Talk:Israeli apartheid

Archives
1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30
31	32	33	34

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

Israeli nationality

Possibly of interest: Supreme Court to decide if there is an ‘Israeli nation' - a new attempt to establish an Israeli nationality. Currently the Israeli Interior Ministry list has more than 130 possible nationalities for Israeli citizens on it, including Jewish, Arab, Druse, Circassian, Samarian, Hong Konger, German, Albanian and Lichtensteinian, but not Israeli. Probably, neo-Nazis would be pleased about the differentiation between Jewish and German nationality.^{(16:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC))}     ←   ZScarpia 21:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

When was the last time the United States established a "Black Village"? What would be the reaction if we did? Here's the confession to the crime of apartheid:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/953568.html Israeli Arab minister Ghaleb Majadele said on Tuesday that Israel's plans to construct a new Arab city - the first since 1948 - would strengthen the sectors' "sense of belonging" in Israel.

Hcobb (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh? You are drawing conclusions that do not exist. Nothing in the article suggests anything even resembling apartheid policies. In fact, the "city" is being pushed by the Left and Arab parties. Hopefully your inference does not make it to the article. User POV should stay out. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You two are obviously incapable of NPOV edits on this article. Your silly opinions have no place on this talk page. Keep this up and we're going to AN/I -- though I'd like to avoid it because the admins are harried enough w/ all this I/P battleground nonsense. And Wikifan, just stay away from engaging these bozos -- Wikipedia policy is against them. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I shouldn't be here anyways. I have no intention of editing the article at this point. Thanks for the comment. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

ZScarpia, if these sources don't mention apartheid then you're engaging in original research by drawing conclusions about a comparison to apartheid from them. Any conclusions described in articles must come directly from reliable sources, they cannot be the product of editor interpretation. Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledged. The reason I mentioned the newspaper piece is because the subject of nationality is discussed in the article. I thought that it may be relevant that Israeli groups have made several attempts to have the current classification system changed.     ←   ZScarpia   11:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, "I thought it may be relevant" but I decided to add this hateful editorializing: "neo-Nazis would be pleased about the differentiation between Jewish and German nationality." You best not do that again. Plot Spoiler (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I struck-out my comment. If you can give me a convincing explanation of why it was hateful, I'll try to avoid writing something like it again (though I've noticed on your talk page that you have been warned not to make hate-speak accusations without good reason, so I do hope that you can give a convincing explanation). Apologies for the offence caused.     ←   ZScarpia   16:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler (talk - considering the constant accusations of antisemitism levelled at non-Israeli editors and the failure of admins to protect them, your attack on, and threats against, Zscarpia, look quite uncalled for. -- Urbane23 16:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the moral support Urbane23. In this case, Plot Spoiler, though perhaps overreacting a bit, does have a point. The struck out sentence was something that came in to my head just before hitting the Save button which doesn't really belong here. I would quite like to know why Plot Spoiler thinks its "hateful", though (perhaps I'm being obtuse). As for calling me a bozo and so on, it has no affect on me. Hopefully Plot Spoiler feels a bit better for having "laid down the law". He or she will know nothing about my ethnic origin so wouldn't know whether to accuse me of being antisemitic or self-hating. I suppose that the course of action taken would be to accuse me of being antisemitic unless given reason to think otherwise.     ←   ZScarpia   22:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't accuse anybody of anti-Semitism yada yada. What ZScarpia said was just unnecessarily inflammatory. Thanks for your understanding. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) To return to the subject at hand, the HSRC study and the Barcelona University study both cite the nationality law as a violation of article 2 of the Aparheid Convention. Comparisons of the State of Israel's legal system to the Nuremburg race laws have been published by reliable sources, e.g. Hannah Arendt's "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil", and described as a status quo of apartheid, e.g. see Amnon Raz Krakotzkin, Chapter 10, pp 171-172 in "Hannah Arendt in Jerusalem", Steven E. Aschheim ed. [1]

During the Eichmann trial, Hannah Arendt commented on the 'breathtaking naiveté' with which the prosecutor claimed "We make no ethnic distinctions," while he denounced the Nuremberg Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor of 1935 on the grounds that it had prohibited intermarriage and sexual relations between Jews and Germans. She felt it was rather ironic, since rabbinical law legally governed the personal status of Jewish citizens, so that no Jew could marry a non-Jew. She explained that it had nothing to do with respect for the faith, but rather that religious and non-religious Jews seemed to think it was desirable to have a law that prohibited intermarriage. She observed that children of mixed marriages were legally bastards, and that if a person didn't have a Jewish mother he could neither be married nor buried. She said that government officials admitted to her privately that they were agreed upon the undesirability of a written constitution in which that sort of thing would have to be spelled out. See Eichmann in Jerusalem, by Hannah Arendt, Published by Penguin Classics, 1992, Page 7, ISBN 0140187650 harlan (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, a book I should have read by now. I'll get myself a copy. A relevant current article: Amira Hass, IDF order will enable mass deportation from West Bank.     ←   ZScarpia   02:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

tomdispatch.com - Noam Chomsky - A Middle East Peace That Could Happen (But Won’t), 27 April 2010: Meanwhile in the West Bank, always with firm U.S. backing, Israel has been carrying forward longstanding programs to take the valuable land and resources of the Palestinians and leave them in unviable cantons, mostly out of sight. Israeli commentators frankly refer to these goals as “neocolonial.” Ariel Sharon, the main architect of the settlement programs, called these cantons “Bantustans,” though the term is misleading: South Africa needed the majority black work force, while Israel would be happy if the Palestinians disappeared, and its policies are directed to that end.     ←   ZScarpia   00:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I had meant to comment on this at the time, but UN Special Rapporteur Ziegler's report on 'The strategy of “Bantustanization”'(page 9) [2] mentioned that senior Israeli commentator, Akiv Eldar, had written about the explicit use of the Bantustan concept by Israeli Prime Minister Sharon, who once “explained at length that the Bantustan model was the most appropriate solution to the conflict”. Ziegler's report was cited in Palestine's written statement to the ICJ and it was included in the Secretary-General's dossier in the ICJ Wall case. The Court based its findings on the Statements of the Secretary General and the reports by Ziegler and Dugard. See paras 132, 133, and 134 of the Advisory Opinion. [3] harlan (talk) 02:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. And also many thanks for mentioning "Eichman in Jerusalem" earlier. I did get myself a copy.     ←   ZScarpia   16:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Fund - Professor John J. Mearsheimer: The Future of Palestine: Righteous Jews vs. the New Afrikaners:

The story I will tell is straightforward. Contrary to the wishes of the Obama administration and most Americans – to include many American Jews – Israel is not going to allow the Palestinians to have a viable state of their own in Gaza and the West Bank. Regrettably, the two-state solution is now a fantasy. Instead, those territories will be incorporated into a “Greater Israel,” which will be an apartheid state bearing a marked resemblance to white-ruled South Africa. Nevertheless, a Jewish apartheid state is not politically viable over the long term. In the end, it will become a democratic bi-national state, whose politics will be dominated by its Palestinian citizens. In other words, it will cease being a Jewish state, which will mean the end of the Zionist dream.

... There are three possible alternatives to a two-state solution, all of which involve creating a Greater Israel – an Israel that effectively controls the West Bank and Gaza. In the first scenario, Greater Israel would become a democratic bi-national state in which Palestinians and Jews enjoy equal political rights. ... Second, Israel could expel most of the Palestinians from Greater Israel, thereby preserving its Jewish character through an overt act of ethnic cleansing. This is what happened in 1948 when the Zionists drove roughly 700,000 Palestinians out of the territory that became the new state of Israel, and then prevented them from returning to their homes. ... The final alternative to a two-state solution is some form of apartheid, whereby Israel increases its control over the Occupied Territories, but allows the Palestinians to exercise limited autonomy in a set of disconnected and economically crippled enclaves.

... In response, Netanyahu made it equally clear that Israel intended to continue building settlements and that he and almost everyone in his ruling coalition opposed a two-state solution. He made but a single reference to “two states” in his own speech at Bar Ilan University in June 2009, and the conditions he attached to it made it clear that he was talking about giving the Palestinians a handful of disconnected, apartheid-style Bantustans, not a fully sovereign state.

... The most likely outcome in the absence of a two-state solution is that Greater Israel will become a full-fledged apartheid state. As anyone who has spent time in the Occupied Territories knows, it is already an incipient apartheid state with separate laws, separate roads, and separate housing for Israelis and Palestinians, who are essentially confined to impoverished enclaves that they can leave and enter only with great difficulty. Israelis and their American supporters invariably bristle at the comparison to white rule in South Africa, but that is their future if they create a Greater Israel while denying full political rights to an Arab population that will soon outnumber the Jewish population in the entirety of the land. Indeed, two former Israeli prime ministers have made this very point."

... Other Israelis, as well as Jimmy Carter and Bishop Desmond Tutu, have warned that if Israel does not pull out of the Occupied Territories it will become an apartheid state like white-ruled South Africa. But if I am right, the occupation is not going to end and there will not be a two-state solution. That means Israel will complete its transformation into a full-blown apartheid state over the next decade. In the long run, however, Israel will not be able to maintain itself as an apartheid state. Like racist South Africa, it will eventually evolve into a democratic bi-national state whose politics will be dominated by the more numerous Palestinians. Of course, this means that Israel faces a bleak future as a Jewish state.

... The main problem that Israel’s defenders face, however, is that it is impossible to defend apartheid, because it is antithetical to core Western values.

... Apartheid is not only morally reprehensible, but it also guarantees that Israel will remain a strategic liability for the United States.

... Hardline Israelis and their American supporters are aware of these problems, but they are betting that the lobby will defend Israel no matter what, and that its support will be sufficient to allow apartheid Israel to survive.

    ←   ZScarpia   20:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Also: The American Conservative - John J. Mearsheimer - Sinking Ship, The attack on the Gaza relief flotilla jeopardizes Israel itself, 01 August 2010 issue.     ←   ZScarpia   00:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Part of Norman Finkelstein's take (an alternative source for the Counterpunch article cited): Carter, the media and Dershowitz.     ←   ZScarpia   14:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Haaretz - Declaring war on the intellect - Israel and Noam Chomsky, 18 May 2010 (Editorial written following the refusal to allow Noam Chomsky to enter the West Bank): One does not have to be an ardent supporter of Chomsky in order to agree with his view that Israel is behaving like South Africa in the 1960s, when it understood that it was an outcast, but thought it could solve the problem with the help of a better public relations campaign.     ←   ZScarpia   20:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The New York Review of Books - Peter Beinart - The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment, 12 May 2010:
In Israel itself, voices from the left, and even center, warn in increasingly urgent tones about threats to Israeli democracy. (Former Prime Ministers Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak have both said that Israel risks becoming an “apartheid state” if it continues to hold the West Bank. This April, when settlers forced a large Israeli bookstore to stop selling a book critical of the occupation, Shulamit Aloni, former head of the dovish Meretz Party, declared that “Israel has not been democratic for some time now.”) But in the United States, groups like AIPAC and the Presidents’ Conference patrol public discourse, scolding people who contradict their vision of Israel as a state in which all leaders cherish democracy and yearn for peace. ... But in Israel today, this humane, universalistic Zionism does not wield power. To the contrary, it is gasping for air. To understand how deeply antithetical its values are to those of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, it’s worth considering the case of Effi Eitam. Eitam, a charismatic ex–cabinet minister and war hero, has proposed ethnically cleansing Palestinians from the West Bank. “We’ll have to expel the overwhelming majority of West Bank Arabs from here and remove Israeli Arabs from [the] political system,” he declared in 2006. In 2008, Eitam merged his small Ahi Party into Netanyahu’s Likud. And for the 2009–2010 academic year, he is Netanyahu’s special emissary for overseas “campus engagement.” In that capacity, he visited a dozen American high schools and colleges last fall on the Israeli government’s behalf. The group that organized his tour was called “Caravan for Democracy.”     ←   ZScarpia   14:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Foreign Policy - Glenn Frankel - Israel's Most Illicit Affair, 24 May 2010:
"Now comes Sasha Polakow-Suransky, who is an editor at Foreign Affairs magazine, a Rhodes scholar, and an American Jew whose parents emigrated to the United States from South Africa. His singular achievement in his new book, The Unspoken Alliance: Israel's Secret Relationship with Apartheid South Africa scheduled for publication on May 25, is to have unearthed more than 7,000 pages of heretofore secret documents from the bowels of South Africa's Defense Ministry, Foreign Ministry, and Armscor, the state defense contractor, including the secret 1975 military cooperation agreement signed by defense ministers Shimon Peres and P.W. Botha."
"Polakow-Suransky sees in the excoriation of Jimmy Carter's 2006 book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid by American Jewish leaders an echo of their reflexive defense of Israel vis á vis South Africa in the 1970s and 1980s. The author himself draws uncomfortable parallels between apartheid and Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, noting that both involved the creation of a system that stifled freedom of movement and labor, denied citizenship and produced homelessness, separation, and disenfranchisement. As the Palestinian population continues to grow and eventually becomes the majority -- and Jews the minority -- in the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, the parallels with apartheid may become increasingly uncomfortable. Even Prime Minister Ehud Olmert agreed, observing in 2007 that if Israel failed to negotiate a two-state solution with the Palestinians, it would inevitably 'face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights.' 'The apartheid analogy may be inexact today,' Polakow-Suransky warns, 'but it won't be forever.' I've always believed the apartheid analogy produces more heat than light. But it's a comparison that Israel itself invited with its longstanding partnership with the white-minority regime."
    ←   ZScarpia   12:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The main section dealing with apartheid in Israeli-controlled areas of the IPSC site. Articles containing the phrase Israeli apartheid ('Hafrada' or 'afrada') on the IPSC site.     ←   ZScarpia   23:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

? What is going on?

Apparently there is mediation going on with respect to this article. Why is there no link or mention of it on this page or am I missing something? Any mediation on this article should be clearly linked for contributors and readers to see I would think? Stellarkid (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

There's an ongoing informal mediation over the title of this article at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-04-14/Israel and the apartheid analogy, please do contribute. The link to it from this talk page has dropped off because of archiving - if anyone knows of a template for informal mediation then it might be an idea to add one to this page. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Ryan. Stellarkid (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Referral to Formal Mediation

As the mediator for this article, I have been watching this talk page for some time, and I feel that it is beyond the scope of informal mediation to resolve this issue, I woiuld therefore reccomend that the editors of this article please suspend edits to the article, and request formal mediation. This is an issue that extends well beyond the confines of this article, or even Wikipedia, and as an individual with no official links to the Wikimedia foundation, I simply do not feel comfortable leaving such a poteltially litigious issue in the hands of individuals without legal protection. Ronk01 (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Formal mediation by the Mediation Committee may be a good idea. Not because there are legal issues, but because this is a protracted issue that may require experienced mediators. However, I find the rest of your comments rather surreal, even taking into account your explanation elsewhere that you are concerned about "heated comments" that I can't perceive in the informal mediation case. The informal mediation that's currently underway is in regards to the name of this article. How that issue is potentially "litigious" is beyond me. If you no longer wish to mediate the issue, let's see if someone else wants to take over. If that doesn't work out, or the Mediation Cabal agrees with your assessment that there are legal issues involved that make this case sensitive, let's go to formal mediation. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I asked for clarification at AN/I and there don't appear to be any WP:Legal issues with users editing the article. No one has made any legal threats. [4] harlan (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

To be truthful, I am overreacting, but as I explained on the AN/I page, I am covering my own a@$ here, to continue, my concern is that in the past, this article has had some serious issues with POV and COI, both of these can lead to heated discussion, (especially since this topic is such a controversial one) and heated discussion can lead to legal threats, my concern is this potential. As a professional indivudual, I cannot take the risk of exposing myself to legal action (the constant threat of malpractice is bad enough) and I would like to see this refered to individuals who cna deal with this kind of debate properly. Just a reminder, people have sued over less. Ronk01 (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Please clarify that you are asking us to stop editing the mediation case, not the Israel and the apartheid analogy article, as your recommendation was ambigious. If you no longer wish to mediate the case then you're right that we should stop editing the mediation case page, because there's no mediation without a mediator. We'll have to either wait for a new mediator to volunteer, or start a formal mediation case. I've asked for advice on the Mediation Cabal talk page. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What possible legal ramifications can come from being involved in this article? It sounds ridiculous, to be honest. Tarc (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if one editor made nasty comments about another editor, using their real name, and the other editor sued for libel? It does seem absurd that we should stop informal mediation for that reason, especially given that scenario could unfold anywhere on Wikipedia and the mediation has been very cool-headed so far. But the mediator is totally right to stop mediating if they are uncomfortable for whatever reason, even if it's a self-admitted overreaction. :) Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my reccomendation was regarding the casepage, I would reccomend formal mediation as an alternative, since disputes that lose their mediators tend to stay on the caselist for quite a while before getting picked up. Ronk01 (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking things over I can see the possibility of litigation over the "crime of apartheid" business as articulated by Harlan. Stellarkid (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my point, in addition to that, defamation suits are a real possibility here. Ronk01 (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):After all, Harlan does sound like he is attempting to make the (legal) case that the government of Israel is engaged in the crime of apartheid. That is not appropriate for WP and I can see that the GOI could conceivably take WP to court for this. If this is the case, it might be simpler to have the editor(s) in question simply cease and desist in this line of argumentation. Not clear on the defamation aspect... Stellarkid (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Frankly I consider it remote that Israel (I assume that's what GOI stands for above) would sue wiki editors. Everything on wikipedia comes from reliable sources, so Israel should rather be suing Desmond Tutu than us. As I've participated in some discussions concerning the title, I can also participate in any formal mediation. It would be my first time, though. --Dailycare (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of of who says it, Wikipedia posted it into a public forum. By the way, the suit would likely be against the Wikimedia Foundation, not the editors, so unless you want an Office Action here, (This is not a threat, I am merely concerned about the possibility) I would advise harlan and all other editors to cease and desist this line of discussion immediatly. Ronk01 (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. A state cannot be libelled, and cannot sue for libel. Even if Israel could sue for libel, an argument that it is guilty of the crime of apartheid is not a libel. Some of the comments above verge on using the threat of legal action in order to enfoerce, or block, particular edits; this is itself not allowed on Wikipedia. Editors on this article should not be constrained by this specious argumentation. RolandR (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I must agree with RolandR. Besides the legal fact that libel/defamation only applies to individuals (large groups or countries have no claim), there is the sinister suggestion "it might be simpler to have the editor(s) in question simply cease and desist in this line of argumentation". This sounds like a scare tactic to stifle discussion of possible improvements to the article. The title Israel and apartheid may be better, or may not. But we need to follow the suggestion of Ryan Paddy who - correctly - suggested on the mediation page that all alternative titles be explored and weighed. I respect the mediator's choice to bail out, but there are other mediators, I'm sure, that will step in - if not in informal mediation, then formal mediation. --Noleander (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is an absurd concern. To suggest that editors should avoid discussing whether a state is breaking an international law is the height of suppression of free speech. It could only get anyone into trouble if they live in one of those unfortunate countries where there are shitty laws against criticising the state. But Israel is not Turkey, and this isn't the Armenian Genocide debate. It looks like another editor is going to volunteer to mediate the informal mediation case, so hopefully they will be along soon and it can resume. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I am not so sure I agree with you. In the US we have something known as "class-action suits." If there is not such a concept in international law, perhaps there should be one. In Nazi Germany, the group of people called "Jews" could not sue for defamation or anything else in the German courts. Thus the German propaganda that eventually led to their mass murder was allowed to perpetuate. (Parenthetically, and belying the "apartheid" analogy, in Israel, Arab citizens (and advocacy groups) can and do file suit with the Israeli government and often win. Stellarkid (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I generally contribute to articles that fall within the scope of the Wikipedia International Law project. I can hold my own in discussions with participants who make their living writing textbooks on the International Criminal Court, working for Al-Haq, the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), and etc., e.g. [5] In short, I'm really not here looking for free legal advice. harlan (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Given Ronk01's concerns, I've offered to take over the mediation - assuming there are no objections from anyone involved, and that you all want to continue with informal mediation for a bit longer. I'll need a couple of days to look over the dispute and the arguments made so far, so I can do that while we discuss whether or not you want me to take the case. comments or questions? --Ludwigs2 21:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have strong opinions on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict? I don't much care about the answer to this because if you're a good mediator it shouldn't matter, but I think if unasked it will be the elephant in the room. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Strong opinions? No. Mostly I see it as one big ball of misery for everyone. If you pushed me on the point I'd say that political actors on both sides of the problem are guilty of intermittent fits of irrationality, and the normal citizens on both sides end up paying the price for it. I would also probably be a bit harsher on Israel because they are the more powerful force by far, which in my mind sticks them with higher standards for their behavior. But it's not an issue I think or worry about except in a passing "What is the world coming to?" sort of way. --Ludwigs2 23:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I find this "potentially litigious" concern of the previous guy to be a load of bunk, and am rather nauseated by what has happened here, to be honest. I've had no involvement in the current mediation, just have had varying levels of involvement in the article over the years. Doesn't matter which way you lean or don't lean IMO, I just wanna see someone that can see the matter through. Tarc (talk) 02:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I ahave a hard time assuming good faith from Ronk01, who exhibits all the characteristics of a disruptive user account.A quick view of his editing behavior and (user) talk page contributions paint a picture of someone who has no idea of what they are talking about. That such person has been given serious credence in a mediation process only tells me that such mediation is at best pointless at worse an attempt to poison the well in this discussion.

I am in particular piqued with the mention of "office action" and other legal stuff - people have been blocked for saying much less than he has already. Why is not some admin intervening here? Office ONLY intervenes in BLP issues and issues of copyright and doesn't accept, in a blanket policy, ANY libel issues beyond BLP and will defend the project to the utmost consequences, and to argue that some edit or editors are legally endagering the project is prima facie a violation of WP:NLT. The legal issues raised here are a distraction. Nothing to see here, move along.--Cerejota (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he intended to disrupt the case, even though that was the result. I think he is just new to mediation, uncomfortable with the subject matter, and misinformed about legal ramifications. I'd like to thank Ronk01 for giving mediating the case a try when no-one else was stepping up. Now let's get on with the case with the new mediator. Ryan Paddy (talk) 10:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

reverted source

Ttomdispatch.com is not an RS IMHO. I do not understand the ened to source Noam Chomsky in that list, but if we do, a primary source from the horses mouth is enough.--Cerejota (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the significance of Noam Chomsky: he is, of course, a very notable academic and political activist, far more noteworthy than some of the other individuals mentioned in the list. (BTW, I did not add him into the list). However, you raise a good point: at some point the list may get too long, and perhaps at that time it will need to be split out into a new article such as List of persons that discuss apartheid in relation to Israel or something similar. --Noleander (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are links to the same article, posted on Noam Chomsky's own site and on the Huffington Post site. In both places it mentions the article is crossposted on the tomdispatch.com site, where it was published first. Are either of those links acceptable? Surely, what matters in this case, since the article is being provided as a source to show what Chomsky's opinion is, is that the article is written by Noam Chomsky, not where it is published? Put another way, isn't an article on the tomdispatch.com site a reliable source for Noam Chomsky's opinions when the article itself is written by Noam Chomsky? On the question of notability, of course, everyone has their own opinion on whose is worth mentioning. At the Legal assessments of the Gaza flotilla raid, for instance, questions were asked about why Alan Dershowitz's opinion was given such prominence. He is not, after all, a specialist in international maritime law. Nor is he neutral. He is also much criticised (Ran HaCohen, for instance, views him as a "discredited joker"). I think, though, that editors should, where multiple views are being presented and they are out of sympathy with one or more of them, cut some slack to allow "the other side" to present the best case they can. I agree with Noleander's opinion of Chomsky and think that he is notable enough to be mentioned.     ←   ZScarpia   13:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Ran HaCohen is notable for his "anti-Israel" criticism? Amazing. We just lost an article on Seth Frantzman to an AfD when he at least has a large reputation and writes opinion pieces for reliable papers (JP) as opposed to Antiwar.com. I think I will put the bio up for an AfD. Why should someone be notable for criticizing the Jewish State only? It is clearly not sufficient for notability when the shoe is on the other (Palestinian) foot! Stellarkid (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post is a quality newspaper, meaning, for one thing, that its fact-checking is likely to be stronger. Is that what you meant by a "reliable newspaper"? It is not reliable in the same sense as academic journals where the content is peer reviewed, though. Whether particular content can be taken as a statement of fact will depend on factors such as who wrote it. Source reliability, is of course, determined by consensus. As far as I know, I've never heard of Seth Frantzman (would this be him?) and I took no part in the AFD (I'll do a Google search for articles of his later, though). When you say, "we just lost an article on Seth Franzman," would I be right in assuming that the we you are referring to is "pro-Israel" editors? As far as the article on Ran HaCohen is concerned, you are, of course, quite within your rights to make an AFD. It would be good if it didn't sound as though you were doing it for tit-for-tat reasons, though. There is a little more to Ran HaCohen than writing for Antiwar.com. He is published other places, including Yedioth Ahronoth, "the most widely circulated paper in Israel" (interesting that you didn't similarly describe Seth Franzman as a contributor to FrontPage magazine). I have to admit, the article is a bit stub-like and reference-free, though (perhaps I'll take some time to do something about that - for a start, the article could do with a photo: a pity that the one here is so small).     ←   ZScarpia   16:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC) (postscript: I see that Wikipedia editor Sfrantzman is the writer Seth Frantzman; it looks as though he's at the start of a prolific writing career, so perhaps deleting the article on him was premature)

I agree it was premature but that didn't stop all the usual suspects from coming in and arguing that he was nothing more than a blogger. Nor would an AfD be a tit-for-tat because it appears Ran HaCohen does not look like he has as large a reputation that Frantzman does. Makes it look like the Frantzman AfD was a purely political one. Surprise! The other sources that SF has written for include the Tucson Weekly, Jerusalem Post, Middle East Quarterly,National Post, The Jewish Press, and Canadian Jewish News. Stellarkid (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I notice that Jezhotwells has been opening AfDs on a number of BLP articles which have had long-term Unsourced tags on them. Could that have been why he listed the Frantzman article? Clearly, the argument that Franzman is nothing more than a blogger has no validity. I noticed that he described Time Immemorial on Amazon as: "The classic work on The Jewish Settlement of Palestine. This is the classic book that explodes the myths surrounding the establishment of a Jewish State in Israel." Presumably he's not a great admirer of Norman Finkelstein?     ←   ZScarpia   00:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The article on Ran HaCohen is too much of a stub. But, as ZScarpia notes, he is much more than a writer for AQntiwar.com. For a start, he is an academic at Tel Aviv University, and a significant translator.[6] RolandR (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

That is his own page on which he is touting his own horn. Translations are given as his "field of interest." Not sure how notable that is.Stellarkid (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky appears to be a suitably prominent source in relation to the Israel/apartheid subject (note that it's prominence of views and representatives that matters for WP:NPOV, not notability of authors). If Chomsky has published a suitable article in several places, then we should cite the publication that best meets WP:RS, which is probably the Huffington Post. According to WP:RS if a writer is an "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" then we could cite his self-published work, but that's not the preferred option and it isn't necessary here with the Huffington Post copy available. All the other talk about biographies of other writers and whether they are notable doesn't really belong here, it should be on their talk pages or the relevant Article for Deletion pages. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The way I look at it is that a list of people and organisations who have made the analogy has been included and the problem is to decide who should be included. The natural way to do that is to come to a consensus over who the most influential or notable (meaning, amount of attention paid to their views) people and organisations are and at where the cutoff for inclusion should be. In WP:NOR, prominence has to do with properly balancing the weight given to individual viewpoints. I think that the amount of attention given go the recent refusal to allow Chomsky entry to Israel demonstrates that he is seen as having significance.     ←   ZScarpia   23:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Informal mediation on the title continues

Please note that the informal mediation on the title of this article is continuing at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-04-14/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy. Sign up as an involved party and join the discussion if you have an opinion on the title. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Claim that Israel has never been charged with apartheid in a court

The statute of the International Court of Justice permits interested state parties and international organizations to participate in its cases. In the 2004 Wall case, the written submission of the State of Lebanon said

"The construction of the wall and the resulting situation correspond to a number of the constituent acts of the crime of apartheid, as enumerated in Article 2 of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, adopted by the General Assembly on 30 November 1973: that is to say, the denial of the liberty and dignity of a group, the deliberate imposition on a group of living conditions calculated to cause its physical destruction in whole or in part, measures calculated to deprive a group of the right to work, the right to education and the right to freedom of movement and residence, the creation of ghettos, the expropriation of property, etc. Such actions constitute measures of collective punishment." See paragraph 38, page 8, Written Statement of Lebanon [7]

The Secretary-General's dossier included reports from Rapporteurs Dugard and Ziegler.[8] [9] Those reports and Chapter 10 of the written submission of the State of Palestine [10] outlined a deliberate "strategy of Bantustanization", including the "apartheid wall", and similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination, as defined by the Court in the Namibia case and the Apartheid Convention. harlan (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So the state of Lebanon says. It isn't even a principal in the case and they treat their Palestinian refugees horribly. The 2004 advisory opinion was sought to answer "what are the legal consequences arising from the wall"? It did not charge Israel with apartheid. The opinion did not address apartheid in any way. The fact that Israel and the "State of Palestine" submitted written documents accusing Israel of apartheid, and that the court accepted their submissions, does not mean anything more than if Israel wrote a written statement saying whatever. The court would have accepted Israel's submission as well. The UN also accepts documents because they are written and offered, but that does not mean they accept the conclusions or opinions of said documents. The opinion did not address "apartheid" or accuse Israel of "apartheid." The court did not charge or indict Israel. It offered an advisory opinion on the wall which didn't involve the concept of "apartheid". To get to the court ruling to "apartheid" is WP:SYNTH.Stellarkid (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Stellarkid, you inserted an unsourced disclaimer. Do you have a source that says anything about Israel not having been charged with the crime of apartheid in a court and why that would affect the arguments of those who say it is guilty of apartheid? Yes or no, simple question, simple answer. If the answer is no, then it is SYNTH for you to put that disclaimer in the article. nableezy - 05:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Israel has not been charged in any court. Perhaps you can find an RS that says differently? It is not up to us to prove a negative. Stellarkid (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Im not the one trying to add a disclaimer that no sources use, I dont need a source, you do. nableezy - 13:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Stellarkid, I usually just let published sources speak for themselves. The legal theory of the case set forth in the PLO Executive Summary, Annex II of the Secretary-General's dossier,[11] was that Israel was violating the ICCPR, the ICESCR, and the UNCRC. Those violations of Palestinian human rights, including facilitating the entry into and residency of Israeli civilians in the Closed Area while restricting Palestinian access to and residency in that Area, caused long-term, permanent harm, including the transfer of Palestinians, contrary to the Fourth Geneva Convention and the human rights conventions. Because those Israeli measures were neither necessary nor proportionate, they give rise to criminal liability by the Government of Israel for violations of human rights and some prima facie grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Chapter 10 of Palestine's brief cites those conventions and says the parallels to the Namibia case are blatant. Palestine's brief cites the Ziegler report, CERD reports, etc.

Israel is not a contracting state to the Apartheid Convention, the Rome Statute, or Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Convention. That leaves the ICERD, ICCPR, ICESCR, and the customary international prohibition on apartheid. In 2004 a group of legal experts at the University of Oxford wrote an International Law Opinion for the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI). It stated that "The Barrier discriminates against Palestinians on prohibited grounds (ICCPR, Art 2(1) and ICESCR, Art 2(2)), and may amount to a violation of the international customary prohibition on apartheid, as an aggravated form of racial discrimination."[12] Their full report said

The Barrier and related measures are targeted at Palestinians as a racial group, not just at individual suspected terrorists. The Barrier: (a) is a measure calculated to prevent Palestinians from participating fully in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country; (b) creates conditions preventing the full development of Palestinians as a group, by denying rights to work, education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association; and (c) divides the population along racial lines, by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for Palestinians and Israelis, and by the expropriation of property belonging to Palestinians but not Israelis.

The broken record version of all of that can be found in the Court's findings regarding the violations of the ICCPR, and ICESCR in paragraphs 132-134 of the advisory opinion. The similarity is hardly accidental, since the Court cited the same prima facie evidence (contained in the Ziegler and Dugard reports) that Israel neglected to rebut in their written submission.

Lebanon, and the other members of the Arab League, subsequently turned over a report to the International Criminal Court which cited the Wall case. It said that violations of the ICCPR and ICESCR may constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. See para 400 page 102 and paras 428-432 beginning on page 109. [13] FYI the Apartheid convention says that certain acts of genocide also qualify as the crime of apartheid. Lebanon cited one of those in the Wall case. harlan (talk) 07:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

All opinions. My fact stands. Stellarkid (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is this "fact" relevant to the article? If you can't find a reliable source which says specifically that Israel has never been charged with apartheid in a court, then it's original research, as being a novel synthesis. john k (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

When you are accusing someone or some entity of a crime, the fact that they have not been charged is very relevant. It is not a synthesis. It is a negative, and no one is expected to prove a negative. If indeed Israel had been formally charged in any court, it is up to you to provide proof of it. Stellarkid (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Stellarkid, it is not my opinion, WP:OR, or WP:Synth. In 1998 the International Law Commission (ILC) said that the range of human rights violated by population transfer and the implantation of settlers place this phenomenon in the category of systematic or mass violations of human rights. The Commission declared that these practices constitute criminal acts and crimes against humanity. The Commission said that "Collective expulsions or population transfers usually target national, ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities and thus,prima facie, violate individual as well as collective rights contained in several important international human rights instruments, in particular the ICERD, ICCPR, ICESCR, and the UNCRC.. [14] Article 3 of the ICERD contains the prohibition of apartheid and similar policies and practices of racial segregation.

A Special Rapporteur on population transfer and implantation of settlers noted the existence of Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories and stated that forcible population transfers and resultant dispersal of minorities or ethnic populations from their homeland within the State, and the implantation of settlers violate self-determination and carry criminal consequences unless they are based upon certain exceptions contained in the ICCPR. See paragraphs 34, and 131-134 [15]

In 1998 the CERD panel of experts said that the status of the Jewish settlements was clearly inconsistent with Article 3 of the Convention which, as noted in the Committee's General Recommendation XIX, prohibited all forms of racial segregation in all countries; and that there was a consensus among publicists that the prohibition of racial discrimination, irrespective of territories, was an imperative norm of international law. [16] CERD/C/SR.1250, 9 March 1998 Israel has never appealed that or any other CERD observation to an Ad Hoc Commission in accordance with the provisions of the ICERD.

In the Namibia case, the Security Council and ICJ ruled that apartheid was a violation of the right to self-determination of the whole South African people and of the obligations assumed by all member states under the UN Charter (see Chapter 10 of Palestine's written statement). Lebanon participated in the Wall case in accordance with the terms of the Statute of the Court. Lebanon submitted its statement directly to the Court and it is an exhibit. In any event, the Court ruled that the Wall and the associated regime violated international law, including the ICCPR, ICESCR, the UNCRC, and the Geneva Convention; that Israel had violated the Palestinian right of self-determination as it evolved from the Charter and from United Nations practice; that Israel cannot rely on a right of self-defense or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall; and that all states, including Lebanon, had an erga omnes legal interest in that situation.

Every ICJ case is published and analyzed by human rights groups, other courts, and international law digests, & etc. See for example the Israeli High Court of Justice analysis in International Law Reports, Volume 129, By Elihu Lauterpacht, Christopher J. Greenwood Cambridge University Press, 2007, ISBN 0521879191, starting on page 273. Israel's original theory of the case is contained in Annex 1 of the Secretary General's report. It claimed the Geneva Conventions, the ICCPR, and ICESCR are not applicable in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.[17] The ICJ performed its own legal analysis of the status of the territory which rejected those arguments. The ICJ found that the Government of Israel had established settlements in violation of the Geneva Convention and that it was violating non-derogable human rights, i.e. intransgressible ones, which Israel was obliged to respect under the terms of the ICCPR, ICESCR, UNHCR, and Geneva Convention.

At first the Attorney General of Israel, Mazuz, recommended that Israel should adopt the Geneva Convention. [18] However, he made no similar recommendation regarding the conventions containing the international human rights regime. [19]. Mazuz subsequently said [20] that "The ruling last year by the International Court of Justice on the separation [hafrada] fence between Israel and the Palestinians was based on erroneous and outdated information..."

In Mara’abe v. The Prime Minister of Israel, the Israeli Supreme Court (HCJ) said that it did NOT have to address the applicability of the Geneva Convention or ICCPR. See paragraphs 24-27 of HCJ 7957/04 [21] The HCJ acknowledged that Ziegler reported that the barrier was an apartheid fence and claimed that the ICJ based its conclusions on the findings of fact contained in the Secretary-General's report, his written statement, the Dugard report, and the Ziegler report. See paragraphs 43, 44, 45, and 61 of HCJ 7957/04 [22] So, Israel certainly has been accused of utilizing apartheid policies, practices, and a strategy of Buntustanization in an international court (or two). Each of those sources did contain reports that supported Lebanon's claim regarding the denial of the liberty and dignity of a group, the deliberate imposition on a group of living conditions calculated to cause its physical destruction in whole or in part, measures calculated to deprive a group of the right to work, the right to education and the right to freedom of movement and residence, the creation of ghettos, the expropriation of property, etc.:

• The Secretary-General reported that the Wall had created enclaves and that "Palestinian cultivated land lying on the Barrier’s route has been requisitioned and destroyed and tens of thousands of trees have been uprooted. Farmers separated from their land, and often also from their water sources, must cross the Barrier via the controlled gates. Recent harvests from many villages have perished due to the irregular opening times and the apparently arbitrary granting or denial of passage. According to a recent World Food Programme survey, this has increased food insecurity in the area, where there are 25,000 new recipients of food assistance as a direct consequence of the Barrier’s construction."

• Dugard reported on targeted killings, curfews, and checkpoints. He said "a curfew is not simply a restriction on leaving one’s home. It is the imprisonment of the people within their own homes. Unable to go to work, to buy food, to go to school, to visit hospitals or to bury their dead, they are confined within the walls of their own homes while the IDF patrols their streets. Statistics of checkpoints and curfews cannot accurately portray the obscenity of the situation." ... "Checkpoints have also resulted in the failure to acquire nutritious food and sufficient clean water. The obstruction of ambulances at checkpoints remains a serious problem. In the past year, about 60 ambulances per month were held up at checkpoints of which a quarter were denied passage. In March 2003, 15 ambulances were fired upon. Children have suffered dramatically. Schools are closed by curfew and checkpoints make it difficult for both teachers and children to reach schools. Twenty-two per cent of children under the age of 5 suffer from acute or chronic malnutrition while the breakdown of family life has had a severe impact on children."

• Ziegler reported on the strategy of "Bantustanization" and complained about segregated access roads, interference with international aid, and widespread malnutrition. He said "Restrictions on movement mean that many Palestinians cannot feed themselves: they cannot go to work, go to harvest their fields or go to buy food. For many Palestinians, the inability to feed their families is leading to a loss of human dignity, often heightened by bullying and humiliation at checkpoints." Those findings of fact are all prima facie evidence which – unless rebutted – would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact.

The ICJ stated that with the exception of Israeli citizens, Israel was systematically violating the basic human rights of the inhabitants of the Occupied Territories. The Court cited illegal interference by the government of Israel with the Palestinian's national right to self-determination, land confiscations, house demolitions, the creation of enclaves, and restrictions on movement and access to supplies of water, food, education, health care, work, and an adequate standard of living. The Court also noted that Palestinians had been displaced in violation of Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The CERD, the UN Fact Finding Mission, and several UN Rapporteurs have subsequently cited the findings of the ICJ Advisory Opinion and have noted that in the movement and access policy there has been a violation of the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race or national origin. Dugard said there can be no doubt that all of those facts in combination are constituent acts of apartheid, and most are specifically enumerated in article 2 of the convention. harlan (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The WP:RS policy states that citations are required for any material that is challenged. It seems that some editors do challenge this addition to the article, so RS says it requires a citation. This dispute does seem weird to me though, just on common sense. Surely there are reliable sources that describe any international court cases involving Israel and accusations of apartheid? If so, can't we just cite them and let the sources speak for themselves? Would that satisfy all parties? In other words, the best approach here seems to be to be a review of the relevant sources and creation of content on this issue based on them. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If someone is challenging the analysis contained in published, third-party verifiable sources including Lauterpacht's International Law Reports, the UN documents, and exhibits from the World Court case then they need to point out how those violate WP:RS and WP:PSTS. There is no reason that this article can't cite Lebanon's written statement about the crime of apartheid, Jordan's statement about ethnic cleansing, and Palestine/Cuba/Guinea/Ziegler on Bantustanization. Those are prohibited forms of racial discrimination under the terms of the ICERD and the Apartheid Convention. The Israeli HCJ claimed that the World Court had based its conclusions on Ziegler's report, but several of the interested state parties also complained about the bantustanization in their written or oral arguments. The Republic of Guinea said

There should be no doubt that the sole purpose in constructing this separation barrier, whose route cuts seriously and deeply into Palestinian territories, is to pursue, by pernicious means, the settlement of the occupied territory and to deprive the Palestinian people of a territorial element that is essential to the full exercise of its sovereignty. It is the expression of a policy known as “bantustanization”, whose objective is to create enclaves that are not viable, thus denying any freedom of movement to the Palestinian people and robbing it of the most fertile and most productive lands, for the sole benefit of the Israeli occupier.

This is an enterprise doomed to failure, being counter to elementary standards of international law, human rights and humanitarian law and aimed at undermining the very basis of the peace process in the Middle East. It clearly runs counter to historical development and to the universally accepted vision of two States, Palestinian and Israeli, living side by side, within secure and internationally recognized borders. Worse, it is the most flagrant manifestation of the denial to the Palestinian people of the exercise of their right to full sovereignty within the framework of an independent, free and viable State.[23]

A UN Human Rights Commission, Working Group of Experts study concerning "The Question of Apartheid from the Point of View of International Penal Law", E/CN.4/1075, 15th February 1972, pp. 51 – 52, said the elements constituting the crime of apartheid included the “Bantustan policy” consisting of the creation of reserved areas for certain groups. -- cited in Luciana Coconi, and David Bondia, "Apartheid against the Palestinian people", page 9 [24] harlan (talk) 08:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It simply isn't clear in the lead. Accused of a crime is reasonably read as national leaders getting hauled up in an intl court preceding for the alleged crime. Why have it so vague? What purpose does that serve? Simply say "it has been called apartheid." Leading the reader to draw a conclusion is a big part of SYNTH. This is something that is fixed by a simple rewording.

And what is up with the related section header? "Crime of apartheid and Israel"? How many different ways could that be read. Sloppy section header. Cptnono (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, no South African leader was ever hauled-up in international court, because there wasn't any Court with criminal jurisdiction, e.g. See Final Report on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court for the Implementation of the Apartheid Convention and Other Relevant International Instruments [25] The political organs of the United Nations simply declared that apartheid was an example of a crime against humanity. In much the same way the General Assembly determined that the Sabra and Shatila camp massacre was an act of genocide and that the Israeli occupation of the Arab territories was an act of aggression. harlan (talk) 08:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

While SA was not hauled up in international court, if memory serves, the opinion actually cited South Africa as the example of what apartheid was. Am I wrong? The political body of the UN always charges Israel with crimes, the more heinous the better. That's nothing new. Stellarkid (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Per Harlan's entry timestamped 02:29, 9 July, I don't see why we can't include a (short) mention that Israel has been accused of apartheid policies in an international court. --Dailycare (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)