited in scholarly essays and books, and the earliest citation I can find is from Alexander Hepple's 1967 biography of Verwoerd. I still have a copy of the original Penguin edition; the quote, attributed to the Rand Daily Mail of 23 November 1961, appears on page 228. RolandR (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I may be able to check the original on microfilm. Do we have a page number? Zero^talk 12:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid not, jiust the date. But, since the Hepple citation is from just six years after the original publication, it is evident that the statement was not invented recently by a BDS activist, as implied above by the IP. RolandR (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

This article from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency is relevant.[18] RolandR (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

So I visited my library's magnificent newspaper collection, and there it was right on the front page of the Rand Daily Mail of 23 Nov 1961. Here follows a transcript of the first few paragraphs:

PREMIER LASHES ISRAEL

Cape man has 'betrayed a confidence'

STAFF REPORTER

THE Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, last night lashed out at Israel for its anti-South Africa vote in the Sanctions decision of the United Nations Special Political Committee. He said: “ We will not be able to maintain the same friendship with Israel.” Dr. Vertcoerd also attacked a Cape Town Jew, Mr. A. S. A . East, for divulging the contents of a private letter which Mr. East received from Dr. Vewoerd. It was a betrayal of confidence, he said. Dr. Verwoerd, who attended a conference of the Witwatersrand Executive (Beheerraad) of the National Party, got up at the end of the meeting and made the attacks in an hour-and-a-half "off-the-cuff" speech.

"I did not know that I would speak here tonight," Dr. Verwoerd said. "I will only say a few words that will come out of my heart." Dr. Verwoerd then went on to attack Israel’s "utterly deplorable actions" during the censure and sanctions votes at the United Nations. "We will not be able to maintain the same friendship with Israel,” he said.

"Israel Is not consistent in this new anti-apartheid attitude. Otherwise they would have been prepared to be swamped and destroyed by the Arabs around them. But they took Israel from the Arabs after the Arabs had lived there for a thousand years. In that I agree with them. Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state.”

Zero^talk 06:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Zero. Would it be possible for you to photocopy the page, and post it in an online storage site so that others could refer to it if it is again alleged that the article does not exist. RolandR (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I emailed it to you; feel free to post it. If you don't get it, it could be I used a too-old address. In that case, send me mail. Zero^talk 12:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Israel and the apartheid analogy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

"Some observers"

I suggest that the "Some observers" mentioned in the "Political rights, voting and representation, judiciary" section be explicitly named as "Al Jazeera", or that more and better references for the statement be found. 192.118.27.253 (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I see that "Tony Stark" should be cited as the "some observers". Still, if it is a single source it should be explicitly named as opposed to using a general reference. 192.118.27.253 (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The Al Jazeeera article cited quotes at least four people making this assertion. That certainly qualifies as "some observers". RolandR (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, on review it seems more reasonable. Sorry. 192.118.27.253 (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Salim Joubran

It seems to me that a link to Salim Joubran (and possibly Abdel Rahman Zuabi) should added to the "See also" template under "Political rights, voting and representation, judiciary" / "In Israel". No? 192.118.27.253 (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Israel and the apartheid analogy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Absurd title

"Israel and the apartheid analogy" is a title that makes no sense at all. There is a clearly defined apartheid crime ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_apartheid ). Would an article called "Bosnia and the genocide analogy" or even "xxx and the murder analogy" make any sense? Of course not. What this article actually is about is Israel and apartheid allegations. It doesn't matter here whether the allegations are true or not - information about them and counterarguments are the matter of the article. But "apartheid analogy" just doesn't make any sense from a logical standpoint.

Udippuy (talk) 11:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Udippuy. Please review the talk page archives -- there's a big search box at the top of the page -- to see the past discussions concerning the title of this article. I don't know if anybody actually likes the current title, but it was a compromise that achieved consensus. Consensus can change, however, so feel free to propose a new title. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course it's absurd, but when you have a nation state full of a few million people who refuse to admit that they are committing an ongoing crime against humanity, many of whom speak just enough English to edit the English Wikipedia, this is the compromise we are left to deal with. Don't read a book by its cover; Israeli apartheid still redirects here. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree title is absurd Though it is beat to keep it for time bining I however sugest that this aetical be included in wider sectio. About segration in midle east

Jibbyp (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Israel and the apartheid analogy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Israel and the apartheid analogy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061117145749/http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/040531fa_fact2_f to http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/040531fa_fact2_f

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Israeli-occupied vs. Israeli-controlled

I edited Israeli-occupied to read Israeli-controlled, but my edit was reverted. Below are the justifications why Judea and Samaria should not be considered occupied. Thus, based on the below, I ask that my corrections [19] be retained. Ronbarak (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Unlike, say, Turkey in Cyprus, Israel isn’t an “Occupying Power.”

Here is a generally accepted definition of ‘military occupation’:

Military occupation is effective provisional control[1] of a certain power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign.[2][3][4]

So who is the “actual sovereign” in the case of Judea and Samaria?

Let’s look at history.

The territory called ‘Palestine’ was controlled by the Ottoman Empire until the Empire was dissolved after World War I. In 1922, the League of Nations issued a Mandate to Britain to hold the land of Palestine, from the river to the sea, in trust for a national home for the Jewish people. The Mandate explicitly guaranteed the rights of Jews to live anywhere in its territory and called for “close settlement of Jews on the land.” This guarantee is independent of whatever meaning is attached to the expression “national home.”

In 1948, the Mandate was terminated and the British withdrew from its territory. The League of Nations had been replaced by the UN. However, Article 80 of the new UN Charter carried forward to the UN obligations created by trusteeships like the Mandate, such as the obligations to the Jewish people.

On the same day, the State of Israel was declared in eretz yisrael, the Land of Israel. Although the Declaration of Independence stated that the new state would cooperate with the UN in the future implementation of UNGA resolution 181, the partition resolution, no borders were explicitly delimited.

The State of Israel was immediately recognized by a majority of the member states of the UN. It was also immediately invaded by the armies of several Arab nations, whose intent was to destroy the Jewish state and take its territory for themselves (not to create a ‘Palestinian’ Arab state). Note that the state was not ‘created by the UN’. Its legitimacy as a sovereign state rests on its effective control of its territory and population, its ability to enter into relations with other states, and its recognition by them.

Resolution 181 was a nonbinding recommendation in the first place, was rejected by the Arabs and never in fact implemented.

When an armistice agreement with Jordan was finally obtained in 1949, the so called Green Line which marked the final positions of the armies was delimited. Both sides agreed that the lines were not ‘borders’ and had no political significance:

Art. II, 1: The principle that no military or political advantage should be gained under the truce ordered by the Security Council is recognised;

Art. II, 2: It is also recognised that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.

Art. VI, 9: The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V And VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.

However, in 1950, Jordan violated both this agreement and arguably the UN Charter (which forbids acquisition of territory by force) and annexed Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem. Judea and Samaria were henceforth called “The West Bank” as opposed to the rest of Jordan, which was east of the river. The only country that formally recognized the annexation was Britain.

In 1967, after Jordan participated in yet another war intended to destroy the Jewish state, the land was retaken by Israel, leaving it in possession of the area of the original Palestine Mandate, more or less. Jordan’s 19 year occupation was neither legal nor recognized. The only legitimacy it had was that of a temporary military occupier. Therefore, when in 1988 King Hussein finally ended all Jordanian ties to “the West Bank” in favor of the PLO, he had nothing to give them. Jews living in the Land of Israel, including Judea and Samaria, were granted the right to do so by the Mandate.

This right has never been revoked, although it was denied during the illegal Jordanian occupation. In fact, the UN is obliged to support it today!

In conclusion: the only legitimate sovereign power in the Land of Israel since the end of the Mandate is Israel. And therefore, Israel cannot be an occupying power. As Naftali Bennett (current Israeli minister of education) said, “you can’t occupy your own land.”

References

1. ^ A Roberts. Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli Occupied Territories Since 1967 - Am. J. Int'l L., 1990, p. 47.

2. ^ a b Eyāl Benveniśtî. The international law of occupation. Princeton University Press, 200 ; ISBN 0-691-12130-3, ISBN 978-0-691-12130-7, p. xvi

3. ^ Eran Halperin, Daniel Bar-Tal, Keren Sharvit, Nimrod Rosler and Amiram Raviv. Sociopsychological implications for an occupying society: The case of Israel. Journal of Peace Research 2010; 47; 59

4. ^ During civil wars, the districts occupied by rebels are considered to be foreign. Military Government and Martial Law LLMC, p. 21. [1]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 29 external links on Israel and the apartheid analogy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC for Article Name Change

This RfC has ended because consensus was reached to keep the current title. As the poster and per WP:RFCEND, I am withdrawing the question and ending this RfC. For the record, I am disappointed, preferring that there would have been the impetus to go with the description that the vast majority of the scholarly community uses.For the time being, Wikipedia isn’t ready to relinquish its minority view that includes the word analogy. The fact that this can happen underlines a shortcoming with our process, and one that should be examined in a different discussion. Nevertheless, thanks to all those who participated. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fellow Editors, I have gone through the talk page archive finding numerous edit requests for a name change to this article - Israel and the apartheid analogy. The most common response to these requests was to start a new RfC. Consequently, I have taken it upon myself to do just exactly that. Surely, we can do better in giving a more accurate title to this article; one which reflects common usage. Its current form is wordy and awkward. Personally, I would even go further in saying that it is disingenuous. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Addendum

To additionally support the proposal for a title change, I put forward the following statistics gleaned from Google search results. They can be reproduced by entering the same key search terms. Obviously, the results may not be the only factors in choosing a better name, but they certainly do shed light on how the rest of the English speaking world, outside of Wikipedia, labels this issue.

Key Words	Google*	Google Scholar	Google News
"Israel and the apartheid analogy"	7,240 results	7 results	6 results
"Apartheid Israel analogy"	332 results	1 result	1 result
"Israeli apartheid analogy"	217,000 results	1 result	1 result
“Apartheid Israel" **	94,200 results	384 results	3,730 results
"Israeli apartheid" **	373,000 results	964 results	11,100 results

*Note - Google main page results also include blogs, facebook pages, unreliable sources, and sites which mirror Wikipedia's own article.

**Results that also contain the word “analogy” have been excluded from these results.

Through the process of this RFC, I invite editors to make their suggestions for a better name. I would ask those who participate to refrain from basing their recommendations solely on personal feelings and bias, but rather to support the titles they put forward by supplying solid examples of how this topic is already addressed by the mainstream. Wikipedia should not endeavour to create or manipulate the name of this article. It should simply use the title that is being used by the status quo. Thanks to all those who decide to participate. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

As I demonstrate in "Threaded Discussion" below, this is a misrepresentation of Wikipedia policy. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

A blatant example of unfair statistics. A specific 5 word combo (here: Israel and the apartheid analogy) will naturally be much rarer than a 2 word combo (Apartheid Israel). So this table should only contain 2 word combinations, else you are comparing apples to oranges.

The google news hits for the lemma are 90% advocacy and opinion pieces and therefore have no relevance to our neutral WP articles. Quoting those is futile.

--37.211.55.128 (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia mirrors in the search "Israel and the wikipedia analogy" seem to be significant (?) a search with {"Israel and the apartheid analogy" -wikipedia} give about 5 thousand results. Still pretty significant and much better than my previous suggestion "Description of Israel as apartheid" I believe it was, with less than 10 results. "Allegations of israeli apartheid" give a surprising result of 17,000 results, and I think it is the best candidate - still supported by WP:NPOVTitle, but not as weasely as the current "analogy".--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 14:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Suggested Titles

(Format: Please begin with your proposed title in BOLD, then followed with your reasoning. You may include the word 'Keep' if you don't think it should be changed.)

Israel Apartheid - I believe this title best reflects what is used elsewhere, particularly amongst the scholarly community. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

*Israel spells Apartheid - I believe this title best reflects what is thought generally. --37.211.55.128 (talk) 05:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC) IP are not allowed to participate in the RFC per WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 -- Shrike (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

~~Description of Israel as Apartheid~~ - I believe the word "analogy" disqualifies the comparison, description might be more NPOV.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 19:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Allegations of Israeli Apartheid explicitly allowed by WP:NPOVTitle, and removes "analogy" when today it is defined in law. 17,000 results in google search means it is in wider usage than "analogy" as well.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 14:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

Comment Please keep in mind WP:NPOVTITLE, part of our policy on article titles, and WP:POVNAMING, part of our neutral point of view policy, both of which provide some guidance on naming articles about controversial topics. If I may summarize: Consider whether "the subject of [the] article is referred to mainly by a single common name" that may be non-neutral, or whether an invented, neutral descriptive phrase may be more appropriate. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. The current title clearly describes the theme of the article, which is the analogy, without taking sides. The proposed title does not reflect the analogy, but references something else. To change the name, the article would need to be rewritten. Someone might like to count how many times the word analogy appears in the article, to better see what I am getting at. Disclaimer -- I have no dog in this fight. Moriori (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd ask you to respect the format of this RfC by stating Keep, or adding your suggested title. It's not clear which title you oppose. Thanks Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd oppose any change of the current title to one that doesn't reflect the content of the article.Moriori (talk) 02:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose move. Even if there is a preponderance of opinion in one direction or the other, we are still required to find a title that doesn't take sides. Zero^talk 04:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd ask you to respect the format of this RfC by stating Keep, or adding your suggested title. It's not clear which title you oppose. Thanks Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I think "Oppose" here means oppose move, but the reasoning indicates against "Israeli apartheid", but not necessarily against "Allegations of Israeli apartheid".--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 14:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I mean that the existing title is better than any other title I have seen proposed. Zero^talk 10:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose any move The current title was the result of years of conflict and agonising. We don't need to dredge this up again. Number 5 7 10:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you there may have been years of agonizing. However, a quick look through the archives shows that numerous times since, editors have sought a change to the name. They are still not satisfied with it. It seems that the agonizing is not over. It is time we look at it again. People living in apartheid don't decribe it as an analogy but name it for what it is. Moreover, there are almost 1000 scholarly works which support calling it plainly and simply Apartheid without adding the analogy tag which is only used by a handful. A spade is a spade. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 12:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Do any of the "1000 scholarly works" you mistakenly cite actually advocate renaming this Wikipedia article? No, I didn't think so. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

You’ve got it backwards, my friend. Authors of published scholarly works don’t seek to correct Wikipedia - it is us who need to follow their example. Here, we have failed. Additionally, I cite no one. This repository of more than 900 links to scholarly literature, which do not apply the analogy label, speaks for itself. Your fight is not with me but with them. Finally, for clarity sake, are you the same editor who has already posted to this discussion under the name Malik Shabazz, or is it indeed just a remarkable coincidence? Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, you're the only one who seems confused about Wikipedia policy concerning article titles, which are not supposed to slavishly follow sources in all cases -- this being a perfect example. Which you might know if you clicked on the blue links in my message above. Regarding your question, same answer: click on the blue links and find out for yourself. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I have written to you on your Talk page concerning your use of multiple accounts to participate in this discussion. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

(Admin note: Personal attack suppressed. Sandstein 19:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC))

Support changing to "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid" ~~Comment~~ My comment is divided into four parts:

1) Am I correct in understanding that calling it an analogy is already taking sides against it being apropriate, against it being a descriptor?

2) Wahhabism is for example the name given by critics, proponents say it's derogatory. Alt-Right is the name given by those in favor, opposers call it whitewashing. I think those names despite taking sides, being POV, are okay as names. (I personally helped with Gold digging which is kindof a pejorative term.) I think the idea of moving it is legitimate, is reasonable.

3) Despite the word "analogy" being used repeatedly in the article, I think it could be easily replaced by "description" or "usage of the term". Fascism is an interesting case I think of how it can be an analogy to compare to Italian fascism, but to call someone "Fascist" or "an Apartheid State" is not, I believe, necessarily to make an analogy. I read a bit of the article, and it seems international law defined apartheid as part of a "prohibition of apartheid", no longer from then on an analogy, but defined in law.

4)Please be civil. Please act in good faith, be respectful, state your reasoning, offer your viewpoint and go no further when a ettiquete forbids it. Do not try to force your point of view. Come on people!--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 20:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Changed from "comment" to Support for Allegations of Israeli Apartheid--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 23:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose to any change of title per WP:NPOVTITLE--Shrike (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Objection to Shrike's voteI quote from there "Exception: articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law" - seems WP:NPOVTITLE would support a change to "Allegations of Apartheid in Israel" as Apartheid is illegality under law.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 00:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

[edit Objection to reasoning]--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 14:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Shrike:--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 03:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

comment I was invited here by a bot. RFCs like this that bias the request are rarely successful. It's very important to start with a simple neutral question that isn't accompanied by the originator's POV. I suggest closing this and starting over, closely following the recommended structure on the RFC page (simple unbiased request, !Vote section, separate Discussion section that's not preloaded with originator's opinion). Jojalozzo (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Support renaming to "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid" - Relevant quote from Neutrality in Article Titles: "Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation implies wrongdoing, and so should be avoided in a descriptive title. (Exception: articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are appropriately described as "allegations"." The academic sources that I am familiar with don't make comparisons between apartheid South Africa and Israel (although a lot of activists and journalists do); the academic sources discuss whether or not Israel has ever or currently commits the Crime of apartheid in the occupied territories or within its 1948 borders. That's an allegation, not yet tested in a court of law, so it seems perfectly in line with WP:POVNAME TrickyH (talk) 09:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

oppose move - summoned by bot. No horse in the race, but have read President Carter's book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. I think the analogy is a good one, but more importantly, the way the article is written suggests that the current title is better than any of the proposed alternatives. So I oppose the move/renaming. Timtempleton (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment and conditional support: The problem with this article is not only the title, but the entire focus of the article as it is currently written. The article currently focuses on a comparison between Apartheid in South Africa and the status of Palestinians in Israeli occupied territories. But the real subject of the article is whether Israeli policies constitute the crime of Apartheid as defined by international law. While this is covered in the article, it is not the main focus - and it should be. So I suggest that the article be reorganized, and then the name change to "Israeli Apartheid" would certainly be justified. Ravpapa (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Οppose renaming the article. The title as it stands is informative and sufficiently neutral, i.e. it cannot reasonably be interpreted as "taking sides," as has been suggested above. The fact that the title contains more than one or two words is not a cause in itself for changing it. It's a fine title. Methinks we are nitpicking. -The Gnome (talk) 07:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose — A descriptive WP:NPOVTITLE that is suited for both sides. That, ideally, is what the entry should be about: Israel and the apartheid [the policy] analogy. El_C 13:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

*Oppose Allegations of Israeli apartheid - in popular vernacular and in rhetoric and outside of the courts the term "allegations" has popularly become the equivalent of using scare quotes and is often used to cast doubt on a claim. That title would be like calling it So-called Israeli apartheid, Israeli "apartheid" or Israeli apartheid (sic). Support Israeli apartheid as this is the most commonly used and plainly understood term. Defining or discussing a concept does not imply endorsement and we should not be looking for weasel wordsmith Islington Bloor (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC) Striking comments from editor unable to participate in RFC on this topic.

Oppose The current title is fine and was decided upon lengthy discussion. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cleaning up this Article

Resulting from Talk discussion, it was agreed that the article was too long. I undertook to clean it up applying the Wiki quality-criteria that had been used in the ‘Hafrada and Apartheid’ Talk subsection. I will post my conclusions and reasons here in order to provide for discussion. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Numerous dead links found. Attempts were made to find alternative sources, which were successful in only one case - for detail see the article's 'history'.

Julie Peteet is a source that has made the Hafrada/Apartheid analogy explicitly in Anthropological Quarterly, no need for synth the article is titled "The Work of Comparison: Israel/Palestine and Apartheid" Here is just one quote from the article:

Named publicly in the 1990s as "hafrada" (separation) and manifested physically by the wall and various checkpoints, separation masquerades as security. It has been this explicit policy of separation that has provided the grounds on which to make the comparison with apartheid more forcefully and empirically. Separation's apartheid-like characteristics can be grasped through ethnographic observations of the shifting spatial demographics, as well as populations' categorically different mobilities and relations to the Israeli state.

Of course this page is about the analogy/comparison, per the title. I am going to object to User:John Nagle's assertion that a C-class article should be left alone because it is about Israel. I edit on a wide variety of issues, including American law, other areas of law, medieval history, Ottoman history, women's history etc., and I wholesale reject the insinuation that the subject matter of this article is intended to be derogatory. Apartheid is a legal term, not a derogatory one and it is erroneous to compare it to "gay agenda" Seraphim System (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

ADDITION: Law articles should make use of the most authoritative sources possible and adhere to MOS:LAW, citation should adhere to formal rules about order of authorities and parentheticals, and use introductory signals, but I understand this is demanding and Wikipedia is always in need of improvement, cleanup and rewrites. I am willing to put some time into improving this article. Seraphim System (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Sincere thanks for your input, Seraphim System. Indeed I am struggling with the subtleties of citations, and realise that I have a long way to go. Being able to see your examples would be a great help. If I do not respond immediately, please do not interpret this as a fading of my interest. I will be in a nutrition clinic for about 3 weeks to try to solve my enzyme imbalances, and they have told me that I will need to be 'in a calm place', which Wiki editing does not necessarily promote.

Many thanks for the Peteet reference. I was aware of her MERIP article, but, not knowing her credentials combined with the enthusiasm with which accusations on non-WP:RS are used in this sector of Wiki, I decided to shelve it. I will read your suggested source carefully and respond. Erictheenquirer (talk) 11:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Violinist Nigel Kennedy's opinion provided at the end of the subsection "By notable academic, political and media figures" appears to me to be of lesser value than most other contributions (yes, that's a POV). If we are to try to trim this article, I would vote for this to go, and to be replaced by a more substantive piece. Erictheenquirer (talk) 11:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Peteet is an anthropologist and her work should not be cited as a statement of law. Since this page is about "analogy" it is fine. If there is a problem with a peer-reviewed source, they need to take it up on the admin noticeboard, not by edit warring. Seraphim System (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

re citations in this article, the first thing I notice is the citation section is so messy it is practically illegible. Citing very long quotations does not help readers. Also I see at least one citation that does not directly (or even remotely) bear upon the proposition it is supposed to support. This isn't acceptable. The excessive citation in this article needs to be cleaned up. I can use Bluebook to merge some of the cites into one note using signals and order of authorities.

Right now some of the citations need to be reorganized, but I know why they were included and I will find a place for them somewhere that makes sense. Also, the quotes need to be shortened to a length appropriate for a parentheical. It actually is not necessary to fight over the text and citations this way, in an article that uses legal citation contra and but see can do a lot of that work without compromising neutrality. Seraphim System (talk) 04:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on Israel and the apartheid analogy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=A%2FHRC%2F4%2F17
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150207100523/http://www.jewishfederations.org/local_includes/downloads/59184.pdf to http://www.jewishfederations.org/local_includes/downloads/59184.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080518054418/http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/Israel_%26_apartheid.html to https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/Israel_%26_apartheid.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928154710/http://www.istame-apapandreou.gr/files/pdf/praktiko-palestinis.pdf to http://www.istame-apapandreou.gr/files/pdf/praktiko-palestinis.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151004170151/http://www.nana.co.il/article/?articleID=423192&sid=126 to http://www.nana.co.il/article/?articleID=423192&sid=126
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130616133604/http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0528-27.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0528-27.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111223165623/http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_10/b3773086.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_10/b3773086.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.unitedjerusalem.org/index2.asp?id=92661&Date=4%2F13%2F2002
Corrected formatting/usage for http://securityfence.mfa.gov.il/mfm/web/main/missionhome.asp?MissionID=45187&%2F
Added archive https://archive.is/20130221184147/http://www.jeffreygoldberg.net/articles/tny/a_reporter_at_large_among_the.php to http://www.jeffreygoldberg.net/articles/tny/a_reporter_at_large_among_the.php
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-carter8dec08%2C0%2C7999232.story?coll=la-home-commentary
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06%2F11%2F30%2F1452225
Corrected formatting/usage for http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1164881826126&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2006%20Opinion%20Editorials/September/5%20o/Rage%20of%20the%20Elephant%20Israel%20in%20Lebanon%20By%20Ronnie%20Kasrils%2C%20MP.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05%2F04%2F12%2F1344230
Corrected formatting/usage for http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/dershowitz/entry/filmmakers_and_writers_seek_to
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.z-word.com/z-word-essays/franchising-%E2%80%9Capartheid%E2%80%9D%3A-why-south-africans-push-the-analogy.html?page=1
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061117180250/http://www.standwithus.com/pdfs/flyers/english/MythFact.pdf to http://www.standwithus.com/pdfs/flyers/english/MythFact.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/troy/entry/the_double_double_standard_posted
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160101101403/http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/mar/assessment.asp?groupId=66302 to http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/mar/assessment.asp?groupId=66302
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080229015204/http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=306670 to http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=306670
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ceia-sc.org/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.z-word.com/z-word-essays/franchising-%E2%80%9Capartheid%E2%80%9D%3A-why-south-africans-push-the-analogy.html?page=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 April 2017

‹ The template below (Edit extended-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

May I ask under what basis this sourced information was removed from the article?--Potablehistory (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

There are several reasons. Today's Zaman is not a WP:RS for article about AKP members, as it was run by F. Gulen (at least it was whhen this article was published.) Second, not every incident of a political leader mouthing off about Israeli apartheid is notable enough for inclusion. It adds nothing to the article. Abdullah Gulen is an Islamist politician - he is not an expert in international law or any other scholarly field with the slightest bearing on apartheid. Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done per above ProgrammingGeek^talktome 19:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup

@MShabazz: @RolandR: @Erictheenquirer: I'm sorry if I missed anyone involved in above discussion about cleanup... I have removed some primary sources, and some dead links and non-reliable sources. We should prefer recognized experts and specialists on this topic. There is a way to represent both sides of the issue. Also, 5 quotes saying "its not apartheid" lined up in a column is not an appropriate way to format an article. Does anyone want to spinout the criticism section as it is, because right now it is overburdening the article and full of primary and non-specialist sources, which I want to cleanup to improve the article.

I want to give you guys a chance to review what I've already done, before making too many changes, and ask for input on how you think we should move forward. Obviously this article needs major cleanup, and I think its best if we work together. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I added back in a link to Mearsheimer's statement because it may have been the original source of the quote, and it's almost certainly real. It would be preferable to use Mearsheimer's own published work for a similar statement. My thinking was that it's better to include a link so people know where the quote actually comes from if the paragraph is to be included at all, so that people don't have to search for it. Perhaps a {{Better source}} should be added? Uglemat (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

independent academic study

thematically the team concluded...

I can't wait for the learned and lengthy article on "Israel and the New Nazis analogy" פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Israeli apartheid title

Given the fact that the uuse of the term "Israeli apartheid" has been widespread in the years since this article was created and that the use of "analogy" is original research I propose that the article title be changed to "Israeli apartheid". 209.171.88.35 (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, especially when former leaders of the anti-South African Apartheid movement (most notably Desmond Tutu) have come out and said that not only is the analogy more than appropriate, but that in many ways Israel's system of apartheid is far worse than South Africa's was. It seems that by keeping the title focused on the so-called analogy, it misleads the reality of the situation (i.e., the reality of Israeli aprtheid). This is an encyclopedia, not a debate forum after all. It may offend some's sensibilities to call these practices apartheid, but it doesn't change the fact that that's what they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.203.72.20 (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Most dictionaries include the modern generic usage of "apartheid". Most of this article is not about an "analogy" as the title says, it is about whether the modern generic definition of "apartheid" applies to Israel. I think the parts that do relate to analogy should be moved to an appropriately titled etymological article about the modern usage (which is not specific to Israel), although I doubt whether such an article would qualify as encyclopedic. Don't we usually leave word definitions and etymology to the dictionaries? Keith McClary (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

We are wasting our time here, since editing the article is verboten and anything we write here is ignored by the owners of the article (= owners of Wikipedia). "The encyclopedia anyone can edit". Haha. Keith McClary (talk) 05:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Please tell me you are just kidding. However, I have just recovered from a long-term medical issue and have been appalled at the shoddy applications of Wiki rules on the Israel-Palestine issue. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Fixed double-standard section

I've added references to the double-standard section in order to strengthen the section and explain who these critics are. This is an essential section, because the whole article is about a point of view, so it's relevant and necessary for NPOV to explain the opposing point of view. OtterAM (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't need a separate section. I checked some of the refs and they did not verify the claim. If there is something specific you think needs to be included post it here on talk, most likely it doesn't need a separate section but can be worked in. The entire criticism section needs to be source checked and rewritten. There is no reason it should be 11 sections long, and most of it quotes. That is not how we write Wikipedia articles. Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind the source needs to say "It is a double standard to accuse Israel of apartheid because xyz" and either be attributed to an expert, or written by an expert. It is not enough that it is an example of some unrelated incident of discrimination that may be an example of apartheid in another country. It needs to say "double standard" because this language is significant - (part of the "new" definition of antisemitism) - this accusation is controversial and it needs to be sourced and attributed.

Also, please do not add excessive citations this way that are not needed - it is basically common sense not to do this. If Michael Curtis does say this, please post the page number. You need to post a single WP:RS, not 13 sources that fail verification or support your own WP:OR - if you have such a source, post it here on talk and I will add it to the "By Others section" Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: I believe that you are in violation of "active arbitration remedies" which states "Consensus required: Editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit." I reverted your deletion of the section, then you reinstated your edit. So, I ask you to self-revert, then discuss to figure out how to proceed. (By the way, I agree that there are some deficiencies in the references that existed previously, but they are not as bad as you say. I reinstated the previous references, but added a couple new and better ones.) It might be a good idea to do a "request for comment" for this section before proceeding. But, for now I ask you to replace the previous version before your deletion of the section. OtterAM (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The sources you added were not a revert of my original edit removing the section - I will restore the original edit that I removed, and we can RfC about that - I am reverting the excessive citations. I don't want to burden the community with having to review 13 additional citations that do not verify the proposition. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. Thanks. I don't feel strongly about the inclusion of the new sources that I added in my pseudo-revert. I was just trying to do a bit of (incomplete) fixing-up to address some of the aspects of this section that you had commented on earlier. OtterAM (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

By the way, the previous section entitled "Support for Israeli apartheid analogy" is made up of 12 (!) subsections. I agree this whole page is unwieldily and not very encyclopedia like. However, we can at least try for the standard of NPOV, even if other Wikipedia standards are not met yet. The argument of "double standard" is one of the main lines of criticism, so it must be discussed. (Actually this aspect of the topic deserves better than the poorly-crafted subsection it has.) OtterAM (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Give me a little while while I figure out how to do the WP:RfC since I've never done this before. It should be ready in an hour or so... OtterAM (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@OtterAM: I removed material from those sections also - I didn't write this article, I've only been involved in cleaning it up. Two wrongs don't make a right. If there is a source for it we can add it - but the sources in the section right now may be OR. I did not see the nested sources when I removed it the first time so I have to review them. That said, the fact that one sentence has been added to a separate section is WP:UNDUE and a clear NPOV issue. We can try to resolve it without RfC first if you'd like. It's probably better to hold off on RfC until we have a specific disagreement that we need broader input on. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@OtterAM: The only source we need to keep for that proposition is Professor Shimoni, the rest all fail verification, and the two foreign language sources don't add anything that isn't covered by Shimoni so they should also be excluded per WP:V - can you take them out and then we can discuss adding more from Shimoni. The current statement "some critics" is tagged who, but this statement can and should be attibuted to Shimoni and we can remove the tag then. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The analogy has been used by... bias, hiding controversy till way into paragraph

>The analogy has been used by some scholars, United Nations investigators,[2] human rights groups critical of Israeli policy[3][4] and those supporting the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel.

The article has no mention of controversy, and putting the BDS (without its initials) towards the end of the sentence while it is being used widely in the media and the in the UN wherever anti-Israeli activity is involved. If there is a need for proof that the Hamas, Iran, and ISIL all use this rhetoric it can easily be provided. That the PA uses this rhetoric is also of importance. It is usually used by these groups along with the term "The New Nazis" where Israel is compared since its insemination with Nazi Germany and their treatment of the Jews. (This too can easily be proven)

I, therefore, propose the following text:

The controversial analogy has been widely used by groups opposing Israel or its policies, including the supporters of the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement, some scholars, United Nations investigators and human rights groups.REFSפשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think "New Nazis" is a term that is in wide use, but if you have sources for that we can look into it. I don't have any objections to your current wording being added to the lead. I dont think we will have problems sourcing this in the relevant sections and we can develop the BDS section. There is one issue though - what are the sources for the term "Apartheid analogy?" Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The phrase "opposing Israel or its policies" is redundant and incoherent. Obviously if someone compares Israel to apartheid, they are not paying it a compliment, or supporting its policies. "Opposing Israel" is an incoherent concept, because opposing the policies is not the same as opposing the state (I am aware that some entities like Hamas or Iran do both, but it is not true in general).

I much prefer the current phrasing. I see no problem with the order, where BDS is the last in the sentence (and you have not said what's the problem with the construction is). I am not opposed to adding the initials in parenthesis after the full version, if it bothers you for some reason. I am opposed to needless introduction of weasel words like "controversial" in the lead; see MOS:WTW. The proponents and opponents are both given enough space in the lead; readers can judge the matter for themselves. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Support - I think that User talk:Pashute's idea makes sense. By the way, to answer a question posed in the section: see Criticism_of_the_Israeli_government#Comparisons_with_Nazi_Germany. OtterAM (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment' That has nothing to do with apartheid. Some editors seem to be having problems with this, so it might be a good idea to review WP:OR and WP:SYNTH carefully, because it is a headache and we should all be personally responsible for making a good faith effort to review and apply core policies. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose per User:Kingsindian WP:WTW Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

There's no point in giving !votes. This isn't an RfC, just a discussion. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Back from the wonderful celebration with Yehoram Gaon in Jerusalem. Hag Sameach!

OtterAM's answer was to the question about a source to "the New Nazis" which I heard time and again in the Hamas talks in English and Arabic. They pronounce it The New Nah Zees.

"Readers can judge for themselves"?!!! If I produced a controversial racist claim about a minority group and brought down a scholarly research paper would it be acceptable to let people understand the controversy themselves? If I produced a controversial alternative medical treatment that is used by quacks, and brought down a scholarly study, and wrote that it was backed by scholars and never said anything about it being a scam, would that be acceptable?

How about an article about the Jews ruling and running the world theory. I'm sure I can prove it scientifically.

Let me say this: My mother as a kid was in a Catholic hospital with another girl in the room who kept on staring at her with mean eyes. Finally, my mother asked: Why are you staring at me. She said: Because you killed God! My mother was stunned. You can't kill God. And even if you could why in the heavens would this girl think that my mother did that. Finally, after a long stunned silence, my mother replied: I DID NOT!

And if it needs to be said explicitly, many of us Israelis feel (and this is documented) that calling our country and its policies an Apartheid State, and cherry picking the details about this claim, is simply part of the delegitimizing campaign against Israel. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

It is not nice for your country to be called an Apartheid state. The feeling which you (and others) have that this claim is intended to delegitimize Israel is already explicitly present in the lead (see first sentence of the third paragraph). The article, as a whole does not take a position on the analogy - as to whether the analogy is right or wrong. The analogy itself takes various forms; some only refer to the occupied territories, others refer to the situation in Israel proper. There's no consensus that the analogy itself is racist. The lead exists to summarize the article, nothing more. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

1. The article, as it is written now DOES DEFINITELY take a stance. It says basically that Israel IS an "apartheid state" according to supposedly unbiased scholarly discussions.

2. The lead which is supposed to summarize the article, instead, leads the readers to understand the topic according to the above biased position, although in fact the term and its usage are controversial.

3. ONLY THEN does the article bring down the arguments against the analogy and its usage. Doing so with a controversial issue (and using fringe science but that's another topic to be discussed another day) is specifically ruled against in various WP guidelines and codes as you probably know very well.

4. Are you joking? It is not a feeling that I and others have. It is a fact that this claim is being used to delegitimize Israel. Noam Chomsky speaks openly about it. So does Haled Meshal. Look up Legitimacy of Israel. Read Why Israel Should Not Exist. Read The Electronic Intifada (saying that Israel in fact is not a state, and therefore should not receive recognition as one) Read Sari Nusseibeh's words on the topic, in this anti Israeli aricle Israel's "right to exist" and the Palestinian's right to resist claiming that the analogy is only against the policies and not towards the distruction of Israel:

Quote: As Sari Nusseibeh, professor of Philosophy at Al Quds University in East Jerusalem, writes in his article ‘Why Israel can’t be a Jewish State’ (2011):

[R]ecognition of Israel as a “Jewish state” implies that Israel is, or should be, either a theocracy (if we take the word “Jewish” to apply to the religion of Judaism) or an apartheid state (if we take the word “Jewish” to apply to the ethnicity of Jews), or both, and in all of these cases, Israel is then no longer a democracy – something which has rightly been the pride of most Israelis since the country’s founding in 1948.

You obviously realize that this is not all scholarly, unbiased, scientific and objective rhetoric. Why pretend it is? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is more complication with the territories - Pashute, if you can not put your personal feelings aside, then maybe it would be better to work on another article. Try reasoning by analogy, many scholars who have commented on this have no interest in delegitimizing Israel. I have personally removed comments from Islamist politics from this article

Why do you think everyone is secretly conspiring to delegitimize your country? Before you say antisemitsm, let me stop you. Holocaust survivors and their descendants have publicly accused Israel of genocide - that is even stronger then apartheid. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

So you removed comments from "Islamist politics" POV writers (although as a friend of several (occasionally) non-anti-Israeli Muslims, I must say that I would call them Arab anti-Israeli or Arab anti-Zionist politics), and that proves that this topic is inherently controversial and ladden with POV. Which is my point. Say that it is controversial. When writing in the article I of course put my personal feelings aside. When discussing, I can show them, and if I have a logical argument that makes sense, despite my feelings that lead me to have an interest in the article, I can legitimitly convince others and even edit the article, after being careful to spell out the issue concisely and correctly and prove my point. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The proposed text would be inferior to the current text and consequently I don't support it. In particular, assigning the analogy to groups that oppose Israel presents the analogy as coming from biased sources. In reality, the analogy has been widely used by groups and persons not opposed to Israel, such as South African anti-apartheid activists, Israeli cabinet ministers, the UN and, in a poll, a majority of polled Israeli Jews. --Dailycare (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

What?! I gotta read that (a majority of polled Israeli Jews).

I agree with you that the origin does not come from anti-Israeli sources, but rather from people opposing Israeli policies, and I'll have to reword it to reflect that. But the fact that the term is being used by anti Israeli groups and organizations is highly relevant and must be shown in the lead. Those groups, some of them openly murderous, of course don't care about details. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Flaws leading to bias

Basically there are four different ways of seeing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the apartheid analogy, and several different ways of seeing a future solution, accordingly. It is important to somehow get these four major groups separately and objectively into the article:

1. Condition, Two states: Israel is behaving as an apartheid state but mostly in the West Bank only, and since 1967.

1. Future: Palestine must exist as a separate, mostly Muslim, state. Israel exists and can continue existing as a mostly Jewish state only inside a limited border, and there too, it must change its policies. (Desmond Tutu: Liberate yourselves by liberating Palestine, Shulamit Aloni: Through the occupation, Israel is forcing apartheid on itself)

2. Condition, One state Palestine: Israel is and always was an apartheid state, (besides being colonialist) since it's establishment in 1948.

2a. Future - Open democracy: Israel should not exist as a state. There should be one country with an open and non-biased democracy - not called Israel. (Seri Nusseibeh - If it's a Jewish state either it's a theocracy or an apartheid state)

2b. Future - Arab rule: Israel should not (or actually does not) exist as a state. There should be one country ruled by Muslims (or: Ruled by Palestinians). (Issa Abd-Rabbo, self-attested discussion with young student Revital Levi before he murdered her: This is my holy land. You are not allowed to step on it.)

3. Condition: Negotiable Israel: Israel is not and never was an apartheid state ...But it does have many restrictions on Palestinians in the West Bank. Temporarily necessary. Some of these may resemble apartheid, but still, there is a big difference.

3a. Future - Resolve it: The conflict should be resolved by allowing the Palestinians their own state. (Tzipi Livni and others)

3b. Future - Impossible Palestinian State: The conflict should be resolved by allowing a Palestinian state but that is not possible due to the Arab and Muslim views repeated and revealed time and again, seeking dominance and not reconciliation.

4. Condition: Perfect Israel: Israel is not and never was an apartheid state ...But it does have many restrictions on Palestinians, necessary in face of violent and murderous anti-Israeli organizations.

4a. Future - No change So Israel exists and should continue existing as a mostly Jewish state. The restrictions cannot be removed, but are for the better of all, including the Arabs. (extreme rightist Member of Knesset Smutritch)

As it is written now the article does not show this important context, and thus puts together opposing sides, proving a point in the article while actually misleading the readers. For example:

Yossi Paritsky opposed the law for selling the Jewish National Fund's land to Jews only, because it would TURN ISRAEL into an appartheid state. So did MOST MEMBERS of Kennesset at the time AND SO the law DID NOT PASS! Is that "using the analogy by members of the Israeli parliament"?

The South Africans section lists several people from the SA apartheid regime and others (like Israeli ministers) quoting them, for an attempt REFUTED BY ISRAEL, and obviously biased for a reason, to compare the two states. Bringing down an Israeli quoting this, and horrified by the comparison, because they were opposed to inequality due to color, race, ethnicity or religion, is misleading in the least.

Two SA government rulings against Israel in the UN, saying Israel's actions in two particular cases where REMINISCENT of those of the Apartheid regime.

Desmond Tutu's call for a boycott of Israel should be noted as part of the calls for a self determined Palestinian state. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hafrada and Apartheid

Given this article's special focus on apartheid, I view it as unbalanced that first tier treatment is given to Hafrada, yet almost nothing is said about the meaning of Apartheid itself in its original Afrikaans. I have attempted to remedy this notable imbalance by combining Hafrada and Apartheid into one top tier article, which has the additional advantage of facilitating a comparison between the meanings of the two words. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

You sources doesn't mention hafrada and the first source doesn't even talk about Israel at all seems like WP:OR.--Shrike (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

So exactly why did you revert my edit, Shrike? Because it 'seems' like WP:OR? The first source provides the definition of Apartheid. Why did you delete that? The second discusses the evolution of the concept and compares it to the Israeli situation. Why did you delete a definition and evolution of a core element of the article? The definition of Hafrada was provided in an earlier section. Tell you what ... I will repeat the source for its definition .... OK? For the record, I find your total revert without any discussion to be rather aggressive. I will abide by Wiki good-faith behaviour and await your response before posting a replacement. Erictheenquirer (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I already explained to you if you want to talk about connection between Hafrada and Apartheid find WP:RS that make this connection or else it would be WP:SYNTH. Also per the new rules you shouldn't revert till you reach a consensus for you edit. --Shrike (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Shrike, after the many new rules during my absence, I want to be sure of protocol. You appear to have revised/reverted my post based on WP:BRD. Am I correct? If not, under which Wiki protocol if reverting without waiting for discussion or response allowed? Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Please read the talk page notice in the header of the page " Consensus required: Editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit."--Shrike (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

You replied to a question I didn't ask. I wanted to know why you reverted my post without discussion and without waiting for response. If you did this under WP:BRD then it was an abuse of the objectives for WP:BRD. Please see Wikipedia:BRD misuse. There was no question of any of the WP:BRD objectives being in place; no consensus beiing sought but not achieved; no objections requiring quantification; no discussion not moving forward; and no deadlocks requiring breaking. In the process of total revert you destroyed valuable information. Please see Wikipedia:BRD misuse.

Its have nothing to do with WP:BRD its a new sanction imposed by WP:ARBCOM--Shrike (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I will not revert in turn. Instead I am posting an new and expanded version of my original edit. Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Erictheenquirer: the main problem Shrike has with your edit is that the sources do not mention Hafrada in context of discussing Apartheid. You need to find sources which directly discuss both Hafrada and Apartheid and make connections between the two. Otherwise it would be WP:OR. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:Understood, but that still does not explain why @Shrike: destroyed the entire edit, including the definition of 'Apartheid', instead of just editing out the comparative part. I have still not had a justification for bulk deletion without prior Talk discussion and without waiting for response. This was not a case fitting the Wiki prescribed usage for WP:BRD. If we are going to be super-correct in following Wiki protocol, I am all for it ..... but across the board, with no cherry-picking of any sort. Erictheenquirer (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Erictheenquirer: WP:BRD is just an essay which lays out a common practice; it does not have any status as a WP policy or guideline. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

In addition, you need to use reliable sources, your sources are not reliable in the least. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: You provide as justification .... nothing. I do not simply accept your word. I note that you removed everything. Show me that the two dictionaries (!!) which I referenced are unreliable. Show me that Jon Soske of the Department of History and Classical Studies, McGill University has been proven to be unreliable; that Sean Jacobs of the International Affairs faculty of the New School New York is a suspect source; the same for Prof James Bowen of the University College, Cork; same for the Irish Examiner; same for ICAHD Co-Founder and Director, Dr. Jeff Halper. When you can PROVE that all of these - in combination (otherwise why destroy my entire contribution ... all of it?) - are "anything but reliable", then I will concede that you have made a scholarly response. Until then your revert was a disruption of factual content and destruction of added value to Wiki. Erictheenquirer (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Show me a reliable source. Your edit that I reverted had no reliable sources that I can see. Showing advocacy sources is not acceptable, so ICAHD or JFP, are not valid sources. You also posted Mondoweiss, but nowhere in that article did it mention hafradah. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Erictheenquirer, I recommend that you stop trying to add your proposed changes until you build consensus for their inclusion on this talk page. Otherwise, you may be blocked from editing for edit-warring.

There seem to be several issues here, and they're all being mixed together. Most of the sources Eric cited don't appear to be reliable sources for facts, but they're not being cited to support facts. They may be reliable sources for their authors' opinions (see WP:RSOPINION), and that's how they're being used. (Although the authors should be identified in the article using in-text attribution, which they were not.) In my opinion, the issue of reliable sources is a red herring.

The real issue is whether reliable sources make the connection between hafrada and apartheid, or whether that's original research. In order to not be OR, Eric would have to cite sources that explicitly make the connection. I haven't read the sources, but I get the impression that this isn't the case. If a source mentions hafrada but not apartheid, or vice versa, it's not sufficient. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I mostly agree with what Malik says but even if the sources are reliable for their author opinion why its WP:DUE to include them?--Shrike (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

That's a separate, but related, issue. If reliable sources do make a connection between hafrada and apartheid, is the issue or connection or analogy sufficiently important to be mentioned in the article? That's something that we would hash out here, but first we need to see reliable sources. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

MShabazz many thanks for the enlightenment as to how to display authors in proper format, but more so for not supporting blanket destruction of edits even where those contain dictionary definitions. I will therefore endeavour to show that my sources were specifically selected to demonstrate the similarities between 'hafrada' and 'apartheid'. So far no one has factually contested that; they all appear to have presumed that the references do not. That is disappointing from Wiki editors of long-standing. Please give me a day or two; I am still not 100% mended from my medical issues. Regarding Shrike's point about WP:DUE for my analogy of Israel's 'hafrada' and 'apartheid (sensu lato)' in an article entitled "Israel and the apartheid analogy", I agree with MShabazz that we achieve consent on one issue at a time, and address 'dueness' later. Many thanks. Erictheenquirer (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The equivalence of hafrada and settlement is expressed by several academics and activists in reputable books. For instance, Michel Warschawski quotes Ilan Halevi as writing "It is significant that the Hebrew word used is hafrada( separation), which expresses the idea of an external action, and not hipardouth, from the same root, which refers to the notion of self-separation, that is secession. Thus it really is apartheid in the most classic sense."[^[6]] Ilan Pappé writes "What he describes in essence is how the Hafrada, the Hebrew term for apartheid which literally means separation or segregation, is an inevitable part of the reality in Israel".^[7] Nur Masalha writes "This legacy of Labour Zionism, with its obsession with land settlement, ethno-racial "separation" (hafrada in Hebrew and apartheid in the Afrikaner language) continued after the founding of the Israeli state in 1948".^[8] Adi Ophir writes "Those who speak for human rights quite often support the major element of the apartheid system - the so-called separation (hafrada) between Israelis and Palestinians".^[9] And there are very many more similar citations; this is not remotely original research, nor particularly contentious in academic circles. RolandR (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks RolandR. In addition to your added-value input, I herewith offer my reasons for viewing the sources that I used as being reliable sources:

1) The first reference – CREDO - is missile-proof – a research facility for library references, 2) as is the second – a respected online Hebrew-English dictionary already used as a source in the article.

Now to the ‘meat’ of the accusations of non-WP:RS and the lack of establishment of similarity or interchangeability in meaning of ‘hafrada’ and ‘apartheid’: 3) This similarity is the very essence of Jeff Halper’s (Ph. D University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee) article. He has lived in Israel since 1973. His academic research at the University of Haifa focuses on the history of modern Jerusalem, contemporary Israeli culture, and the Middle East conflict. He was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Not WP:RS??. The cited source is entitled “We say apartheid, you say hafrada”. Enough said regarding the ‘link’ and the mutual mention of the two terms involved in this article subsection ‘Hafrada and Apartheid’. But there is more: “The official name for Israel’s policy vis-a-vis the Palestinians is hafrada, “separation” or apartheid in Hebrew. … And this system, as characteristic of relations between Jews and Arabs within Israel as it is in the Occupied Territories, is even called “apartheid” – or its equivalent in Hebrew: hafrada, “separation” or apartheid, which in turn is part and parcel of the declared policy of “judaizing” the entire country. Hafrada is the term used by Israel to describe its policy towards the Palestinians, reflected most graphically in the official name of the Wall: the “separation barrier” (mikhshol ha-hafrada), rather than the “security barrier”. … Separation and domination, accompanied by systematic and deliberate ethnic displacement affecting Palestinians in every part of the country, all part of broad, permanent and systematic process of judaization, is most precisely termed apartheid.”

4) I will indeed remove the Mondoweiss source, since I see that the comparison of harfrada with apartheid is found in the comments section. My apologies. Nonetheless, it really is not difficult to find good references; besides those offered by User:RolandR there are dozens that I can use to replace it, such as ‘Affective Tourism: Dark Routes in Conflict’ by Dorina Maria Buda, the WRME article concerning Rev. Naim Ateek, or former anti-apartheid activist Andri Newhof’s piece on Electronic Intifada, but I will probably choose ‘Israel's Colonial Project in Palestine’ by Elia Zureik (from Routledge Studies, known for high quality research and reference books). If any editor has substantiated objections (as opposed to a subjective "Not WP:RS") to any of these other numbered items, please provide articulated reasons and I am quite willing to consider them and replace the citation with another, or more, including ‘Cultural Autonomy in Contemporary Europe’ by David J. Smith, also from the Routledge stable, or, after having studied User:RolandR's list, one or more of his suggestions.

5) A direct quote from the cited ICAHD web site is “The end result, towards which Israel has been progressing deliberately and systematically since 1967, can only be called apartheid, which means _separation_ in Afrikaner, precisely the term Israel uses to describe its policy (hafrada in Hebrew)”. See 'Request Sidebar' below

6) The title of the cited article by Prof. James Bowen in the Irish Examiner, one of the three main newspapers in Ireland, is “Hafrada is the Zionist form of Apartheid”

Many thanks for all constructive suggestions, critical or otherwise. Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Please present your final version so we can see if there are consensus for it.Also please pay attention there is already large volume of opinion that support such analogy if we will include another one we should remove other per WP:NPOV--Shrike (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I will do so, user:Shrike. Please note that my post is about the definitions and similarities between the words 'hafrada and 'apartheid', in other words a more etymological approach about meaning rather than just another reason why Israels track record should be viewed as a version of apartheid. The word 'Hafrada' was already accepted into the article. What better than to compare it with the essence of the article ... Apartheid? Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Herewith the revised version: Change title; add Main Article

In Afrikaans, Apartheid means “separateness” or “apartness” ^[10]. Various commentators have noted that Hafrada, the official name for Israel’s policy vis-a-vis the Palestinians (which translates into English as "separation" or "segregation" ^[11]) has the same meaning as “apartheid”, and often use the two terms interchangeably ^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15]. These are distinct from 'nishool', the Hebrew word for 'dispossession', which is preferred by some Palestinians for the Israeli policy ^[16].h

I oppose such change.First of all first source doesn't mention Israel.It was already explained to you that it violates WP:SYNTH. Second you should attribute authors opinion.Third per WP:NPOV. There is already plenty of commentators that support the analogy we don't need more the article is already too large.--Shrike (talk) 08:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Respectfully, user:Shrike, the first source defines 'apartheid', a core theme of this Wiki article. On what basis do you demand that it refer to Israel? Regarding your prior explanation of WP:SYNTH, you phrased it as an outcome on non-WP:RS of my sources. Before I can take this seriously, you need to actually demonstrate that all of my sources are unreliable, and not just say so. I am a bit weary of this style of unsubstantiated reference to non-WP:RS, so I am going to have to ask you to substantiate your claim on all of the referenced sources. Without substantiation of unreliability your 'already explained' claim of WP:SYNTH collapses. In addition I need to ask you why you accepted that the numerous sources in the existing article (mostly, but not exclusively, against the analogy) which are self-defined op-eds and/or from advocacy institutions are OK as WP:RS but the university professors in appropriate fields which I provided are not? Also, I presume that you accept that you have also accused RolandR of providing unreliable sources and being guilty of WP:RS when he concluded "The equivalence of hafrada and settlement is expressed by several academics and activists in reputable books". Regarding 'opinion attribution', a few things: the article is choked with authors' opinions which have not been attributed. Would you please be consistent and initiate 'Talk' indicating that all of these are equally unacceptable, or are you satisfied with a biased playing field? In addition, please also provide proof that the quotes which I selected are all unsubstantiated opinions, especially those by professors in the field who point to the convergence of meaning between 'hafrada' and 'apartheid'. Finally, regarding the size of the article, it is my democratic right as a Wiki editor to contribute. Nonetheless, I agree that it is unwieldy. My suggestion would be to reorder the lists of 'for' and 'opposed' parties, to incorporate them into topic categories [imprisonment without trial; registry laws; movement restrictions; forced removals; etc], and to delete any entries which cannot be accommodated in this way. Unless you can adequately address the requested substantiations I judge your objection to be without substance or foundation. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles about a derogatory term are often troublesome. There are similar problems at gay agenda, for example. Such articles attract editors with a narrow focus and a strong point of view. If you find yourself editing articles only on one subject, try doing something else for a while. It helps. The Israel-related articles have more or less stabilized after a decade of arguments, and unless there's new information, should probably be left alone. John Nagle (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Shrike, your one remaining point, i.e. the only one that is valid, is that the article is too long. So I am going to plough through the entire article (or as much of it as I can handle) and delete all citations which are a combination of more than one of: non-WP:RS; points of view; advocacy sites, op-eds or blogs which are not attributed as personal opinions; dead links with no further support (I will check scrupulously for alternative sources); syntheses; original research; etc. If any text is left without a source, I will remove it. Then I will post my latest version. Given the enthusiasm with which you and Sir Joseph reject anything vaguely guilty of these weaknesses, I trust that I have your support for this. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

If editors would spend as much discussing the specific policy of Hafrada, the specific policy of Apartheid, and the crime of apartheid in WP:NPOV tone, and then discuss which scholars have made a comparison, and why they have disagreed, again in a WP:NPOV tone as they did arguing about sources and due weight on talk, this article would be GA-class by now. I don't think it is necessary to quote political statements in this discussion from every world leader, unless they are significant beyond political blustering (like Abdullah Gul, who I removed). I would like to see this article reflect quality scholarship from both sides and be reorganized so it is coherent. I am amazed that all this talk has produced an article that is this poorly organized and improperly cited, with citations being used as an excuse to insert quotes in the article that have no connection to the text they are supposedly supporting. All this fighting, and I assume the editors defending Israel-POV are not even aware of Zilbershats, because he has not been cited once. Israel-POV should be included, but not with dead links, primary souces and quotes like

In any event, what is racism? Under apartheid it was skin colour. Applied to Israel that's a joke: for proof of that, just look at a crowd of Israeli Jews and their gradations in skin-colour from the "blackest" to the "whitest"

Seraphim System (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Right, NPOV. So we have a dictionary definition saying that Hafrada means separtion. We have a reference to a linguist writing against the two state solution of the Oslo peace accords, about the prevalence of the word separation in vairous contexts like the separation wall, ordered by (Oslo accords, remember?) Rabin and reluctantly built by Sharon (from the disengagement, something the Palestinians wanted, no?) and continued by Ehud Olmert who offered completely all of the West Bank so we are talking about separation NOT as the "name of the Israeli policy" but as the prevailing word in the process of establishing a Palestinian state, which was what Yehoram Gaon and Aviv Gefen were singing about at the fancy Oslo Accords dinners. And then you bring Gideon Levy (again? Gideon Levy?) as the top-notch NPOV totally scholarly, non-controversial article in... oh yes, but it was in Haaretz, that makes it extremely objective, no?

I incidentally am vehemently against the wall and completely agree with Klein that it was a mistake to build the supposed peace on not-caring-for-the-other-people, IMO forcing on them Arafat and his gangs (Bli Bagatz Ubli Betzelem) and allowing the Hamas and their gangs rule while throwing any moderate Arab to the dogs. I happened to get to talk to Yossi Sarid directly three times in my life, and he actually agreed with me on that point. (Once in our shared hometown Rehovot, once again at a conference of "Green" organizations, and then a year before he passed, lonely, at his book stand selling his book about overcoming cancer - it was late, the place was empty and he was happy to have my company. He was extreme left and anti religious and I slightly to the right and an orthodox Jew, which intrigued him.)

Back on topic: Since currently NO-ONE in the region seriously talks about a one state solution that includes the West Bank except the extremist Muslims (who want one state under Sharia) and the extremist-right Jews (who propose one state under Jewish Israeli rule with gradual rights given to any complacent Arabs) wouldn't it be correct to say that separation is what THE MODERATES WISH? That's what I hear Yariv Openheimer repeating, time and again (and at times I used to ask myself how he doesn't see that he's being racist). But then when you realize that in his opinion, which we all MUST realize is the more practical and accepted opinion by EVERYONE in the region, a two state solution seems to currently be the only viable solution. So no, he's not being racist, he's being human and practical and getting both sides to stay alive. I personally disagree, and think he's doing everything wrong, and that separation cannot be the sollution, but, you see, this IS NOT Separation in the sense of Apartheid, even in the general ways you wished to define it. He was the head of PEACE NOW !! פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 April 2017

‹ The template below (Edit extended-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I ask an extended confirmed user to add in the section Israel and the apartheid analogy#By others this new declaration by the head of the Red Cross:

Jacques De Maio, head of the International Committee of the Red Cross, rejected the claim that there is apartheid in Israel, saying there is "no regime of superiority of race, of denial of basic human rights to a group of people because of their alleged racial inferiority. There is a bloody national conflict, whose most prominent and tragic characteristic is its continuation over the years, decades-long, and there is a state of occupation. Not apartheid."^[17]

--190.31.109.199 (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

References

^ Gideon. "Deconstructing Apartheid Accusations Against Israel", presented on September 2007Shimoni, Gideon
^ Rufin, Jean-Christophe. "Chantier sur la lutte contre le racisme et l'antisémitisme", presented on 19 October 2004. Cited in Matas, David Aftershock: Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Dundurn, 2005, p. 54 and p. 243, footnotes 59 and 60.
^ "The poisonous myth of 'Israeli apartheid'". www.nationalpost.com. May 2009. Archived from the original on 29 February 2008. Retrieved 20 April 2008.
^ "חדשות nrg – (Israeli Arabs in the trap of self-deception)ערביי ישראל – במלכודת ההונאה העצמית". www.nrg.co.il. Retrieved 20 April 2008.
^ Please see references:^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]
^ Ilan Halevi, "Apartheid is not socialist", Revue d'études palestiniennes, no. 22, Winter 2000, pp116-17, cited in Michel Warschawski, On the Border, Pluto Press 2005, p151, ISBN 0745323251
^ Pappé, Ilan (2015). Israel and South Africa: The Many Faces of Apartheid. Zed Books. p. 9. ISBN 978-1783605897.
^ Masalha, Nur (2014). The Zionist Bible: Biblical Precedent, Colonialism and the Erasure of Memory. Routledge. p. 43. ISBN 9781317544654.
^ Ophir, Adi (2008). "Chapter 5: The Identity of the Victims and the Victims of Identity: A Critique of Zionist Ideology for a Postzionist Age". In Silberstein, Laurence Jay (ed.). Postzionism: A Reader. Rutgers University Press. p. 98. ISBN 9780813543475.
^ "Topic Page: Apartheid". CREDO.
^ Cite error: The named reference Dictionary definition was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Ilan Halevi, "Apartheid is not socialist", Revue d'études palestiniennes, no. 22, Winter 2000, pp116-17, cited in Michel Warschawski, On the Border, Pluto Press 2005, p151, ISBN 0745323251
^ Dr Jeff Harper. "Between Apartheid and the Status Quo". Retrieved 5 April 2017.
^ Ilan Pappé quoting Jonathan Cook (2015). "Israel and South Africa - The Many Faces of Apartheid". Zed Books. p. 9. Retrieved 5 April 2017.
^ Sean Jacobs and Jon Soske (2015). "Apartheid Israel: The Politics of an Analogy". Haymarker Books. p. 1.
^ Eda Ruhiye Uca (2013). "Hornets at the Round Table". p. 1.
^ "ICRC official: Israel is not an apartheid state, but there is occupation". Ynet News. 26 April 2017.

Done. Though quote is a little lengthy relative to the prose. El_C 09:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to undo it. Why is the opinion of De Maio, who has no Wikipedia article and no known expertise vis-à-vis apartheid, worth a paragraph in an article that is already an overly long quote farm? I'd like to see consensus for inclusion before it's restored (plus WP:ARBPIA requires it). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Becouse It was reported by WP:RS thus make it notable and WP:DUE to include.--Shrike (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Shrike is once again incorrectly pushing his own editing style that everything reported by WP:RS press is WP:DUE for inclusion, this obviously has a destructive effect on the readability, balance and quality of Wikipedia articles, in general - but in this case ICRC is an expert opinion that is persuasive - unlike the many biased advocacy sources in this article that should be removed, this is one quote that is appropriate for the criticism section. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Shrike, please read WP:ONUS, which says (in part): "While content must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, verifiability alone is not a reason for inclusion, and does not guarantee that any content must be included in an article." Yes, something needs an RS to make it into the article, but having an RS doesn't automatically give it a free pass into the article. That's determined by consensus: Is it important enough to add? Will adding it give undue weight to a fringe or minority viewpoint? In this case, we also have to ask whether the author's opinion is relevant. Everybody has an opinion, but some are more important than others. If we add the opinion, have we added anything of value to the reader, who already has to slog through a quote-farm? Does this opinion bring a new perspective or a unique insight that's lacking in the dozens of quotes from better qualified observers already in the article? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Section is, actually, rather brief. Certainly, the view of the head of the International Committee of the Red Cross merits inclusion. Reverting due to length—really? El_C 22:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The readable prose size of the article is 158 kB. The Article size guideline recommends that articles over 100 kB be split. We need to summarize the arguments that support and oppose likening Israel and Israeli practices to apartheid, not quote them verbatim, ad nauseum. A long time ago, somebody said, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem", and there are few places I have found it to be more true than editing this article and Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see Wikipedia running out of storage space, so I am not sure there is a need to omit data well supported by WP:RS for length reasons. And why do you awalys remove content from the side opposing the comparison in order to "save space", but never from the section supporting it? Even when it comes to tags and dead links, only those criticizing the analogy are marked (what about this, for example?). Malik Shabazz, as a matter of fact, Jacques De Maio did have experience with apartheid, as he said "The Red Cross was very familiar with the regime that prevailed in South Africa during the apartheid period, and we are responding to all those who raise their claim of apartheid against Israel: No, there is no apartheid here."--200.45.189.35 (talk) 03:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. I'm glad that you have analyzed the 103,000 edits I have made to Wikipedia and come to that conclusion. (Somehow, I doubt you went through even the 60 I made to this article.)

Please read the source more carefully. De Maio clearly says—in the very text you copied and pasted—that the ICRC has experience in apartheid South Africa, not that he himself has any. Note, too, that the ICRC has been in Israel since 1948, not Mr. De Maio, who is only 53 years old, and has "personal experience in Red Cross relief and rescue operations in the most repressive and dangerous places around the globe: Afghanistan, Rwanda, Uganda, Somalia, Kuwait, Latin America and more." No mention of South Africa. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The opinion of the Israel/Palestine ICRC head is highly relevant. The ICRC is an humantarian institution with a mandate to protect victims, civilians, etc. in armed conflicts. As such the organization (and its managers) are well versed in humanitarian law on the one side, and on the other are intimately involved with the facts on the ground.Icewhiz (talk) 06:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course the ICRC is a RS and should be included; the idea that Wikipedia has no room for the ICRC, but limitless space for dubious supporters of the apartheid analogy like the novelist Alice Walker, only shows yet again how systematically biased against Israel Wikipedia truly is.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: I removed Alice Walker and Nigel Kennedy also. Neither the support or criticsm sections should be written by farming quotes. No Wikipedia article should be written by farming quotes, for many reasons, including style, readability and WP:OR. There has been academic discussion about this between Dugard and Zilbershats which should cover both sides of the argument. Of course there is room for additional expert opinions, but apartheid is a legal accusation - ICRC has some persuasive authority in this area, but many of these sources do not. We should summarize the secondary source scholarly discussion because that is how Wikipedia articles are written. The Zilbershats article can be found in full here Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Consensus to restore

Myself, Shrike, Seraphim System, TTAC, Icewhiz, and two IPs think it merits inclusion, versus Malik Shabazz. That's 7:1, so I think we have consensus to restore. El_C 08:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Evidently math and logic are not your strong suits. First, consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by the strength of the arguments. Second, IP editors' opinions don't matter under WP:ARBPIA3#500/50. Finally, what's the hurry? There is no deadline. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 10:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I've stricken my comment, which was inappropriate. El C, I'm sorry about what I wrote. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

If you think I'm going to stoop to this line of discourse you are sorely mistaken. El_C 11:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Add me to the list of who wants it included. It is ludicrous that the ICRC person would not be a RS, but as mentioned earlier, Alice Walker is? The ICRC is most certainly RS for something like this. That the actual person wasn't around in 48 or SA, is irrelevant. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm restoring this, we have clear consensus. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

1. I

Agree with El_C. Lets keep the discussion to the point and not finger pointing about personal bias or capabilities. I would rather have not read the personal tone taken against El_C about his capabilities in math or logic, and equally didn't like the anonymous attack against Malik about his supposedly deliberate edits here. In answer to Malik's question: The reason De Maio's say is important is because he runs the ambulance service that oversees both sides' ambulance services. Apartheid was the institutionalized non service for blacks. I once left the school for deaf and dumb (Jews and Arabs together...) where I was a teacher, and was talking with a group of fellow teachers just outside the gates of the old building. Suddenly our young speech clinic technician gasped and covered her mouth. Here too? she asked. What? I asked as she pointed to the sign: Bet Sefer Ivri Levanim. Hebrew school for boys. When she said I'm from South Africa and didn't expect that here. I finally realized she was reading the word "Levanim" as Whites. In Israel, there is no such case. As in the talk page for "Self Hating Jews" (where we had a bit of a heated discussion) the term "Apartheid" is used in a way that often totally skews the reality of life here. Yes I am living here in Israel, have Arab Muslim friends here and frequently travel to settlements where I have family and friends. My rabbi is an Ethiopian Jew, and my daughter recently came back from several months volunteering in Ghanna and touring Ethiopia with her Ethiopian friend.

2. I side with Icewhiz' answer about relevance, with 200.45.189.35's remark about space, with Sir Joseph's refute to your non-inclusion arguments, with Serphim's remark about it being especially appropriate, and with Shrike's note on the WP:RS (not going into the rest). I agree that the article as it is now, is strongly biased. Put together I think there ARE both logic and concensus here against your removal. If the originator 190.31.109.199 is another person, I side with him as well. Who do you see that says to keep it?

3. Last but not least De Maio is obviously stating a POV with a clear argument that has not been heard till now, pinpointing the difference between the Arab/Muslim Israeli/Jewish conflict and white colonialism in Africa in general and in South Africa in particular.

4. The only reservation I have is the way this is being done originated by an anonymous user. I believe that truth prevails and ask you to log in with your real name and simply comply to the wp. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Pashute: I restored the ICRC quote already. I would suggest reading this introductory background. Apartheid has been codified as a crime under international law. The page is not about the institution os Apartheid in South Africa - Israel has been accused of committing the crime of apartheid. The fact that it is not white/black distinction is relevant only if it is a material fact - that is why I suggest reviewing Zilbershats, who is a law expert. This "analogy" needs to be discussed by secondary sources , quote farming primary sources to make an argument for (or against) is WP:OR Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Seraphim, I ask you. Seriously. So all your edits are NPOV and anybody who differs POV? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I have made edits removing content both supporting and opposed to the analogy on this page for policy reasons. I supported including ICRC, I also support including Zilbershats and Dugard. Yes, I think my edits are WP:NPOV and based on WP:RS WP:V WP:DUE WP:OR. I have asked others here several times to justify inclusion of a source based on WP:DUE and to review sources to avoid using them as WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR - would these same editors would object if content that was contrary to their POV was included this way? Does an editors' application of policy change based on what POV is being defended? Mine does not. I wanted to include Alice Walker, but I removed her as undue WP:PRIMARY and because she is not an academic source, and we are supposed to summarize secondary sources - not string together primary quotes - this is WP:OR Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Useful resource

This is probably not in itself a usable reliable source to be quoted in the article, but South African-born activist Richard Kuper has just written an article discussing the frequent use of this analogy in Israeli political discourse.[20] Kuper provides links to many instances of this usage, including by academics, mainstream journalists and leading politicians (including one president and two prime ministers).RolandR (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think this isn't usable? It could be attributed. If editors want to go through it and include instances that Kuper mentions, they should also cite this article in order to avoid plagiarism. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm stepping away from this article

After the complaint at SPI citing my comments here about undue and primary sources, and the ARBCOM complaint the morning after I first started to try to build consensus amongst editors here to clean up this article I think my continued involvement here will not be productive. It is extremely difficult to assume editors are acting in good faith when even citations that fail verification are restored. I tried sourcing some of the statements in this article and found that they contradict other major sources in this article (like Benjamin Pogrund) - the article doesn't mention any disagreement, or offer any attribution for statements like this. This is the only ARBPIA article I am still involved in, and I am washing my hands clean of it.

Further Shrike I don't think an interaction ban is necessary, but I don't want to interact with you. I have already asked you to not comment on my talk page. The fact that you stalk any discussion that happens to be about me makes me uncomfortable. It feels unhealthy and inappropriate, in that it fundamentally stems from a political disagreement. Please keep your distance, as will I. Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Israel and the apartheid analogy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to modify article name

I would like to propose a minor amendment to the article name and change it to Israeli apartheid analogy. This is simply to make the title more succinct. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Stephen Robert

This section has just been completely removed from the article without discussion:

In the 2010s, American Jewish financier and philanthropist Stephen Robert has published several articles critical of Israel's policies on Palestine, in venues including The Nation,^[1]^[2] Haaretz,^[3]^[4]^[5] and the New York Times.^[6] He has also spoken at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University, with the same critiques.^[7]^[8] From his standpoint as a Jew, a supporter of Israel, a benefactor and director of the Museum of Jewish Heritage,^[9] a director of the U.S./Middle East Project,^[10] and a governor of the American Jewish Committee,^[7] he has maintained that Israel is an apartheid state.^[1]^[2]^[4]^[5] Citing the UN's specific definition of apartheid – a system where "one institutionalized racial group deprives another racial group of their rights" – he has pointed out, among other deprivations, Palestinians' inability to receive secondary and tertiary medical care; their lack of freedom of movement; restrictions on trade, water, and farming; and the arbitrary arrest they are subject to.^[7]^[8]^[4]

References

^ ^a ^b Robert, Stephen. "Apartheid on Steroids". The Nation. August 12, 2011.
^ ^a ^b Al Maeena, Tariq A. "An apartheid state on steroids". Gulf News. May 3, 2014.
^ Robert, Stephen. "Can Moral Nations Abandon Palestine?" Haaretz. November 25, 2011.
^ ^a ^b ^c Robert, Stephen. "There'll Be More Gazas Without a Two-state Solution". Haaretz. March 8, 2014.
^ ^a ^b Robert, Stephen. "Without a Palestinian State, Israel Can Never Be Jewish or Democratic". Haaretz. December 30, 2014.
^ Robert, Stephen. "A Reset in Jewish Thinking". New York Times. April 24, 2012.
^ ^a ^b ^c "Critical Conversations on Palestine and Israel 3/5/2015" (video, 27:23–47:45). Brown University. March 5, 2015.
^ ^a ^b Chernin, Michael. "Critical Conversations on Israel and Palestine: What Is To Be Done?". Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Brown University. March 9, 2015.
^ The Brown University News Bureau. "The Stephen Robert Initiative for the Study of Values". News From Brown. May 27, 1999.
^ "Stephen Robert". Huffington Post. Retrieved May 4, 2017.

While the section could certainly be trimmed (or re-worded; his actual quotes are much more damning and he calls the system "apartheid on steroids"), I don't see any cause for its removal. Many of the persons referred to or quoted in this wiki are non-notable (don't have a Wikipedia article). Very few of the supporters of the apartheid analogy are Jews, and few are American Jews. Could we please have a discussion and consensus before removal of this section? Softlavender (talk) 04:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that, Softlavender. The length of this article is a perennial problem, and my feeling is that no individual should have a paragraph of this length added. It seems to me that you must be familiar with Stephen Robert and the sources, but I didn't feel comfortable trying to whittle down the paragraph with no knowledge of Robert and insufficient time to read all the sources cited. This is just my opinion, but I think any new paragraph added to the article about a single person needs to be much shorter, unless that person somehow brings peace to the Palestinians and the Israelis.

Having said that, I was (and remain) surprised to read the paragraph. I would think that a prominent American Jew who describes Israel as an apartheid state would be well-known—likely pilloried or celebrated, depending on the source's point of view—but not ignored. Where is the coverage of him (as opposed to op-ed columns he has written)?

Anyway, I'm curious what other editors think. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this article is a disaster. It is full of "X said this, Y said that", with no indication of prominence, coherence or importance. There are also many overlapping things between many quotes. If you see the Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy#Differences_between_Israeli_and_South_African_policies section, long paragraphs are given to StandWithUs and HonestReporting, sourced to themselves, with no indication that anyone gives a damn about what they say. The story is much the same elsewhere. Anyway, focusing on this particular case, the paragraph is decent, but oddly placed. I don't know much about this guy. Is Stephen Robert an "activist"? Many of his criticisms are echoed elsewhere on the page. He has written several op-eds, but has he been quoted elsewhere? The paragraph seems a bit long, it can be cut down a bit. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

If I have time and inclination, I will see if I can re-word it to make it more strategically applicable and pin-pointed, and also so as hopefully not to duplicate other things in the article. I'll also see if there is possibly a better location for it. It seems to me there should probably be a section on support by (non-Israeli) Jews. Softlavender (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

"Allegations" discussion

Note, that several editors (both on the support and oppose camps here) have voiced the opinion that Israeli Apartheid Allegations (or perhaps Allegations of Israeli Apartheid ?) is a better title than the suggested move target and also the current title. From parsing the votes here so far, this has wider support than the Rfc's target. The use of "and the" as well as "analogy" is cumbersome (according to several ediotrs), and there is a need, in the title, to state that this is a claim / allegation / defamation and not a definite statement of fact in WP's voice.Icewhiz (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly: Allegations of Apartheid in Israel. And let's throw out all the claptrap about comparisons to South Africa - not relevant! Article should concentrate on the legal issues. Ravpapa (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem with "allegations" is that in popular discourse, outside of criminal courts, it's a term used to discredit something and suggest an accusation doesn't have evidence to back it up eg "those are only allegations", so it's not neutral. For instance http://www.yourdictionary.com/allegation has as its primary definition:

allegation -noun 1. The definition of an allegation is an accusation against someone without proof.

An example of an allegation is when a parent accuses his child of stealing money out of his wallet, but he is only making a guess since he didn’t see it happen. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Per mw [21] : 1 the act of alleging something 2 a positive assertion especially of misconduct Some former colleagues have made serious allegations against him.; specifically : a statement by a party to a legal action of what the party undertakes to prove 3 an assertion unsupported and by implication regarded as unsupportable Only usage (3) is unsupported and unsupportable. You could go perhaps with "claims". If there is an article on "Israel and the apartheid analogy" - it should be clear in the title that this is a viewpoint by some. Not a statement of fact.Icewhiz (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

"Only usage (3) is unsupported and unsupportable" How do we cherry pick and say we mean this definition and not that definition? Clearly the term allegations is often used to be dismissive of an accusation. It's not a suitable term here because it carries non-neutral connotations. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/allegation gives the following as a definition of allegation:

2. an assertion made with little or no proof.

Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The point is, as MW suggests as well, the term allegations is often used to suggest an accusation lacks evidence so it's not a neutral term when you're discussing political or social issues. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

And here's the definition Google highlights:

al·le·ga·tion

ˌaləˈɡāSH(ə)n/

noun

a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.[22]

Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

If you truly are concerned with that possible use of allegation (in a non-technical sense), claims - as per google plural noun: claims 1. an assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt. "he was dogged by the claim that he had CIA links" synonyms: assertion, declaration, profession, affirmation, avowal, protestation; More 2. a demand or request for something considered one's due. "the court had denied their claims to asylum" synonyms: request, application; More (in usage(1) sense, usage(2) (payment claim) clearly not relevant) - does not contain a negative connotation to the claim being untrue, but does state that this is used when the truth is disputed or in doubt - which is clearly the point here, as some are making this claim while others are disputing it.Icewhiz (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Or alternatively Alleged Israeli Apartheid, as per mw: [23] 1: accused but not proven or convicted an alleged burglar 2: asserted to be true or to exist an alleged miracle an alleged conspiracy 3: questionably true or of a specified kind : supposed, so-called bought an alleged antique vase.Icewhiz (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Alleged and allegation are different forms of the same word and have the same definition and thus the same connotations and unsuitability. A neutral term would be accusation.Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

First of - no allegation and alleged don't have the same contextual meaning, despite arising from the same root, as can be seen by the relevant dictionary entry where the third (minor) usage of allegation includes implied false (as opposed to the second that does not) whereas this is not the stated in regard to alleged - which is frequently used by media to report as of yet unproved statements or guild... Note that the major usage of a word usually takes precedent over a minor one. Regarding accusations - that won't fly. As accusations per mw: 1: a charge of wrongdoing The evidence confirms the accusations made against him. She denied the accusation. 2 : the act of accusing someone : the state or fact of being accused implies a formal accusation by a body with the undisputed authority to make such an accusation - which is not the case here.Icewhiz (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

"Alleged" is the adjective form of the noun "allegation". It's the same word. If you are suggesting they are not the same word then please give tell me what you think the adjective for "allegation" is Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Verbs, nouns, and adjectives all have their own dictionary entries and associated usage - especially when such association arises from extended use, but not from the word itself - often varies between different forms. In this case, the 15th century original use was simply testimony in court (without any association of "falseness") - per mw: These days, someone "alleges" something before presenting the evidence to prove it (or perhaps without evidence at all), but the word actually derives from the Middle English verb alleggen, meaning "to submit (something) in evidence or as justification." Alleggen, in turn, traces back to Anglo-French and probably ultimately to Latin allegare, meaning "to send as a representative" or "to offer as proof in support of a plea." Indeed, allege once referred to the actions of someone who came forward to testify in court; this sense isn't used anymore, but it led to the development of the current "assert without proof" sense.. The noun, in this case, has an associated minor usage which is not present in the adjective.Icewhiz (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

"Alleged", whether because they are the same word or out of sheer coincidence, has the same problems as "allegation" in terms of neutrality. The dictionary.com definition for instance includes the following: [24]

alleged (əˈlɛdʒd)

adj (prenominal)

1. stated or described to be such; presumed: the alleged murderer.

2. dubious: an alleged miracle.

al•leged (əˈlɛdʒd, əˈlɛdʒ ɪd)

adj.

1. declared or stated to be as described; asserted: an alleged murderer.

2. doubtful; suspect; supposed: an alleged cure.

Instead of saying we should ignore the secondary definitions why not use a word that doesn't have those secondary definitions or connotations such as "accusation" or "analogy"? Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Accusation, as stated above, implies a formal charge by a legal entity (e.g. crown prosecutor, D.A.) whose jurisdiction is not in doubt - which is not the case here. "analogy" only flies in an "and the" context, as otherwise the adjective use of Israeli (changed from "Israel and the") permits of the parsing of (Israeli apartheid) (analogy).Icewhiz (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

"Accusation, as stated above, implies a formal charge by a legal entity" actually, the legal term would be "allegations" or in a civil matter "claim" such as "statement of claim".Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Lots of words have multiple meanings, that does not mean that we do not use the correct word because another meaning exists for it. Drugard has used the word alleation, the ADL has used the word allegation and we should follow the sources and also use the word allegation or alleged. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC) <ref>{{Cite web| last = Section| first = United Nations News Service| title = UN News - Israel uses excessive force and annexation in Palestinian territories – UN report| work = UN News Service Section| accessdate = 2017-06-01| date = 2003-09-30| url = http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=8409&Cr=mid}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book| publisher = BRILL| isbn = 978-90-04-34007-7| last1 = Maluwa| first1 = Tiyanjana| last2 = Plessis| first2 = Max du| last3 = Tladi| first3 = Dire| title = The Pursuit of a Brave New World in International Law: Essays in Honour of John Dugard| date = 2017-01-10}}</ref>

I was just having some fun. Accusation and allegation are both legal terms but in the non-legal world "accusation" is not used to be dismissive the way "allegation" and "alleged" are. Alleged and allegation both have secondary definitions that are used to disparage so why not use a term that doesn't have those secondary meanings such as "accusation"? Icewhiz's argument doesn't stand up as the exact same thing can be said of the term he is proposing. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

"Accusation" implies a formal charge, from a legal entity with clear and undisputed jurisdiction. The major use-case of alleged does not imply falseness, just that the claim hasn't been proven/accepted by all. Alleged is frequently used also when there is little doubt of the guilt of the subject (e.g. alleged suicide bomber in the 2017 Manchester bombing, or alleged Islamic extremism as motive thereof) - in such use it doesn't imply that the allegation is untrue or unfounded just not yet fully proven (of course it is also used in cases where the allegation is unfounded). It seems You are the only one opposing "Allegation" or "Alleged".Icewhiz (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

e.g. uses of "alleged suicide bomber" in cases where this allegation is 99% true to a casual observer (at the time of the article) - [25] [26] [27].Icewhiz (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

So you mean when it's used as a legal term, which is the justification you're using to reject "accusation". Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

That is the primary usage per Merriam Webster and Oxford. It is also the use of the Latin source of the word (accusatio). The informal - e.g. - "Sally accused Jim of stealing her lunch bag" is secondary.Icewhiz (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The terms "alleged" and "allegation" are not viable here due to their connotations. They are not neutral terms because of their secondary definitions which cannot be ignored. Try another word. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm backing off from this discussion - letting other editors take a position. I will note, that so far, you are the only one here who has objected to allegations. Most of the other editors seem to think this is a more technically correct term.Icewhiz (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@User:Icewhiz, and I'll note that Allegations of Israeli Apartheid was formally suggested as a title in an RFC in January and was roundly rejected (see Talk:Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy/Archive_40#Suggested_Titles) so to say I am "the only one" who is opposed to using the term is demonstrably false. Moreover, to propose a name change to a title that has already been rejected in an RFC is an abuse of process. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I was not aware of that, I did not review all 40 archived talk pages here. Though I will note in the Rfc you dug up, "Israeli apartheid analogy" is mentioned and seems to gain no traction at all.Icewhiz (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The prior RFC was closed by the original mover quite prematurely. The arguments in favour of moving the title were never clearly resolved, and consensus never reached. The actual result was Wikipedia:Consensus § No consensus. Nonetheless, I can see the logic in a point that has already been made: the article currently discusses the comparison with South African apartheid more than the allegations of committing the Crime of Apartheid, so it would seem a lot of work is needed to bring the article in line with the academic consensus on the topic. TrickyH (talk) 03:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

And also @User:Icewhiz please see wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Article_titles#Neutrality_in_article_titles which explicitly says:

Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation implies wrongdoing, and so should be avoided in a descriptive title. (Exception: articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are appropriately described as "allegations".)

In other words, using "allegations" in the title would be a violation of Wikipedia policy. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

"Accusations" may be similarly problematic. I think building on Icewhiz's earlier suggestion a title such as Israel apartheid claims may be viable. As well, that phrase (and "Israeli apartheid claims") come up numerous times in Google as well and is used widely by sources that dispute the claims so the phrase doesn't seem to be inherently biased against Israel, which is a concern some editors have expressed about the term "analogy".[28] Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hungarian Phrasebook:Quite coincidentally, it was I who wrote that sentence in the policy many years ago, and I can tell you that this case is precisely what I meant - a case where there is an accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven. So, contrary to your understanding, the use of the word "allegations" in this context would be precisely following Wikipedia policy. Ravpapa (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

My objection, detailed throughout this section, still stands, as does the fact that the use of the term "allegations" was explicitly rejected at the last RFC. And given that there have been no formal criminal charges against Israel in any court for the crime of apartheid the use of the term in the title is also a violation of Wikipedia policy above, regardless of who wrote it. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand how any editors could argue that "analogy" is inherently biased against Israel, and so are "allegations". One refers to a legal claim (made by, amongst others, the UN special rapporteur Richard Falk), not yet tested in any international court, and is widely discussed in the academic literature. It's an open and shut case, and a dictionary definition doesn't undermine the Wikipedia policy that is explicitly supported by the author of said policy. The other, as demonstrated by the previous RfC, is almost undiscussed in academic writing, and distracts from the meaningful encyclopedic content. TrickyH (talk) 03:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Allegations is problematic for the reasons I've discussed above. What about "Israel apartheid claims"? Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Personally I have no problems with Claims of Apartheid in Israel, but I don't see that you've identified any problems above that haven't been answered. "Allegations" is fine by the policy, and it seems far better supported by academic sources than "claims". There is no wording that will keep everyone happy or avoid all possible connotations, so I'm inclined to follow the sources. TrickyH (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll say it again - "allegations" has POV connotations and in popular discourse is a term used to imply that an accusation is dubious and has no merit and I've provided numerous dictionary citations to back this up. The "answer" provided is to ignore those connotations and secondary definitions. That's not a satisfactory answer. Why not simply find a term that does not have those secondary definitions? A term such as "accusation" or "claim"? You've said you have no problem with claim and Icewhiz is actually the person who proposed claim so as there is no objection to it why not formally propose it rather than remain stuck on "allegations" a term that has been explicitly rejected (and looking at the archives it hasn't just been rejected once, but numerous times). And as per the requirement to be concise I would suggest either "Israel apartheid claims" or "Israeli apartheid claims" or "Israel and apartheid claims" though I'd say as they have fewer words the first two are preferable. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

"claims of Israeli Apartheid" is probably more precise.Icewhiz (talk) 12:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I think as the principal focus of the article is Israel it makes more sense to have that word first - also the phrases "Israel apartheid claims" and "Israeli apartheid claims" actually occur in that form in the literature whether they are pro-Israel sources, neutral sources, or anti-Israel sources whereas "claims of Israeli apartheid" occurs infrequently as a phrase and is less concise. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I think either of Israel apartheid claims, Israeli apartheid claims or Claims of Israeli apartheid would be an improvement over the current title. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but the title may be parsed as if Israel is making the claims vs some third party(ies) (as you may see at least I am consistent). Claims of makes it clear this is directed at Israel.Icewhiz (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: If it's an issue, then using Israel apartheid claims instead of Israeli solves it as Israel is a noun, not an adjective. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

In general, I am in favor of following the language used by WP:RS per WP:ARTICLENAME Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

You need to assume context neutral access - but I do think that if you push claims through it might fly. I'm sitting back on this thread - I think I commented more than enough - want to see what others say.Icewhiz (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I think Claims of Israeli Apartheid may be the least ambiguous title that has been suggested so far, or "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid" if we decide to follow the language used in the sources. Most likely, sources can be found that have used "Claims" as well. The problems with using an ambiguous title are foreseeable, I'm not sure what you mean by "context neutral access" — I would say that allegations against Israel, and allegations made by Israel would be different articles. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Well - we are in agreement (of "claims/allegations of" (though alleged works without an "of")). Context neutral access - looking at the title, and the title only, without any knowledge of the context or the body. We all know there are allegations towards Israel, and thus we parse an ambig title correctly. Someone who is not aware of this premise, would not, as he is looking at the title without context (e.g. Nilazi Apartheid claims - where you don't know what a Nilazi is). I personally prefer allegations, as it is more technically precise (and I discount minor uses, particularly since we use alleged routinely on perps whose guilt is barely doubted (beyond presumed innocent) by any observer), but given the previous Rfc, and comments here, claims might have wider support even if it is jargon-wise less precise.Icewhiz (talk) 05:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment. The titles "Israeli apartheid claims" and "Israeli apartheid allegations" which some people have proposed are simply bad English as they literally means "apartheid claims/allegations made by Israeli". The topic is claims about Israeli, not claims by Israel. Zero^talk 10:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It's actually not poor English because "Israeli apartheid" is used as an adjectival phrase describing the noun "claims". Some here are arguing that it's ambiguous and could be read in the manner that you suggest (and in the manner that many headlines may be read in more than one way) however, since Israel is not known to be making apartheid claims the objection is highly pedantic since it counterpoises a reading concerning hypothetical, but non-existent apartheid claims made by Israel against the phrase "Israeli apartheid" which is a phrase broadly understood as referring to the claims that Israel practices apartheid. The titles "Israel apartheid claims" or "Israeli apartheid claims" are more concise than "Claims of Israeli apartheid" and therefore preferable under Wikipedia's naming policy. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 11:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, and it's discussed at some length above. I believe that unsigned comment is from Shrike, who is not a native English speaker. I think we are mostly in agreement that it should be "Claims/Allegations of", with some debate about "Alleged Israeli Apartheid" Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Allegations/alleged is most definitely not acceptable for reasons that have been discussed at length in this and previous RFCs and has repeatedly been rejected in the past. Looking into the history of this article it turns out that it was called "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" at one point and the name was changed from that in an RFC. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 11:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Looking back at this particular discussion, it seems that Hungarian Phrasebook is strongly opposed to alleged/allegations (but accepting claims). It seems to me that most other users support alleged/allegations in preference to claims. However Hungarian Phrasebook has a point regarding past naming and RFCs. It also seems that use of "of" (as in "allegations/claims of Israeli Apartheid") has support over other forms.Icewhiz (talk) 11:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems "Claims of Israeli Apartheid" is supported — agree that we should use "of", titles should not be so concise that they compromise precision. This article had some WP:SYNTH content sourced to articles about "Lebanese apartheid" against Palestinians that did not discuss Israel. I think I removed it as WP:SYNTH, but an overly broad title could open the door on that again, and we will just have to go through this discussion again, or set up separate articles anyway if the title ends up substantially changing the topic of this article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

[btselem-1] Forbidden Checkpoints and Roads at B'Tselem

[Gideon-2] Gideon. "Deconstructing Apartheid Accusations Against Israel", presented on September 2007Shimoni, Gideon

[Rufin-3] Rufin, Jean-Christophe. "Chantier sur la lutte contre le racisme et l'antisémitisme", presented on 19 October 2004. Cited in Matas, David Aftershock: Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Dundurn, 2005, p. 54 and p. 243, footnotes 59 and 60.

[4] "The poisonous myth of 'Israeli apartheid'". www.nationalpost.com. May 2009. Archived from the original on 29 February 2008. Retrieved 20 April 2008.

[5] "חדשות nrg – (Israeli Arabs in the trap of self-deception)ערביי ישראל – במלכודת ההונאה העצמית". www.nrg.co.il. Retrieved 20 April 2008.

[Def-6] Please see references:^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

[7] Ilan Halevi, "Apartheid is not socialist", Revue d'études palestiniennes, no. 22, Winter 2000, pp116-17, cited in Michel Warschawski, On the Border, Pluto Press 2005, p151, ISBN 0745323251

[8] Pappé, Ilan (2015). Israel and South Africa: The Many Faces of Apartheid. Zed Books. p. 9. ISBN 978-1783605897.

[9] Masalha, Nur (2014). The Zionist Bible: Biblical Precedent, Colonialism and the Erasure of Memory. Routledge. p. 43. ISBN 9781317544654.

[10] Ophir, Adi (2008). "Chapter 5: The Identity of the Victims and the Victims of Identity: A Critique of Zionist Ideology for a Postzionist Age". In Silberstein, Laurence Jay (ed.). Postzionism: A Reader. Rutgers University Press. p. 98. ISBN 9780813543475.

[11] "Topic Page: Apartheid". CREDO.

[Dictionary_definition-12] Cite error: The named reference Dictionary definition was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[13] Ilan Halevi, "Apartheid is not socialist", Revue d'études palestiniennes, no. 22, Winter 2000, pp116-17, cited in Michel Warschawski, On the Border, Pluto Press 2005, p151, ISBN 0745323251

[14] Dr Jeff Harper. "Between Apartheid and the Status Quo". Retrieved 5 April 2017.

[15] Ilan Pappé quoting Jonathan Cook (2015). "Israel and South Africa - The Many Faces of Apartheid". Zed Books. p. 9. Retrieved 5 April 2017.

[16] Sean Jacobs and Jon Soske (2015). "Apartheid Israel: The Politics of an Analogy". Haymarker Books. p. 1.

[17] Eda Ruhiye Uca (2013). "Hornets at the Round Table". p. 1.

[18] "ICRC official: Israel is not an apartheid state, but there is occupation". Ynet News. 26 April 2017.

[robertapartheid-19] Robert, Stephen. "Apartheid on Steroids". The Nation. August 12, 2011.

[almaeena-20] Al Maeena, Tariq A. "An apartheid state on steroids". Gulf News. May 3, 2014.

[21] Robert, Stephen. "Can Moral Nations Abandon Palestine?" Haaretz. November 25, 2011.

[moreGazas-22] Robert, Stephen. "There'll Be More Gazas Without a Two-state Solution". Haaretz. March 8, 2014.

[neverbe-23] Robert, Stephen. "Without a Palestinian State, Israel Can Never Be Jewish or Democratic". Haaretz. December 30, 2014.

[24] Robert, Stephen. "A Reset in Jewish Thinking". New York Times. April 24, 2012.

[CCyoutube-25] "Critical Conversations on Palestine and Israel 3/5/2015" (video, 27:23–47:45). Brown University. March 5, 2015.

[conversations-26] Chernin, Michael. "Critical Conversations on Israel and Palestine: What Is To Be Done?". Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Brown University. March 9, 2015.

[27] The Brown University News Bureau. "The Stephen Robert Initiative for the Study of Values". News From Brown. May 27, 1999.

[28] "Stephen Robert". Huffington Post. Retrieved May 4, 2017.

[1]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]