Talk:Israel and apartheid/Archive 43

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Splitting proposal

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.

---

That the parts of this page which deal with accusations of Apartheid (crime) be split into a separate page called Israel and accusations of the crime of apartheid and the remaining content of the current page be retitled to Israel and the apartheid analogy with South Africa Selfstudier (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration notified.Selfstudier (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy/Archive 42#Requested move 4 December 2021 Most recent RM.

• Support Over time, the analogy with South African apartheid, while still in some degree relevant, has been displaced in sources by accusations of the crime of apartheid. The relevant sourcing and arguments are distinct and better dealt with in separate articles. Readers may consult the previous section for background to the proposal, as well as the articles Apartheid and Apartheid (crime) for background on the distinction.Selfstudier (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support: Agree in principle, although does the renaming for this article need to be discussed separately, and would Israel and the South African apartheid analogy be better? Iskandar323 (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

No objection personally as to the title for this page, it could stay as is, if there was consensus for that. I thought it better to clarify that the analogy is with South African apartheid. Selfstudier (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Same subject. "Analogy" and "accusations" mean basically the same: opinions. Not to say that all three titles are obfuscating: a simple and clear title would be: Accusations of apartheid in Israel. This "and" clause is weird. Loew Galitz (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

  Pointless rhetoric aside, this isn't a renaming discussion, but "in Israel" would be fundamentally incorrect, because that would exclude accusations related to the West Bank. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• Opppose: The current article deals essentially with "Israeli Apartheid", though with a cleverly crafted neutral title. This article which is really written like an essay and not like an article does not really need to be split into two essays. I really struggle to see a reason for an article about a "comparison between the situation in one state to another" and an article about "a country and accusation of a certain crime". Best keep it this way. I don't think the readers really distinguish between the analogy with South Africa and the accusations and I don't think this distinction really justifies the creation of another article about essentially the same subject.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

  There are already two articles covering this distinction, Apartheid and Apartheid (crime) so that argument doesn't hold water. Selfstudier (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I totally follow the logic here. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a source of knowledge and enlightenment. If readers do not understand the different between two things, what, if not an encyclopedia, is the right resource for clarifying that lack of understanding? Is that not its principle job? The crime per the Rome Statute and the South African archetype are very separate concepts. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• I guess that's part of a deeper discussion. I have a say, but I don't see it leading anywhere productive. Dropping out of the discussion. Good luck.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Creating another article on same subject with different name is fully meaningless. This article needs urgent repair (as it falls shorth of all Wikipedia standards) and not further multiplication.Tritomex (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  Christ alive people, when did reading go out of fashion? Selfstudier provided the links to the two distinct subject here: Apartheid and Apartheid (crime). Anyone who cannot distinguish between these two really should not be commenting here, or, if they truly believe it, they should be proposing a merger between the two. For now, however, the community consensus is that these are different. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  Nothing is correct from what you said and there is no consensus for your POV. Tritomex (talk) 01:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Yes, Wikipedia distinguishes between the South African Apartheid and the Apartheid as a crime. However, as I mentioned above, in the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Apartheid allegations are so controversial and disputed that they have been rejected by most liberal democracies. However, the allegations are promoted by organizations such as the Arab League, the OIC, which are not exactly known for their commitment to human rights, and by NGOs and newspapers that regularly attack Israel and are generally seen as being far-left and anti-Zionist.

The paradox is that on the one hand, all of the West Bank's locations are listed here as being in the "State of Palestine", while on the other, the apartheid allegations are pushed so hard (and even made their way into the lede of the One-State Solution article). I bet our readers are pretty confused by now. Is there a Palestinian state? Was the two-state solution finally implemented? Or it is really a one-state? or is it maybe apartheid? What's going on in here? Are we sure this is a neutral and balanced encyclopedia? Sometime it feels like we have already endorsed the narrative of one side, and ignored the other.

To sum up, Wikipedia should stay out of this narrative war, and do not adopt the terminology used only by one of the sides. For that purpose, a single article called summarizing the main points from a neutral point-of-view is more than enough. Tombah (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• Dont care, dont think we need an article on analogies anyway. But the idea that it is "Wikipedia distinguishes between the South African Apartheid and the Apartheid as a crime" is nonsense, apartheid is a crime according to international law, and that has nothing to do with Apartheid. People are trying to bluster their way into making this a thing about western democracies versus the Arab league. Israel has been accused of a crime under international law by numerous sources. Some of them we have had RFCs to designate as reliable sources. Regardless of what happens in this article, I fully intend to create one on the actual crime and Israel, and so long as this one is titled about an analogy I will remove material not related to an analogy at that point. And that doesnt need a vote or an RFC. Nonsense such as "narratives" and "terminology of one side" is just that, and will be disregarded as non-arguments on Wikipedia. nableezy - 14:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  I did give some thought to the idea of just splitting it and be done with it but finally settled on an attempt at a consensus process. The oppose arguments at this point do not impress and the obvious problem with the current article is not going to go away regardless. Selfstudier (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  I have to say @Selfstudier, you really opened Pandora's box with this one. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say that, see the above comments. There are two articles today, one about Apartheid in South Africa, and the other about Apartheid (the crime). Personally I agree, Apartheid is Apartheid. Even so, the assertion that the West Bank situation represents an example of Apartheid is disputed, to say the least. While acknowledging the complexity of the situation in the West Bank - the Apartheid claims are entirely rejected by other liberal democracies. Sorry, but these are the facts. And that's what we should do here, on Wikipedia. Tombah (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Your "above comments" are a nice speech, nothing more. This is a discussion about a split, do try and stay on point. Selfstudier (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

That's was an answer for Nableezy. As my opinion appears in my nice speech, it must be clear by now. I oppose this split. I don't think we need more articles about apartheid in the West Bank. Tombah (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia distinguishes between the South African Apartheid and the Apartheid as a crime. This bit, you mean? So why then are you opposing the same split here? Selfstudier (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Of course it is disputed, and we would of course cover that dispute. But the topics are manifestly different. One is covering comparisons between Israel and South Africa under Apartheid. One is accusations that Israel is committing the formal crime of apartheid. And of course we would cover who rejects that accusation. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the topics are disparate, only on whether or not the accusations are accurate. And whether or not they are accurate is simply not something that we should be discussing on a talk page. Again, this is not a forum to discuss the actual topic. It is a talk page to discuss content, not argue over whether or not such and such is justified. Finally, please understand the difference between Apartheid and apartheid. Big A, Africa. Little a, international law. I am talking about little a. Yes, several governments dispute that Israel is guilty of apartheid. Several western sources, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, say that they are in fact guilty of that crime. Our article will cover all aspects of that. nableezy - 15:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. The way I see it, and the way I explained in the section of this talk page I started, is that multiple human rights (HR) organizations have accused Israel of committing systemic human rights abuses, and say that these abuses amount to apartheid. So there are two questions at play here. One is, are these human rights violations true? According the HR organizations, they are. This is simply a statement of fact from multiple reliable sources and isn't in contention. But the second question is this: Do these HR abuses constitute apartheid? That is where people disagree. I've never seen the people who deny the apartheid comparison also say that there are no HR violations in Israel. So there needs to be an article that goes into detail specifically on these HR violations that WP:RS say constitute apartheid. Then, that article can also have a section on denial and the people who deny that Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid. But the WP:COMMONNAME of those systematic HR abuses is "apartheid" these days. Laypeople who are government representatives can disagree with that designation all they want, but WP:VOICE requires us to give more weight to the actual subject matter experts. Israeli apartheid, Apartheid in Israel, Apartheid in Israel and the Palestinian territories, Israel and the crime of apartheid, or something else along those lines would have a better scope than this "Israel and the apartheid analogy" article. Amnesty International is not making an "apartheid analogy", and shouldn't be in this article. They are directly stating that Israel is guilty of HR abuses that constitute a crime of apartheid. So a better scope for an article would be something that takes that into consideration. --JasonMacker (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  HRW is WP:RS for its own properly attributed claims, not an international court that establishes someone guilt, nor are claims of any NGOS necessary correct and without many specific bias. NGOs are not more reliable sources than government official's or elected representatives and if we look on that matter the position of vast majority of world is that Israel is not involved in apartheid policy (This certainly includes whole Europe, US and I would say most if not all countries that maintains diplomatic relationship with Israel). So giving UNDUE weight to one or another NGO and placing it in position of legal judge is a POV driven argument. I would remained you that more countries equalize the apartheid analogy (by accepting IHRA definition) with Antisemitism, than claiming that Israel is apartheid state. Tritomex (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  For one, "the vast majority of the world" has not spoken on whether Israel has apartheid or not. And even if they did, ok? Wikipedia is not simply based on majority rule, but rather what people/organizations who have informed opinions have to say. The "vast majority of the world" also does not support the designation of Uyghur genocide, yet that article is still on Wikipedia. The way you're talking is as though if most countries had an official position of genocide denial (regarding Holocaust or Armenian genocide or whatever), that it would not be suitable for Wikipedia to instead focus on what historians and other academic experts say. That sounds like a violation of WP:VOICE. The vast majority of the western world (plus Japan and Israel) continued diplomatic relations with Apartheid South Africa, so I don't see why Apartheid Israel also having diplomatic relations matters or if most western nations reject the consensus of human rights experts, various human rights organizations, and other subject matter experts. WP:UNDUE actually goes against what you're saying here. That policy requires us to give more weight to experts, and not laypeople. And of course, the fact that western countries are in denial should be featured prominently in its own article (maybe an apartheid denial article akin Holocaust denial?) or a section of the article ( like Uyghur_genocide#Denial). --JasonMacker (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  I did not say that NGOs shouldn't be included in accordance of their weight in relevant articles. I said the question of Israels involvement in apartheied is primarily a legal question, based on international laws and international legal court rulings (and not an opinion of cherry picked NGOs). In every article regarding legal statuses, for example regarding Israel occupation of West Bank, the position of international community, as reflected by their officially declared positions on this legal matter is given the main weight. So my question is which states officially designed Israel as apartheid country and which judicial entity had such ruling? ? As for IHRA definition of Antisemitism, it specifically mentions this issue, and equalize the apartheid analogy with Antisemitism by saying that claims such as "The State of Israel is a racist (apartheid) endeavor" is a form of Antisemitism. This definition of Antisemitism was officially adopted by 45 UN member states and many other political and non political institutions around the globe. My question was, once again, which countries, legal entities and international institution's designed Israel as "apartheied state"? Tritomex (talk) 07:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  The NGO's are not cherry picked, there is an international consensus of NGO's on this question in relation to the occupied territories, less so in respect of Israel proper. Apartheid has nothing whatever to do with antisemitism, that is a distraction (and your comments in that respect demonstrably incorrect in any case). Nor has anyone suggested that the apartheid case has been "proven" (as in a court of law) so that is yet another distraction. Please confine your comments to the question at hand, the proposed split. Note that the material is for all practical purposes already split in the article right now. Selfstudier (talk) 09:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  Hahahaha, oh @Tritomex you made me chuckle: "NGOs are not more reliable sources than government official's". None speak true like politicians. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  On the subject of 'guilt' in a court of law, no one is proposing an article asserting guilt in a court of law. That would be only possible in a news headline-style format such as "Israel guilty of apartheid". Wikipedia simply sets the subjects alongside each other, with the facts as presented by subject-matter experts, and then lets any interested readers go figure. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  We have to establish the weight of such claims, that is why I see the question I asked as important. In the questions regarding international law, as it is extensively done on Wikipedia regarding the status of West Bank, the official position of states and international institution's (as UN and others) has the most important merit. That is why with every mentioning of anything related with West Bank, Palestine, or Gaza, we add that the "international community" sees those territories as "occupied by international law" 45 countries designed the Israel-Apartheid accusation as anti-Semitic rhetoric. They did it officially by accepting the IHRA definition [1], and I do not see any relevant international body or state claiming that Israel is in fact an "apartheid state" That is among other issues (like the poorly written article) the most important reason why this splitting is not justified. Tritomex (talk) 12:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  See above, AS/IHRA connection is garbage. Pushing such obvious and irrelevant nonsense verges on tendentious editing. And if you really want to improve the article, splitting it is the way to go.Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  Jason, your contributions are welcome but strictly speaking you should not be participating in this discussion, which counts as a formal discussion. You can comment constructively on the talk page but if you would do it in a section outside of this discussion that would be best. Thanks. Selfstudier (talk) 09:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. Jason, if you have something to say just go ahead and say it. -Daveout(talk) 12:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

This is not a "formal" discussion, this is not a noticeboard, an RM, or an RFC. nableezy - 13:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

We already had an ARCA amendment to clarify that page moves are included, the split proposal includes a possible page move. If you think we need another ARCA to formally clarify that WP:SPLIT discussions are also included in "etc" we can do that but previous discussions on the point are to my mind clear enough about the intention. Selfstudier (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, page moves are formal discussions. This is not. We dont need a formal discussion to split anything, and I honestly am not really sure what the point of this is. It legit does not matter if editors are opposed to splitting this topic, they can argue that AFD if they want to. I am 100% going to create the article on the crime of apartheid and Israel, and this section has no bearing on that. The thing worth discussing is how to remove much of the crime material from here as off-topic. nableezy - 13:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I was wondering about closing it, it has been a useful clarification and preparatory step imo. Removal of material as out of scope is justified at this stage by way of simple transfer to the existing article Apartheid (crime)#Israel. Subsequent discussion on a spin out can then take place there. Of course, I support directly creating an article as well, that was a main point in this discussion but it might be easier to go in steps.Selfstudier (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I shouldn't be using the expression "formal discussion", that's been replaced with "Internal project discussions" that "include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions." Selfstudier (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

First this is talk page, not an "editing" Second If you see IHRA definition of Antisemitism as garbage, it is your point of view and I have taken notice of it. Relevant secondary sources and relevant international bodies do not see it in such way and that is what meters to me. Tritomex (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Please read and internalize WP:OR, your personal opinions on if the IHRA definition makes it so states consider calling Israel's human rights violations apartheid to be antisemitic is completely irrelevant, and WP:FORUM forbids such misuse of a talk page. If you have a source that supports that incredibly silly idea then bring it, if not keep it to yourself. Thank you. nableezy - 13:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Non ecp editors may not participate in formal discussions, this is such a discussion. Tritomex, this discussion is about splitting the article, not your views on IHRA and other irrelevancies.Selfstudier (talk) Selfstudier (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt "Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b). This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc." Selfstudier (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

All his comments have been constructive and the 500 edits requirement is obviously meant to bar accounts created recently by bad faith actors, not editors who have been around for over a decade. It's an special case. Putting his comments in another section would only make things needlessly complicated. -Daveout(talk) 13:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

That's your opinion, get it ratified in an ARCA and I'll pay attention. Selfstudier (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I think WP:IAR has been ratified enough. -Daveout(talk) 13:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Your obviously meant to bar accounts created recently by bad faith actors exception doesn't appear in it. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Extended_confirmed_restriction Selfstudier (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I already explained that due to WP:WEIGHT issues with such accusations, splitting is not justified. Again I ask which international bodies, institution's (like UN; EU, international criminal court in Hague etc), or states have designed Israel as apartheid state and I ask for relevant secondary sources to back such parallels. Tritomex (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

What has designating Israel as an apartheid state got to do with the splitting proposal? It doesn't mention the phrase "apartheid state" anywhere? Nor does the article, if memory serves. I don't understand your argument about weight, how is splitting the article a weight issue? The proposed new article speaks of accusations, there are in fact accusations so again, I don't really understand your objection.Selfstudier (talk) 12:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

In order to create a page titled "Israel and the apartheid analogy with South Africa" by splitting this page, you need WEIGHT for such claim. If Israel is designed as apartheid country, as South Africa was, by itself or by relevant international bodies, states and institution's, such weight do exist, otherwise not. Tritomex (talk) 12:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is about the balance of material within articles. It is unrelated to WP:SPLIT. Content stands on the basis of reliable sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

If you want to keep the existing page title, I already said that for myself, I have no objection to that. It's obvious from the content that a comparison with South Africa is being made. If you are claiming that the title of the new article has no basis, it is the same material already present in the existing article and since it is present, it must have weight, no? Selfstudier (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I also think is right to do. Those accusation per WP:NPOV have right place here, but their weight do not justify a separate article under such name. Tritomex (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

In the present, the accusations of the crime are far more relevant and important (carrying far more "weight" to use your terminology) than the older analogy with South African apartheid. The majority of current sources and conversations are given over to the crime rather than the analogy.Selfstudier (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Those who compare Israel and apartheid in South Africa are doing this not out of abstract fun, but to argue that Israel is committing a crime, therefore spitting the subject in two is splitting hairs. Second, Apartheid<==Apartheid in South Africa is just a special, "namesake", case of Apartheid (crime) (and the crime definition wass based on what was observed in S.A., not as some abstract legal scholarhip ), and they are not really different subjects, but one is a subtopic of another and they are split per WP:Summary style, rather that a matter of disambiguation. Loew Galitz (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  That is not anywhere close to being true, people can compare Israel to South Africa without making any reference to what was criminalized in the Rome Statute in 2002. In fact people were making that comparison well before apartheid was ever a crime. And the people and organizations making the claim that Israel is guilty of the crime do so without referencing South Africa or Apartheid at all. nableezy - 03:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  Yes it is true. The comparison was made for the purpose of accusation. When the term become a legal term, the accusers simply got a new tool. Loew Galitz (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  I have no idea what The comparison was made for the purpose of accusation means, and the people saying Israel is guilty of the crime are not the same people who made the analogy to South African Apartheid, and the two things are not at all related except that South African Apartheid was so odious that the world agreed to criminalize such race-based systemic oppression. And now several human rights organizations and a UN Special Rapporteur have said that Israel is guilt of that crime of race-based oppression. That has nothing to do with an analogy to South Africa, which is what this article is about. nableezy - 18:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  Comparing A and B and saying that both A and B have the same bad feature means accusation that A is bad. Anyway, I think I am starting to see your point: the current article title does not match is actual scope, the latter being both analogy and crime. And I agree it is a mismatch. But my vote remains valid, because as I said earlier, the proper solution would be to rename the article (but my suggested title was not good; may be something like Accusations of Israel of apartheid). Loew Galitz (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  But the accusation of the crime is not a comparison between A and B. Thats my point, that there are people who compare South Africa under Apartheid with Israel, and that is the analogy, and there are people that accuse Israel of committing a specific violation of international law, and that is not a comparison or an analogy. It is like saying the difference between China's treatment of the Uyghurs has been analogized to the Myanmar oppression of the Rohingya, and the accusation that China is guilty of the crime of genocide in international law. They are two separate topics, popular comparisons, and specific violations of international law. nableezy - 01:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  Most groups have stated that they are not drawing a direct comparison with South Africa, but rather referring to apartheid as it is described in international law. Selfstudier (talk) 10:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  Of course they do not need to draw paralells now, after the term was made into legal framework. Loew Galitz (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  Water is also wet.Selfstudier (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you, I am done here. I am not willing to talk with people who are demonstrating smartassness. Loew Galitz (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support split will allow disentanglement of the comparison with South Africa vs the direct accusation that Israel practices apartheid, which makes up the bulk of the article. If not split it should be moved to Israel and the crime of apartheid or Israel and apartheid. (t · c) buidhe 22:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment With the proposed split, care should be taken to sort assertions and responses between those that are pre-Rome Statute (1998–2002) and post-Rome Statue. Sources that exist prior to the definition of apartheid as a crime are likely overwhelmingly about the South Africa Apartheid analogy, though I imagine there is some theoretical legal discussion about the possibility of it being defined as a crime during this period. On the other hand, post-Rome Statute sources are more much and increasingly likely with time to be about the crime. I'm sure this is obvious to some, but it will be a very important distinction to make. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Per the previous section, there aren't two topics, there is only the comparison of current Israeli practices to that of apartheid-era South Africa. What it seems like is that proponents of one side just want their own WP:POVFORK sandbox to play in. Zaathras (talk) 23:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  I wonder whether we need a Statute formalising Wikicrimes against productivity, such a blithely ignoring and then miscontruing the issues at hand in a talk page discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

  Seems we should first have an RFC to determine whether this article contains two topics :) Selfstudier (talk) 08:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• support. This should solve the long lasting discontentment with the scope of this article. The new article won't necessarily be biased, 'accused of' doesn't mean 'guilty of', and it'll obviously have a criticism section with counter-arguments to balance thing up. I have a feeling that a number of readers could be looking specifically for the latest developments of this matter... so a separate article would make things easier for them. -Daveout(talk) 18:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• Suggestion. Content for the proposed two articles cannot be easily distinguished because Apartheid crime accusations, right or wrong, are still logically related to claims for the analogy to apartheid. So, consensus on a more detailed proposal is needed before a responsible split. I suggest keeping the current article name. The section “Crime of Apartheid and Israel” could be renamed “Israel and the Crime of Apartheid” — which would then be the name of the spin-off article. (“accusation” is not a good word for titles, though of course the article would discuss accusations and defenses) Perhaps what some said above re: Option B.

But what about all the substantive sections, eg land, education, water? How will these be covered without a POVfork outcome? Will the new article include a background section that summarizes earlier discourse about the apartheid analogy (and links back here)? (Cf. above Iskandar323 re pre-Rome)

Years back, I spent a long time working on the conflict over this article and related editing disputes. I founded Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration and from that experience, I can say I appreciate the effort with the proposal and encourage you to keep at it. Maybe create a draft to show proposed changes? HG | Talk 05:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. While conceptually there are two issues and thus two articles here, neither of the issues can be sensibly presented without mentioning the other. My prediction is that the two separate articles would eventually grow to cover both topics and the point of separating them will be defeated. Zero^talk 06:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Zero0000: If the two articles were to be properly scoped, this should not be the case. The analogy between apartheid South Africa and Israel is supported by a body of material that is fundamentally anecdotal and subjective in nature. The 21st-century accusations of apartheid are evidence-based and grounded in the international law of the Rome Statute. These two subjects should never have been mixed. As it is, the result is an unholy hodgepodge of confused and conflated material. We have a lead replete with references to South Africa, a history section all about South Africa, then, in the report section, a single 2009 South African report drawing comparisons, the 2017 ESCWA Report which specifically cautions: "to avoid using the discrete cases in apartheid South Africa as a yardstick to qualify conducts as amounting to the crime of apartheid", noting the importance of reflecting on "the issue of apartheid on its own merits, in light of the Rome Statute and the Apartheid Convention", and then all of the 2020-2022 reports that do exactly that, without in any way relating to South Africa examples. The rest of the article then oscillates incoherently between South African comparisons and post-Rome Statute analyses. Overall, it is an uninformative and misleading mess. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2022 (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.

Adding the recent response of South African foreign minister

recently, a bunch of sources have noted that the south african foreign minister considers israel an "Apartheid state". is this worth noting?

https://www.jpost.com/bds-threat/article-713140 ProgrammerinEZ (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm always in two minds about "political" statements (alleging or denying) unless they are backed up by concrete actions or steps in support of what is said.

For example in the Amnesty section, it says "The Times of Israel quoted an unnamed spokesperson for the UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Development Office as saying "We do not agree with the use of this terminology". And...?

If that is thought to be important, then why wouldn't an actual named foreign minister view be just as important? See what others think. Selfstudier (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

A statement by an actual minister is certainly more relevant than an unnamed spokesperson. Aside from one being a named person and national representative and the other being an anonymous nobody not necessarily reflecting official policy, this is certainly a rule of thumb that has been applied elsewhere, such as recently on 2022 Prophet remarks row. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

alright, where should I add it? ProgrammerinEZ (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

That's why I was humming and hawing, ordinarily my inclination would be to add such things as "Additional views" but then all such in the principal sections ought to go there as well. Perhaps go ahead and add it there for now and we will see what to do, maybe after the current RFC is closed, some comments are being made there as well. Selfstudier (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Quoting politicians can get controversial, so I would say no. ZetaFive (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

In a later development, the ToI quote (part of a larger quote) used by the spokesperson for the UK FCDO is repeated word for word in a parliamentary written answer in response to a question about the 21 march report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of Human Rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, by Amanda Milling, minister for Asia and the Middle East in the FCDO. Also see here. I added the full quote to the citation since the actual bit that is quoted gives a rather one sided view.Selfstudier (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Spokesperson-level responses remain problematic in my opinion. These fall several levels short of a formal government position on a matter. If an issue was deemed worthy of comment, the foreign minister would make a statement. If deemed seriously important, the prime minister might. Department-level statements worded in vague formats such as "We do not agree ..." are a far cry from "The XXX government's position on the matter is ...". Even with the later, it is worth noting that a particular cabinet's position can also differ from a government's long-term position. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Here's another politico objecting to the "word" apartheid. If they can come up with any other word to describe gross human rights abuse that meets the definition in the apartheid convention, I will be happy to use that instead. I suspect I will be waiting a while for that. Selfstudier (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

off-topic material

Given the move request result, I intend to move material not related to an analogy with South Africa out of this article. This article's scope is an analogy with Apartheid under South Africa, and accusations that Israel is committing a crime against humanity is not an analogy with South Africa. That is the entirety of the crime of apartheid section and the material related to it in the lead. nableezy - 17:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I can only quote CJCurrie above (the author of the current title back in 2008, without an RM) "The current title was the result of a compromise made under less-than-ideal circumstances well over a decade ago. It was never a particularly great solution, but it was the least bad of the options that were available at the time. Wikipedia's standards have developed since then (mostly for the better), and it's really past time this page was given a less convoluted and more encyclopedic title." That a poor solution has existed for this length of time is something that needs to be remedied. Selfstudier (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Nableezy, I think Amakuru should be allowed to reconsider first. Their comment “also a lot of opposition on the grounds that the proposed title would risk making the article's scope less obvious” suggests they did not review the earlier discussions on this talk page or the actual scope of the article, and perhaps are not aware of the difference between the crime of apartheid and an analogy with Apartheid. Overlooking a 60% majority requires a very strong rationale. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

"A" has to go

"A 2009, the Human Sciences ... is not English." 95.91.242.144 (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Selfstudier (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Israel proper vs. West Bank

"In 1979, the Palestinian sociologist Elia Zureik argued that while not de jure an apartheid state, Israeli society was characterized by a latent form of apartheid." It is not clear that Zureik talks about Israel in the pre-67 borders not the West Bank, nor East Jerusalem, nor Gaza. BTW, nowhere is mentioned that most Israeli Arabs lived under military rule 1948-66, nor that the since 7.8.1985 (9th amendment to the Basic Law The Knesseth) many laws make non-Jews to second class citizen, something they used to be "structurally" de facto, but not de jure between 1966 and 1985. (cf. Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People 19 July 2018) 95.91.242.117 (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I fixed Zureik to clarify it is in Israel. Not sure what you want in addition, if you want something added to the article, it needs a source and should relate to apartheid analogy or crime. Selfstudier (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Fine. Two sources are given in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel#1949%E2%80%931966 In

New outlook : Middle East monthly Givat Haviva, Jewish-Arab Institute, Tel Aviv, 1957-1993 one finds many more articles on the period prior to 1966, during which most Arabs were ruled according to the Emergency Defense Regulations of 1945. Most of the present day features that are true for the West Bank inhabitants NOW, were true for the Arabs in Israel THEN. Maybe a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_(Emergency)_Regulations#Israeli_law is enough. Palestinian or Communist (Rakakh) sources can be ignored. Hebrew sources and left within the Labour movement sources (like the above mentioned New Outlook) are clear enough.

Please specify which references are referred to, the content you wish added to the article and the connection made with apartheid. Thanks. Selfstudier (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 24 July 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: move to Israel and apartheid. A majority of editors support the move, but the deciding argument is that so much of the reliable source coverage of Israel and apartheid has nothing to do with any analogy (—Firefangledfeathers). Supporting factors for this close are as follows: (1) there is a clear consensus that the title "[:Israel and the apartheid analogy]]" is inadequate; (2) the opposing arguments on neutrality seem reversible (one can argue that the new title is biased with the same force that the old title is biased; or so it seems to an outsider like myself); (3) there is a precedent for articles entitled "X and Y"; (4) some of the opposition was based on a confusion between the the crime of apartheid and the Apartheid. Thank you for your patience with both closers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Previous close, revoked following challenge

The result of the move request was: No consensus. There is a lot of support indicating that the current title could be made clearer, but also a lot of opposition on the grounds that the proposed title would risk making the article's scope less obvious. Some neutrality concerns as well, adding to the opposition. Overall there isn't a consensus for the particular title proposed, although some other title might find consensus down the line.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israel and apartheid – Per #Splitting proposal above, this article covers both (1) the analogy with South Africa and (2) Apartheid (crime), which is not an analogy but a legal assessment. Simpler title better achieves WP:CONSIST (e.g. United States and state terrorism) and WP:CONCISE. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 06:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy/Archive 42#Requested move 4 December 2021 Most recent RM -> Israeli apartheid allegation (no consensus). Selfstudier (talk) 12:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support The majority of current material in the article relates to the crime of apartheid. In the absence of any consensus to split the article, then the article title should reflect the content. Would also support any other title that achieves this purpose. Selfstudier (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  Hi. I think the current subtopics vary. Some fit with the in-depth crime accusations, but some do not, and their content is often earlier material that does not refer clearly to the crime. HG | Talk 16:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC) HG | Talk 16:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed, I referred specifically to "current" material, there is a lot of "old" material in the article. Selfstudier (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support in principle, as more accurately reflecting the current mixed body of material, though a split of this material still seems like the optimal long-term solution. Renaming is a little like applying a band aid to the problem, but still makes marginal progress on calling formal accusations compiled by human rights lawyers based on an internationally ratified statute "analogy", which is actively misleading. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The legal assessment its accusation nothing more so the analogy is the best WP:NPOV descriptor but I will agree to move Israel apartheid accusations so it will cover both accusation of the crime by various anti-Israeli organization and comparison to SA by the same organizations. Most of the liberal democracies reject such accusation--Shrike (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPOV isn't determined by a survey of liberal-democratic state entities (however it is that you define "liberal-democratic"). Graham (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support, since I don't have a better proposal. "Analogy" is bad in the title since it clearly refers to an analogy with South Africa and I don't think that should be the primary focus. Actually I would remove the bulk of the South African references, since apartheid as an offence in international law has long since moved past the South African experience. Zero^talk 14:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support - or failing that refocus this article on the analogy. And then make one on the crime. Thats still my plan for the record. nableezy - 14:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Zero. Historically, this analogy arose with South Africa as the prime example of comparison. That time has long since passed to use SA as the benchmark, as, before it, the US, which was the main enforcer of apartheid anti-litteram policies. As apartheid is inscribed and defined in international law, that must form the benchmark.Nishidani (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support The "and" in the title does not imply a finding, unlike earlier efforts to name it Israeli apartheid. Per Zero: accusations and proceedings about the crime should be the focus. Cut down the bulk of earlier discourse, the countless POV quotes and speakers. The many substantive subtopics? Often weighted down by old views. Can these be updated with the recent crime accusations and refer to main articles for more info? HG1 | Talk 16:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support; to my ears, having the word "analogy" in the title has always sounded extremely contrived; the subject covers so much more than comparisons with the old SA apartheid. Huldra (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - per NPOV, as the suggested title might imply that the allegations are true.Eladkarmel (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  As per HG1, the purpose of the "and" is a standard method in WP for the avoidance of any such implication. Selfstudier (talk) 12:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support The current title was always clumsy and misleading. The proposed new title is much clearer and less open to gaming. RolandR (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not NPOV, in my opinion. Better to leave the word "analogy", which leaves it as a claim, which many western governments oppose. Atbannett (talk) 12:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  Governments, i.e.: bodies of politicians, not human rights lawyers, the subject-matter experts. Western governments denied South African Apartheid. 'Analogy' is also a POV. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  • What a delightful celebration of neutrality. So surprising. Tombah (talk) 15:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

    @Tombah: Subject-matter experts are generally who we follow for all subjects. What's the problem? Analogy is POV, because the material is only partly analogistic. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - Not NPOV *and* I'd expect an article on Israel and Apartheid to be about Israel's relationship with South Africa between 1948 and 1990. Naraht (talk) 14:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Most of the material in this article is about Israel and the crime of apartheid, which has nothing to do with South Africa. And the proposed title has a lowercase a for apartheid. nableezy - 14:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

nableezy So as a proposal, changing to what you just wrote for clarity: Israel and the crime of apartheid? I'm not sure I'd support it, but it would be clearer. Naraht (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

If this gets shot down I intend to make exactly that article by separating the things not related to any analogy from this one. But yes, that would be my prefered title. I think an article on an analogy is close to completely pointless. nableezy - 18:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose There is no reason to support this misleading title, which to me is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV. An article named "Israel and Apartheid" can be interpreted in two ways: (a) that Israel is an apartheid state (and there is no need to tell me that the word "and" serves as a disclaimer here, because it doesn't); (b) that this article is about Israeli views on South African apartheid. Using this term in WP:Voice implies that Wikipedia has adopted the view that Israel is an apartheid country. To keep things neutral, it would be more appropriate to title the article "Israel and accusations of apartheid", because this is exactly what they are, accusations, which as mentioned above, are rejected by most liberal democracies, and on the same time, supported by entities identified with the other side of the Conflict. Please keep Wikipedia out of it. Tombah (talk) 15:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  Hi. You said: "here is no need to tell me that the word "and" serves as a disclaimer here, because it doesn't." I said it does not imply a finding. I did not say disclaimer, but okay. Let's call it a disclaimer that the WP and the article make no finding whether "Israel is an apartheid statement" (your phrase). Don't just assert "it doesn't" -- give some reasons or explanations of why "and" does not serve that purpose. Here are some examples of article titles with "and" --

  • Taiwan and weapons of mass destruction
  • China and the World Trade Organization
  • China and the Kachin State
  • Israel and racism compared to Racism in Israel
  • France and the Rwandan genocide
  • Spain and the Holocaust
  • Economy of Egypt and the environment
  • Women and the environment
  • Homelessness and aging

  Now that I tried making this list (and there are countless more), I'm curious to see whether these articles do not imply a finding about their relationship. ProfGray (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  Additionally, the proposed title is Israel and apartheid, not Israel and Apartheid. Little a apartheid refers to the crime of apartheid, which Israel has been accused of committing by a number of human rights organizations. Big A Apartheid refers to the system of racial dominance in South Africa. Kindly dont misrepresent the proposal, even if you are going to argue against it with irrelevancies and propaganda (eg entities identified with the other side). nableezy - 15:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'm personally more titillated by the notion that "liberal democracies", many of which supported South African Apartheid up to the late 1980s, are arbiters on the subject. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, I must have missed the part in WP:NPOV where The Truth™ is determined by a survey of "liberal democratic" states (however defined) rather than looking to "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Graham (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support This is not an article on an analogy, this is an article on accusations of Israel committing a crime. Of course, things would be much clearer if the Rome Statue called the crime "segregation" rather than "apartheid", but we can't change that. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  The crime is only a subsection, please look. Much of the article quotes people who are talking analogously, not referencing the crime (in the ordinary reading of their words). ProfGray (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  The newer material is the raft of reports in recent years that are not at all interested in analogies with South Africa, even going out of their way to emphasize that. While news reports these days may mention en passant the South African case as an instance of the crime, the world in general has moved on from analogy, that does not really fit the case anyway. Selfstudier (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• Neutral. I'd wanted to say that using apartheid analogously in this case would be more appropriate since apartheid only specifically applies to the system of racial discrimination in South Africa, but since being ratified in 2002, the Rome Statute identifies the crime of apartheid as a specific criminal indictment. But I think "Israel and apartheid" lacks the utility of the current title in describing the comparison between Israel's treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank and South Africa's treatment of blacks as a move by some and not an analogy that enjoys widespread consensus. Oh, yeah, and it's probably a WP:NPOV violation. Lunaroxas (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Is United States and state terrorism an NPOV violation? Selfstudier (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  No, but mainly because it is completely unclear just from the title what exactly it is about. Srnec (talk) 13:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• So what if I support? The current title is idiotic. But, as I have said before many times, substantive change to this article is impossible because consensus will never be reached. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Keeping the word "analogy" downplays part of the content of this article. Thus it is inadequate. Swapping "analogy" for "accusation" creates a similar problem: that's not all this article is about. A broader title is needed to encompass both concepts. It doesn't necessarily imply that Israel is an apartheid state and that should be even clearer to the readers as soon as they start reading the article. Sometimes it's not possible to have a "misinterpretation-proof" title, a title that makes everything clear to the reader at first glance, but this renaming is the best and most elegant solution to the scope problem imo. The only real NPOV issue is keeping this whole article under the word "analogy".

(alternatively, we could go with even clumsier titles, like "Israel and apartheid comparisons\accusations" or "Israel and apartheid analogies, as well as accusations of apartheid") –Daveout(talk) 03:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Our article at Apartheid is devoted to South Africa. Per WP:CONSUB, that is what the proposed title implies this article is about: Israel and and old South African policy. An acceptable alternative would be Israel and the crime of apartheid, per Apartheid (crime). Our titles must make sense to those who don't follow or care deeply about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. On this score, the current title is better. Also, the splitting proposal was closed as no consensus. Srnec (talk) 13:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

You dont need consensus to split, you dont even need a discussion. If this article retains a title on an analogy I will be removing the off-topic parts to a title about the crime. nableezy - 13:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Even if consensus is not formally required, here there already was a discussion and ithe split was not agreed upon. How can it be perceived as collaborative, consensus-based editing to move forward regardless? You’ll likely get concerns about POVFORK and AfD etc. Why drag us thru that drama? ProfGray (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

If somebody wants to AfD an article they can. I dont really plan on engaging in this here, that isnt relevant to the move proposal, but material that is off-topic here will be removed if the title is retained. Accusations that Israel is guilty of a crime against humanity are not an "analogy", and they are off-topic here. This move proposal would make it so it is not off-topic (though I agree that including the word crime would be better so as to remove the analogy stuff entirely). But they are two topics, and if one is off-topic here it will be moved in to an article where it is on-topic. nableezy - 14:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, Srnec, I think you're missing the distinction between Apartheid and apartheid. Apartheid under South Africa is always capitalized, it is a proper noun for a formal system of race-based segregation and discrimination. apartheid with a lowercase a refers to the crime. nableezy - 14:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

To which end, I would invite everyone here to participate in this move discussion aimed at making the distinction that little bit more explicit. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Nableezy, there may be tendencies with respect to capitalization, but I doubt such a distinction will land for most readers. After all, the current title uses lower case and yet the analogy is clearly with capital-A Apartheid. Srnec (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Which is why I support Israel and the crime of apartheid as the best title for material that is related to the crime. This gets us close enough Id feel comfortable tossing out most of the "analogy to South Africa" material anyway, but I agree with the point that Israel and the crime of apartheid is an "acceptable alternative" and in fact is my preferred title. But it is not just a tendency, the crime is never capitalized except at the start of a sentence. nableezy - 18:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I mean, yeah! Hence the name is incorrect, hence the confusion, and hence the fairly strong reasons for a clean split of the material. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

At the end, the present title does not reflect the content so something should be done. The only real question is how long it takes for that to happen. Selfstudier (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. NPOV. In common usage -- which is the Wikipedia guideline -- "apartheid" means the practice in South Africa. The word is applied to Israel to suggest that Israeli treatment of Palestinians is analogous to South Africa's treatment of non-whites. Similarly the word in used in two, not universally accepted international law treaties because the authors wanted to draw parallels -- or if you prefer, analogies -- between South Africa's practice and other practices elsewhere that they think are similar and that they do not like. English speakers hear the South African word "apartheid", they think "South Africa" not "international criminal law". Maybe "apartheid" will gain a lager meaning at some future point, like "spam" meaning junk mail did. That is not now. Now, the word's common meaning is "the practice in South Afica" and the meaning of a crime is mere jargon used by a limited group of lawyers and activists. I don't love the title. It's clunky. It sounds odd. However, "analogy" is a true, accurate description of why "apartheid" is used in international criminal law and more broadly in discussions about Israel. In fact, the intent of using the word is, in both cases (law and politics), to draw analogy between what the policies of South Africa and policies elsewhere. Analogy is accurate if clunky. (Maybe "accusation" would be better for the title than "analogy" but that is a separate conversation.)Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  The Oxford English Dictionary defines apartheid as "Name given in South Africa to the segregation of the inhabitants of European descent from the non-European (Coloured or mixed, Bantu, Indian, etc.); applied also to any similar movement elsewhere; also, to other forms of racial separation (social, educational, etc.)." So the use of the term in contexts other than South Africa is clearly widespread and recognised. RolandR (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  And that's been the Oxford English Dictionary's definition since at least its second edition, published in 1989. Graham (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Current title is clearer. Proposal merely makes for confusion about the content of the article. Cost with no gain. Walrasiad (talk) 06:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support – The proposed move is concise and follows the naming of other articles mentioned as examples. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 19:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support - I wasn’t sure but after reading cons and pros I will support the move now. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• Neutral - I don't see how "Israel and apartheid" is any better of a title than "Israel and the apartheid analogy." They're both inferring Israel is somehow guilty of apartheid. I'm not personally convinced of that simply because Israeli Arabs have full citizenship and voting rights. Being that Apartheid South Africa and Jim Crow America were functionally similar, the very fact water fountains in Israel aren't segregated between Arabs and Jews by de jure law - nor are hotels, theaters, restaurants, public bathrooms - like "whites" and "coloreds" were in either South Africa or the United States should be enough to put to rest the idea that Israel is enforcing apartheid. Arabs aren't forced by law to live in certain parts of Israel, aren't denied the right to vote, and aren't barred from holding public office. The West Bank, by nature of the fact it is disputed territory in an ongoing conflict, simply doesn't fall under the umbrella of apartheid because it is not a part of Israel at present. The Bantustan territories of South Africa weren't in some legal gray area of international law where they were occupied territories but kind of their own state. They were legally a part of South Africa. They were segregated South African areas Black people were forced to live in. Israel isn't doing that to its Arab citizens, so I don't see what difference this minor change in the title makes. - EricSpokane (talk) 03:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  Your response demonstrates the need to change the title. Modern professional accusations and denials of apartheid do not rest on analogy with South Africa. They rest on the definition of apartheid in current international law. The word "analogy" doesn't belong. Zero^talk 03:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per the many NPOV concerns above. There is no such thing as "Israeli apartheid", it is just an accusation hurled. The archives on past moves and renames is quite interesting, as there are familiar names throughout. How sad is it to spend 10, 12, 15 years trying to chip away at an article title one does not like. Zaathras (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree that current title is clearer.
• Support neutral, clearer, and more accurate than current title as the term "analogy" does not apply for many of the uses eg the crime of apartheid, which is not an analogy. Horatio Bumblebee (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock.
• Support The current title was the result of a compromise made under less-than-ideal circumstances well over a decade ago. It was never a particularly great solution, but it was the least bad of the options that were available at the time. Wikipedia's standards have developed since then (mostly for the better), and it's really past time this page was given a less convoluted and more encyclopedic title. "Israel and apartheid" is an appropriate and neutral way of framing the debates that have taken place on this subject. (I've also suggested "Debates concerning Israel and apartheid" in the recent past, and while I still think this might have the potential to move things forward it hasn't developed any traction thus far. If the choice is between "Israel and the apartheid analogy" and "Israel and apartheid," then I'm fully in support of the latter.) CJCurrie (talk) 09:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose – I agree the current "analogy" title is a poor reflection of the article's full scope, as well-regarded human rights organisations have accused Israel of potentially committing the crime of apartheid in international law and the article covers this. I agree the proposed title addresses this issue. However, while a change of some kind would be good, I think there are two problems with the proposed title:

1) While I don't agree with opposers above who say that "Israel and apartheid" implies Israel is an apartheid state, neither do I agree with supporters' view that it avoids "any such implication". "Israel and apartheid" implies a relationship between apartheid and Israel, whereas in fact this is a (disputed) accusation. I'm not convinced the proposed title is so problematic it breaches WP:NPOV (likely not), but I think a wikivoice inference of a relationship in between Israel and apartheid doesn't follow detached encyclopedic tone in an ideal manner and could be interpreted by a casual observer as verging on advocacy. I think this is illustrated by the list of articles with "and" in their titles that ProfGray collates above; all of those articles are about undisputed relationships between two things, this article is about an accusation there is such a relationship (that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid, or that its crimes/policies are comparable to Apartheid).

2) Less importantly, I agree with those above who say that "Israel and apartheid" has a potentially confusing scope, as readers may presume the article is about Israel's views/stance on SA Apartheid. Although this criticism is somewhat nitpicky.

Tombah's suggestion, Israel and accusations of apartheid would be my strong preference. Israel and the crime of apartheid is less ideal as it doesn't fully encompass those drawing an analogy with SA but not making an accusation of the intl. law crime, but I think that over the last few years discussion among rights groups and critics of Israeli policy has moved this way (towards an accusation that Israel is committing apartheid) anyway, and at least this title makes it clearer the subject is discussion/allegations of a crime. Both of these titles are, in my view, better than the current and proposed titles. Jr8825 • Talk 11:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The option, Israel and accusations of apartheid was already discussed in the splitting proposal above (phrased as Israel and accusations of the crime of apartheid) and rejected.Selfstudier (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support. The proposed title is more recognizable, natural, precise, concise, and consistent with other article titles. It's an improvement on all of the article title criteria. In particular, the improvement in precision is a large one, as so much of the reliable source coverage of Israel and apartheid has nothing to do with any analogy. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The proposed title is confusing, as one could easily be lead to believe that this article would then be about Isreal’s relationship with the Apartheid regime in South Africa. Even Wikipedia itself acknowledges that the South African Apartheid is the primary topic of “Apartheid”, rather the crime of Apartheid, which means people most often expect it to refer to the South African regime.TheFreeloader (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support – The definition of the term apartheid has come to have a scope beyond that of South Africa. The use of the term for the crime is reflective of that fact; it doesn't mean that the term (when not characterized as a direct analogy) is limited to referring to what happened in South Africa and the more general crime. Similarly, stalking is a crime in many jurisdictions, but the relevant literature recognizes that the definition of stalking is not limited to the legal definition (and that stalking can take place in jurisdictions that don't directly criminalize it).

Additionally, it isn't necessarily non-neutral to use the term apartheid in a title. It's no different than analogous cases such as United States and state terrorism. Graham (talk) 05:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• Amakuru I really dont see how this is closed no consensus. The arguments against above range from objectively fallacious (eg the meaning of the word apartheid, the bogus arguments based on using a capital A in the title where this one did not), to bare assertions on POV. When did a bald assertion that something is POV count equally against actual policy based arguments? There is also approaching 60% super-majority support for the proposed title. nableezy - 17:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
• Reopened @Nableezy: thanks for the note above, and in light of your comments I'm reversing my close and will reopen the discussion, as I don't unfortunately have time to fully evaluate and reconsider every point in question at this precise moment in time. I had imagined (and some of the oppose comments above imply this too) that the article is specifically about comparisons between Israel now and the former apartheid regime of SA and its policies. The crime of apartheid is a separate concept, and I don't think including that was the intention when this article was first written (and hence my comment about scope). But given that, as you say, there is already considerable material about it, your point about the article covering everything is a valid one. So there could be a consensus to move. But that is offset by concerns about neutrality, and a desire not to even imply, in Wikipedia's voice, that the allegation is valid. So I'll recuse from this one for now and hopefully someone else with either more time or more knowledge of the situation, will determine shortly and with whether this is a "no consensus" or a "consensus to move" situation. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Amakuru, nableezy - 21:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment By way of background, the current title was reached without an RM in 2008 (see CJCurrie !vote above). Subsequently 2010, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-04-14/Israel and the apartheid analogy#Mediation closed 8/19/2010, produced a consensus for the currently proposed title but it did not stick in formal discussion. The mediation discussions did cover the crime aspect and as can be seen from the article currently, much of the material in that regard was not present back in 2010. If there is no consensus on a title that adequately covers both the analogy and the crime, it is difficult to see an alternative other than an article split dealing with each aspect separately. Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
• Relisting one more time per request on my talk page. Perhaps one more week will focus discussion and a solution can be reached without acrimony... 🤔  — Amakuru (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

For the sake of posterity, that request can be found here. Graham (talk) 05:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: What can we learn from the decision to reopen this discussion? It should be clear to everyone that further discussion will not cause anyone to change his or her mind in the matter. It is equally clear that the article is stuck in the murk of fundamental disagreement, and nothing can be done to improve the article in any substantial way. So why continue the argument - sorry, discussion? Because everyone likes to argue?--Ravpapa (talk) 07:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  The closer indicated that there may be a consensus to move offset by the risk to NPOV arising from even hinting via the proposed title that the accusation of apartheid might be true but that their view was based on the article being "specifically about comparisons between Israel now and the former apartheid regime of SA and its policies" which isn't the case. As for process, another week or so is neither here nor there. Selfstudier (talk) 10:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  I dont think anybody is arguing or expecting anybody to change their mind. Ideally more time will bring more participation. I dont think the article is stuck in the murk of fundamental disagreement, and nothing can be done to improve the article in any substantial way, and I think that to be a self-defeating statement and fundamentally at odds with the entire idea of Wikipedia. No consensus means, and always means, more discussion until there is one. And consensus means, and always means, what is most faithful to our policies. Not how many show up and say yes or no. Ravpapa, you know I think very highly of you, but instead of focusing on all the ways this article is broken and detracting from a discussion focused on how it might be unbroken, do you have any view on what the scope and title of this article should be, or what should be done (short of deleting it because it and Wikipedia are hopelessly broken)? Because while I do hold you in very high esteem, just saying it's broken give up isnt all that helpful. nableezy - 13:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  I indeed voiced my opinon in support of the title change - see above. And I don't think the article should be deleted (unlike other articles which I think should be deleted - Mein Kampf in Arabic is a good example). What I do think is that the Wikipedia method of collaborative editing and editing by consensus has its limits, and this article is a sterling example of those limits. Which is why I think there should be an alternative to editing by consensus, which could be turned to in cases of Zugzwang like this.I once proposed an alternative model to deal with cases like this ( User:Ravpapa/The Politicization of Wikipedia the section on "A Modest Proposal"). I don't know if what I propose there is a good idea, but I think there should be serious discussion of imaginative ways of dealing with editing stalemates on Wikipedia.

  Written without rancor or sarcasm, yours truly, Ravpapa (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Off topic
Question: It is my impression (I can't know for sure) that all the participants in this discussion are male. Is that so? Any females here? --Ravpapa (talk) 07:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia *expressly* allows its editors to work without indicating their gender choices if any. I see *no* reason that this discussion should be any different.Naraht (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2022 (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.

scope

With the new title I think we need to refocus the lead on the crime, and then very briefly discuss historical analogies. But the primary topic for "Israel and apartheid" would be the accusations of violations of the crime and the responses to that IMO. nableezy - 22:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Clear that the comparison with SA has in recent years receded although the development from there to the current focus on the crime is worth tracing out for context/background.

Apart from consequential changes to the lead due to the renaming, it might be better to first have a skeleton for the article content? Atm, we have as main headings:

1 History

2 Hafrada–Apartheid comparison

3 Crime of apartheid and Israel

4 Issues in Israel proper

5 Issues in the West Bank and Gaza Strip

This seems not right, any thoughts on some better headings? Selfstudier (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The Hafrada section should be part of the West Bank section.

EJ and Golan are not covered at the moment, and the issues with Gaza are different to those in the West Bank.

I also think the “Issues in” language isn’t necessary.

The sections could be geographical:

• Israel proper and the Golan
• East Jerusalem
• Rest of the West Bank
• Gaza Strip

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

A humble admission

In the discussion on renaming this article, I wrote that the article was hopelessly stuck in limbo, and that no meaningful change was possible because of the limitations of the Wikipedia model of collaborative editing and consensus for change. I even made a few snide remarks, that irritated a few of the editors here.

I was wrong. The name change is, on the contrary, an affirmation of the editing model, and a proof that editors with diametrically opposing views can, in fact, be parties to improvements in disputed articles.

So next time, I will keep my mouth shut. Ravpapa (talk) 12:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

No, please, do not keep your mouth shut. Open it widely and loudly, but to participate in the improvements instead of disclaiming any hope for them. nableezy - 14:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I am pleased to see Ravpapa back here – I hope you stick around. That we are able to make improvements to articles on sensitive subjects should hopefully provide some encouragement that your time here can be worthwhile. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Revert

Here an editor thinks that

"They also maintain that Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territories are governed by the Palestinian Authority and the Hamas government in Gaza, respectively."

is not an improvement over

"They also maintain that non-Israeli Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are governed by the Palestinian Authority and the Hamas government in Gaza, respectively."

even though the latter is tautological, long winded and seeks to assert that the PA/Hamas control the oPt without reference to occupation contol. Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the tautology of "non-Israeli Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip" is pretty bloody daft. Also sourced to opinion. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I've provisionally removed the statement and the supporting opinion piece, which was only used here and not in the body, making it doubly undue. I also removed the subsequent quote, which IS repeated in the body, but which hardly seems so important that it needs a repeat reading in the lead. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that, the sentence /source was restored by someone else with comment "Well sourced statement..." ?! Bah. Selfstudier (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Editor @Daveout:, in blatant contradiction of policy, WP:NPOV,WP:WIKIVOICE has restored an opinion piece to the lead. I expect a self revert in short order. Selfstudier (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 September 2022

With the new name of this article there should be some sort of disambiguation hatnote along the lines of: This article is about accusations around the Israeli government's policies towards Palestinians. For Israel's relations with apartheid-era South Africa see Israel–South Africa relations#Early relations: 1948–1994 199.119.233.198 (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)  Done Selfstudier (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

External links

What was so special about the totally one-sided links that were there before? –Daveout(talk) 15:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Mondoweiss is not green at RSN either. –Daveout(talk) 15:15, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Not green, but also not a propaganda outfit like NGO Monitor. nableezy - 15:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to see a reason better than WP:IJDLI for why the Mondoweiss media is not perfectly valid as a useful external link. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

First of all, mondoweiss is considered biased (WP:Perennial_sources#Sources), but more importantly, after you removed a well-balanced external section several months ago, restoring links showing only one side is a clear NPOV violation. If someone is going to add links supporting the apartheid accusation, the section needs other links to counter it. It's not so difficult to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:73C0:600:BC7B:0:0:544:5481 (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

That's a remarkable degree of involved thinking for the first edit of a single edit IP address - implausible one might even say, but hey ho. I incidentally haven't restored anything - I'm just commenting here. But in the interest of dispelling misinformation, there is no consensus about Mondoweiss one way or another as to its reliability, so as it stands, it's just a news site like any other. All sources have bias, so that's a bit irrelevant. What WP:ELPOV notes is: "avoid providing links too great in number or weight to one point of view, or that give undue weight to minority views" - that hardly applies here. This is one link from a news source providing an explainer on the subject in question, making it a useful resource. It's hard to see how a single link could be considered undue weight of anything, or here accused of espousing minority views. Let's see what the introductory brief says: "For decades Palestinians have accused Israel of the crime of Apartheid ..." and inside the video, it couches the information with phrases such as "human rights groups say" - so it doesn't claim that the crime of apartheid definitively exists, but, like most reliable sources, it simply factually outlines the reality that accusations pertaining to the crime of apartheid have been made. Hard to portray any of this as minority views. WP:CENS is possibly relevant to its removal though. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll not comment on Mondoweiss reliability, but in my view it is a partisan source, despite the careful language. The problem with the External Links section as I found it was that it was completely one sided: (*"Inside Israeli Apartheid", 2022 documentary and *The apartheid reports). During the move discussion many users expressed pov concerns, things like these make their fears not only credible but real. Seems like a attempt to turn 'Israel and apartheid' into 'Israeli apartheid'. So let's try to be more balanced shall we? –Daveout(talk) 13:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

^{Standard P.S. Message: I didn't mean to attack anyone with the comment above, even if I mentioned actual users or events, it's just my way of expressing myself. If by any chance I offended you, my sicere apologies 🕊️ –Daveout(talk) 13:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)}

Mondoweiss might be biased, but it has the editorial controls expected of a news outlet, and the documentary presents the information it presents with correct attribution. I don't see a reason to exclude this. This Amnesty International documentary probably goes further. The Christian website is certainly more vocal and presumably lacks any comparable editorial control, and I do think in this context it would probably be better to stick to more serious, editorially controlled sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Right, look... so what we do now?

I'm perfectly happy with no 'external links' section. Or it could have a balanced version, maybe even separated: links supporting the existence of apartheid, others denying it, and descriptive\more neutral ones. This could be the beginning of a RFC. Which links you'd like to see included (if any) and why? and how do you plan to make that section minimally WP:NEUTRAL? –Daveout(talk) 16:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

No need for an RFC because the latest revert is free of any rationale, none was specified in the edit summary, just an unwarranted demand for discussion. Amnesty is green at RSP and on topic. Equally green on topic external links with a different POV are of course permissible as well. I don't really agree with the prior revert either but I let it go, not this time. Selfstudier (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Too bad. External links in articles are to inform the reader on the subject, provide outside sources where they can read (note that important word) more about the topic. A 90-minute eCourse where they get to receive a "Certificate of Participation" at the end is not a useful resource for a Wikipedia reader. Zaathras (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

And now a not entirely unexpected rerevert, without anything approaching a rationale, just a personal attack by way of edit summary. Typical. Selfstudier (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

An explanation was provided. Hint, it was made at 16:59 UTC. Zaathras (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Some website? Thats Amnesty International, which is by consensus a reliable source. And this topic is covered by discretionary sanctions, as Im sure youre aware, so kindly rein in the AMPOL level discourse please. nableezy - 17:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that everything AI publishes is automatically useful or warranted in a Wikipedia article. And hour-and-a-half online workshop is not useful or relevant to any article, much less this one. Also, someone with a block log that spans half a page is not someone who I will take cautions about discourse from seriously. So kindly, keep that part to yourself going forward. Zaathras (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Read and internalize WP:NPA. Thanks. As far as your argument, it does mean that by default it is considered reliable, and certainly does not fail WP:ELNO as a "community college" level survey. nableezy - 17:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Zaathras: You just made that up. The only things explicitly discouraged in external links all appear under WP:ELNO. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

What the fuck... No, I did not "make anything up", because at no time was I arguing a position of policy or guideline. I offered an opinion and analysis of the (lack of) usefulness of the link in question. I also argued against the appeal to authority made by these two editors claim that Since it is from Amnesty International that it is automatically acceptable. Zaathras (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

When you stated: "External links in articles are to inform the reader on the subject, provide outside sources where they can read (note that important word) more about the topic.", at no point did you note "in my opinion". The made up bit was the non-existent reading emphasis. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your lack of understanding of my words is a you problem, not mine. There is nothing "made up", so kindly find another windmill to tilt at. Zaathras (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Well your words are wrong, as the external links guideline explicitly allows for linking to videos. You ever read a video? nableezy - 23:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

because at no time was I arguing a position of policy or guideline. Well, you got that part right. Selfstudier (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Its an appeal to a reliable source. You know, what this entire project is based on. nableezy - 22:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

It was an appeal to authority, i.e. a fallacious argument. Zaathras (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Lol, no, that type of illogical thinking would say "no saying this fact is sourced to a reliable source is appealing to the authority of the source". You can keep trying to pretend like you have an argument here, but it is of the quality of "what the fuck". I.e., less than community college level. Oh, and sorry the move request didnt go your way, will get back to working on the refocusing of the article on Israel and apartheid. nableezy - 23:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Please enjoy WP:AUTHORITY - an essay on why Wikipedia DOES appeal to the PROPER authority. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Daveout: I think you mean "supporting the supposition of apartheid-like characteristics", not "supporting the existence of apartheid" - supporting apartheid's existence would have quite another, separate meaning. More generally though, I would suggest that the topic is a little less monolithic than simple affirmations and denials. With the exception of the human rights groups that have made reports and come to conclusions, most sources tend, by default, to be largely descriptive and explanatory as to the policy and practices that have been characterized as apartheid-esque. Anything simply offering affirmations or denials is unlikely to be an informative resource. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree. And I like how you put things. I oversimplified the proposal because it was just a "draft-thought". Anyway I'm bit wornout by this topic so I'll take break. –Daveout(talk) 20:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Off-topic. Zaathras (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Again, I will not take WP:NPA NPA dictation from you who has so frequently found himself afoul of Wikipedia policy. Whenever you feel like dropping this tangent is fine by me, but I will provide rebuttals until you drop it. Zaathras (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC) Lol, I havent been blocked or sanctioned in the entire time youve had this account. You dont have to take any dictation from me, but youve been notified, and now warned, and if you continue to violate the expected standards of conduct you will then be reported. Toodles, nableezy - 17:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC) Pointing out a factual matter is not a personal attack, but you are free to be wrong. That's what is so great about American freedom. Now we will hat your off-topic derivation. Zaathras (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC) Selfstudier, (Personal attack removed) "No reason was given in edit summary", you said. I actually pointed you out to this policy-based discussion. 3 links supporting the apartheid narrative is a valid reason for concern, discussion and consensus-seeking. –Daveout(talk) 17:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC) Here is the edit summary "rv, i think this should be discussed first. along with the other links" pointing nowhere. Also, see your talk page. Selfstudier (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

See, now these are useful external links. Not an invitation to take a 90-minute test. . Zaathras (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Category: Israel and the apartheid analogy

Shouldn't the category be renamed? 199.119.233.217 (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, will request it be done. nableezy - 15:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Bias

Why does this article continue to portray the fact of the Israeli apartheid practiced as an "accusation"? Why doesn't the apartheid article for example state that apartheid was an accusation leveled against the South African government, an accusation that the state and its supporters denied? There is a ton of mental gymnastics in the lede to twist what reputable human rights organizations characterize as apartheid, into a "debate", where "critics'" opinions are displayed, in an attempt to claim "neutrality". Makeandtoss (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

It's reasonable to ask at what point does the accusation become a fact. I have previously expressed an opinion that would be when the UN or an international court (ICC, ICJ) authoritatively says it is. You say the fact of the Israeli apartheid but on what basis is it a fact? Selfstudier (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Based on the consensus of reputable and relevant human rights organizations, and not the opinions of the Israeli government and its western allies. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

No, that isnt NPOV. Until and unless sources largely describe this as a fact we cannot do so here. Right now it is a contested viewpoint that sources support and deny, and as such we need to attribute to each holder of the various viewpoints what it is they support. nableezy - 16:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Sources are describing this as a fact. By sources I mean international human rights organizations, as they are the ones who provide legal analyses. Governments represent their national interests, whether that be gas or weapon deals, they have no justification to be giving legal opinions on the matter. Should we then mention in the apartheid article that the SA government denied any wrongdoings under the excuse of maintaining "neutrality"?Makeandtoss (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

SA now is not SA then. Back then, the US/UK/France and others supported the SA government until quite late in the day and had there been a WP then, it would not have been able to say categorically that it was a fact. Selfstudier (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Sources are also describing that some academics and government reject the charge, and they are not uniformly or widely treating it as a fact. That said, we do need a bit of restructuring as a result of the move and refocusing the article mostly on the crime and the causes for the charge to be levied, then responses by various actors, and then a smaller bit on the comparisons with SA. nableezy - 16:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Check the Uyghur genocide article for example. The article treats the situation for what it is; describing the genocide, and then going on to very very very briefly say that China denies these charges. And in the end of the lede, it highlights what nations agree/disagree with this characterization. This is much more appropriate than the current lede, which to me basically reads like: "Israel may be committing apartheid, but Israel and its allies firmly reject this. Israel controls every aspect of West Bank Palestinians' lives, but Macron disagrees. HRW says apartheid, but Israel says this is state delegitimization." Unacceptable phrasing, or at least lede structure. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Idk much about the Uyghur case but I did read that there is discussion about a UN report avoiding the word. In some respects that is similar to the case here, lots of people are saying "apartheid" but so far not the UN directly (the ESCWA report was published but then effectively disowned by the UN Sec Gen). I assume that article is anyway titled as it is because there are a sufficiency of reliable sources (mainly US/Western, right?) saying that it is a genocide but we don't have that situation here, most RS dance around the issue. Selfstudier (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

"Why doesn't the apartheid article for example state that apartheid was an accusation leveled against the South African government, an accusation that the state and its supporters denied?" The question puts the cart before the horse and then makes a false assertion. "Apartheid" was the policy put in place by the South African National Party while it was in government from the late 1940s onwards, the word being Afrikaans for "separateness". As such, it's nonsense to call it "an accusation made against the South African government which that state and its supporters denied," as much as, say, writing, "Soviet Containment was an accusation made against the United States government which that state and its supporters denied." Comparisons have been made between what happened in South Africa and what is now happening in the Palestine region, with figures from the ANC having said that the situation in the latter is actually worse. Based on events in South Africa, the "crime of apartheid" was formulated. Besides comparisons being made with what happened in South Africa, Israel has specifically been accused of committing that crime. Also see the Hafrada and Palestinian Enclaves articles.

There is a bibliography here which, if editors have not already come across it, they may find useful.

I attempted to find an article by Uri Avnery which describes earlier uses of the Hafrada concept than outlined in the Wikipedia article on that subject. Editors may find the books and articles returned by Google searches performed[2][3] useful.

    ←   ZScarpia   11:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

On Monday, after a 10 year hiatus, the EU-Israel Association will reconvene, Lapid in attendance. HRW, Amnesty and others are demanding that the apartheid issue be raised. Yet a draft EU declaration already written does not use the word, merely referring to the usual set of hr abuses. It seems everyone is hoping that the 2 state solution may yet happen via possible peace talks (following Biden/Lapid re-endorsement of the idea). So we will see. Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Meeting went off Final EU position paper here. Lapid only attended via video. and see some video Selfstudier (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Red herring in lede

"and that Israel cannot be an apartheid state because its Arab citizens are represented in the government and in leadership positions", this counterargument tackles everything but the point; the fact that millions of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza have no say in the institutions that control every aspect of their life, which is a point clearly articulated in the Amnesty and HRW reports. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I wonder how Macron's dubious personal opinions even made it to the lead in the first place - not exactly stellar sourcing. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

It seems that some editors want to keep this tokenism hasbara garbage in the lead, as well as citing Macron's opinion unattributed, they want now to cite another opinion piece from a dubious source which is just a list of every token they could locate. Bah!. Selfstudier (talk) 13:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

That's actually an important point if one is [Macron's counterargument is actually an important one when people are] trying to argue in favor of the apartheid narrative. "The Palestinian are under apartheid" they say, while Palestinans are living alongside Jews in Israel. With some Palestinian living better lives and having more social influence than most jews (like the supreme court justice). If this article is focused on the occupied territories, it should probs be renamed to something like "Accusations of apartheid in the West Bank and Gaza", if that is it's primary subject.

"hav[ing] no say in the institutions that control every aspect of their life" Can mean many things. It can mean someone is living under any type of oppressive regime (like an ordinary occupation), not necessarily apartheid (which is intrinsically related to ethnicity). And I'm sure Gazans dont have much say in the Hamas-led govt that also controls "every aspect of their lives" either... Just like the Saudis; Is that apartheid too? –Daveout(talk) 13:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC) Edited for clarity\readability. –Daveout(talk) 19:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Good grief. Apartheid is about ethnocratic statehood one ethnos excluding another on a shared territory, so how on earth you can slip in an analogy between Hamas and the citizens it rules, or Saudis and their civilian population, is beyond me. Apartheid is not a synonym for oppressive rule. If you want to challenge 'having no say in the institutions that control every aspect of their life' read Israeli occupation of the West Bank and come back to say why that is inaccurate, despite the intense documentation on it. Israel certainly does not practice, in Israel, apartheid in the South African form, but the concept is broader than the SA model. In the West Bank and Gaza, Israel does practice apartheid, in a form more severe than that historically in place in South Africa. A political judgment by , here, Macron, should never be cited in a lead on a topic that demands serious scholarship, not just a media performance based on calculations of national interest. Nishidani (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Then there are the refutations of this rubbish, for example, per Amnesty

"As a result of their citizenship status, Palestinian citizens of Israel are the only group of Palestinians living under Israel’s rule who can vote in its national and municipal elections and be elected as members of the Knesset. However, while Israeli laws and policies define the state as democratic, the fragmentation of the Palestinian people ensures that Israel’s version of democracy overwhelmingly privileges political participation by Jewish Israelis. In addition, the representation of Palestinian citizens of Israel in the decision-making process, primarily in the Knesset, has been restricted and undermined by an array of Israeli laws and policies." Selfstudier (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Nishidani that's exactly my point. (?!?!) An oppressive regime doesn't necessarily mean apartheid. (It's the case of Gaza and SA, both under authoritarianism but not "self-apartheid"). And I know Palestinian in the WB and Gaza have "no say in the institutions that control every aspect of their life"; that is a component, but not *the* defining feature of apartheid. (read my comment again please, calmly this time. And my last lines were (a lame attempt) at being ironical) –Daveout(talk) 14:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Not interested in debate about whether the critical opinion is correct or not. Is it due? We have cited a JPost article that quotes him, and there's a TOI piece that does the same. I think that makes it a weighty enough statement for mention in the body, but not enough for a lead mention. The lead description of this view as one that "critics argue" is not justified by these sources. Our lead line is also too close of a paraphrase; if it stays, it needs to be reworded or Macron directly quoted. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I think Macron's take encapsulates very well one of the main arguments of those who oppose the apartheid theory. In my view, it is good summary of said arguments and therefore could go unattributed in the lede. However, I agree that the sourcing is currently somewhat subpar so I won't editwar over it if it gets removed, until I can find more, better sources. –Daveout(talk) 13:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

My comment was not to deny the fact that Palestinian citizens of Israel are not facing any discrimination; they do, as attested by the same reports I cited. Not having a say in the institutions that control every aspect of their lives when accompanied with a system of racial segregation and ethnic dominance over other groups, is the definition of Apartheid. We should stop discussing basic self-evident concepts and focus on how to improve the article, as was the original aim of this discussion. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

We have in the government reactions section "Prime Minister Jean Castex of France read a speech on behalf of President Emmanuel Macron to the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France (CRIF) and said "How dare we talk about apartheid in a state where Arab citizens are represented in government and positions of leadership and responsibility?". which is what is being represented as a fact in the lead and I don't see why that particular reaction should be in the lead in preference to any other reactions (Crimson, etc). So it seems that this material should be removed as undue for the lead and I will do that shortly unless anyone else has something to add. Selfstudier (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 January 2023

Change the following:

On 28 June 2022, the US Presbyterian Church passed a resolution recognizing that "Israel's laws, policies and practices regarding the Palestinian people fulfill the international legal definition of apartheid".

to

On 28 June 2022, the US Presbyterian Church passed a resolution recognizing that "Israel's laws, policies and practices regarding the Palestinian people fulfill the international legal definition of apartheid".

The Presbyterian Church in the United States article is about a former organization that ended in 1983. It's the new church that passed the resolution, not the old one. JasonMacker (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done Selfstudier (talk) 07:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Occupation

References to the military occupation, where the apartheid system is most prevalent, is noticeably missing from the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

In 2022, sources began to link the occupation together with apartheid so I have added these more recent events in. What do you think? Selfstudier (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

It's great but more emphasis should be added, especially in the opening sentence. All sources say the apartheid system is practiced across all territories controlled by Israel and within Israel proper. I would propose the following:

The Israeli government is accused of committing the crime of apartheid under the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, both in the Israeli-occupied territories in the West Bank and Gaza and within Israel proper; charges the state and its supporters deny. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Not quite, if you look at the section Overview of reports, the reports differ in whether Israel proper is included, I don't think we should imply that all reports say that? Selfstudier (talk) 09:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Then I propose:

The Israeli government is accused of committing the crime of apartheid under the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, in the Israeli-occupied territories in the West Bank and Gaza, and to a lesser degree, within Israel proper; charges the state and its supporters deny. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

How about now? Selfstudier (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Much better. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Lede

"The Israeli government" is accused of... "committing the crime of apartheid". This phrasing is misleading. Which Israeli government? And why committing, implying a past occurrence? I find a better, more descriptive phrasing, and more prominent in the sources is that the State of Israel is accused of maintaining a system of apartheid. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Dump the "accused" part and just say is. Israel is committing the crime of apartheid 142.54.9.83 (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Some say they are not, or at least that they do not support the use of the word. Selfstudier (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

"some" who? israeli sources or western anti-palistine media? 142.54.9.83 (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

It is covered in the article. Selfstudier (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

Is there an appropriate infobox for this type of article, or perhaps an idea for a picture which could be used in the lede? Makeandtoss (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Don't think there is an infobox, what would be in it? Any picture is either going to be tied to an accusation, Apartheid road for example or else some sort of denial of same tho I can't think of an example off the top of my head. Selfstudier (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Opening sentence

@Tombah: The phrasing I chose clearly attributed the assertions to the human rights groups, you could have connected the two sentences instead of the current unappealing phrasing. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Major Revisions Needed After US House Vote

On July 17, the US House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly in favor of a non-binding resolution that says "the State of Israel is not a racist or apartheid state" [4]. The vote was 412-9-1. While the US has traditionally been a supporter of Israel, it has also frequently criticized Israeli policies, and for a resolution to pass so resoundingly across all major ideological spectrums of US politics is extremely notable and unquestionably needs to affect the tone of this article.

This article is currently written from the perspective that there is a vast consensus that Israel is committing apartheid and only Israel and its supporters "deny" this. Let me sum up the actual state of the debate.

The following summarizes those claiming Israel is committing apartheid:

1. A number of NGOs, most notably Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B'tselem, all three of which made their claims within the last three years.
2. A number of investigators at the UN who are not speaking on behalf of the UN as an organization, most notably Richard Falk and Francesca Albanese.
3. Palestinian organizations
4. The African National Congress in South Africa
5. Various other individuals, typically those involved in left-wing politics or in the Arab world

The following have not claimed and have actively avoided stating that Israel is committing apartheid:

1. The United Nations as an organization, whether via the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court.
2. Every single government in the world speaking from an official capacity
3. Every single reputable news organization in their news section, including The New York Times, Washington Post, Reuters, Associated Press, BBC News, NPR, or CNN. I don't think even Al Jazeera (which Wikipedia editors generally consider a partisan source with respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict) makes this claim in its news section.

The following have explicitly rejected the claim that Israel is committing apartheid:

1. 95% of the US House of Representatives
2. The Commission of the European Union [5]
3. Various experts in international law and peace activists [6][7]
4. The Israeli government
5. Most Jewish-affiliated organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League

The consensus picture that emerges from this is very clear. Yes, two reputable human rights organizations (Amnesty and HRW) have argued in recent years that Israel is committing apartheid. But that conclusion has not been accepted, at least not yet, by the global community (i.e. global governments or the UN) or by any reputable news organization reporting on the subject. It is considered a controversial topic that has not achieved consensus, and is rejected by the EU and US governments. (If you excuse my editorializing, the reason for this is obvious - the crime of apartheid is an explicitly racial crime, while Israel's actions are clearly not racial in nature.)

Given the fact that the US House resoundingly rejected the claim that Israel is an apartheid state, and the fact that the Israel-apartheid link has not been embraced by reputable news organizations or the global community, I suggest the following revision to the first paragraph.

"The claim that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid is an assertion debated by scholars in international law. This contention gained increasing prominence in the early 2020s following the release of reports from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, in which they allege that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid under the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in the occupied Palestinian territories and, according to Amnesty International, in Israel proper. This claim has been rejected by Israel and its supporters as well as by the United States House of Representatives." Y2K-96 (talk) 01:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The US is the most obvious of Israel's supporters, so this isn't an update that adds anything to the existing sentence. The house in the US just held a vote on something that was already the government's standing policy. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

yeah and it does not cross your head that US member of congress are paid of by AIPAC or other pro Israel lobbies, its just a political stance.

US is a stanct Israeli ally, more than how Al-Jazera is a partisian source.

adds nothing Proud Indian Arnab (talk) 08:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The issue is up to debate among scholars too, as he laid out. It just cannot be portrayed as fact. 109.253.195.188 (talk) 08:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll secound this. the accusation of israel as an apartheid state cannot be portrayed as a fact in wikipedia

while it is up a fierce debate in the outside world. It is clear that this article was hijacked by propagandists. 109.253.195.188 (talk) 08:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

This page is ECP protected, so any IP editors contributing would be well reminded to remain constructive, and not disruptive. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Zero revisions are needed. A lower house resolution where lawmakers vote based on political interests is not in the same domain as detailed human rights reports by leading reputable international organizations. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The reports from the two reputable NGOs are definitely relevant, but this is also clearly a topic that is still under fierce debate by legal scholars and has not achieved any form of consensus. The stance of the global community is also unquestionably always relevant, and the US Congress is arguably the most important nation-level governmental body in the world. The resounding rejection by virtually all members of Congress is particularly noteworthy. The apartheid claim has also been rejected by the EU and is not accepted at this time by the UN as an organization. Two NGOs, even if generally respected, cannot be said to represent the neutral point of view on a topic that is subject to widespread disagreement. This is a topic that is contentious among experts in the field and you would be flagrantly operating in violation of WP:NPOV if you maintained the current form of the opening paragraph. Y2K-96 (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The opinions of the politicians of no individual country is particularly noteworthy. The only thing that really has any real world impact is the official policy or line of a country or organization on an issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

You can argue what you like, but Wikipedia talk pages are not for advancing novel arguments. A non-binding resolution from one part of one countries legislature is not a, all that notable, b, all that reliable for a topic covered by academic sources. Beyond that, this article does not say as a matter of fact that Israel is guilty of apartheid. It says who says this and why, and it also says who disputes it. It already includes that Israel's allies, including the United States, reject the charge. The second sentence in the article is Israel and its supporters deny this. It later says Israel and a number of Western governments and other organizations and scholars have rejected the charges or objected to the use of the word "apartheid" In the body, in the section Israel and apartheid § Response, it goes to great lengths on the US response and the history of that response. Now I think the opening paragraph can be rephrased, mostly so it starts with who says it rather than ending with according to. But the claim that this article either states as a fact what it attributes to specific sources or that it does not include the responses it clearly does is a fabrication and needs no further examination. nableezy - 02:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

My post specifically flagged the opening paragraph as something that needs to be completely rewritten. It was not intended to discuss the article as a whole in detail. The opening paragraph is intended to convey the overall picture of the article and it is crucial that it is written with the proper implications. I realize that I have not broken down in clear terms what is so flagrantly misleading about the opening paragraph so I will do so here.

Readers of the opening paragraph should be able to ascertain which of the following is correct:

1. The consensus is that Israel is committing apartheid
2. The consensus is that Israel is not committing apartheid
3. There is no consensus as of yet regarding whether Israel is committing apartheid

My post explained in very clear terms why the third option is clearly the most accurate option. It is a fact that many legal scholars argue that Israel is not committing apartheid and that this is subject of open debate. The consensus of Western governments, as represented by both the EU and the US, is that Israel is not committing apartheid. The UN has not concluded as of yet that Israel is committing apartheid despite pressures to do so, and no reputable news organization has reported this as fact either. I think that when no governments have weighed in on this topic, and both the EU and 95% of a partisan-divided House rejected the claim, that for the wiki's opening paragraph to imply that the claim is the consensus is absurd. As I made very clear, this is not just about the resounding House vote - that is just one indication among the many I provided that this is a contentious and unsettled claim.

Yet it is very clear that the opening paragraph is implying that the false first option is correct. It does so in the following ways:

1. The paragraph opens with the statement "Israel is committing the crime of apartheid under the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court." It then qualifies that this is according to as yet unnamed human rights groups, but when a paragraph opening with such a statement, the emphasis is that this is generally considered a fact. We must not only remove that opening line, but also make clear in the first sentence that the link between Israel and apartheid is subject to disagreement.
2. The paragraph falsely implies there is a consensus among neutral parties (and even neutral Israelis) by, other than a snarky reference to the Israeli position, only stating that this position is embraced by "international, Israeli and Palestinian human rights groups." The sum of experts on this subject clearly do not only include two NGOs, but also legal scholars, government officials working on and mediating the conflict, peace activists, and of course the UN as an organization. The fact is that there is widespread disagreement among those experts, and the most notable expert (the United Nations) has not taken an official stance. This implication is thus a lie, as there are many neutral parties (as far as anyone can be neutral) that reject this claim. (The reference to Israeli human rights groups is also odd, considering B'tselem is not a human rights group that represents Israelis, but simply a group based in Jerusalem that is funded by non-Israeli governments and individuals.)
3. The paragraph says Israel and its supporters "deny" this, which usually means "refuses to admit the truth or existence of," again implying there is a consensus. The correct term would be "reject."

I honestly do not know how anyone can defend this opening paragraph. It is openly ideological and extremely inappropriate for a Wikipedia article that should be adhering to NPOV. And I have not heard a single objection to my proposed revision. Y2K-96 (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Your proposed opener is mealy mouthed and gives undue weight to political positions over the views of scholars and experts in the field of international law. So while I agree the opening paragraph can be improved, and Ill try to do that, no, your proposal is substantially worse. nableezy - 04:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Accusation: a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong. The word accusation gives the implication that this is yet to be investigated, which is factually wrong. These organizations are not just accusing out of thin air, they are announcing their detailed findings over decades of work in the territories. A lower house resolution does nothing to change that. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course it is an accusation, and just like the US Congress does not determine The Truth neither do the human rights organizations cited. You have to present contested views as contested views, that goes for all sides of an issue. nableezy - 17:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

§Government reactions already has a major WP:PROSELINE problem, which I hesitate to worsen, but I do think a short mention of the US congressional vote is due. Something like "In 2023, the US House of Representatives passed a resolution stating that Israel is not an apartheid state." It could be cited to this NYT piece. I don't think the whole article needs reworking. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

In light of the lack of consensus presented by the sorces brought in the comment above I want to suggest a structural change.

The structure of the article should reflect the character of the discourse which resembles a debate between prosecutor and defendant. Namely, there should be a response paragraph in any section instead of a section of responses. Currently, the structure implies that there is a consensus that israel is an apartheid state.

Moreover, the last sentance in the opening paragraph should be changed: it can be inferred from the sources in the comment above that Israel and its supporters are not the only ones rejecting the accusation. Moreover, major organisations and governments rejecting the claim should be mentioned by name (very much like the accusers), and not collectively as "supporters of Israel", even if this is indeed the case (and what does that even mean?) as it implies that all supporters of israel are not reliable sources.

Similar edit suggestions I made were erased for "lack of sources", I hope that now It is clear on which sources I base my suggestions. 109.253.201.103 (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

There is a consensus that no major changes are needed. Also, if one reads the article carefully, the opposition as often as not is a) political and b) rejecting the use of the word 'apartheid' rather than engaging with the specific charges. If there were to be any changes, then this would need to be brought out as well. Selfstudier (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The list of sources/organisations that Y2K-96 brought that disputes apartheid accusations or simply doesn't make the accusation are enough to disprove the existence of consensus. If you think otherwise you should deal with the points he made before declaring consensus in the opening paragraph. 109.253.180.4 (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Opening sentence

For the past few weeks there has been ongoing changes to the opening sentence relating if it should start with "International, Israeli and Palestinian human rights groups say that Israel is" or start with "Israel is committing the crime of apartheid... according to". I have never ever seen an opening sentence to an article that starts with an attribution and then the information. Information first then attribution. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Just to avoid the is/accusation/allegation stuff at the outset. Selfstudier (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Again use of words "accusation/charge/allegation/say" implies baseless claim being thrown around, as if the organizations making them haven't been observing the conflict for decades nor providing detailed studies and analyses. Simple, "Israel is committing... according to..". This is what majority of reputable, reliable and independent sources are saying. No reasons or meaningful counterarguments have been provided on why we should rephrase otherwise, especially in an usual way that starts an article by stating the attribution first and then the information. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Selfstudier and I independently arrived at the same initial wording. I think the actors making the assertions is the right way to start this, since certain actors (albeit extremely weight actors) making assertions is indeed the subject here. We could perhaps add a majority of Middle Eastern scholars to that mix too. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Please show me one single article whose first sentence starts with an attribution. There is none because it doesn’t make sense. This article isn’t an exception. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Please show me a policy or guide or anything that says we can't do that. Selfstudier (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Here you go, all of the quoted sentences emphasize how the lead sentence should start with the title as subject, and should start with it as early as possible.

WP:LEADSENTENCE:

• The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where.
• If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence
• Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.

MOS:BOLDTITLE:

• If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence.

MOS:DONTTEASE: Wikipedia leads are not written in news style.

An article named "Israel and apartheid" should start with this title as the subject (not necessarily literally). If anyone believes the subject is controversial, then maybe their problem is actually with the title (scope) of the article. An article that starts with "According to.." would be an article named "Allegations of ....". You get the point. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where.

It does.

The title is Israel and apartheid not Israeli apartheid as the latter is not yet a thing. We should not bold a descriptive title in general but say we did start the article using the words Israel and apartheid, what follows then? Selfstudier (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

My point was not to use a bold descriptive title in the first three words. My point is that Wikipedia guidelines clearly emphasize that the subject (the first few words of the lead sentence) should explain the title (scope of the article). When reading an article about Israel and apartheid one would expect to read first words about Israel and apartheid, and that occurs when we write the lead sentence in this way "Israel is committing the crime of apartheid under the... according to...". This way identifies Israel as the perpetrator, apartheid as a crime, and a crime according to what law (that is what the title/article scope is about anyway), and then mentions by whom were the investigations and the designations made by (not allegations and claims). In short: title decides scope decides subject; if you find the subject problematic, then fight the title.

Furthermore, although as mentioned earlier there is a difference between journalistic and encyclopaedic writing, even this New York Times article follows the same aforementioned logic in the title, in the abstract and in the lead sentence. Facial Recognition Powers ‘Automated Apartheid’ in Israel, Report Says Makeandtoss (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Leading human rights group calls Israel an ‘apartheid’ state AP doing it the other way around and also putting apartheid in quotes like the NYT, I'm guessing you don't want to do that, right? Selfstudier (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, read the AP title: "Leading human rights group calls Israel an ‘apartheid’ state". This is how they chose the title, thus the article scope, thus the first few opening words. The AP article is about what this specific Israeli human rights group is saying; more than about the apartheid regime/situation in place; unlike the NYT article and unlike this Wikipedia article. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't need to read the AP title, I put it up for you to read. We don't pay attention to WP:HEADLINES for a reason and headlines are not equivalent to article titles. The opening sentence does say what the article is principally about, does it not? Selfstudier (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The current opening sentence places the focus on the consensus rather than the crime. This opening sentence belongs to an article titled "Analogies and designations of Israel as apartheid". Makeandtoss (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't say analogies, analogy or designation anywhere. It does mention Israel and apartheid though and that there are two sets of views about that. Selfstudier (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

There is one reliable set of views and that is of Middle East scholars and international human rights organizations. The opposing view is of the Israeli government and its western governments supporters. Was the latest Congress resolution based on any study or just wishful thinking and political considerations? And see? Now we are discussing the scope and the article title, and that seems where your objections to this lie. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Human right organisations are prosecutors and one side to the debate among many-not the ultimate judge. the article should indeed reflect this. 109.253.201.103 (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

This is not correct. The global political consensus is clearly against the use of such terminology (if only by omission), so it is currently human rights groups + scholars versus politicians. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

"60 percent of respondents (the scholars) described the situation in Israel and the Palestinian territories as a “one-state reality with inequality akin to apartheid.”

this is citation from the source you provided for your addition. As you can see, they did not claim that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid under the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, but only that the situation resembles apartheid. 109.253.201.103 (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I added that source for the "broad consensus" and I think that is a fair summary of what the article says, viz:

"A flurry of reports by Israeli and international nongovernmental organizations documenting these inequalities have driven the term “apartheid” from the margins of the Israeli-Palestinian debate to its center. Apartheid refers to the system of racial segregation that South Africa’s white minority government used to enshrine white supremacy from 1948 to the early 1990s. It has since been defined under international law and by the International Criminal Court as a legalized scheme of racial segregation and discrimination and deemed a crime against humanity. Major human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have applied the term to Israel. So have many academics: according to a March 2022 poll of Middle East–focused scholars who are members of three large academic associations, 60 percent of respondents described the situation in Israel and the Palestinian territories as a “one-state reality with inequality akin to apartheid."

How else would you summarize it? Selfstudier (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The consensus among scholars is not about "the crime of apartheid under the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court" as the opening paragraph states, but about "one-state reality with inequality akin to apartheid." Only akin to apartheid, not the crime of apartheid itself. 109.253.201.103 (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

It's a summary of what's in the article, I don't actually need the cite in the lead so I removed it. Selfstudier (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Based on what you claim there is a consensus among middle east scholars if not the mentioned survey? 109.253.180.4 (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

It's sourced to WAPO in the article (or to the cite I removed, which I can add to the article). Do you think the survey was asking the question about South African apartheid? (rather than the crime). Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The source for a broad consensus does not support that. The source supports that there is a consensus that there are "abiding and severe inequalities", and it supports that the word apartheid has been moved from the fringes to the center of the debate on Israel and its practices, but it does not support there is a consensus for the charge. nableezy - 17:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

What Apartheid Means for Israel may also do:

"All of this work owed much to decades of tireless Palestinian advocacy to achieve wider recognition of Israeli apartheid. To acknowledge that underlying effort raises the question of why it took the endorsement by Israeli and international organizations, reiterating what Palestinians had long been telling anyone inclined to hear it, in order to make headlines in mainstream Western media. Nevertheless, that qualification does not detract from the power of this moment: the emergence of a broad consensus that has made it much harder to deny either the singular character of the Israeli regime or the essential unity of the Palestinian people." (my italics). Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Or a scholarly source "But it is clear that international law’s definitions and prohibitions of apartheid, and the positions now increasingly being taken by major human rights organisations, have been a core driver of the broadening consensus on Israeli apartheid." Selfstudier (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The fact that someone claims that there is a consensus does not necessarily mean that one indeed exists. Also, you are expected to provide a source with evidence for a consensus among human rights organizations or erase the notion. 109.253.180.4 (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Just did that, above. Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

A source with evidence for consensus should contain a review of the official stands of all major human right organizations. One scholar that claims that a consensus exists is not enough. 109.253.180.4 (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

You are at liberty to include a source saying there is no consensus among human rights organizations if you wish. The official stances of the major orgs are described in the article. It is easy to source themselves saying there is a consensus eg Human Rights Consensus Around Crime of Apartheid Selfstudier (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

That latter one supports that there is a broader consensus emerging, but a. that is not saying one exists today, and b. this is still a very poor way of introducing the topic. nableezy - 18:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Its a March 2023 source, perhaps the consensus has evaporated since then but I don't think so. I am open to different ways of introducing the topic, suggest something else since people seem to have some different views about it. Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

There are two key points of discussion here.

1. Is there currently consensus among experts that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid or has no such consensus yet emerged?
2. How should we characterize the opponents of the apartheid designation in the opening paragraph?

Let me tackle the consensus question first in light of the new sources that were provided. While there is no source I am aware of that explicitly states "there is no consensus," I believe the weight of the evidence is in favor of the argument that there is no consensus yet. Three sources were raised to support this claim that there is already a consensus: the book by John Reynolds, the Tareq Baconi opinion article, and the article from the Washington Post. I think they all point to the exact opposite, that consensus does not yet exist.

Here is why I say this:

1. Both of the two sources that used the word "consensus," while written by activists, are careful to avoid stating that a consensus exists. Both use qualifiers - the Reynolds book refers to a "broadening consensus" and the Baconi opinion article refers to "a growing consensus." The use of the qualifiers "broadening" and "growing" indicate that consensus has not been established, but the author believes that we are on a path towards achieving consensus and that consensus will ultimately emerge. In other words, there is no consensus yet. It is particularly notable that the current paragraph in Wikipedia goes much farther than even the most ostensibly pro-consensus sources, stating not only that the consensus already exists, but that it is a broad consensus. This is not supported by any sources.
2. Both of the two sources that use the word "consensus" refer to a vague growing consensus surrounding Israel and apartheid, but they do not state what they believe this growing consensus to be. They do not state that there is a growing consensus that Israel is committing apartheid in a colloquial sense, and they definitely do not state that there is a growing consensus that Israel is violating the crime of apartheid.
3. The Washington Post provides some useful numbers: 65 percent of the scholars agree with the statement that the current situation can be described as “a one state reality akin to apartheid." The remaining scholars do not agree with the statement. Let us first discuss the prompt. As has already been stated, the prompt uses the phrase "akin to apartheid," which is another source of evidence that experts discussing the issue often avoid directly labeling it as apartheid and use the word as an analogy instead. (Not that it matters in this discussion, but I personally think you can make a solid argument that Israel's actions are "akin to apartheid," but the arguments are fatally flawed if they try to claim that Israel acts are literally apartheid, meaning they are racial in nature and constitute a system of intentional racial domination.)
4. Now let's discuss that number accepting the analogy - 65 percent. For Wikipedia's internal policies, it is very clear that consensus is not a majority vote - see wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_is_consensus In general, there is no defined number for consensus, but if a number is placed, that number is generally 75 percent [8]

While the views of scholars are not the only factor, I am glad that we are taking a closer look at the evidence on this. The evidence is clear: When describing views of other scholars and experts on the topic, all sources refer to growing support for the apartheid designation but imply that a consensus does not exist.

Now let me tackle the second question: How should we characterize the opponents of the apartheid designation?

Right now, the article describes the opponents as "Israel and its supporters" and uses the word "deny."

As mentioned, the opponents include both the EU Commission, a wide consensus of Western politicians, and a relevant minority of legal and topic experts. While some of these organizations may or may not "support" Israel (I don't think the EU for example has taken such a position), you definitely cannot reduce them and their views to "Israel and its supporters." The EU Commission, for example, is one of the world's most highly respected governmental bodies. In describing those rejecting the apartheid designation, we should gesture to the consensus of Western governments and to the minority of legal experts, not reduce all opponents to "Israel and its supporters."

Lastly, the use of the word "deny" is clearly inappropriate. The word "deny" is intended to convey an editorialized viewpoint that those rejecting the claim are unequivocally wrong. It is appropriate to be used in contexts such as "Holocaust denial," where the rejection is of facts that are clearly and overwhelmingly true. In this case, there is no question that the word "reject" is more appropriate for a Wikipedia article adhering to NPOV. If you are writing an opinion article, the word "deny" might be a useful rhetorical turn of phrase, but it is wholly inappropriate in a Wikipedia article about a topic that remains controversial among experts. Y2K-96 (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

It is with a heavy heart that I must agree with @Y2K-96. Heavy because personally, there is no doubt in my mind that what is happening in the West Bank is apartheid in its most heinous form. But to call 65% a "broad consensus" and to dismiss the EU Commission and the US government as "Israel's supporters" is a low form of yellow journalism that only undermines Wikipedia's integrity. Ravpapa (talk) 05:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I dont really know how anybody is arguing otherwise here. Im going to re-edit the lead, and Makeandtoss kindly dont just blanket revert based on "no consensus". There doesnt appear to be a consensus for how things stand here either, and look at who youre arguing against. nableezy - 12:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

We seem to be confusing separate things here, the broad consensus is among hro's primarily, all the major ones agree that Israel meets the bar for the crime and have backed it with detailed legal and other reporting. If we want to nitpick the Middle East scholarly consensus, it can be removed from the lead sentence (done), its in the article anyway.

If we want to name the Israel supporters in the lead, that's fine by me as long as we name the opponents as well. The result will be a more lengthy opening sentence or sentences. Selfstudier (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I took a stab at a rewrite of the opening paragraph. This article had been previously an attempt to obfuscate the topic, but it is turning in to a one seeking to prove some truth. Human rights organizations, politicians, all of these things are sources. They are not The Truth, and as with all things our job is to try to represent the sources and give them their due weight. That does not mean saying HRW, AI, and Btselem said this so its true and everything else is bullshit and can be ignored. nableezy - 13:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Kudos to @Nableezy for an excellent rewrite. Ravpapa (talk) 05:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit suggestion

"...have said that the totality and severity of the human rights violations against the Palestinian population amount..."

apartheid is not defined by "total and severe" human right violation. It has unique characteristics (mainly segregation). Therefore I would suggest instead:

"...have said that the segregation maintained by the Israeli authorities in the Palestinian territories/west bank amount..."

This is the opening of the "apartheid" article,as you can see apartheid is defined using the word "segregation", which justify the change.

"Apartheid was a system of institutionalised racial segregation that existed in South Africa and South West Africa (now Namibia) from 1948 to the early 1990s."

Moreover, Israrel does not reject the charge just as "inaccurate" but as false. I think we should soften the "antisemitic" part to "sometimes antisemitic", neither all critics of Israel's policies are antisemitic nor Israel claim so.

109.253.195.172 (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The bit on totality and severity is based on HRW: In certain areas, as described in this report, these deprivations are so severe that they amount to the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution. and Amnesty International: The totality of the regime of laws, policies and practices described in Amnesty International’s report demonstrates that Israel has established and maintained an institutionalized regime of oppression and domination of the Palestinian population for the benefit of Jewish Israelis – a system of apartheid – wherever it exercises control over Palestinians’ lives. The antisemitic bit is based on CNN: Amnesty International has become the latest human rights organization to accuse Israel of apartheid for its treatment of Palestinians, prompting an angry response from Israel, which has denounced the report as anti-Semitic. I can change inaccurate to false. nableezy - 18:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Genocide is also a "total and severe" human right violation which is not apartheid, if you want to state what in israel's actions amount to apartheid you should be more specific and stick to the definition of apartheid, which is also the way to keep NPOV, the phrase "totality and severity...." is inappropriate in its current context. Although of course it can be brought in the section about HRW report. 109.253.196.114 (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding the sentence, it isn’t saying apartheid is total and severe, it is saying the policies of Israel in its occupation as a whole and the denial of human rights as a result, the totality, are severe enough to constitute a crime against humanity. And as far as definitions, apartheid is defined in the Rome Statute as

The 'crime of apartheid' means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalised 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.

Where paragraph one discusses a number of severe violations of human rights. Apartheid is defined by yes the motive of establishing dominance of one group over the other, but also by the methods used to do so. That’s the severity of the totality of the policies underpinning the occupation. You also seem to be confusing little a apartheid and big A Apartheid. One is a system of racial dominance used in South Africa, the other is a crime defined by the Rome Statute. nableezy - 13:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Opening paragraph 2

WP:OPEN The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific.

Needs a major summarization without going into details that have been recently added. I also strongly object to the use of terminology such as "claim", they are not just claiming, they had a claim, they studied it and they issued their conclusions based on evidence. The appropriate term is "characterization". Makeandtoss (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree on the room for better terminology point here - I've worked that in with the added benefit of removing a "some" - a classic WP:WEASEL word, while adding in the unreferenced UN Special Rapporteurs. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

It does identify the topic with a neutral point of view, it attributes POVs to who holds them. You apparently want considerably more than that. Ive cleaned up some of the pointless things that have been re-added to the opening paragraph. nableezy - 17:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

No you just simply removed information on who’s making the accusation, while keeping information on who is opposing it. Neither side deserves such detail in the opening paragraph. They are either both equally summarized or both staying with equal weight (current eyesore). Makeandtoss (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I support the current opening paragraph and do not accept that it's an "eyesore." Any less detail would not provide enough context for getting a big picture view on this topic and any more detail would be too much for an opening paragraph. It says that leading human rights groups and UN special rapporteurs are those making the accusation, which is the right level of information and provides the correct big picture view of who made the accusations (adding the names of those organizations would not add any context or weight that "leading human rights organizations" does not). Similarly, it says Israel, its allies, the US, and the EU Commission reject the term. It would be insufficient to just say Israel and its allies reject the term, since it is very significant for the big picture view to understand that the EU Commission (not an ally of Israel and one of the most important global players) and the US (the leading global superpower) reject this term. Y2K-96 (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Um. This causes a lot of confusion, the term versus the accusation. The EC written response is a masterpiece of doublespeak, it says in relation to the State of Israel but "apartheid state" is not a legal concept. It doesn't say anything about using the term in relation to named individuals (as in the DAWN case). Selfstudier (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

As far as drawn accusations or drawn characterizations, youre just making the sentence look silly. Saying some state is guilty of a crime is an accusation. They are accusing Israel of committing a crime. See for example Leading rights groups in Israel and abroad have accused Israel and its 56-year occupation of the West Bank of morphing into an apartheid system that they say gives Palestinians second-class status and is designed to maintain Jewish hegemony from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Or Amnesty is the latest rights advocate to accuse Israel of operating an apartheid system, joining former President Jimmy Carter, Human Rights Watch and the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem. Or A United Nations special rapporteur has accused Israel of committing the crime of apartheid in the occupied territories, joining a growing group of international, Israeli and Palestinian rights watchdogs that have sought to recast the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a struggle for equal rights instead of a territorial dispute. You are objecting to what is absolutely standard terminology for any crime. And while doing so you are making the sentence look amateurish and poorly written. nableezy - 17:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I will only drop my insistence to remove "accusation" because it seems to reflect most sources, and not because it would make the sentence look "amateurish and poorly written". Makeandtoss (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Opening paragraph 3

New section to avoid points that have been already discussed, such as the term "accusation", which now there is a consensus on its inclusion. As for the recent revision of the opening paragraph, it gives more weight to the criticism of the term apartheid by governments than to the humans rights community making the accusation. Currently it contradicts WP:OPEN: "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific."

I propose the following rewriting:

“ Israel's policies and actions in its ongoing occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn accusations that it is committing the crime of apartheid. Leading human rights groups, both Israeli and internationally, along with multiple UN Special Rapporteurs, have said that the totality and severity of the human rights violations against the Palestinian population amount to the crime against humanity of apartheid. Israel and its international allies have rejected the use of the term "apartheid", with the former often labelling it "antisemitic". ”

This proposal gives proportional weight; more to the human rights community than Israel's western government. It avoids mentioning the United States and European Commission, as it also avoids mentioning Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

No. B'Tselem, Yesh Din, Amnesty, HRW and others are mentioned specifically in second paragraph and elsewhere in lead, and therefore European Commission and the US should be mentioned as well per balance. There is nothing wrong with the current version. You are the only editor objecting to it. Also, I have explained before that adding scare quotes to a word which is already attributed to someone is redundant, POV and incorrect (unless it's a direct quote). Dovidroth (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The difference is that we are talking about the opening paragraph, which as seen in MOS:OPEN deserves special attention. The balance occurs when the European Commission and the US are mentioned in the second paragraph as well. It does not matter if I am the only editor who is objecting to it, I care about following Wikipedia guidelines, and you should too. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not that enthusiastic about the opening para because I do think it downplays the extent of the accusations that includes many others besides NGOs and UN rapporteurs and assigns an equivalent weight to country/political statements that principally object to the use of the term because they cannot actually deny the specific accusations.

For choice, I would prefer something simpler, more like the the way I had put it previously, viz:

"The Israeli government is accused by international, Israeli and Palestinian rights groups of committing the crime of apartheid under the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, both in the occupied Palestinian territories and, by some, in Israel proper. Israel and its supporters deny the charges."

Still, for the sake of peace and quiet, I would let it go for now, there will be further developments and the matter will correct itself in due course. Selfstudier (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Glad we agree but I wouldn't let it go for the sake of good article quality. It has to be corrected now not later. I would support going back to the original version. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

It says already in the opening paragraph that "Leading human rights groups, both Israeli and internationally, along with multiple UN Special Rapporteurs..." support the term apartheid. Mentioning the US and European Commission as objectors is the bare minimum per balance (in second paragraph they aren't mentioned again). You are not following Wikipedia guidelines but your own hair splitting to make the article more biased. Respect the consensus achieved by multiple editors. Thanks.Dovidroth (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

There is very clearly no consensus on the matter. The current version was changed singlehandedly with no discussion. Giving more weight to meaningless political statements rather than scholarly analyses is in fact the biased approach, not the other way around. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

We've already discussed this all. We did not "give more weight to meaningless political statements." NGO opinions are definitely relevant and we even opened the article with those accusations. But political statements representing the consensus of Western government obviously are not "meaningless." That it absurd. It would be insufficient to just say Israel and its allies reject the term, since it is very significant for the big picture view to understand that the EU Commission (not an ally of Israel and one of the most important global players) and the US (the leading global superpower) reject this term. In contrast, stating the names of human rights organizations does not add any important context that is not understood by referencing "leading human organizations." Y2K-96 (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Details about US and EU and their quotes not belong in the opening paragraph (goes against MOS:OPEN). Sentence about USA and EU exceeds ambiguous sentence about "leading human rights groups" in length (goes against WP:NPOV about proportionality). This goes against Wikipedia guidelines and there is certainly no consensus about it. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Id be fine moving the EU quote a bit lower, maybe in to the last paragraph of the lead. But we should also include the various organizations that dispute the accusation in the first paragraph, eg the ADL. But it is not just Israel that disputes this, so it cant just be that in the opening paragraph. nableezy - 18:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Sure but which various organizations? The ADL is neither independent nor notable nor part of serious international human rights research. A quick google search proves the ADL’s views on the apartheid charge are irrelevant at best. Lede is a summary of body. Nowhere in body gives ADL that weight to be included in opening paragraph. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Listen, you cant treat sources as less important based on your own view of their seriousness. Thats not how NPOV works, and the ADL's view is taken seriously by such sources as CNN. nableezy - 22:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I literally can. CNN mentioned them as a US-based Jewish group and not a human rights organization. They quoted what they said; they did not dedicate an entire article about their opinion, which btw is not based on any analysis nor studies in the occupied territories. There is no equivalency here. Amnesty and HRW have hundreds of articles dedicated to their report; ADL has barely any. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Your claims are just repeatedly false. I am not OK with how we moved the EU out of the first paragraph. We do not measure NPOV by counting characters in a sentence, we measure it by whether we provide enough info in the opening paragraph to get the correct and neutral big picture view of the situation. It is very relevant for the big picture to view that it's not just Israeli allies who oppose the designation, but also major political organizations like the European Commission. Also, for the record, the opening two sentences describing the accusations in the previous version (which should be restored) were longer and had more characters and words than the next two sentences describing those rejecting the accusations. You could tighten it up if you want, but the details that the European Commission rejects the term should be reinstated and the position of the US of course needs to be maintained.

This is the previous version that should be restored, and you can compare the length of the two sections if you'd like:

Israel's policies and actions in its ongoing occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn accusations that it is committing the crime of apartheid. Leading human rights groups, both Israeli and internationally, along with multiple UN Special Rapporteurs, have said that the totality and severity of the human rights violations against the Palestinian population amount to the crime against humanity of apartheid. The Israeli government has rejected the use of the term "apartheid" for its actions, at times labeling the charge antisemitic. Its international allies, including the United States, have likewise disputed that Israel is committing apartheid, while the European Commission considers the term "not appropriate" to use "in connection with the State of Israel". Y2K-96 (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

At the moment, the lead has consensus (Nableezy, Iskandar, me) with yourself and Makeandtoss on opposite sides. I suggest we leave it there for now and see if anyone else comments. Selfstudier (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no such thing as consensus side and opposing side. WP:CON Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

There is clearly no consensus on the current version. And it can be changed now, just as it was changed before. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Your proposal (above) was

"Israel's policies and actions in its ongoing occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn accusations that it is committing the crime of apartheid. Leading human rights groups, both Israeli and internationally, along with multiple UN Special Rapporteurs, have said that the totality and severity of the human rights violations against the Palestinian population amount to the crime against humanity of apartheid. Israel and its international allies have rejected the use of the term "apartheid", with the former often labelling it "antisemitic"."

and it currently reads

"Israel's policies and actions in its ongoing occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn accusations that it is committing the crime of apartheid. Leading Palestinian, Israeli and international human rights groups have said that the totality and severity of the human rights violations against the Palestinian population in the occupied territories, and by some in Israel proper, amount to the crime against humanity of apartheid. Israel and its western allies have rejected the use of the apartheid label, with the former often labeling the charge antisemitic."

These look pretty similar so I am not sure which of your concerns are not addressed. Selfstudier (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The current version is perfect: the opening paragraph is without unnecessary detail; gives proportionate weight to both sides; details both sides later on in the lede paragraphs. Obviously it is similar after having amended it accordingly. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

anti -Semitic message

Carlos Latuff considered to be anti-Semite and holocaust dinier by most Jewish organizations around the world. Not just Israel. This cartoon has an anti-Semitic message, that corresponds with the blood libel that Jews murder children. This message is a form of new anti-Semitism, based on the foundations of traditional anti-Semitism, and has no place on Wikipedia. It has no encyclopedic value, other than increasing hatred. Although this atricle is one-sided and promotes the Palestinian position, I do not argue about it. But even Palestinian propaganda does not have to be anti-Semitic. ℬ𝒜ℛ (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

You Zionists are funny how you accuse others of bigotry when it is in fact you guys that are the bigots. Latuff is fine. 216.209.181.111 (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

This message is against Wikipedia ethics as well as implying hate towards Jews/Zionists/Israelis. Please refrain from such words on Wikipedia. Homerethegreat (talk) 07:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

He was aquitted by Swedish court on antisemitic charges Proud Indian Arnab (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

New scholarly sources published in 2023

• Reynolds, John (2023). "Apartheid and International Law in Palestine". Prolonged Occupation and International Law. Brill Nijhoff. pp. 104–132. ISBN 978-90-04-50393-9.
• Machover, Daniel (2023). "Israeli Apartheid: A Matter of Law". For Palestine: Essays from the Tom Hurndall Memorial Lecture Group. Open Book Publishers. pp. 143–156.
• Gordon, Neve (2023). "Between Human Rights and Civil Society: The Case of Israel's Apartheid Enablers". Law & Social Inquiry: 1–27. doi:10.1017/lsi.2023.41. ISSN 0897-6546.

(t · c) buidhe 23:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

"Accusation"

So when are we exactly stopping the use of words like "accusation" and portraying the situation as it is described by reputable human rights organizations? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The language varies throughout the page. The two landmark HR organizations do not claim to make any accusations; they assert, based on gathered evidence, that the actions of Israel constitute the state committing the crime of apartheid. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Imagine if the Armenian genocide article started with: "According to historians, the Ottoman Empire is accused of murdering its Armenian minority." Or Apartheid starting with: "According to the UN, apartheid was a system of institutionalized racial segregation in South Africa." That's not how articles should start. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, let's pretend that the idea that Israel practices apartheid is universally accepted. We're not talking Apartheid here, and not the Armenian genocide. It is totally fine to have your own views, but promoting them while deliberately ignoring the complexity of issues related the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, raises concerns about one's suitability to contribute to ARBPIA topics. Do you wish to convince others that Israel is a "apartheid state", as you stated several times in the past? There are plenty other platforms for it, so don't tarnish Wikipedia's reputation for it. We're not here for WP:ACTIVISM. We should make it clear in the first sentences of this article that those allegations are not widely accepted worldwide, even if several "reputable" organizations make them. Tombah (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course Israel is an apartheid and occupying state. It is not me who is saying that. It is Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the UN, who are all make the same assertions, and no major international human rights organization has contested their findings; their assertions are widely accepted worldwide among the scholarly human rights community. Not to mention Israeli human rights organizations and South African anti-apartheid movement leaders who agree. WP:ACTIVISM concerns users who "put the goal of promoting their views above that of improving the encyclopedia". And that definitely is more fitting to a user who engages in ad hominem rather than discussing the issue at hand. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the assertions speak for themselves, and the opening statement as it stands is adequate. Individual readers can evaluate for themselves whether they accept the findings of the world's collective human rights apparatus or not. On most topics, Wikipedia accepts the likes of Amnesty as WP:RSP, and the rejection of the findings of human rights organizations is, here or anywhere, a product of politics ... and yet politics is a force to be reckoned with. As such, the world currently couches these particular human rights findings in the language of attribution, not absolutes, and will continue to do so until the political landscape changes. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The issues are not 'complex'. No one here is saying Israel is an 'apartheid state'. The point is simply what everyone without a political investment in spinning reality out of sight knows that in the territories it occupies, it occupies one to the end of creating settlements whose 'security' requires that every Palestinian area affected must be cordoned off, isolated, and rendered effectively a bantustan, whose potentially 'terrorist population' can thereby pose no threat to Israel's territorial and demographic expansion. The policy is called 'hafrada' which means what the SA term 'apartheid means. The only difference is that the SA model promoted, on the bantustans, political autonomy, recognized a type of internal statehood and didn't constantly shoot and kill people within those areas' borders, something Israel rules out. So it is not quite apartheid, but something worse. Think of the Warsaw ghetto model multiplied. This is not what I think. It is what South African rabbis like Solomon Rappaport, Louis Rabinowitz and André Ungar, mindful of the holocaust, knew to be the case in the early postwar period until an accommodation was made: ignore the apartheid issue as applied to Blacks to ensure that the Nazi-style antisemitism which once ran through the fathers of apartheid, now friends of Israel, disappeared off their agenda (I'm paraphrasing several sources, so no need to reply about foruming off-topic for political reasons).Nishidani (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree with @Iskander323 Ascriptive labels are inherently contentious, as their meaning is largely determined by the people using them or discursive context in which they are used. Whether this shouldn't dissuade us from accepting them, I'm not sure. Because if we do, then reaching consensus on just about anything would be impossible. Yr Enw (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

its not "complex" to assert whether Israel is apartheid or not. It is apartheid since it is said by reputable human rights orgs.

No one else has an authority in determining what constitutes which category of human rights violations.

Spinning each and everything about Israel Palestine conflict, even when those things are clear cut as "very complex" only distracts the reader. Proud Indian Arnab (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Formal Dispute Resolution Process

It is evident from the talk page that most of the editors have an agenda to display only the Palestinian side of the debate regarding 'Israel and apartheid,' which is supported by several human rights organizations, and to dismiss the official position of major free-world governments against the charge as merely political, while also ignoring the scholarly opposition, therefore creating an illusion of consensus. this is extremely misleading as there is a fierce ongoing debate in the outside world about the applicability of the apartheid definition to Israel. Hence, the article should be changed to reflect the two sides of the debate through its content, design, and volume allocation.

I take the liberty to summarize briefly the basics of the two sides of the debate as I know them, in order to illustrate the lack of consensus. Of course, any change in the article should be supported by sources.

The accusation: There is a two-tier law system in the land of Israel/historical Palestine, which denies Palestinians basic rights while privileging Jews. This system can be described as an apartheid regime of Jewish supremacy enforced upon the Palestinians according to international law.

The rejection: The so-called apartheid system is a set of security measures placed upon a hostile population of an occupied territory until a negotiated solution is achieved, and in the context of an ongoing national conflict, it can't be accurately described as apartheid.

both sides have support from relevant authorities- scholars and governments, but the Israeli side was suppressed by previous editors. Therefore, In order to comply with the NPOV principle, I think we should seek a formal dispute resolution process (arbitration), if an agreement about the character of the article and the opening paragraph, alongside recognition of the current bias can't be achieved in the coming days. Ancient Belgarath (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration is for conduct disputes, not content ones. Your above comment is lacking in the thing that matters most here, sources. You need to show that some viewpoint is not given its due weight according to sources. Not just say oh this does not treat these two different sides equally so it must not be neutral. nableezy - 15:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Also: the “rejection” above can be summarized as (a) “the system is there for a security reason” AND (b) “it shouldn’t be labelled apartheid”. The problem is that (a) has no logical connection to (b), particularly since the governing regime of the archetype of apartheid, in South Africa, used exactly argument (a) to justify their system. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Where in the article do we dismiss the official position of major free-world governments against the charge as merely political, while also ignoring the scholarly opposition? If there is some sourced material to hand, please bring it for consideration.

the Israeli side was suppressed by previous editors What was suppressed? Please provide Diffs.

Since this is your first edit to WP, it should be explained that the purpose of the talk page is to discuss how to improve the article, not only to present unsourced personal opinions. Selfstudier (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree with nableezy, Onceinawhile and Selfstudier. OP doesn't even deny there is, in their own words, 'a two-tier law system in the land of Israel/historical Palestine, which denies Palestinians basic rights while privileging Jews', they simply think it's justified. Yr Enw (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Article needs updating with Ben Gvir’s recent controversial comments about Palestinian territories that have reignite Israel & apartheid debate

Ben Gvir, Israel's national security minister, recently caused an uproar with a news interview where he gave statements that have been described as appearing to admit that Israeli policies in the West Bank are Apartheid-like. We thus need to update this article to include the current uproar over his comments and how it plays into the debate over Israel and apartheid. Here are some relevant links on the uproar from reliable sources:

• Vox News - Did Israel’s national security minister just admit to apartheid policies in new comments?

• Haaretz - Prison, Not Apartheid: Israeli Minister Backs Ben-Gvir's Racist Comment on West Bank

• BBC - US condemns Israeli minister Ben Gvir's “inflammatory” Palestinian comments

Notcharliechaplin (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that, have been watching this myself. I don't think that this furore is quite exact enough for this article, most sources portray it as an extremist minister saying things, phrased as being about freedom of movement, that are inflammatory and/or racist in nature and the US condemned it on that basis, as it says in the BBC report.

While on its own, it is a contributing factor, unless the sources start to report that this by itself constitutes apartheid, then I think it doesn't really fit in this page as yet.

My 2 cents. Selfstudier (talk) 08:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Allegations of genocide

Since yesterday there has been some conflicted editing at Genocide against Palestinians, an article that duplicated a lot of text from this page and added references to a handful of books naming the policies covered in this article as genocide rather than apartheid.

There were discussions in progress on that talk page about whether it should be deleted entirely, balanced with better sources, or rewritten. I proposed a merge as a quick temporary resolution, and have slimmed and merged it here into a new section Israel and apartheid#Allegations of genocide. Sourcing remains weak; but this seems like a better place for a discussion about whether and how to keep such material and in what context. – SJ + 20:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

This seems like a somewhat poorly thought-out and hasty merge. For starters, this page is already lengthy, and editors have been working hard for a while to essentialize it into something digestible. Secondly, this is an article about the crime of apartheid under the Rome Statute, which is a technically defined crime against humanity. Under that same statute, genocide is a separated concept that was first elaborated in the Genocide Convention. This are related but distinct concepts, and 'allegations of genocide' simply do not fall under 'additional views on apartheid'. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323's second point is a valid one. Perhaps it might be possible to broaden this page's scope to encompass all allegations of Rome Statute violations against Palestinians? Riposte97 (talk) 04:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I would say that it seems more like fodder for the broader Criticism of Israel page (as a section). The current scope here is clear and notable. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

To resolve this obvious issue, we should recreate the page. Here is the previous version of it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocide_against_Palestinians&oldid=1179969952 Scientelensia (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a clear need for it as the content doesn’t fit elsewhere. Scientelensia (talk) 09:48, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I removed that content as this article is not the place for it. Perhaps Human rights in Israel instead. Selfstudier (talk) 09:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I've re-homed some of it under Criticism of Israel. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

That’s good, but I believe it still needs a separate page. Scientelensia (talk) 12:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I deleted the improper redirect to here, so now you can undo the effective deletion here if you wish. Selfstudier (talk) 12:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will. Scientelensia (talk) 12:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Hum, didn't do it quickly enough, so now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:XTheBedrockX#Improper_redirect Selfstudier (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I was busy… apologies. Scientelensia (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll leave you to try and recover the page, which at present has been effectively deleted without an AfD. Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I have done it :) Scientelensia (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Iskandar323 that makes sense as a home. – SJ + 20:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Please read the below section. SJ Scientelensia (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

No sources describing actual policy

Hello, I read this article and everything simply appeals to authority of NGO’s and human rights watch groups. I’m wondering which specific policies constitute apartheid. The commonly used example is Palestinian “self-governance” which is the result of negotiations to return Palestinian land to Palestinians. So I’m not sure how this is apartheid when it’s something both sides agreed to. Further the vast majority of internal individuals to Israel do not believe it’s apartheid, this is independently sampled, and also believe Israel is better than the surrounding countries for political persecution. How is a border wall apartheid? I’m not sure how that meets the burden of apartheid. Illegal entry into a country is a crime, if you are seeking asylum going to a legal border location and claiming that is honored in Israel. These are the only two policies that I found in the article and they do not rise to the level of apartheid for any other country or political dispute including South Africa who prevents Zimbabweans from entering. So are there any other policies that can be specifically pointed to that would indicate apartheid? 75.174.25.129 (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

They are all described in the detailed reports, the Amnesty report in particular is extremely detailed. Of course we only include here the high level summaries of those reports. Selfstudier (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)