Talk:Israel/Archive 97

RfC: Should the lead paragraphs include the sentence "Israel's treatment of the Palestinians within the occupied territories has drawn accusations that it is guilty of the crime of apartheid"?
Should the lead paragraphs include the sentence "Israel's treatment of the Palestinians within the occupied territories has drawn accusations that it is guilty of the crime of apartheid"?

Note: this drafting is taken from the body of the article (Israel), which currently states Israel's treatment of the Palestinians within the occupied territories has drawn accusations that it is guilty of the crime of apartheid by Israeli human rights groups Yesh Din and B'tselem, and other international organizations including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, with the criticism extending to its treatment of Palestinians within Israel as well.[475][476] Amnesty's report was criticized by politicians and government representatives from Israel, the United States, the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Germany, while it was welcomed by Palestinians, representatives from other states, and organizations such as the Arab League.[477][478][479][480][481][482] A 2021 survey of academic experts on the Middle East found an increase from 59%[483] to 65% of these scholars describing Israel as a "one-state reality akin to apartheid".[484]

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes: It is probably the key international relations question of the day for the country, and that the accusations themselves exist is very matter of fact at this point. These accusations are based on very serious reports by both domestic and internationally respected human rights bodies detailing decades of human rights abuses. At present, the term 'human rights' is not even referenced in the lead, and that is probably also an omission - one not made for other countries with deeply checkered human rights records. As for this specific statement on apartheid, I would argue that it is actually required in the lead per WP:NPOV to provide balance to the clearly one-sided and deeply simplified picture currently presented by the obfuscating human development index statistic in the lead. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes:, the subject is notable and relevant and deserves to be in the lead. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not yet:, Israel's treatment of Palestinians, and its own Arab citizens, is certainly discriminatory and (in my view) immoral. Even so, there are several problems with the "apartheid" comparison. First, the sources given are mediocre. Amnesty International, which used to have very high reliability, has lost much of it in recent years (see for example the reactions and almost universal condemnation following its report on Ukraine). Second, the apartheid analogy seems to be applied very deliberately to make a point. I don't see any discussion of "apartheid" regarding Turkey's treatment of the Kurds, for example, even though it's even more discriminatory. So using the word "Apartheid" to make a politival point is not suitable. Having said that, I'm all in favour of extending the coverage of Israel's rampant and increasing discrimination of its Arab population. I am also open to revisit the "Apartheid" analogy in a relatively near future in the new extremist government in Israel introduce policies making it more relevant. Jeppiz (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Amnesty is green at WP:RSP following a recent RFC and a personal opinion that it should not be green is just that, a personal opinion. Thirteen Israeli human rights organizations issued a statement defending Amnesty and the report. In addition, the description as analogy is outdated, the relevant article, Israel and the apartheid analogy has been recently retitled Israel and apartheid which in part reflects that "There is certainly a consensus in the international human rights movement that Israel is committing apartheid." Neither pointy nor political, a well sourced accusation. Selfstudier (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support: This is a claim that is substantiated by several reputable organizations, both Israeli and international. It is already stated in the body and is notable enough to deserve a mention in the lede, as a bare minimum in my opinion. More needs to be mentioned regarding length of occupation, settlement expansion and state violence. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The phrase "accusations that it is guilty" is awful and POV, and it is missing that the analogy is significantly rejected by multiple governments and groups. Drsmoo (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * With that logic, maybe South Africa wasn't apartheid after all, considering that Israel denied it being so and abstained from condemning its racist system. Governments are not neutral sources, not to mention that not a single pro-Israel government has debated the situation. All they did was reject the apartheid label, they did not give any counterarguments nor elaborations. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * It's not clear who you're referring to, and "governments are not neutral sources" doesn't make sense. You are besides the point. It is POV pushing to include an accusation and not include the very notable rejections of that accusation. Drsmoo (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * States in strategic alliances always cover their allies backs and therefore dismissals of these claims by allied states are political positions, not judgements of merit. When there is a nigh universal consensus by NGOS that apply the same universal criteria for all instances of human rights that come within their global purview, that Israel is a state that practices ethnic discrimination (I don't imagine Drsmoo would deny that: they deny only the analogy with the historically most egregious state example of the practice), only dissent from within such politically unattached NGOs has any relevance. One could add 'Israel (and some other countries) rejects this.' As it is a lead, all the mechanical details about the US, Germany etc dissenting are for the relevant section, for the simple reason that the US ewt al., like Israel have never once provided counter-evidence of susbstance to disarticulate the evidence on which that conclusion is based.Nishidani (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Rather critically, the proposed statement also does not refer to an analogy; it refers to legal accusations that the bar has been met for the "crime of apartheid" as defined in the Rome Statute. The accusations by NGOs abide by strict legal definitions; they do not reference 'analogy'. I would hope the confusion is an innocent mistake. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a problem to include a statement that the accusations have been denied. If that's what's wanted. Selfstudier (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The only assertion here is the fact that accusations have been made. The veracity of the accusations is not an aspect addressed in the proposed statement. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I largely agree with the reasoning of . The proposed sentence is poorly written, POV and definitely undue for the lede, although a mention of human rights criticism should probably be in the lede.GreenCows (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Striking comment by blocked sock. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. That Israel rigorously discriminates against Palestininians in the occupied territories is admitted by all. It is an extension of its ethnocratic foundations. That the point merits inclusion in the lead is almost impossible to dispute because it is an enduring characteristic of Israeli rule there. So the only point for discussion is the phrasing. I would suggest:
 * "'Israel's discriminatory practices against Palestinians in the occupied territories have been increasingly likened by human rights groups to the practice of apartheid.'"
 * Eliminate 'guilty', and attribute apartheid to human rights groups. I don't think, responding to Jeppiz, that we can infer anything about the generic 'reliability' of Amnesty by comparing the reception of its Ukrainian analysis with its extensive, and intensive, decades-long analyses of the occupation of Palestinians. It, like Human Rights Watch, was criticized for decades for refraining from that analogy. Over the last three years, all  their reservations have withered in the face of the ongoing logic of events and the insurmontable massing of constent evidence. And the only significant result was that a lobby's financial swing at Harvard succeeded in  torpedoing its former head, Kenneth Roth, from taking up a fellowship there, evidence if ever that what dictates the parameters of coverage is an irrational defensiveness about what can and cannot be said regarding Israel. Responsive protests that HRW covers 100 countries, not just Israel, and is equally severe on Israel's adversaries, Jezbollah, Hamas et al., die on their feet. Here we are not dealing with source evidence, but with the tacit pressure - on the principle that Israel's situation is sui generis and therefore cannot be the object of negative comparison- to make a thoroughly documented claim and set of arguments off-topic.Nishidani (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comparison between a free and democratic country to murderous terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Taliban is completely absurd. This is really not proof of decency, but the complete opposite. ℬ𝒜ℛ (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * All these groups' coverage of the I/P conflict have been far more intensive than their work in the Ukraine. Nishidani (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I am OK with this. FYI the prior version was drafted a year ago at Talk:Israel/Archive_82.
 * "Likened to" instead of "accusations that it is guilty of", and "practice of" instead of "crime of", I would say are less accurate but also less emotive. So it seems a good compromise. Any suggestions about whether I should amend the RfC proposal would be appreciated. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The RFC is really about the principle of the thing, the precise wording can be left to further discussion or even just the usual editing process, I would have thought. Selfstudier (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The RfC is about endorsing or rejecting a specific formulation. Much needless argufying would be avoided by simply asking if the 'lead should allude to the fact that major human rights groups liken Israeli discrimination against Palestinians to apartheid.' That way, once consensus on that principle emerges, one then tinkers with the right phrasing.Nishidani (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If the wording becomes "likened ... to the practice of" then it is a statement about the decades of analogy, not the Rome Statute accusations. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This shifts the focus of the sentence from the fact that Israel is practicing apartheid against the Palestinian people as characterized by INGOs, to a focus on that INGOs are increasingly viewing Israel to be practicing something that is likened to apartheid. I find this watering down of years of scholarly and humanitarian consensus to be deeply offensive and misleading. It feels as if I am reading "this mass killing of people has been increasingly likened to the practice of massacre"! Really?! Makeandtoss (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Makeandtoss, this is not a forum, please read up on WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:RS. Most of your comments, in contrast to everyone else (regardless of their opinion) seem to imply that what you think is fact and should be implemented, and your description of the sources are too often flat out wrong. For example, it is a legitimate opinion that Israel is practicing apartheid; it is not a "fact". Similarly, there is certainly no "consensus" that Israel is practicing apartheid, though there is a considerable and noteworthy body of opinion saying that they do. Jeppiz (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Makeandtoss. What my views (i.e., more or less those of Arnold Toynbee in A Study of History vol.12, and in his interviews in the 70s, that Zionism is a parlous ethnocratic ideology and that the model developed in South Africa suits that framework) are is irrelevant. The evidence for climate change has been sufficiently overwhelming to make that 'factual' for decades, but, thanks to lobbies and political shortsightedness, a consensus took over two decades to emerge. No empirically minded person could entertain reasonable doubts that Israel practices apartheid, but it has taken decades for the obvious to get widespread traction, and anyone hostile to the obvious can cite dozens of sources still denying that. So, since wikipedia stays neutral between conflicting discourses one cannot state the obvious to be a fact until the commentariat comes clean and faces the facts. As Jeppez duly notes, the new government, if it executes what the less embarrassed extremists in its midst propose, will put the nail into the coffin of all of those 'liberals' who hitherto have dutifully swept the fact under the carpet with blanket dismissals of the reality as just a 'subjective' point-of-view, like any other. In the meantime, whatever our private views, however closely documented and analysed, we are under an obligation to adopt neutral language that presupposes that what a state says it is (not) doing and what virtually all independent observers document as what is actually does have to be accorded equal weight, even if the former's spokespersons are probably quite aware that politics and policy require them, like dipèlomats, to lie abroad for their country.Nishidani (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. WP:VALID: "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." Makeandtoss (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jeppiz this is not a forum indeed, that is why everything I mentioned in my comment was in relation to the RfC's scope, unlike most of your comment which is discussing me as an editor. I said I find, stating my personal opinion as an editor, that this watering down is not acceptable. A well-founded legitimate opinion [of INGOs and scholars] can be said to be a fact. Just like how evolution, which is well-founded [by scientists], is also considered to be a fact. This is not to say that these facts are holy and cannot be challenged, but rather that no one reputable and specialized has challenged them convincingly and gained consensus for them yet. Let's leave semantics and personal motivations aside and focus on what is actually important here. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes:, the subject is notable and relevant and deserves to be in the lead. I would suggest "Israel's discriminatory practices against Palestinians in the occupied territories have been likened by human rights groups to apartheid." (ie losing "the practice of" and possibly "increasingly"). The analogy is just that, an analogy. SA and Israel - and their respective histories - have overlaps but aren't 'identical twins'. Pincrete (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify once more: the original proposal refers to the legal accusations of the crime of apartheid as defined by the Rome Statute, not analogies. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Um, "likened" is rather understating what the NGOs have said, they are straight up accusations not a comparison. Amnesty "taken together, Israeli practices, including land expropriation, unlawful killings, forced displacement, restrictions on movement, and denial of citizenship rights amount to the crime of apartheid." and HRW ""in certain areas ... these deprivations are so severe that they amount to the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution." B'tselem "·"the bar for labeling the Israeli regime as apartheid has been met." The accusations are also being leveled by UN agencies, world churches and others, it's not just NGOs. Selfstudier (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - problem Looking at some other country articles of notorious human rights offenders, such as China and Turkey, I cannot find anything similar in the ledes. While I'm well aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF, this is a bit more problematic than that. A rather standard definition of antisemitism is holdingbolag Jews to a different standard. If Wikipedia singled out only Israeli human rights violations, that would seem to match that definition of antisemitism rather exactly. What we would is a broader discussion about whether and how to include serious human rights violations in country article ledes or not (and I'm in favour of doing it, both for Israel and for a China, Turkey and others). Jeppiz (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Jeppiz. That is a known hasbara gambit, I'm afraid. In the cases you instance, both China and Turkey have assimilationist ideologies that apply to all the inhabitants of the area they declare to be under their sovreignty. Uyghurs and Tibetans must become Han Chinese, intermarry preferable and forget their languages. Kurds within Turkey must recognize themselves as Turks. Further both discriminated are small minorities within the states. Israel's human rights situation is radically different: They have effect control over a population equal to their own, discriminate 'moderately' (fiscally, and in intermarriage and planning) against Israeli Palestinians, but have consistently applied inexorable, harsh policies of deracination, underdevelopment, indiscriminate killing etc., against half of the population of the area that lacks Jewish ethnicity. The figures mean that Israel cannot properly be defined without reference to the reality of apartheid on which the security of the state is perceived to be predicated (most of its massive defense forces are confined to controlling that 'internal proletariat' with the wrong genes). And, please mind your language. 'holding Jew to a different standard'? One holds Israel to the same standard as that by which we judge all human right abusers, and Jews, as opposed to Israeli governments that arrogate to themselves the specious claim to represent all Jews, have always been in the forefront of those affirming the UN declaration of 1946 to be the benchmark. Again, all of this is in Toynbee, writing 60 years ago.Nishidani (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Lukewarmbeer (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Editor with less than 500 edits not qualified to participate here.Selfstudier (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * While I cannot speak to the situation on the China and Turkey pages, examples exist: Iran and Saudi Arabia both feature statements about human rights. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Did this just turn into a WP:FORUM while I wasn't paying attention? Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hardly. Apart from this comment you just made, every comment discusses how to deal with human rights violations in the lede, wouldn't you agree? Jeppiz (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope. Antisemitism allegations are out of place here. Selfstudier (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Selfstudier, I see your point now. Perhaps I was unclear: I had no intention whatsoever to allege any antisemitism in this discussion, and I believe arguing for the inclusion of the sentence is a perfectly valid point of view. My comment referred to how it might be read, although the comments by Iskandar323 and Onceinawhile make it clear that risk is much less of a problem. Jeppiz (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I just checked Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea - all have serious human rights violations in the lead. South Africa's lead mentions apartheid four times. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Iskandar323 and Onceinawhile. In the ideal case, a cross-country article discussion could be good rather than a case by case. To reiterate my own position, O fully support addressing Israeli human rights violations in the lede; I am a bit hesitant regarding the use of Apartheid in Wiki-voice. Jeppiz (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The first line of Israel and apartheid says "The Israeli government is accused of committing the crime of apartheid under the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, charges the state and its supporters deny. " That's been sitting there for a while, something wrong with that? Selfstudier (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * From a purely semantic perspective, with some implications for how it's read, it's poorly worded. The sentence presents two passive affirmations, with an imbalance between them as the first one doesn't make it clear who the chargers are, while the second lists the defenders. So if you ask if I find any fault with the content - no, I don't. If you ask if I think it's a well-written sentence, I don't - but I wouldn't start a discussion just over semantics. Jeppiz (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

If mentioned in some and not others it's a recipe for conflict. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Editor with less than 500 edits not qualified to participate here.Selfstudier (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Undue weight on a theory that has been gaining territory on leftwing circles but that is not mainstream and that is highly disputed, which would at the very least require mentioning the opposing side as well. The inclusion of that line would not be NPOV.
 * ...But on the matter of human rights though, maybe it would be interesting to mention in the lede that Israel doesn't treat women like second-class citizens and doesnt kill gays like neighboring countries do (including Palestine). – (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Might want to get off that soapbox.  nableezy  - 21:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Individual, isolated actions and actions perpetrated by the State itself, as a policy, are not comparable. Sorry. In the West killing gays is a crime; In Palestine, being gay is the crime. A tad different. – (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Lets see how long that lasts. Didnt expect to see such a blatant example of pinkwashing a human rights record, but all the same, please try to stay on topic here.  nableezy  - 22:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. It's probably enough just to say that Israel's policies in the occupied territories have been likened to apartheid.Achar Sva (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * No For a subject as broad as a country, "accusations" are highly unlikely to be WP:UNDUE in any lead. Also, Israel's terrorism problem, which is obviously not just accusations, and in general has much more sourcing that these accusations, is not in the lead. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I dont necessarily think that either we need apartheid in the lead or that this needed to be an rfc. We do need something on Israel's human rights record and the sustained condemnation in its policies wrt to the occupation. That is certainly lead worthy. Do the now few year old formal charges by leading human rights organizations need to be in the lead? Meh, not really imo. But I think it a better use or peoples time to figure out how to address the criticism of the treatment of the Palestinians than it is to quibble over this or that specific charge against Israel. Why not condemnations on deportations or targeted killings or collective punishment or disproportionality or any of the hundred other war crimes Israel is accused of committing? Just cover the whole thing, not just one aspect of it.  nableezy  - 03:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That is the whole point. The crime of apartheid encompasses "systemic oppression" and the "denial of many basic human rights", so allows for efficient summary communication. I believe that to ask for much more than this, i.e. to spell everything out in detail in the lede, would end up being undue in the wider context. Can you draft what you have in mind so we can assess this? Onceinawhile (talk) 07:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Onceinawhile's objection to Nableezy's point is cogent. We don't need elaboration in the lead of the details. The only objection to the relevance of the list of apartheid like practices given in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination is that regarding compulsory corvée labour. Secondly, we would only be stating that the major global NGOs have made the comparison. From the initial suggestion, a good deal of compromise has been accepted to meet objections, but going beyond these to elide the fact that the apartheid claim has been made would effectively gut the proposal, as desired by the few editors who object to anything like this obvious and significant element in Israel's exercise of its statehood.Nishidani (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would include something like Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international condemnation for violations of international human rights law against the Palestinians, and human rights organizations have accused Israel of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Could include a listing of those, including apartheid. Apartheid doesnt even cover the most severe accusations against Israel, so I dont even get why people are agitating for it to be added over say unlawful killings and forced displacements.  nableezy  - 23:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes but as I suggested in the RFCbefore, the root causes are now said to lie in permanent occupation/de facto annexation as well as the discrimination ("...enshrined a system of domination by Israelis over Palestinians that could no longer be explained as the unintended consequence of a temporary occupation" Michael Lynk, the previous rapporteur, per the NYT source above). Yes the specific charge of apartheid is important but I would myself prefer wording in the lead that incorporates the broader views of the UN rapporteurs and investigators given subsequent to the Amnesty, HRW, B'tselem (apartheid) reports.Selfstudier (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a fundamental part of their history and past and current politics. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  14:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope, notable accusations of apartheid are fairly recent and currently popular only within a "political bubble". By highlighting these accusations in the lede, even if it's for a noble cause (bringing awareness for the harsh situation of Palestinians), it would only fuel the already well know left wing Wikipedia bias and diminish its credibility even more. We should make an effort to be balanced and as neutral as possible. – (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We should make an effort to be balanced and as neutral as possible We should indeed. Interesting that you argue a reduced credibility for WP by citing WP? Selfstudier (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Even wikipedia itself recognizes its biases. It speaks volumes Indeed. – (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, with the reservation that the language be tweaked, per several suggestions above. The state of Israel has an historical span of 74 years, 18 of which saw its Palestinian citizens placed under military law, and 55 of which have witnessed the grinding occupation, theft, settlement in or strangulation of, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank with its 165 programmatic bantustans, all attesting to an enduring principle of ethnocratic rule to the disadvantage of Palestinians, as numerous Israeli scholars recognize.Nishidani (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * While we can talk about ethnocentric privilege when talking about Jews in Israel (since race and culture are intermingled in that case), we should not forget to mention that Palestinian societies are theocratic (having the Quran as their constitution) which is just as bad or worse than an ethnic privilege; Palestinian theocrats heavily discriminate against other minorities includind their brothers in faith, the Shias. I thought this was worth mentioning. Should we really point fingers at Israel when Palestinian authorities and governments are doing worse? – (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add appropriately sourced material to the relevant articles, this one is about Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose. Since the beginning of the apartheid accusation in Israel, the world's western democracies, neutral scholarship and mainstream media sources regarded it as at best untrustworthy and morally wrong (and failing to recognize what apartheid really is), and at worst as a biased narrative propagated by radical leftist organizations for advancing their own solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which opposes Israel's own designation as a Jewish state and calls for its replacement with something else. If this passes, it will signal that this really amazing project, which - once reliable - has been unfortunately plagued by ideological prejudices and BDS propaganda in recent years, has now fully caved in and subscribed to the pro-Palestinian, or may I say anti-Israeli, radical-left view. Tombah (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Tombah: So where do the world's (as well as Israel's) most respected human rights organizations fit along the "radical leftist organizations" spectrum? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment You write of 'neutral scholarship' denying the analogy. Those who support the comparison are, implicitly, 'untrustworthy'. Well, if someone acts on that, you'll find that 60% of US scholars of the Middle East will be purged from tenure, and the world's foremost Indologist, David Dean Shulman of Hebrew University, who has spent every Saturday for two decades helping harassed people in the West Bank and documenting their plight (unlike those who write or read the 'mainstream press'), is due for forced retirement for making precisely this analogy.
 * "Sixty per cent of academics and scholars in Middle Eastern studies across several American universities have described Israel's occupation of Palestine as 'a one state reality akin to apartheid,' a new survey shows."
 * When writing earlier of scholarly views, I had these and many other examples in mind. We use the mainstream press only as a makeshift until we have coverage from specialist scholarly sources.Nishidani (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Could I ask Daveout to stop all the forum-talk about what Palestinians are doing? It is entirely irrelevant. It is perfectly possible for both Israelis and Palestinians to behave appallingly (and in this outsider's opinion, that is what both do) so all these arguments yesterday and today to shift focus from the matter at hand to instead discuss "Palestinians and gays" (yesterday) or "Palestinian theocracy" (today) are starting to look downright disruptive. The discussion here is about whether to include a sentence about apartheid in the lede, any other discussion is off-topic. Jeppiz (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. Comments striken. – (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, some years ago there was only a trickle of sources which mentioned "Israel" and "apartheid" in the same sentence. Today that trickle has become more like a flood;  more than enough to merit mentioning in the lead, Huldra (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's not RS and BIAS. Claims from Amnesty or HRW regarding Israel should not be used considering they are not reliable and biased. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Joseph: Sorry, that there exists a state of apartheid is what you are referring to here. However, that there have now been 'accusations' of the crime of apartheid is surely quite beyond doubt with respect to reliable sources? Other words that have been used include claims and charges, but "accusation" has been used, among other sources, by the Times of Israel, and Jewish Chronicle . I am eager to have your input on how these two sources in particular are unreliable and injecting bias into their stories through this simple factual reporting. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose. Amnesty is biased and cannot be considered a source. It is also a double standard, as there is no precedent in other countries accused of apartheid Dovidroth (talk) 06:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dovidroth Amnesty is not a source. Reliable, secondary sources reporting on the accusations are the sources. And no, firsts are not double standards.Iskandar323 (talk) 08:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree on any of the sources being credible. And yes, there is double standard here; there are many countries that have serious human rights violations who do not get singled out. Dovidroth (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Any source that disagrees with your POV is biased or not credible? That doesn't sound like a NPOV. The argument about a double standard makes no sense as well as being unsourced. What other country accused of apartheid is treated differently and by who? Selfstudier (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * There is no substance in the charge of bias or unreliability, so editors should try to avoid harping on this. Both Amnesty and HRW baulked from using this term for two decades even as substantial evidence emerged that the SA Bantustan example informed the thinking of major figures in the political and planning establishment (See Palestinian enclaves). Both held out until the foremost Israeli NGO B’tselem adopted it as the proper term. So we have strong prima facie evidence that Amnesty and HRW’s late conclusion, rather than being biased, was, rather, traditionally biased against the use of the term until the evidential mountain toppled their reserve. They dropped plying the worry beads of political ramifications.


 * If one insists they are biased, then one should first read Human Rights Watch Report 217 pages (2) Amnesty International Report 278 pages, I,e, 495 pages of evidence and analysis by the two major human rights organizations on this planet and then come up with a secondary source which meticulously addresses that evidence and shows strong cause for concluding that both have tampered with and distorted the evidence. Otherwise, an opinion is neither here nor there, just an echo of the official Israeli government line of (spluttering) outrage at being 'smeared', even as the PM asserts, as of yesterday, that Jews the world over alone have exclusive rights to all the land in historic Palestine, the word 'exclusive meaning its traditional population has no right, and therefore is squatting on other people's property. That is very SouthAfricanist. Nishidani (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of the "Jewish" press, up to and including (at least the last time I looked) Arutz Sheva, is counted as reliable in Wikipedia terms, as are organisations involved in lobbying on behalf of Israel such as the ADL. Would you regard those as problematically biased (though bias isn't normally a disqualification from being regarded as reliable, except, apparently, in the case of sites such as The Electronic Intifada).     ←   ZScarpia  16:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

*Oppose Not supported by reliable sources and does not fit with WP:NPOV. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  13:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No. As others have said, the words 'guilty' and 'crime' are biased. I support Nishidani's more neutral phrasing: 'Israel's discriminatory practices against Palestinians in the occupied territories have been increasingly likened by human rights groups to the practice of apartheid.' 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 10:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ficaia: The term 'crime' is not biased; it is the required technically accurate terminology for the proposed statement, which pertains to accusations of guilt of the specific "crime of apartheid" as defined by the Rome Statute. Nishidani's proposed phrasing entails a broadening of the statement to refer to general comparisons to "apartheid"-like practices. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. It is the only country in modern history since South Africa that other fully-recognized countries, full UN-members have officially classified as an Apartheid state, and the only country since South Africa that all top Human Rights NGOs - both internationally and within the country itself - have labeled as "Apartheid". Not having it in the lead is obviously partial. Dan Palraz (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Regarding the interplay between occupation and apartheid, ToI reports that Navi Pillay...called apartheid "a manifestation of the occupation" and "We’re focusing on the root cause which is the occupation and part of it lies in apartheid". The Commission of Inquiry's two reports through October 2022 have not addressed the apartheid issue to date, "We think a comprehensive approach is necessary so we have to look at issues of settler colonialism," and "Apartheid itself is a very useful paradigm, so we have a slightly different approach but we will definitely get to it." Whereas the October 2022 report of the UN rapporteur calls for the UN General Assembly to "develop a plan to end the Israeli settler-colonial occupation and apartheid regime". These sources (and there are others) link occupation and apartheid together and I see no reason why we should not do the same. Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I think that dropping "that it is guilty of the crime of" would be a major improvement as would Nishidani's proposed phrasing. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read the thread, where it is established that RS sources have made that accusation. NPOV does not mean eliding any reference to criticism, it means balancing different evaluative views with due weight.


 * Comment - um Amnesty International already has consensus for being a reliable source. See this RFC that established a consensus for it to be a generally reliable source. Beyond that, the sources for the accusations are pretty much every single newspaper that covers the region in any depth at all. The not supported by reliable sources argument is just bunk and should be entirely ignored by any closer as being patently untrue.  nableezy  - 17:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. I like Nableezy's reformulation of the text (above at 23:57, 8 January 2023) but I would insist on replacing human rights organizations have accused Israel of war crimes and crimes against humanity, which is too vague, with ...accused Israel of the crime of apartheid. The crime of apartheid has received a fairly precise definition in the Rome Statute and human rights associations refer to this legal concept when they accuse Israel of committing the crime of apartheid. I think we should do the same, as the concept expresses in a concise and effective way the meaning that Amnesty International and other human rights organisations intended to convey (widespread human rights violations + institutionalized and systematic oppression by one racial group over another). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The point of that sentence is that apartheid is not the only war crime or crime against humanity Israel has been accused of. Thats just one in a list. Sure, include it in the list of them. But to me this focus on apartheid disregards all the other things that human rights organizations and supranational entities have documented over decades.  nableezy  - 20:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I get it. But my point is that the concept of appartheid encompasses and summarises the other crimes Israel has been accused of in the past, adding an important (and obviously controversial) element to these accusations. On the other hand, your "all the other things that human rights organizations and supranational entities have documented over decades" seems to be conveyed by the first part of the sentence you suggested, Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international condemnation for violations of international human rights law against the Palestinians. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Re the concept of appartheid encompasses and summarises the other crimes Israel has been accused of in the past, it absolutely does not. Apartheid has nothing to do with disproportionality or collective punishment or arbitrary killings or diversion of water resources or expulsions or or or or. Apartheid is one crime, one of many that Israel is accused of. And it does not even begin to encompass the other, more serious, charges against it.  nableezy  - 21:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Apartheid has very much to do with collective and disproportionate punishment, arbitrary killing, etc. I suggest you have a look at how the crime is defined in the Rome Statute (article 7(2)(h)), in particular the notion of "inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1". Paragraph 1 includes murder, deportation or forcible transfer of population, imprisonment, torture, persecution and "other inhumane acts". Really, it's all-encompassing and basically includes all crimes against humanity. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, each of those is their own crime against humanity, see that same paragraph one that lists what the crimes of humanity include, of which the crime of apartheid is just one in the list. And they dont speak to war crimes like disproportionality.  nableezy  - 01:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Then again all the things you mention would be present to the reader if one simply linked. I.e., 'Israel's treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories where what you mention is given detailed coverage. Of course that means the reader would be able to click on the link for clarification and if they do so, we just leave it to the reader to decide whether that lengthy summary of what is done to Palestinians is criminal, or just a self-defensive set of necessary measures to ward off an existential threat to the state posed by a squatter horde of antisemitic terrorists. Nishidani (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You mean there are reliable sources that support the same kind of sentence proposed in this rfc ? Sorry but on my end never seen such a source, maybe i'm mistaken though. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  10:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I already gave "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." Have a look at the Israel and apartheid article. Selfstudier (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose The lede should summarise the article so probably it should say something about the situation with human rights but the proposed addition only talks about the accusations of apartheid. There are plenty of other violations of human rights, so it's not clear why mention just one of them. Also, we should adhere to WP:NPOV and avoid giving undue weight to the (real) problems. For example the lede of Egypt article mentions "poor human rights record" without going into details. Alaexis¿question? 21:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. First of all, is it a fair summary of any large sub-section of the page, even such as Israel? I do not think so. Secondly, I think the leads of pages about countries should focus on indisputable factual info rather than any "accusations" that have been disputed, or can be disputed by definition. If it were a matter of fact and framed as a fact in the text (as for Nazi Germany), rather than merely an accusation, I would support. My very best wishes (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes it is a terse summary of a substantial subsection, namely here. It is, secondly, a fact that the foremost human rights organizations in the world have accused Israel of practices akin to Apartheid, and I would think it reasonable to say that half of the press coverage I for one read deals with aspects of this single feature. Israeli readers come across such material every day in their local newspapers.Nishidani (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this section is properly summarized already in 4th paragraph of the lead, i.e. Israel has since fought wars with several Arab countries... However, the "crime of apartheid" appears only in the last very short paragraph of the linked section. While adding the suggested phrase in the end of 4th paragraph of the lead (RfC does not say it) is not entirely unreasonable, I would say "no" simply based on the lack of significant coverage of apartheid on the page Israel. My very best wishes (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I added material to the article body to meet this objection. Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see that you added some content from the lead of page Israel and apartheid. I do not know if there is WP:consensus for such inclusion. I would say your addition is a content fork and creates a repetitive text. In addition, as I said above, this is just a matter of opinion and advocacy (yes, by human rights organizations), not a fact. My very best wishes (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that there should be more material re apartheid so I provided some. It is not just NGO's, it's multiple UN sources, world churches, along with many countries. Even Harvard Law School. That there are accusations is a fact and that's what the RFC is about not whether apartheid itself is a fact. Not that I have any expectation of changing your stance, I just want to point up the inaccuracies in your position. Selfstudier (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * A content fork is a more than a snippet of repeated text. Israel and apartheid contains 10,500 words of prose: 300 words here is hardly undue. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the accusations are a fact. But the apartheid in Israel is more like a controversy. The discrimination is also probably a fact, but it is not the same as apartheid. My very best wishes (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Its an interesting question as to how and in what circumstances does discrimination rise to the level of apartheid but again, we are not trying to determine the answer to that question in this RFC. Also your phrasing "apartheid in Israel" appears to discount the fact of the occupied territories which are not in Israel and the fact of Israeli settlers who are also not in Israel but treated as if they were. Selfstudier (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is exactly the question if the discrimination rises to the level of apartheid. But this brings yet another issue with RfC wording. Why the Palestinian citizens of Israel have been omitted, even though they are described as alleged victims of apartheid in the text of the page? My very best wishes (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well it is not a problem to omit PCoI per se. Not sure which page you are referring to but if you mean Israel and apartheid then yes, some reports, notably Amnesty's, extend the accusation to Israel proper whereas all reports agree on the term being applicable in the territories. Selfstudier (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I refer to this page ("with the criticism extending to its treatment of Palestinians within Israel..."). But no more comments from me here. My very best wishes (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * So from the article body here but that is not inconsistent with adding the RFC proposed phrasing into the lead.Selfstudier (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm more amazed by the idea of discrimination in the context being something merely "probable" - a fairly mind boggling axiom. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I said "probably a fact" just to be careful. OK, that's a fact.My very best wishes (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * No. The lead is for hard facts, not accusations. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some elementary confusion as to what 'fact'means. (a) an empirical fact - the world is round (b) a fact as '"Israel's treatment of the Palestinians within the occupied territories 'has drawn accusations that it is guilty of the crime of apartheid. This is a factual statement - that accusations has emerged among authoritative bodies. One should not confuse the fact that such an accusation has been made, with the 'subjective' viewpoint constituted by the accusation itself. They are quite distinct.
 * There appears to be a pattern or correlation on wiki in reporting in the lead details about human rights abuses. The greater the distance from Western geopolitical alliances, the greater the details. Conversely, the stronger the identity of interests, the lower the interest in reporting human rightgs abuses. The United States of America mentions only elliptically the core realities of extermination and expropriation suffered by the original population, and the central role of slave labour in the growth of that countrtyìs economy. Mark Stelzner, Sven Beckert, “The Contribution of Enslaved Workers to Output and Growth in the Antebellum United States,”


 * Compare
 * Egypt
 * "Egypt's current government, a semi-presidential republic led by Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, has been described by a number of watchdogs as authoritarian or heading an authoritarian regime, responsible for perpetuating the country's poor human rights record."


 * Syria
 * Assad his regime have been condemned for numerous human rights abuses, including frequent executions of citizens and political prisoners, massive censorship[18][19] and for financing a multi-billion dollar illicit drug trade.. Syria was ranked last on the Global Peace Index from 2016 to 2018,[22] making it the most violent country in the world due to the war.-/blockquote>


 * Iran
 * "The Iranian government is authoritarian, and has attracted widespread criticism for its significant constraints and abuses against human rights and civil liberties,[30][31][32][33] including several violent suppressions of mass protests, unfair elections, and limited rights for women and for children. It is also a focal point for Shia Islam within the Middle East, countering"


 * Saudi Arabia
 * "The state has attracted criticism for a variety of reasons, including its role in the Yemeni Civil War, alleged sponsorship of Islamic terrorism and its poor human rights record, including the excessive and often extrajudicial use of capital punishment.[30]"


 * Russia
 * "Since the turn of the century, Russia's political system has been dominated by Vladimir Putin, under whom the country has experienced democratic backsliding and a shift towards authoritarianism. Russia has been involved militarily in a number of post-Soviet conflicts, which has included the internationally unrecognised annexations of Crimea in 2014 from neighbouring Ukraine and four other regions in 2022 during an ongoing invasion. International rankings of Russia place it low in measurements of human rights and freedom of the press; the country also has high levels of perceicorruption."


 * China
 * It ranks among the lowest in measurements of democracy, civil liberties, government transparency, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and human rights of ethnic minorities. The Chinese authorities have been criticized by human rights activists and non-governmental organizations for human rights abuses, including political repression, mass censorship, mass surveillance of their citizens, and violent suppression of protest and dissent.


 * Note that while not given the teflon treatment we reserve for ourselves and close geopolitical allies, Egypt and Saudi Arabia's lamentable records are subjectivized whereas similar abuses in our geopolitical adversaries are written up as objective facts. I happen to think that violent abuses are massively documnted for all of these countries, and as such are facts. I assume the glaring disparity between subjective and objective descriptions reflects the interests, cultural background (occidental) and political passions of editors, rather than the imposition of a coherent cross-article set of neutral principles.Nishidani (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the "violent abuses are massively documented for all these 6 countries, and as such are facts", absolutely. My very best wishes (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As they are for Israel's rule over the territories since 1967, a 55 year span more minutely documented for its violation of international conventions than those other cases. So what we agree on is that the violent abuses in all 7 cases are 'facts', but that the several UN rapporteur, B'tselem, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International determinations since 2019 that this pattern closely resembles the apartheid model, being grounded in thoroughly analysed realities on the ground, wideluy reported in the Israeli press and informed by a rigorously ethnic system of separation and dispossession, a model long appraised explicitly as suitable for Greater Israel/the Land of Israel by strategists like the PM Ariel Sharon, and underwritten by the majority of American scholars specializing in the MIddle East, is not significant enough to be mentioned even as a claim in the lead, though it is outlined in a subsection? If so, then we are insisting on a far higher bar for inclusion of such material for, uniquely, Israel.Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You are making substantial and valid arguments here, and admittedly, I am not that much familiar with this subject. But I think that Israel is simply not in the same league in terms of committed atrocities, persecution, and the lack of democracy/basic human rights as Iran, Syria, Russia or China. Not even close. My very best wishes (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Clarification for MVBW I thoroughly agree. The art of comparison is heuristic for not only drawning analogies but, once made, eliciting the differences. I was not comparing Israel and the other countries. If one classifies Iran, Saudi Arabia and Afganistan under the category of fundamentalist countries, the point of convergence is their shared underwriting of a theology of rigorous doctrinal originalism, after which they differ in much else. Two, as Ernest Gellner theorized, subscribe to the notion that doctrinal primitivism is not incompatible with a hyper-technological modernity (China just replaces lipservice to a canonical authority like Marx, with an archaic Confucian gloss, to the same end, and of course chucks out the islamicist obsession with gender role differentiation). Israel is a democracy, in the avant-garde of technological developèment, a close strategic ally unlike those others (and so far intelligently reserves a tolerance space for fundamentalists while roping them off from attempts to rewrite the secular state). Any Western visitor can immediately feel absolutely at home travelling around and enjoying the suburban secular comforts of modern life, and fit in to a thriving social and cultural milieu not unlike New York. The analogy made regards strictly the concepts of the historic 'other', which vary on a sliding scale to 'light' distinctions within to extreme, almost theologically intolerant separativeness without (in the occupied territories). An Israeli Palestinian has the full protection of Israeli law: a Palestinian without has no such redress, being subject to military law, which in practice means Rafferty's rules or no rules at all. In comparativist theorizing, to borrow a line from Anna Karenina, 'All families (constituents of a set)  are alike, but every member of any family (category) is different in its own way.'
 * I believe abstract concepts like states or societies or 'ethnic' groups are intrinsically dangerous, to be used with great caution, because they betray the complexities of each case by facile stereotyping. To state that practices adopted to regulate Palestinians in their territories are likened to Apartheid doesn't allow one to infer that the two cases (Israel/South Africa) are interchangeable. It only highlights one feature, while ignoring all of the historic differences between the two. Regards Nishidani (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! No, according to my understanding (and as outlined on page Israel and apartheid) it is asserted that the apartheid in South Africa and Israel was similar if not essentially the same. This is a very strong accusation.My very best wishes (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of the recent sources go out of their way to emphasize that they are not comparing the Israeli case with South Africa, the situation you describe was the case until the early 200o's and began to shift thereafter. Example "https://www.timesofisrael.com/amnesty-accuses-israel-of-apartheid-both-inside-country-and-in-west-bank-gaza/ "In a report unveiled in Jerusalem, the group [Amnesty] did not directly compare Israel to apartheid South Africa, but said it was evaluating Israel’s policies based on international conventions." Selfstudier (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Be serious -- this is just WP:UNDUE highlighting a fringe use of a sensationalist WP:LABEL from an advocacy group. It seems clearly just sensationalist hyperbole and posturing, we should not be saying 'crime or' here when the situation is not literally apartheid and there is no trial for a 'crime' here or charge from a legal body, and apartheid is not even a literal criminal charge.  This particular phrasing is not a large part of external coverage so lacks the WP:WEIGHT for much to be here and specifically since it is not a large part of the article it does not suit the guideline WP:LEAD for placement in the lede.  The majority of serious criticisms seem to not use such wording so put in the more common phrasings or some neutrally phrased summary that there is criticism.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Joy. More absent subject familiarity. From the perspective of the human rights groups (plural) it is 'literally apartheid' in the "crime of apartheid" sense. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Iskandar323 what I said remains mostly correct, though thank you for the additional information and link. It is not literally apartheid and there is no legal charge of apartheid, this is just about some sensationalist hyperbole and posturing by advocacy groups that is not the majority of criticisms nor actual legal proceedings.
 * I appreciate the additional info that the Rome Statute 11 types of Crimes against Humanity has proposed "apartheid", prefaced unlike the others to be "crime of apartheid". However, the proposal is not about that -- it is about statements by HRW (and others) outside of those.  That I said 'literally' apartheid was to emphasize the use seems a sensationalizing WP:LABEL use here when factually it is not the South African program Apartheid and/or an Israeli official program named "apartheid".  Your link does show the posturing to be a form of criminal accusation, again not an actual legal proceeding and the articles of Rome statute and Crime of apartheid mention significant lacks in ratification by the UK, Canada, United States, China, Russia, Australia, etcetera, so I would not say this is accepted and officially a 'crime' despite the impression given by the name of article titling starts 'crime of' because that is the phrase in discussion.  I have even seen mention this clause is not legally tenable (e.g. here and here).   There seems a similar past "We Charge Apartheid" (e.g. here or here or  here).  But all of these are not a major portion of the article nor how a majority of the criticism is phrased so the proposal just does not suit lede position per WP:LEAD and WP:WEIGHT.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There's definitely some posturing going around, must be catching. Selfstudier (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Selfstudier - Posturing is an advocacy groups job. But the WP editing point is we should not put the proposed line into lede because that would be WP:UNDUE highlighting and contrary to guideline WP:LEAD, whether it is about an advocacy groups posturing or something else with those issues.  Externally, WP:UNDUE against making this prominent as there is a lot of reporting about Palestinian treatment, but the WP:WEIGHT is without the phrase 'crimes of apartheid'.  WP:LEAD guidance to summarize the article is also against it as this is not a major portion of the article, it is from just a single line in the body and flawed by losing the context of it being advocacy groups making the statement with major nations opposing it, plus adding a link accusations that it is guilty to a wider article not about the body section.  Seriously, I urge restraint and caution about leading with content about labels, sensationalism, and crimes.  I would also suggest the body this is related to could use some actual content about the treatment and events (e.g. 2014) instead of just being about what phrasing HRW uses to posture about it.    Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The entire point of the 52,000-word HRW report, and why it was called "A Threshold Crossed", is because the HRW's crack teams of international human rights lawyers have determined that the weight of evidence has reached the point at which, in their legal opinion, the qualification of the crime of apartheid has been met. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Iskandar323 - you are flogging a two year old paper of no WP:WEIGHT from a source that is not the authority of a court which has not led to a legal proceeding or any other significant consequences. This does nothing to address my stated reasoning it would be WP:UNDUE to mention it in the lead, let alone as the proposal is phrased.  Also that paper or phrase is not a large portion of the article so again it is not suitable for the lede summary per WP:LEAD.  The article could objectively mention “occupation” of Palestine and “criticism” of the treatment of Palestinians “human rights”, and as an aside to this RFC I think it would be good if the article actually detailed specifics of real world actions and what norms of Palestinian treatment has been, as widely covered to suit WP:WEIGHT.   But the proposed language is not appropriate for the lede.  Be serious folks, obviously UNDUE and inappropriate per LEAD, and just be more restrained with content about labels, sensationalism, and crimes.  There is meaningful stuff to say but this proposal is not a good way to go.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The RFC proposal doesn't even mention HRW so this another irrelevancy. Selfstudier (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Pretty ridiculous assertion that one of the leading human rights organization has no weight on the subject of human rights. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Iskandar323 Oh, that the “crime of” phrase and associated HRW paper of April 2021 item has no significant WP:WEIGHT is pretty clearly a simple fact. In Wikipedia policy WEIGHT is prominence in external coverage, and if you go looking at bbc.com or theglobeandmail.com or pick your own major sources you’ll likely find any of them have scores or hundreds (or thousands) of pieces on Israeli occupation, but that mention of the phrase is just once in April 2021 HRW they have a piece reporting HRW said the phrase.  The phrase is simply not the typical or even common usage so by WEIGHT it does not belong much (or at all) in the article, and lede prominence is WP:UNDUE.  I think you understand my input based on facts and WP policy+guidances, but if you actually have a question about my input, feel free to ask me.  Otherwise, just let it be.  Cheers   Markbassett (talk) 06:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What a load of clap. Your input is entirely questionable. "Crime of apartheid" is a set phrase in international law. You cannot speak technically about the accusation of the crime, as defined in the Rome Statute of the ICC in 2002, without it. To not use the word "crime" is to blur boundaries between the offense, as defined in international law, and the decades of analogistic references made to 'Apartheid' with a capital 'A' (South African Apartheid) in the decades before that. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The description 'advocacy groups' is misleading in its cheap confusion. The several groups who have made this interpretation researching the vast evidence, which on wikipedia we document here and here, have no known or effective lobbying power, unlike the bodies who protest that designation. They simply fulfill their remit of analysing and making known the results of their inquiries into human rights abuses, from Iceland to Israel, Pakistan to Palestine, wherever. Of course, since we are talking of violations of fundamental human rights as set forth by a foundational document for modern states, they accompany their work with a plea for a restitution of denied rights. If that is 'advocacy' it is not advocacy as practiced generally by pressure groups. A second point is that, if you, unlike the majority of denialist editors opposing this here for months, examine the documentation of those two articles, you will see that the majority of it comes from Jewish(Israeli scholars, i.e. from within Israel or those who are deeply attached to that country. Within Israeli discourse in Hebrew, there is no problem in using the term Hafrada to describe the principles of separation Israel seeks to implement and maintain. It is the Hebrew word for apartheid. Apparently, the different sound means the concepts must differ. Finally, a majority commenting here think we may best resolve this by remodulating the proposed phrasing. Since there is no doubt that for 57 years Israeli has rigorously pursued separation/hafrada policies as part of its occupational regime, in such an intensive way, and dedicates most of its state military budget to the occupation, it is difficult to deny that this principle of hafrada/apartheid is one of the principle exigencies of the state and requires attention in the lead. Nishidani (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Nishidani UNDUE and LEAD is not affected by disliking some noting HRW is an advocacy group.  I think your mention of “hafrada” (e.g. hafrada wall) would be a good informative add to the article body though.  That phrase would be specific, objective, neutral, and factual with sources on all sides, and be in the body as appropriate to its external WEIGHT.  As contrasted to the proposal here of a sensationalist phrase being flogged for inappropriately high placement.  As an aside, ‘advocacy group’ is simply factual, in particular note line 1 of Human Rights Watch and their own self-descriptions.   Any advocacy group, noble or not, works by posturing and their phrases simply do not have the authority of a legal body.  For any source though, something that is not a phrasing used by most means by WP:WEIGHT that the article should give it little or no space, and when an article has given something little space WP:LEAD guidance says it is not suitable for the lede.  The guidelines might have their issues, but they are what they are. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Are the UN, three world churches and multiple countries all posturing too? I have a sneaking suspicion that if the ICJ (or CERD) says it is so, there will immediately be charges of "posturing", blah, blah, blah just as there was with the WB barrier finding. So you will forgive me if I have little faith in such shopworn argumentation. Selfstudier (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "(Hafrada)' would be specific, objective, neutral, and factual with sources on all sides. . .contrasted to the proposal here of a sensationalist phrase (apartheid)"
 * (a) neither 'hafrada' or 'apartheid' are 'phrases'. They are words.
 * (b)It is shooting yourself in the foot to claim a Hebrew word is 'neutral' whereas a word in English with an almost identical meaning is 'sensationalist. Evidence?
 * 'The Hebrew term Hafrada is the official descriptor of the policy of the Israeli Government to separate the Palestinian population of the territories occupied by Israel from the Israeli population, . . .The term Hafrada has striking similarities with the term apartheid, as this term means ‘apartness‘ in Afrikaans and Hafrada is the closest Hebrew equivalent.' Ephraim Namni, 'National-Cultural Autonomy as An Alternative to Minor Territorial Nationalism,' in David J. Smith, Karl Cordell (eds.), Cultural Autonomy in Contemporary Europe, Routledge, 2013 ISBN 978-1-317-96851-1  pp.9-28,  p.25  n.4
 * (c)Quoting wiki articles (HRW) or Hafrada is pointless since they are often in an early state of composition. The Hafrada article is primitive in its bias to restrict the meaning to physical structures like the Wall, and underplay the source evidence for its policy use to develop reticular institutions of racial segregation beyond the wall. The Wall was made to 'separate' Israel from Palestine, per Daniel Schueftan's suggestion, but Sharon and Ehud Barak while finding his utter contempt for Arabs and his advocacy of rigorous territorial 'hafrada' by means of a wall congenial, went beyond the wall, and like all following governments extended the 'Hafrada'/apartheid/separation/segregation principle deep into the West Bank.
 * The only reason these things are not set forth with clarity here, where reportage is dominated by vague timelines of peace talks, is that the article has a history of diehard reverting of attempts to succinctly and yet comprehensively outline Israel's problem with Palestinians. In political science, one definition of a state is in terms of what its budget and practices define as acceptable waste, investments with a negative return but with a net positive geopolitical value. Enforcing hafrada/racial segregation, in the West Bank devours 50 to 75% of the Israel Defense Forces' resources, more than the cost of countering all of Israel's armed foreign enemies. Considerable resources also go to hasbara that brands any attempt to correlates its explicit racial segregation with apartheid like practicesd as 'offensively anti-Zionist' ergo 'antisemitic'. All we are doing here, with this proposal, is asimply noting that the major global human rights groups now converge in likening this hafrada to apartheid. That is a fact. Nishidani (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Nishidani Up to you if you want to try it, but I will repeat my side note comment that brief mention of “hafrada” (e.g. “hafrada wall”) could be a good informative edit to the article body about something specific and objective. That reflects my view the one line this RFC is about (beginning of the 8th paragraph in the section Israeli-occupied territories) is basically that HRW used the phrase “crime of apartheid” that lacks identifying any specific item in the treatment of Palestinians.  It’s just describing an argument over posturing, framing and labelling, not identifying any specifics in treatment of Palestinians.  Seemed to me it would be good if at least some clue was put in what they were talking about.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't want to argue further but I must correct something you have now said twice, the phrase "crime of apartheid" is very commonly used and not just by HRW. We have an article on Crime of apartheid because it is notable. I already gave NYT using it and there are many others. Selfstudier (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it is not “common” in the amount of coverage for Israel.  Just WP:UNDUE highlighting a fringe use of a sensationalist WP:LABEL phrase from an advocacy group.  I’ve already said you can Google to find the coverage of Israel and/or Palestine and see the huge number of articles not using the phrase let alone being about HRW saying it as showing it is not “common”.  And this RFC is about giving lede prominence that the phrase was said by HRW re Israel, not over whether the legal conception is WP:NOTABLE enough to deserve its article.  Look, if you didn’t understand my input said UNDUE about lede placement per WEIGHT, or inappropriate lede per LEAD guideline feel free to continue to ask me by being indented here.   But if you want to say something opposing such, put that in your own input area.  Over & out.  Markbassett (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And this RFC is about giving lede prominence that the phrase was said by HRW re Israel This is as well false, the proposed addition does not mention HRW at all (because they are not the only ones who used that phrase). Selfstudier (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Selfstudier The phrase “crime of apartheid” was discussed as HRW finding and mentioned in the body includes HRW. Don’t blame me if the proposed text is also flawed by losing the context of it being advocacy groups making the statement with major nations opposing it, plus adding a link accusations that it is guilty to a wider article not about the body section.  For any other post you want to make to my RFC input pointing at UNDUE and WEIGHT and LEAD, unless you are not understanding my input on those points I suggest you instead read WP:BLUDGEON and just don’t do it.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Count your lines of text and count mine. And I don't make false statements either. Selfstudier (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose, this is just sensationalist hyperbole and posturing. UNDUE, and clearly grinding a point here on Wikipedia. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 20:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2022-12-02/ty-article/.premium/u-s-warns-against-unilateral-israeli-steps-in-west-bank/00000184-cf5f-d4f4-a79d-df5fefcd0000?lts=1669977731622
 * "While far-right figures claim they intend to equalize the settlers’ status to that of all other Israelis, the U.S. officials said this would be seen as racist discrimination between Jews and Palestinians, and the international community will not stand for it. Annexation that would keep the Palestinians in an inferior status would be tantamount to practicing an apartheid regime, they said. A senior Israeli official who was privy to the talks assessed that a situation in which the Israeli control of the West Bank would be seen as apartheid was now “closer and more real than ever." Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * More blathering about the findings of multiple human rights bodies being sensationalist, when it is the claims of sensationalism that are sensationalist. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose – in my view this fails MOS:LEADREL. The sources in the relevant part of the article body are recent and show the term remains contested and gained traction from 2021 onwards; I think this indicates that, in a broad article about a country (and its history/features etc.), the apartheid accusation isn't core "significant information" requiring lead inclusion. If apartheid is treated as a defining controversy of Israel throughout the next period of years, this may change. There's WP:NORUSH and Wikipedia isn't the place to right great wrongs – it's premature at this time to include "apartheid" in the lead. I also agree with ' points. If, rather than focusing on the contested, untested and specific legal accusation of the crime of apartheid, the proposal was to simply state there have been widespread accusations of human rights abuses in the occupied territories/against Palestians, I think there'd be a stronger case when weighing the significance of this fact in proportion to the rest of Israel's history. I also agree with ' concern about prioritising widely accepted facts over accusations in country article leads. Jr8825  •  Talk  22:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * https://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/iiclr/article/view/17379 Apartheid Outside Africa: The Case of Israel John B. Quigley (1991):
 * "The apartheid claim has been leveled in Israel, whose treatment of its minority population of Arabs has been the subject of controversy. The United Nations General Assembly called Zionism, the national ideology of Israel, "a form of racism and racial discrimination," [in 1975] a charge prompted primarily by Israel's treatment of the Arabs within its borders.' British historian Arnold Toynbee called Israel "a racialist state. . ." [in 1973] and said that "it is wrong that people feel differently about the rights and wrongs of the existence of the state of Israel versus white South Africa ...." Many Israeli scholars and politicians have said the same over the years.
 * So no, the accusations are not "recent". That's without even mentioning the Palestinian viewpoint. The accusation that Israel practices apartheid may be contested but the accusations themselves are incontestable across a wide spectrum of views for many years and that's what we are discussing here.
 * Creeping annexation is a fact, permanent occupation with no obvious intent to terminate is a fact, dual legal systems is a fact, how many facts before the charge becomes a fact? If the ICJ declares the occupation illegal, will that be accepted? Evidently not, the policy is deny, deny, deny with a few antisemitism charges thrown in for luck. There's no righting great wrongs, that's crap, its just accusation versus denial.
 * If we want to label it (gross ) human rights abuse/discrimination instead, that's fine, we can dispense with accusations because that's a fact as well. Selfstudier (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with everything you've said, apart from the suggestion that WP:RGW is irrelevant and equatable to denialism. I don't think Wikipedia should be morally blind, every political/ethical topic requires an editorial balance between basic moral positions and a detached, impartial tone. Sometimes good faith editors will disagree on where the line is drawn: "accusations that it is guilty of the crime of apartheid" is a relatively recent development in the history of Israel's creeping annexation of the Palestinian territories, so in my view isn't unambiguously leadworthy.
 * Additionally, I think caution is needed because it involves prominently attributing a crime to a country. Yes, Israeli society's problem with Zionism is responsible in large part for sustaining the situation, but the lead doesn't have space to explore this. Including a criminal accusation in the lead of any encyclopedic article (especially a country) requires careful consideration and editorial responsibility.
 * I also think it's unnecessary (even counterproductive) to use accusations to convey human rights abuses where factual statements can do the job (an exception might be ongoing abuses where observers lack access, e.g. Xinjiang). I oppose the proposed wording for these reasons, but I don't inherently oppose adding a mention of discrimination/human rights abuses to the lead. Jr8825  •  Talk  03:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * but I don't inherently oppose adding a mention of discrimination/human rights abuses to the lead. OK, speaking for myself, I would go along with that, sticking to things that are sufficiently sourced over time is not a bad thing.the status and treatment of Palestinians in occupied territory is a significant subject of Israeli policy and the Israel–Palestine conflict per thebiguglyalien below although the precise wording could be clearer as it doesn't actually mention discrimination or human rights abuse. Selfstudier (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I definitely think it's worth considering something along those lines, although your proposed sentence doesn't explicitly mention human rights violations. I think we could be more clear about the widespread international criticism of Israel's human rights record in the occupied territories. @Levivich has helpfully highlighted the relevant part of the article body below, which I also had in mind. Jr8825  •  Talk  06:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We are still reserving exceptional treatment to Israel in the extreme delicacy and caution exercised by holding to ransom any attempt to summarize a highly significant and enduring practice of human rights abuses. I have just added what the United States Department of State says regarding the situations of Palestinians within Israel and in the occupied territories. It is extensive, detailed and confirms what international NGOs, here lambasted as partisan 'advocacy' groups, state. Whether one calls this apartheid or not, a summary of such material is required by the lead since it is a structural part of the Israeli state's history. Compare the lead for China
 * "It ranks among the lowest in measurements of democracy, civil liberties, government transparency, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and human rights of ethnic minorities. The Chinese authorities have been criticized by human rights activists and non-governmental organizations for human rights abuses, including political repression, mass censorship, mass surveillance of their citizens, and violent suppression of protest and dissent."
 * Note, every abuse is linked to a special wiki page. Wikipedia has similar articles for every variety of Israeli abuse of human rights, but we can't do that here. We can't even mention the fact itself. China is an adversary, Israel is an ally. Nishidani (talk) 12:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Michael Sfard puts his finger on it and is well qualified to do so. Selfstudier (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose mention of accusations or labels (including apartheid) in the lead as undue per My very best wishes and Jr8825. I would support, however, including the fact that the status and treatment of Palestinians in occupied territory is a significant subject of Israeli policy and the Israel–Palestine conflict. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to remind participants in this discussion about WP:BLUDGEON and WP:SOAPBOX. There are a few users that are replying to a dozen different !votes, all of whom are engaging in a soapboxish manner. If you find yourself replying to more than one or two !votes, consider whether you've become too invested in this topic and whether you need to recuse yourself. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Everyone has a right to an opinion. When there is a conflict in judgements, at least in Western civilization, one is taught to master the evidence, analyse arguments, avail oneself of things like the Socratic elenchus etc., to achieve a consensus. A soap-boxer and their hecklers at Hyde Park are one thing, debating a proposition at the Oxford Union another. The discursive criteria differ, and the difference is qualitative. In collaborating on building encyclopedic articles on an area where passions, politics and ignorance commingle, often chaotically, the rational interrogation of what each of us believes or had concludes is a sine qua non for achieving narrative accuracy, and requires extensive reading, close argument and patience. Bludgeoning is repeating oneself without adducing anything new, or of substance, for consideration. I can't see evidence of this. Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * No but... - like others above, I oppose the particular proposed language, because accusations and 'apartheid' aren't really WP:DUE enough for the lead, and are more labels than description. However, I do think the lead should be expanded to include content about human rights violations by Israel, which, according to the RS and the article body, go far beyond "accusations" by human rights groups, or even beyond the question of whether it's "apartheid" or some other human rights violation. Maybe the UN should be mentioned, I'm not sure exactly how to summarize it for the lead, but something that summarizes this part of the body: "Israel has been criticized for engaging in systematic and widespread violations of human rights in the occupied territories, including the occupation itself,[450] and war crimes against civilians.[451][452][453][454] The allegations include violations of international humanitarian law[455] by the UN Human Rights Council,[456] The U.S. State Department has called reports of abuses of significant human rights of Palestinians 'credible' both within Israel[457] and the occupied territories.[458] Amnesty International and other NGOs have documented mass arbitrary arrests, torture, unlawful killings, systemic abuses and impunity[459][460][461][462][463][464] in tandem with a denial of the right to Palestinian self-determination.[465][466][467][468][469]". I agree generally that the lead should convey widely accepted facts, not accusations, and there are widely accepted facts about human rights violations by Israel in the occupied territories. Levivich (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Completely UNDUE and POV. Just the usual attempt to push POV stuff into this article every couple of months. Doesn't belong. Potential human right abuses do not belong in the lead, particularly when they are outside the borders of Israel described in the article. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Despite appearances there is, unless I am mistaken, a fair consensus on a compromise here and the aut/aut stand-off of opposing votes is specious. The consensus is that apartheid claims are inappropriate for the lead but that some lead notice be given of the extensive human rights violations, since these are uncontested structural facts, defined as significant' even by the US State department, and not an NGO advocacy POV.Nishidani (talk) 09:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Potential human right abuses do not belong in the lead Agreed, actual human rights vios do. I don't really agree with apartheid being merely a label but I am willing to go around that issue and just stick to well sourced vios, leaving it to the reader to decide whether they in sum, constitute apartheid as alleged. Selfstudier (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Ortizesp (talk) 06:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No. The lead is very long already. If the lead is going to mention human rights issues (and it probably should), then it should be at a much higher level of summarisation. The apartheid accusation is one very specific and very WP:RECENT accusation of many and I see no reason why this one should be the one featured in the lead. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC) Striking comment from <500 edit user not permitted to participate in internal project discussions per ARBPIA restrictions. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No. The lead is very long already. If the lead is going to mention human rights issues (and it probably should), then it should be at a much higher level of summarisation. The apartheid accusation is one very specific and very WP:RECENT accusation of many and I see no reason why this one should be the one featured in the lead.Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC) Re-adding previously stricken response as I am now XC and my opinion has not changed. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, it's a well sourced statement, not sure why it wouldn't be included.

The issue of Israeli crimes against Palestinians is under investigation by the International Court of Justice in The Hague. I know they are investigating this and are going to submit their opinion soon. In my opinion to wait for their opinion to confirm it finally and then add the paragraph for sure. At the moment, no body has yet declared Israel to be "apartheid" or to have "committed crimes against humanity", so in my opinion the addition of this paragraph should wait until the conclusions of the ICJ are submitted Qplb191 (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The issue of Israeli crimes against Palestinians is under investigation by the International Court of Justice in The Hague. I know they are investigating this and are going to submit their opinion soon. In my opinion we should wait for their opinion to confirm it finally and then add the paragraph for sure. At the moment, no body has yet declared Israel to be "apartheid" or to have "committed crimes against humanity", so in my opinion the addition of this paragraph should wait until the conclusions of the ICJ are submitted. Qplb191 (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. POV and poor sources. From time to time, activists try to insert their agenda into the article, thereby damaging its encyclopedic quality. Unsurprisingly accusations of "apartheid" are accepted by autocratic regimes, while being rejected by democracies. Obviously, this is not a neutral analysis. For example, the European Union's foreign minister, Josep Borrell, just rejected calls to state that Israel is implementing apartheid. Israel gives full equality of rights to Arabs and Muslims – provided they are its citizens. Thus more than 20% of its residents enjoy full rights and affirmative action. The citizens of the Palestinian Authority receive their rights from the Palestinian Authority, not from Israel. They are not citizens of Israel and do not want to be citizens of Israel. Therefore, there is no reason for Israel to give them civil rights. Those who do receive these rights are millions of other Arabs, who are indeed citizens of Israel. In addition, there is no mention of the fact that Israel's policy is reactive to the Palestinian violence directed towards it. ℬ𝒜ℛ (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Activism? Poor sources? For two decades any reader of the Hebrew press will have constantly noted that prominent people at the core of government policy, security services, even the Israeli winner of the Nobel Prize for literature have reluctantly admitted that Israel's policies towards Palestinians smack of apartheid, if not indeed that. Two prime ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, a former Attorney General Michael Ben-Yair, a Shin Bet head Ami Ayalon, and, to name just a few, Shulamit Aloni,Yossi Sarid and A. B. Yehoshua (see here), for a small sample. They took the evidence of their senses, familiarity with the territory and its prime architect, Ariel Sharon at his word when he stated off the record that the SA apartheid model was appropriate to Israel. You know undoubtedly that this is obvious in Israel, widely recognized as such. We know know that any foreign endorsement of the idea there are similarities is greeted by lockstep politically correct disavowels by spokesmen like Borrell, who have zero knowledge of the issues, or otherwise sanctioned by an immediate stop to the career of anyone who goes public by noting the issue in the US or Europe, as happened when Kenneth Roth was refused a fellowship at Harvard because, though a Jewish head of Human Rights Watch, he was associated with an organization that, after dragging its feet for decades, finally conceded that what Israeli politicians openly admitted, what Israel practices, looks something akin  to apartheid. (For once public outrage led to a retraction). In short, among Israelis one can call a spade a spade, but this frankness cannot be allowed to trickle outside (because it would have serious legal repercussions for the state)m ergo a taboo. Indeed  lobbying pressures are exerted to punish even mention of the fact that the similarities have been noted, which is not an assertion that the systems are identical, but simply stating what dozens of senior Israeli figures admit to be self-evident. It is a pity that wikipedia's voting method leads to a similar outcome in the face of very  strong source evidence  -Nishidani (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I think a different proposal is preferable in this case. אקסינו (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC) Editor <500 edit not allowed to participate in internal project discussions per ARBPIA restrictions. Selfstudier (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - totally NPOV. There's a reason why authoritarian countries and far-left lobbyist groups are the main backers of the apartheid accusations. We do not want Wikipedia to take the BDS position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Eladkarmel (talk) 07:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - the suggested language does not judge whether it is occuring, merely mentions the noteworthy accusations that occur on a regular basis, and, as users above have mentioned, are not entirely without prominent similar sources domestically. Hentheden (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support There is a clear consensus on this in countries which have no direct interest in the issues involved. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. The fact that the accusations are made is certainly well-cited and well-established; and the coverage of them is overwhelming and sustained enough to establish it as a major aspect of Israel as a topic. Most of the arguments above amount to editors disagreeing with the accusations themselves, stating that they feel that the people making the accusations are bad people, or general WP:ASPERSIONS about anyone who argues for inclusion. None of that matters; what matters, from a WP:DUE perspective, is the degree of coverage the accusations get from high-quality reliable sources, and to a certain extent the tone and perspective those sources take on the accusations. In that regard numerous people have demonstrated, above, that coverage is overwhelming and that the tone of coverage is at least not sufficiently dismissive to justify excluding it from the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * . Per MOS:LEAD, the article's intro should include, and this is one such piece of criticism. There are some reasonable arguments in opposition to this proposal (e.g. we should summarize the human rights criticism in some other way), but I hope the closer will see the "poor sources" argument as incompatible with any reasonable interpretation of policy/guideline. The allegations, espoused by (among others) two of the most influential human rights organizations, have been covered by almost every kind of reputable source you could think of: And that's just sources that cover the recent HRW report. Many other NGOs, academics, and at least one UN Special Rapporteur are separately making the same point. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Stories like the Associated Press's "Amnesty joins rights groups in accusing Israel of apartheid" are news precisely because calling Israel an apartheid state is not a standard consensus position. 05:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Jahaza (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * : I've requested closure from an uninvolved editor at WP:ANRFC. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'd even support stronger language on critique of Israel's human and civil rights record in the lead paragraphs than the article contains, but using the word apartheid is undue emphasis in the lead paragraphs on the conclusions of the harshest critics of Israeli policy.--Jahaza (talk) 04:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Yes, we absolutely need to mention human rights issues in Palestine in the lead. We should not do so in a provocative, non-NPOV, ideologically charged manner. There are plenty of more descriptive and less ideological ways of describing Israeli human rights abuses in the lead. Out of all the ways we could describe Israeli actions, we should not choose the one that arguably fits with the International Holocaust Alliance's definition of anti-semitism. An article linked above claimed 60% of scholars viewed Israeli conduct as akin to apartheid. That means 40% didn't. Inserting this word is a conscious choice to include a more controversial, less neutral statement in place of more widely agreed-upon, neutral, descriptions of Israeli human rights abuses. I see no reason to include a controversial, non-neutral descriptor when I'm sure we can come up with perfectly good, less controversial alternatives. Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

2nd paragraph, again
Let's try to build consensus on the second paragraph: "Israel is located in a region of great significance to the Abrahamic religions, known as Palestine or Eretz Israel. In antiquity, it was home to [several independent] Israelite and Jewish kingdoms. In later history the Jews gradually became a minority in the area [as a result of the diaspora/as the Jewish diaspora increase/because were expelled or fled the area, resulting in a significant diaspora.]. Several [regional powers/empires] came to control the region:


 * 1) over the course of history, including the [Mesopotamian, Persian, Hellenic,] Roman, Crusader, Islamic/Arab, and Ottoman empires.


 * 1) in antiquity, including the [Mesopotamian, Persian, Hellenic and] Roman empires, followed by the Islamic caliphate, Crusader states, Ayyubids and Mamluks in the medieval period, and the Ottoman empire in the early modern period.

After centuries of persecution, in the late 19th century Zionism emerged leading to increased Jewish immigration to [Ottoman] Palestine, then the vast majority of the population were Arabs. Britain seized the territory during World War I [creating the Palestine Mandate years later] and promised give independence to the Arabs there while at the same time promised give the land to the Jews to build their [independent] homeland. [As the Jewish population in Palestine grew, tensions between Arabs and Jews grew as well, and] unable to deliver on this contradictory dual obligation, Britain turned to the United Nations after World War II, which in 1947 recommended the partition of Palestine [creating independent Arab and Jewish states there] and an international administration for Jerusalem. The plan was accepted by the Jewish Agency but rejected by Palestinian Arab leadership, [who viewed it as unfair], leading to inter-communal war."


 * I think we should include the mention about the creation of the Mandate. What about: or  or
 * I deleted "in order to gain their support" because this is in the context of WWI and Britain promised the same things after the war, in this point of the text the war looks finished.
 * I think we should delete "Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenic empires" from a list and just name the empires that dominated the region after the fall of the last independent Jewish state in 63 BC.
 * Acceptance and refusal of UN plan + "leading to inter-communal war" is wrong. What's correct? Jews started an insurgency? Mawer10 (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * "The United Nations resolution sparked conflict between Jewish and Arab groups" is the way the above US state history puts it. 1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine is the wl.                   . Selfstudier (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Mandate for Palestine is the wl to write "After WW1 Britain was awarded the...." (at San Remo conference in 1920. Selfstudier (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know enough about these details, but apparently the phrase is supposed to suggest the escalation of a pre-existing conflict, rather than the start of a new one. The article Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine says: "After the UN Partition Plan resolution was passed..., the civil war between Palestinian Jews and Arabs eclipsed the previous tensions of both with the British". Mawer10 (talk) 12:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The Jewish insurgency was against the British from earlier on (44) if that is to be mentioned. The UN Res is not till 1947 and led to civil war (the earlier part of the 48 war). Selfstudier (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

So what should we change exactly? Mawer10 (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Pre-zionism history
"Israel is located in a region of great significance to the Abrahamic religions, known as Palestine or Eretz Israel. In antiquity, it was home to [several] Israelite and Jewish kingdoms. In later history, Jews gradually became a minority in the area as a result of the diaspora. Several empires came to control the region throughout history, including the Roman, [Byzantine], Arab, and Ottoman empires."

What do you guys think? Mawer10 (talk) 11:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Exclude "Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenic" empires, and name only the empires after the end of the last Jewish state in 63 BC.
 * 2) Exclude "Crusader", it wasn't an empire. Replace "Islamic" with "Arab" to differentiate them from the Ottomans.
 * 3) Delete details about the causes of the Diaspora.


 * Why not just delete everything and replace it by ? Synotia (moan) 20:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

"Israel is located in a region of great significance to the Abrahamic religions, known as Palestine or Eretz Israel. Although it was home to several Jewish kingdoms in antiquity, Jews gradually became a minority in the area as a result of the diaspora. Several empires came to control the region throughout history until the Ottoman Empire conquered it in 1516."

The Zionists did not randomly choose Palestine to establish the Jewish state, I think the Jewish presence in antiquity and the Diaspora deserve mention. Mawer10 (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Here's my stab, very much along the lines of what I proposed here, which basically emphasizes three things: rich history, religion, Jewish angle:
 * "Israel sits at the southwestern tip of the fertile crescent, which is characterized by a rich civilizational history and a position, since antiquity, as a cultural crossroads contested by rival regional powers and polities. The area has great religious significance in the Abrahamic faith tradition, as the geographical setting for scriptural narratives, as well as totemic significance for the Jewish people as the site of previous Israelite and Jewish states.
 * This is the type of encyclopedic, top-level, NPOV summary I think we should be aiming for. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * While it can be shorter that what's currently live, it doesn't need to be that shorter. Are 200 years of Crusader rule really not notable enough to be in the lead? Synotia (moan) 19:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Has zero relation with the topic of this article.  nableezy  - 20:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * How is it any different from the other country articles? Synotia (moan) 20:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Besides the fact that Israel even as an idea was hundreds of years away from the Crusader states?  nableezy  - 20:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It would make lead too short. I find your previous proposal more reasonable by just naming the rulers:
 * "...Several regional powers came to control the region in antiquity, including the Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenic and Roman empires, followed by the Islamic caliphate, Crusader states, Ayyubids and Mamluks in the medieval period, and the Ottoman empire in the early modern period."
 * Dovidroth (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A combo could work: "Israel sits at the southwestern tip of what was the fertile crescent, an area characterized by rich civilizational history. Several regional powers came to control the region in antiquity, including the Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenic and Roman empires, followed by the Islamic caliphate, Crusader states, Ayyubids and Mamluks in the medieval period, and the Ottoman empire in the early modern period. The area plays a central role in the Abrahamic faith tradition, as the geographical setting for scriptural narratives, and holds totemic significance for the Jewish people as the site of early Israelite and Jewish states. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I like your version, but wouldn't make more sense to also mention the Israelite and Jewish states before this series of rulers? If done, the final sentence could perhaps be rewritten as holds totemic significance for the Jewish people as the site of their early statehood to avoid repetition. Synotia (moan) 13:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What about using "Mesopotamian" to refer to the Assyrian and Babylonian empires? Mawer10 (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not bad, but it's a little longer than the two versions I presented before and very different from the consensus that was reached earlier, which basically went in this order:

1) religious significance to Abrahamic religions

2) name the place where Israel is located

3) ethnically Jewish kingdoms in antiquity

4) demographic change [diaspora]

5) many empires conquered the region over centuries until the Ottomans.

And this information connects perfectly with the next sentence: "After centuries of persecution, in the late 19th century Zionism emerged leading to increased Jewish immigration to Ottoman Palestine, then the vast majority of the population were Arabs". Mawer10 (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)


 * First, the order above places too much emphasis on the religious; the history component of the lead should start with a more generic statement about the history. Secondly, I see no consensus for adding haphazard and generalizing statements about the demographics of any ancient populations into this section. Thirdly, it is precisely because Ottoman situation is mentioned in the immediately successive sentence it is not necessary to mention it immediately before, alone among all of the past polities otherwise not mentioned. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

"Israel is located in a region known as Palestine or Eretz Israel, which throughout history has been controlled by various entities and regional powers due to its strategic position between Asia and Africa. The area has great significance to the Abrahamic religions and was home to several Israelite and Jewish states in antiquity, although Jews became a minority in the area in the 4th century. After centuries of persecution, in the late 19th century Zionism emerged leading to increased Jewish immigration to Palestine, then a territory of the Ottoman Empire and with a predominantly Arab population." What about this? Mawer10 (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I avoided referencing specific regional names because one rapidly gets into a WP:FALSEBALANCE debate about Palestine/Israel, not least to mention that 'Eretz Israel' is A) not English (that would be 'Land of Israel'), and B) not a particularly clear geographical descriptor, but a quasi-geographical, quasi-religious descriptor. Not sure why you don't like the fertile crescent reference, since that is deeply pertinent to why the history is long, since that area as a whole is a cradle of ancient civilizations. The broader problems about the demographic stuff, here 'minority' stuff, is this material is not actually referenced in the history section of the article, so introducing it here is not actually summarizing anything and is a violation of MOS:LEAD. There are also holes a mile wide caused by the assumptions inherent in the statement. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I thought a consensus had been reached on naming the region where Israel is located because the region is referred to as Palestine in the following sentences anyway, although I already imagined that there would be a discussion about the use of the term Eretz Israel alongside Palestine. About Jews becoming a minority I got the idea from proposals in previous discussions, one of the proposals was "after the fall of Israelite kingdoms in the middle of the 1st millenium BCE, most Jews lived in the diaspora until the 19th century C.E.,". Until a few minutes ago I believed that the list of empires was the main problem, now i'm getting lost. Mawer10 (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

post zionism history
"After centuries of persecution, in the late 19th century Zionism emerged leading to increased Jewish immigration to Palestine, then a territory [of the Ottoman Empire and] with a predominantly Arab population. After World War I, Palestine was put under British Mandatory rule and Britain promised give independence to the Arabs there while at the same time promised give the land to the Jews to build their homeland. As the Jewish population grew in the country, tensions between Arabs and Jews also grew and, unable to fulfill its contradictory dual obligation, Britain turned to the United Nations after World War II, which in 1947 recommended the partition of Palestine [creating independent Arab and Jewish states there] and an international administration for Jerusalem. The plan was accepted by the Jewish Agency but rejected by Palestinian Arab leadership, [who viewed it as unfair], [leading to inter-communal war/sparking conflict between Jewish and Arab groups." How exactly should this be? Mawer10 (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Gruß
I've stumbled upon the German article for Israel and found its introduction a good template to follow, as it also does not 95% focus on the conflict. The main thing I'd do is add about the territories occupied in the Six-Day War.

As a rule of thumb, German Wikipedia articles are usually at least as good as their English counterparts, in my experience, especially in articles about social sciences. Synotia (moan) 13:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Why would English WP want to use a German WP article as a template? Selfstudier (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I personally think its introduction gives a more balanced overview of the topic? Or are you departing from some sort of dogma? Synotia (moan) 14:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The word template distracted me, as long as its just your personal opinion, no problem. It's not my opinion, however. Selfstudier (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh. Perhaps "blueprint" was more appropriate I guess? Synotia (moan) 14:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think thats a terrible lead and have no interest in basing anything in our article off of an unreliable source (meaning any open wiki, including all other language Wikipedias).  nableezy  - 22:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not mean using it as source; only as a possible model for how to structure the lead Synotia (moan) 09:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I dont believe I said to use it as a source. My comment is related to how I feel that is a terrible lead. And not an example or model to follow.  nableezy  - 19:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I intended to accomplish this with the lead proposal I provided above. This, in my opinion, comes close to what a fair piece ought to have looked like in a pure, impartial editing setting. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is covered in great detail in the current lede, yet this is only one aspect of Israel that needs to be discussed. It is absurd to characterize a state solely in terms of its conflict with another people. Tombah (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead requires that we summarize "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". It's not a debate, its a requirement. characterize a state solely in terms of its conflict with another people is also a gross exaggeration of the actual situation, existing or proposed. Selfstudier (talk) 07:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, not a good idea. Our articles aren't much chop, and German sister articles no better. They may be as bad as ours, but that is another story. There is reason to challenge the assertion that we can drawn on them for a model, which one may ascertain by reading Aleida Assman's, From Collective Violence to a Common Future:  Four Models for Dealing With a Traumatic Past in Filomena Viana Guarda, Adriana Martins, Helena Gonçalves da Silva  (eds.) Conflict, Memory Transfers and the Reshaping of Europe  Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2010  ((isbn|978-1-443-82005-9)) pp.8-23, esp.p.13 which notes a late 80s-early 90s 'pact of remembering' that unites some collective sense of successors of perpetrators and successors of victims of the holocaust, in a way that militates against calling a spade a spade. Germany has a strong record for censuring criticism of Israel, and academics get into serious trouble if they speak their minds about Israel's abuse of human rights. Nishidani (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Digestible sections
If anyone is wondering what I'm doing, I'm basically checking the section sizes function at the top of this talk page and breaking up the prominently oversized and indigestible sections either by splitting the sections or adding subheads. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * This edit finally slew the dragon and deposed the history section as the top reader-friendly fail. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I've just undone this edit and resurrected the dragon. I'm sorry, but we won't be the first country article to split its historical portion into two in order to shorten it, there's definitely no reason for doing that - it feels really confusing and looks awkward. We have numerous additional country articles that are about the same length. Although I haven't counted the letters, Italy and Greece appear to be somewhat lengthy, as is to be expected from other nations with deep histories and roots that date back thousands of years. And still, these articles' "History" sections haven't yet been split. Tombah (talk) 06:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Reverted, seems like a much needed improvement, an alternative would be to shorten it and then it wouldn't need to be split up.Selfstudier (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree these sections are a problem on various country pages, especially so now with the new Vector 2022 format which only displays the top level of headers on the left. Greece is another good candidate; I've done that too. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Countries have a single history section. And secondly, the template above is meant to highlight the excessive size issue in order to reduce it, and simply creating new headings is not solving the problem.--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 05:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree but it will do for the time being until the problem is fixed. Selfstudier (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 April 2023
In the 3rd Paragraph from top, where it says: over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were expelled from or fled Israeli territory to the West Bank, Gaza, and the neighboring Arab countries, with fewer than 150,000 Palestinian Arabs remaining within Israel. During and immediately after the war, around 260,000 Jews emigrated or fled from the Arab world to Israel. You should add that Jews were also expelled and didn't only emigrate voluntarily.

I would suggest the line look like this: 260,000 Jews emigrated, fled or were expelled from the Arab world to Israel.

the Wikipedia article on the exodus of Jews from the Arab world itself states that some were expelled Jewish exodus from the arab world Crainsaw (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The expulsions that took place in the Arab world postdated that considerably. Most of the countries actually barred the emigration of Jews at the time.  nableezy  - 20:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Classical antiquity
@Tombah: To the crux of this edit, the 8th century BCE is very much Classical antiquity. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)


 * This term has more to do with the history of Greece and Greek-influenced civilizations. I wouldn't use it for the history of the Near East and particularly the Levant, which was at the time much more related to the civilizations of the Fertile Crescent and ancient Egypt, and remained so up until the conquests of Alexander in the late 4th century BCE. Would you place the reign of Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II, living in the early 6th century BCE, under classical antiquity too? Tombah (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the term is relevant here, yes. Era boundaries vary by geography and state of civilizational advancement, but classical antiquity is broadly a term used to characterize all Mediterranean civilization, including that of the Levantine coast. The Assyrians are specifically mentioned on that page, not least because they interacted directly with other civilizations of the archaic period of classical antiquity, and for Babylon we have: Nabopolassar and the antiquity of Babylon. We also have the rather topical: "It is not likely that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed all of Jerusalem in 586. To demolish a big fortified city would have been an enormous task in antiquity and also unnecessary." P.8 Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period. The "classical" part could be dropped if it is considered misleading. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)