Talk:Israel and apartheid/Archive 33

New AfAR was filed on this article.
FYI, I have filed a request for arbitration on placement of POV tag on this article. – Fuzzy – 22:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, what? You don't go to ArbCom for trivial content disputes like this...hell, ArbCom isn't for content disputes at all.  Try a WP:Request for Comment. Tarc (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not about a content dispute, it's about acknowledging the content is within dispute. Since even this agreement cannot be found, and every possible mediation option was tried in the past, RfC will surely fail. I can specify some actions that should be taken for this article to be salvaged, but this is not the time until the acknowledgment is given. – Fuzzy – 22:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what we call distinction without a difference I'm afraid, and you're heading for a swift rejection over there. All your carping about who created the article and the ensuing cavalcade of AfD attempts is just old and rehashed news, of no relevance to the article in its present form, which provides quite a balanced and fair accounting of the topic of Israeli apartheid. Tarc (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Within 500 words I do not try to present evidences for bias. But here a few: pro/against ratio of 73%/27%, overlength of the article and surplus use of references, count of pejorative political terms. I can also provide comparison between agreed past forms against the current form of the article. – Fuzzy – 22:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's pretty odd to request any kind of mediation or arbitration without, at minimum, discussing it here in talk first. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was discussed numerous times in this talk page and its 30 archives (yes, I have read them all). Mediation has been proven impossible. To prove the point, please answer the following simple question without starting lengthy discussion: Should an unbiased article present both sides with equal proportions? – Fuzzy – 09:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a common error that new and inexperienced editors make; that both the pro and the con of an issue must be weighted in equal proportions. Not all positions are equal; otherwise the Barack Obama article would be unduly weighted down with birther nonsense.
 * Paragraph 1 is a description of the apartheid allegations, followed by a paragraph of rebuttals to introduce the subject. The rest of the article goes into the allegations in detail; what the issue is, who has said it, why they have said it, etc...  Then a section of what apartheid is as defined by the UN, then a defense by those who fell the apartheid assertions are wrong. Tarc (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I'd ask Fuzzy to read the top of Template:POV. What is the ongoing dispute? Pointing out that there are 30 pages of archived discussion, and pointing out that it has been quite controversial in the past does nothing to demonstrate that there is an ongoing dispute. Furthermore, if you place a POV tag on an article, you need an accompanying talk page discussion. Absence of discussion or dormant discussion means the tag should be removed. Also, the tag should not be used as a "badge of shame", nor used to warn readers about the content. So, it does not appear clear to me why, in the first place, a POV tag is necessary (and I'd again ask Fuzzy to read up on the purpose of the tag in the first place), and thus I fail to see the point of arbitration. I'd ask Fuzzy to take a few steps back, and perhaps state specific NPOV issues that are in the article (specific examples, not generally speaking), and focus on improving the article step by step, and addressing individual concerns. -Andrew c [talk] 14:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The first section in this talk page is headlined "Neutrality (cont)", and that one regards similar POV problem. Until I see that the issue is resolved, a POV tag should be placed. – Fuzzy – 16:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2008? March 2009?? I don't see how something that has been dormant counts as "ongoing dispute". In fact, I think this is a clear example of when not to use the POV tag. But perhaps that is moot, since you have started a new thread below, although you didn't point out specific issues, but instead are talking generally. It is a start, I guess. But still think POV tag is premature (and arbcom, out of the quetsion).-Andrew c [talk] 18:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight
Since I was asked, here is a first major POV problem. Since the article discusses allegation of Israeli apartheid, it should give equal weight to arguments in favor of the term and against the term. The current form of the article is 73% in favor of using the term "Israeli Apartheid" while 27% criticize the use of the term.

As for Tarc example, naturally, the article on Obama should give negligible weight to the birthers conspiracy theories, but the birthers nonsense article should provide due weight for their claims and the counterclaims.

Regards, – Fuzzy – 16:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You cannot call a living person a "nutcase" on Wikipedia, please rephrase that.  nableezy  - 17:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Accepting your remark. – Fuzzy – 19:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, firstly, which wikipedia policy are you invoking to support your claim that both sides should be given equal weight? WP:NPOV specifically says that all viewpoints should not be given equal weight, but weight in proportion to how WP:RS deal with them. Secondly, how are you proposing that the weights would be "balanced", by adding less relevant material or by removing from the article some of its current content? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I purpose to apply WP:SIZE. – Fuzzy – 17:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * We've been through this before as well. You're looking at the raw wiki-text, not the readable prose as WP:SIZE notes. Tarc (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I know. Also see quotefarm discussions back in 2007. – Fuzzy – 19:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The article complies with WP:SIZE. And size has nothing to do with POV. Do you perhaps mean that the arguments comparing Israeli treatment of Palestinians to apartheid are too long and detailed, and should be more succinct? I'd agree with any suggestion to have the same information conveyed more succinctly, however this again is not a NPOV issue. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The article currently gives due weight to the available sources. The subject of the article must be described in some length, as it's a detailed comparison being made. At every opportunity, the arguments for the comparison with apartheid are currently followed by whatever counter-arguments have been found in reliable sources. In order to show undue weight, you need to point to some specific parts of the article and let us know what source is being emphasized too heavily, and what opposing source should be given more weight. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fuzzy, WP:SIZE says nothing about how space within an article should be allotted to various viewpoints (that I can see), so I unfortunately cannot agree that that policy would support your view. Could you provide a more detailed reasoning how WP:SIZE would support your position? --Dailycare (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that no specific NPOV issue is being raised, the tag should be removed again. The purpose of the tag is to draw attention to discussion of an NPOV issue, so that the discussion will attract more editor comments and the concern will be resolved. The two concerns raised here are not actually NPOV issues (as the replies above indicate) thus there is no discussion on NPOV issues taking place, so the tag should be removed. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

-

We haven't even started the debate on the right proportion between claims in favor of the analogy vs. claims against the use of the analogy. For this discussion to held properly and since direct agreement will not be met (as said, I have already read most of the previous debates), I have started to compile a list of similar potential POV articles, word-counting the claims and counterclaims. I will continue the discussion in a few days, as I cannot attend this discussion during work days (sorry). In the meanwhile, please do not remove the POV tag. – Fuzzy – 14:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As has already been pointed out, proportion of content given to each perspective is not an issue under NPOV. The only relevant issue is proportion of content given to reliable sources describing each perspective. Your list of Wikipedia articles will not be relevant either, every article is judged on its own merits by the involved editors. When you return to this discussion with an issue that is actually an NPOV issue, you are welcome to replace the tag. For example, I suggest that you identify a specific section of the article in which you feel reliable sources with claims against the analogy have not been adequately represented. Then we will edit the article to represent those sources. This will probably involve some research on your part to find the sources, but research is what Wikipedia editing is really all about. You will discover that "direct agreement" will be found, because a solid reliable source is respected by the vast majority of editors. There is a great opportunity in this article for specific arguments against the analogy to be presented in the various sub-sections, if reliable sources can be found for those counter-arguments. Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you won't close that issue so fast. Your opinion is that there are no reliable sources disproving the analogy of Israel as Apartheid state. I beg to differ, and I can bring you sources. However, if I bring comparisons of citizenship laws in various states, you will argue that this comparison is irrelevant or that arguing that it is relevant is OR. When bringing the issue to the ArbCom, I thought that agreement here is not possible, but I was asked to try nevertheless.

So let me ask again: Since the allegation of Israeli apartheid are controversial (the removal of this adjective is also a POV, but this is another issue that will wait for the future), and since there are many counter-claims against the use of the analogy, what do you ("you" refers not only to Ryan Paddy) think should be the proportion between the claims and counterclaims, assuming this article was rewritten from scratch? – Fuzzy – 23:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, please do introduce some reliable sources that we can use. We're not out to either "prove" or "disprove" that Israel is an apartheid state, we're out to produce an encyclopedic article on the analogy. Since the article is about the use of the apartheid term/analogy, one would expect more space to be devoted to it, but really the amount of space devoted to something ultimately depends on how the article turns out. For example, I'd expect that in the Arabic press a very frequent viewpoint is that Israel doesn't even exist. We still don't think that based on that we'd devote 10% (for example) of the Israel article to discussing that, since non-recognition by Arab states can be expressed satisfactorily in one sentence. --Dailycare (talk) 11:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Fuzzy, the answer is that it depends what reliable sources we have putting each point of view. You're taking a much too adversarial approach to this, Wikipedia is not a battleground. I only want the article to reflect the sources, and as it happens my personal opinion on this subject isn't particularly strong (I think there are serious problems between Israel and Palestinians, but I'm yet to be convinced that apartheid is the best description for it). You are correct that there are indeed many reliable sources arguing the case that comparing Israel with apartheid is wrong, and many of them are already appropriately represented in the article. I'm sure there must be more, and when they're found they should be added to the article. You're also quite correct that we can't insert sources unless they're actually discussing the crossover of "Israel and apartheid", because that would be original research. This isn't an excuse to avoid adding sources, it's just sensible policy-following. As has been pointed out several times now, there is no policy or guideline stating that an article must have certain proportions of content for each perspective. Rather, NPOV states that articles must represent "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." That's my mission here and on other controversial articles, and if we can agree to that as our common goal then we can get a lot of constructive work done.

I genuinely want us to find reliable sources refuting the various aspects of the apartheid analogy, so that we can put those counter-arguments into the early sections of the article that currently lack any mention of counter-arguments. We may already have some such sources in use at the bottom of the article, that could potentially also be used further up, so that may be a good place to start looking. The difficulty with sourcing the counter-arguments, I suspect, is that they tend to refute the apartheid analogy as a whole, rather than addressing the specific reasons that the analogy is made that are outlined in the early section: marriage law, political rights, ID cards, land, movement, and education. So it's possible that there are no such sources refuting the specific arguments, in which case the current text is fine. But hopefully there are such sources, so that we can give the article a better sense of balance for readers such as yourself who look at those sections and ask "where is the refutation?" We can only know by looking for such sources.

I'm perfectly happy for the NPOV tag to be on the article so long as we're constructively discussing how the NPOV of the article can be improved, and making changes to do so. But right now, we're only involved in explaining to you that this percentage thing you're asking about isn't a NPOV issue. We need new sources, or new excerpts from the existing sources, so that you can say "this source isn't proportionately represented in the article", and we can agree, and make the appropriate changes. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look around for sources against the apartheid analogy too. Have started a brief look, but so far the only new RS I've found is this one which seems more pro the analogy. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Very well, I will take your words that your personal opinion on this subject isn't particularly strong, assume good faith, and will try to help you balance the article. Personally I consider using the term apartheid in connection with Israel as a contempt of the term, since it reduces racial segregation into a national conflict. I won't decline there there are several forms of discrimination in Israel (against Arabs, Women, Ethiopians, New immigrates etc.) but I think that they must be regarded in the right proportion -- unsystematic and non-unique to Israel (African Americans in the US, for example).


 * Searching for sources that have the term "Israeli apartheid" in their title (as the one you've just brought), will most probably provide sources which are in favor of using the term, as sources which object the analogy do not use it. Rather, those sources indirectly discuss why the analogy is false in certain field by discussing the relevant subject in general. For example, the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (temporal order which if I'm not mistaken was due to expire at August 1st, 2009 ) is considered as as an example of apartheid in the article. However, there are many academic papers which discuss and approve the right of country to limit entry and citizenship according to nationality basis (See here and here for example, also search for discussions on ECHR, protocol 4 article 3 with respect to international law). In all those sources and references, the A-word is nowhere to find, but they may be extremely relevant to the issue at hand.


 * Let's start by trying to reach an agreement when indirect sources are valid and relevant. As said, selection of sources only according to term "Israeli Apartheid" in the text will produces a list with very strong bias. – Fuzzy – 21:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Searching Google Scholar for "israel apartheid" returns not just articles with those words in their title, but with the words used anywhere in the content. So it will return articles that explicitly deny the apartheid analogy like this one (EDIT: Bayefsky 2002) probably does (although I don't have access to the full article so can't be certain it does), which are the type of sources that will be the most powerful for making the case against the analogy. In terms of sources that do not directly address the analogy, but implicitly counter it, I think that some are appropriate if used correctly. Sources that do not address the analogy are useful for describing the context, so that readers can understand the situation that the analogy is being used in. For example, when discussing an Israeli law the text could use a source that describes why the Israeli government says the law was passed. We can't say "it wasn't passed to create apartheid" or anything like that unless the source says it because that would be WP:OR, but as part of the scene-setting we can address the rationales given. There are already some sources used in this manner in the text, for instance in the Marriage law section the sentence starting "In formulating the law, the government cited..."


 * However, I think it would be more difficult to use some of the sources you've suggested above without running foul of WP:OR and in particular, WP:SYNTH. If you imagine a section that says 1) here is an Israeli law, and sources saying why it was created 2) here is why some sources state this law is like apartheid 3) here are some sources that discuss how the making of laws of this sort are rightful. The problem is that by using our editorial judgement to include the sources in point 3, we may be implying that the situation is not apartheid when that conclusion is not stated in the sources, and therefore running foul of WP:SYNTH which says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." I'm happy to work with you on finding and using sources that are explicitly or implicitly against the analogy, but we'll have to stay clear of synthesizing sources.


 * As a side note on the articles you link to, you may want to look at Gans 2008 again, as it appears to conclude that some of the laws that Israel have passed around citizenship are "racist and are therefore morally unacceptable", so it might not be the sort of source you're looking for even if we could use it without synthesis. Again though, I don't have access to the full article so can't be sure. I'm also not sure what you mean about ECHR part 4 article 3, as that's a primary source that would definitely require WP:OR to interpret ourselves, and my interpretation of it seems to differ from yours. To me it seems to say that you can't expel or block the entry of nationals, but leaves the question of when expelling or blocking the entry of non-nationals unaddressed. Which is why it's best to avoid primary sources, they're open to interpretation and we should be quoting experts in secondary sources who have done that interpretation for us. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I got access to Bayefsky 2002, the source I mentioned above. It doesn't contain specific arguments against the apartheid analogy, rather it characterises "apartheid Israel" as an example of rhetoric that's part of an anti-Semitic movement that was in evidence at the Durban conference, without going into details about the accuracy of the analogy. The relevant content is similar to Braun 2001, although Bayefsky is a better RS as it's published by the American Society of International Law. On a personal note, I find many of the clearly anti-Semitic methods described in these articles (such as downplaying the Holocaust) to be obviously deplorable. On the other hand, both Bayefsky and Braun attempt to group the apartheid analogy and accusations of war crimes together with such deplorable tactics (as does Colin Powel in the quote from him in these sources), in order to paint them all with the same brush of obvious antisemitism. This I personally find dubious. While some groups may indeed be using accusations of apartheid or war crimes as a rhetorical device as part of an anti-Zionist campaign, the accuracy of the accusations themselves must also be addressed directly by observation and reporting of the facts, not through "guilt by association" logic. In simpler terms: just because "bad people" are using the analogy, doesn't make it untrue. I know that our personal opinions aren't particularly welcome on talk pages, I just wanted to make this personal observation because I find that in contentious articles like this it helps to build trust if we know whether each other are coming from. I'm against antisemitism, and I can see why there is concern that the apartheid analogy is sometimes used as an antisemitic device. However, I think that the analogy is not inherently antisemitic because unlike Holocaust denial, it's possible to understand how a reasonable person might find the analogy to have some basis in reality. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If this discussion is dormant, it's time to remove the tag again per Template:POV. The sources suggested so far don't seem to provide us with ways to expand the anti-analogy content, so it doesn't appear that such sources are currently under-represented by the content of the article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my short disappearance, personal matters.


 * I do not intend to justify the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law, and I agree with Gans that this law is a disgrace. However, this law, controversial as is, is not against the international law, as the international law acknowledges the right of a country to decide on entrance and citizenship according to the nationality of the applicant (regarding ECHR protocol 4 article 3, it is the common interpretation, and I can find sources elaborating on this issue, but it is irrelevant to our current discussion). The sources I have brought are discussing that right to some depth, mostly with regard to the Israeli "Law of return". Now, assuming that there is a source that claims "Israel is an apartheid state since its law of return is discriminating", don't you agree that those sources are relevant? – Fuzzy – 20:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I take it we're discussing the Marriage Law section. This section already references two sources arguing that the law is for the purposes of security and that it is within the rights and duties of Israel to make such a law for the purpose of security. These sources are quoted at some length, and I think that they already make the point that you're suggesting. So at present, it seems that this section fairly represents the available sources. Are you suggesting that this section should also cite the Gans article, or the Brownlie (1963) article you linked to? If so, what specifically do you want to cite those articles as saying? As I mentioned before, the Gans 2008 article seems to conclude that some of these laws are "racist and are therefore morally unacceptable", so it doesn't seem to be a likely source of arguments against such laws resembling apartheid. Looking through the Brownlie (1963) article, it seems unsuitable in a number of ways. Most importantly, it doesn't address the issue of Israel or these specific laws, so it would be original research for us to attempt to apply it to this subject. Given that we're leaving aside the ECHR because it's a primary source, that seems to be all the sources you've suggested, and none of them seem suitable for the purpose you're proposing. Are there other sources you have in mind in relation to the Marriage Law section? Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

A separate article for Israel and the international crime of apartheid
This article is a classic example of one side not allowing the opposing view to "speak for itself", and refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors. There is no basis for Wikipedia editor's to invent an ad hoc connection to "The Apartheid Analogy" and trivialize official reports of serious war crimes and crimes against humanity as statements made by "opponents of the analogy". That is nothing more than WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:PROPAGANDA.


 * The UN Rapporteurs for Food, Land, and Human Rights have stated that Israel pursued a program and strategy of "ethnic cleansing", "population tranfer", "colonialism", "settlement", "Bantustanization"; and that "elements of Israel's occupation regime have introduced practices of colonialism, and apartheid that violate international law". See E/CN.4/2003/5/Add.1, 12 June 2002, paragraph 10, E/CN.4/2004/10/Add.2, 31 October 2003 ; and A/HRC/4/17, 29 January 2007, page 3
 * The ICJ did find that Israel had committed a number of acts that are grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. The League of Arab states have asked the ICC Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute the individuals responsible for those violations.
 * Several of the State parties to the ICERD, ICSPCA, Additional Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions, and the Rome Statute of the ICC filed written statements with the ICJ stating Israel has practiced ethnic cleansing and that it adopted policies and practices corresponding to the constituent acts of the crime of Apartheid:
 * "It is evident from the public record that from the earliest days of its existence Israel has been driven by an overriding policy to secure for the State of Israel the whole of the former mandated territory of Palestine, and to drive out of that territory the vast bulk of the indigenous Arab population in order to make room for an incoming Jewish population." See Written Statement of Jordan, 2.23 and Annex 1 Origins and Early Phases of Israel's Policy of Expulsion and Displacement of Palestinians
 * "The construction of the wall and the resulting situation correspond to a number of the constituent acts of the crime of apartheid, as enumerated in Article 2 of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, adopted by the General Assembly on 30 November 1973: that is to say, the denial of the liberty and dignity of a group, the deliberate imposition on a group of living conditions calculated to cause its physical destruction in whole or in part, measures calculated to deprive a group of the right to work, the right to education and the right to freedom of movement and residence, the creation of ghettos, the expropriation of property, etc. Such actions constitute measures of collective punishment." See Written Statement of Lebanon

The Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity includes "inhuman acts resulting from the policy of apartheid" and those are crimes defined in Articles 6,7, and 8 of the Rome Statute. harlan (talk) 02:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Harlan. It's quite unclear who you are accusing of what, and why. Do you have a problem with something I said? Something Fuzzy said? What part bothered you? Then you start quoting UN reports with findings of Israeli apartheid. While that's very informative, it's not relevant to this specific discussion I'm having with Fuzzy. This discussion is about whether reliable sources that voice opposition to the idea of Israeli apartheid (both as an analogy and as an accusation) are not well enough represented in the article, in breach of NPOV. In order to meet NPOV, we should include any suitable sources opposing the idea of Israeli apartheid (which I am referring to as "the analogy" in this discussion in order to have a WP:CIVIL discussion with an editor who prefers that formulation). Fuzzy and I are now discussing what type of sources would be suitable for this purpose, and seeing if we can find any new ones. Specifically, we're looking for reliable sources that deny the specific examples of supposed apartheid in the article - the marriage law, the barriers, etc. We're making sure the article currently captures all the sources that say those things are not apartheid, and why. Do you know of any such sources? This section of the talk page is not about evidence of the existence of Israeli apartheid, or the suitability of the current article title, please discuss such things elsewhere. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The issue I'm addressing is the original discussion and ARBCOM decision regarding the renaming/moves of this article. There is no reason to put that material in a subsection of this article. It would not be a POV fork to move that material to a different article and it would alter the pro-con ratio of the remaining material that Fuzzy is discussing with you. Those would be comparisons of acts that are not ipso jure illegal. harlan (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying. I hope you don't mind, but I've started this new section to discuss this and included your comments and mine on the subject in it. I think it would derail the NPOV discussion section above to consider such a weighty matter there, and it only has side-effect relevance to that discussion. Personally, I'm open to the idea of a new article called something like Israel and the international crime of apartheid. I don't think it's a POV fork either, it's a content fork because the discourse around whether Israel is violating the international law on apartheid is a more specific subject within the wider discourse on whether Israel's treatment of the Palestinians resembles apartheid. A POV fork would be if we had one article saying it's a crime, and another article saying it's not, but what I understand you to be proposing is a single article that discusses both sides. I think the best approach to this would to make the "crime" article a child of this "analogy" article (and split the current "crime" content of this article into the new article), and have this article briefly summarise the "crime" article. The deciding factor in whether this is appropriate is whether the crime discourse is notable enough, independently of the analogy discourse, to warrant its own article. If you wish to create such an article, I suggest that you are careful to include sufficient reliable sources to make it clear it's independently notable, and also ensure that the new article is NPOV by including all available arguments against the idea that a crime is being committed. Otherwise such an article would never survive the many Article for Deletion discussions that it will immediately attract. In other words, it should follow the relevant policies and guidelines. Ryan Paddy (talk) 09:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Changes
I have made a number of changes that included providing a fair representation of the other side of this "analogy" which is only right in such an article. This is not a legal brief but an article about an allegation which has two sides to it and both should be represented for be neutral. I clarified and expanded a few things, some of them may be controversial but please do not simply revert and work toward an edit war but discuss each change. I am clearly the only one here with my viewpoint so you would be unfairly bullying if you bring in the troops simply to edit war and not improve this article. Parts of the article did not reflect the sources, some citations are needed. This is a piss-poor article but I am attempting to make it better rather than trying to delete it for the 9th time. Thank you very much. Stellarkid (talk) 05:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It was already neutral beforehand. Your rather poor edits tipped the scales considerably, and were reverted as such. Tarc (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact it was not, and while you may have considered it such, you should discuss the changes before simply reverting them. This is not collaboration what you are doing, but attempting to ignite an edit war based on your perception of this article.  Please discuss the changes that you want to make and explain why they are less POV than what I have done.  I have added references, dropped material that was not sourced in the article, and provided the arguments for what you have called "the opponents" of this "analogy."  The opponents of this analogy section was clearly written by a proponent of the analogy and the references demonstrate that.  This article needs considerable work and I am willing to do some of it but will not be reverted simply based on an opinion without sources or clear argument and discussion. So bring it here and stop with the wholesale reversion.  I am more than willing to discuss any edit, as noted by the fact that I made a note of the changes above. Please do not attempt to engage in an edit war with me.  Stellarkid (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Many of your changes are unfounded, contrary to good editing practice, or introduce ambiguity into the article: And so forth. This is why various editors are reverting your changes. It's not to do with whose "side" editors are on, it's about good writing practices and following Wikipedia policy. If you're serious about getting involved in making changes, then I'd advise making the changes more slowly and being prepared to defend each change one at a time, until you learn the ropes. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) "Palestinian rights advocates" sounds like a Palestinian who advocates their rights, it's unlikely that most readers would assume this includes Israeli commentators. Stating "advocates for Palestinian rights" would avoid this issue.
 * 2) The CAMERA source does, in fact, quote Benny Morris as saying that "Gaza's and the West Bank's population (Arabs) are not Israeli citizens and cannot expect to benefit from the same rights as Israeli citizens so long as the occupation or semi-occupation (more accurately) continues", and you removed material to that effect from the article claiming that it was not in the source.
 * 3) You have added wording about what people "believe" or "would agree with", which sounds like mind-reading. We should only be quoting what people have stated, not trying to intuit their beliefs.
 * 4) Saying that a source "notes" something is a WP:WEASEL word, because it implies that their opinion is fact. We should say that they state it, or write it, or say it.


 * Well thank you Ryan for at least being willing to discuss changes rather than summarily reverting. I will respond to concerns.


 * 1) I did not introduce ambiguity into that sentence.  It read "Palestinian rights advocates"  before I made the change and I agree with your concern.  The change I made was from this: "Some Israeli commentators and Palestinian rights advocates..."  to simply read "Palestinian rights advocates..." dropping the "Israeli commentators" part on the grounds that some "Palestinian-rights advocates" are Israeli as well, such as the quoted Uri Davis. That some happen to be Israeli is not grounds for singling them out. By all means change it to "Advocates for Palestinian rights."
 * 2) With respect to the CAMERA source, the original statement said this: "They [ie "opponents" of the analogy] also argue that the State of Israel's treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories is driven by security considerations, not anti-Arab racism and that Palestinians have never been Israeli citizens and thus would not have Israeli rights." The CAMERA source quotes only Benny Morris saying these things.  That is Benny Morris' position & not necessarily the position of the "they" (opponents of the analogy) suggested by the article.  CAMERA quotes one person only and does not say "opponents of the analogy argue...etc etc."  It is OR to suggest that that is the position of all who reject this.  Further, the quote is wrong as to what Morris actually says  " But Gaza's and the West Bank's population (Arabs) are not Israeli citizens and cannot expect to benefit from the same rights as Israeli citizens ..." He does not say "Palestinians never have been citizens" but rather "Gaza and West Bank's population are not citizens. "  So the sentence in the article is misleading for that reason as well.  The source does not support the article in a number of respects!
 * 3) I agree and I did add a source which basically made most of those points. Unsurprisingly this has been removed along with everything else I wrote. Here it is again for your benefit: Deconstructing the Apartheid Analogy.  Most of the what the rejectionists think can be easily sourced given some time.  Of course, with simply wholesale reverting it becomes impossible to add anything at all.  It seems to me that this POV is not wanted here.
 * 4) If you had a problem with the word "notes" you could easily have reverted it immediately on those grounds or discussed it. There is no way I accept the "and so forth..." accusation.

The article has been written from one POV entirely. It is only fair and appropriate according to WP:NPOV to include a fair representation of the "other side." That is what I tried to do and while some may not like it it is the right thing to do. Of course it will take forever to make this a balanced article if people continue to revert and argue every change. Perhaps that is the point. You must appreciate that if this article has had 8 or so Afd's that there are quite a few people that think there is something wrong with it and at the very least it needs improvement. Considering the fact that I am one who rejects this analogy, I am in a better position than the proponents to clarify and source this perspective, if permitted. Stellarkid (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a wiki, so you shouldn't be too astonished at having your edits changed or reverted if other editors find them inappropriate. For example, before you started making your recent edits I changed "noted" to "stated", and in your changes you changed it back, but you don't see me complaining of edit warring. Reverting each other's edits is commonplace, there's no need to accuse each other of POV editing or edit warring in this instance. Instead, we can just look at potential edits individually and discuss whether they are appropriate. In other words, less drama and more rational discussion please. On item 1, you did introduce ambiguity as your version of the sentence could be read as meaning that it's only Palestinians who hold that point of view, whereas the previous version made it clear it was also some Israelis. On item 2, you may be right that the source is not being used perfectly (it's being generalised from a single use), but it would have been better to improve the phrase rather than delete it, especially as your note when deleting it was incorrect: the statement in question is made in the article, in the quote I gave. On the other two points we seem to agree that your edits were inappropriate, so you can't be too surprised when editors revert your (numerous and sudden) edits on mass when some of them seem to be introducing clear weasel language. Take a deep breath and make slower, more considered edits. Then you won't get the push-back that's happening now, and we can all benefit from your efforts. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Heaven knows I am not astonished. Not sure where the "noted" thing comes in, but of course it is accepted as a fact we can say it. Did not introduce ambiguity because I did not introduce that phrasing.  It was in there.  Palestinian rights advocates can be from anywhere, just as women's rights advocates or Israeli advocates.  Having "Israeli commentators" in there makes it seem more like there are only two groups of advocates, Israeli & Palestinian.  The phrasing "Advocates of Palestinian rights" is much better and I have changed it accordingly.  I really can't say I agree on the third point with you wholly, as I think the advocates' position suffers as much from lack of proper documentation, and I should be allowed to put the opponents' perspective in and work on some of the references later.  A  tag would have worked.  I will however take it slower on your advice, and hope that others, like you, will collaborate --ie, discuss rather than revert.  No one was hanging around the article when I started, so I just dove in and started to work it.  Earlier on this talk page I had said I would do just that.  Next : Expand and improve the "opponent" section.  Stellarkid (talk) 06:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

POV, Lack or reliable sources and the (radical) Arab lobby (charged) with paying Jimmy Carter
- One of the ridiculuos "sources" are "countrerpunch" known for pro radical-Islamic a ctivities.

- Arabist Ex-President is charged (by Prof. A. Dershowitz and other) as an "Ex President for sale" - paid to propagate anti Israel propaganda by Arab Muslim lobby ,

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Toothie3 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's more about the offending "apartheid" slur on multi-racial Israel
Center Field: Treat the apartheid slur - the &quot;A-word&quot; - like the &quot;N-word 

Guardian Promotes Apartheid Slur - Guardian Promotes Apartheid Slur. The Guardian publishes a lengthy two-part feature comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa. ...

IFCJ: The &quot;Israel Apartheid&quot; Lie - The "apartheid" slur is just another way for Israel"s enemies to try to delegitimize and undermine the Jewish state by comparing its self-defense measures ...



The Campaign to Delegitimize Israel with the False Charge of Apartheidby R Sabel - 2009 Israel is not an Apartheid state....Arab citizens of Israel can vote and ..... 4 Benjamin Pogrund, "Why They Depict Israel as a Chamber Benjamin Pogrund: (Benjamin Pogrund is well equipped to write about apartheid and Israel. He was born in South Africa, where a leader in the fight against apartheid and outspoken proponent of equality as editor of the Rand Daily Mail.) Israel is a democracy in which Arabs vote - Not an apartheid state

...branding it as such. is to de-legitimize it Israel and the apartheid lie  Michael Kinsley - It"s Not Apartheid - washingtonpost.com11 Dec 2006 ... Jimmy Carter"s comparison of Israel to South Africa"s former racist ... with a new best-selling book, &quot;Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.

The poisonous myth of "Israeli apartheid"  

Milk &amp; Honey Press - Israel has had waves of immigration from all over the globe-- from India, Africa, Europe, North America, ... like the new boys in this story, from Russia, and Ethiopia. ... Israel is a &quot;multi-cultural&quot; and &quot;multi-racial&quot; society. ... very beautiful with open vistas and, in the mornings and evenings, glowing colors.

Toothie3 (talk) 06:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming that you are posting this in relation to your adding of the POV tag. The sources you mention all suggest that the apartheid analogy is an unfounded criticism used as propaganda, yes? That perspective is already presented in the article. It's hard to see what about the sources you've linked to is relevant to whether the article follows WP:NPOV. We have some reliable sources saying the analogy is accurate, and some saying it's not. The thing to do in such instances, per NPOV, is to present both perspectives, which is what the article does. So where is the NPOV violation? Ryan Paddy (talk) 08:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree with Toothie3. The article attempts to PROVE the "apartheid analogy" and seriously deserves a pov tag. Will start a new section to redo the lead with my POV concerns below. In the meantime I will reattach the POV tag to this article. Stellarkid (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Toothie3 is a vandalism-only account whose only purpose is to bash Arabs. Please do prepare a section to explain the POV tag. And add it to the top of the article then. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Stellarkid is reading a different article from the rest of us, apparently, as this article say no such thing about attempting to "PROVE" Israeli apartheid. Tarc (talk) 04:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela quote
In 1990, Nelson Mandela said of the PLO, "We are in the same trench struggling against the same enemy: the twin Tel Aviv and Pretoria regimes, apartheid, racism, colonialism and neo-colonialism."

This quote is supported by two books - and. These books have taken the quote from two separate news publications on the same day - the NY post on June 20th 1990 and Wall Street Journal Europe on June 20th 1990. Mandela was in America at that time so its highly likely he would have been asked questions about the PLO and his opinion on it. If these quotes are fabricated, then where are the quotes showing Mandela's true opinions on the PLO?

2 books definitely passes the threshold for WP:RS in my opinion, but I am taking it to WP:RSN. Factsontheground (talk) 03:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, if anyone doubts if Mandela made this quote they should go ahead and check Google News Archive. The quote got a lot of play in American newspapers in 1990; there is no possible doubt that the quote was in fact true and not a fabrication. Factsontheground (talk) 05:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hold on. The reason it was in so many newspapers is that syndicated columnists Pat Buchanan and Mona Charen each used the quote in their column that week. Neither columnist is a reliable source. Please see the discussion at WP:RSN and wait for consensus before restoring this to the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * So are you seriously arguing that the Wall Street Journal, the NY Post and the Chicago Tribune conspired to defame Mandela by writing editorials focusing on words he never said? And that Mandela stood by and said nothing? Your argument has so many holes in it that you are refusing to explain.


 * It also appears that the quotation is used by Sydney Zion in an editorial in the Jerusalem post, although the abstract does not contain it. Factsontheground (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer to keep the discussion in one place, so I'll reply at WP:RSN. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Epilogue: The consensus on the reliable sources noticeboard is that the quote is inadequately sourced and it is possible that Mandela didn't even say it. For an interesting discussion of where this quote actually came from, see here. Anyone with access to the October 1990 issue of Commentary magazine may be able to solve the mystery of where this quote first came from and who made it up. Factsontheground (talk) 11:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Particular Attribution
I am seeing alot of others,many,some etc. please be more careful in in-text attributing sentiments. Unomi (talk) 06:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible Holocaust denial in the External links
I noticed in the external links that two links indirectly cited Jeff Rense and Michael Rivero as their sources. Both persons have been accused of Holocaust denial, therefore, I have removed the links as a precautionary measure. Pending further discussion, the edits are available to discuss and revert if necessary here and here.

Here and here are the links I referenced in their original context. The references to accused Holocaust deniers Rense and Rivero are available here and here for scrutiny. The former page is on the same site as the first External Link and the latter sells the video advertised in the second External link with full consent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FenristheWolf (talk • contribs) 05:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Have made a couple of small changes to the 1st Para
...but nothing that changes the basic character of it. I did remove a line about Israeli supporters and their opinions, and will move that into the 2nd para as more appropriate there. I did want to say that I am bothered by this last sentence in para 1 --"An International Court of Justice judgment declared that the Israeli security fence violates the human rights of Palestinians in the occupied territory and that "the construction of the wall and its associated régime are contrary to international law". I don't object to the sentence, per se, but it hangs where it is.  It appears to be making the case that the wall is apartheid, and even if it is true that the wall is illegal in the opinion of ICJ, it doesn't  say anything about apartheid.  I suggest removing it to the appropriate section on the fence below. [I haven't read that far yet, but I am assuming there is a section about the fence ;)]


 * You obviously haven't read John Dugard's report which recommended that another advisory opinion be obtained to "compliment" the findings of the earlier ICJ opinion. Several of the interested parties in the Wall case filed written statements which said that the construction of the Wall and the resulting situation fulfilled constituent acts of the crime of apartheid, as enumerated in Article 2 of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, the ICERD, the Rome Statute, and Protocol I of the Geneva Convention. See for example the Statement of Lebanon and the written statement of Syria  Other parties said that public records available in Israel show that from the earliest days of its existence Israel has been driven by an overriding policy to secure for the State of Israel the whole of the former mandated territory of Palestine, and to drive out of that territory the vast bulk of the indigenous Arab population in order to make room for an incoming Jewish population. They said that those demographic changes i.e. displacement, deportations, and population transfers constitute ethnic cleansing. See Annex 1 to the written statement of Jordan.


 * The Court found that the associated administrative regime that had been created by Israel in the Occupied territory was illegal and listed many of the constituent acts contained in article 2 of the apartheid convention as the basis of its rationale. Furthermore, the Court stated those practices had not impeded the rights of Israeli settlers and that they had contributed to demographic changes in the Occupied territory that contravene Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention. See paragraph 134 of the Court's opinion The Court said the legal consequences for other states entailed violation by Israel of certain obligations erga omnes which all states had an interest in protecting. Apartheid is listed as a crime against humanity in which no individual state has an exclusive interest or jurisdiction. See the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity  harlan (talk) 08:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * While John Dugard's report was probably meant to "complement" rather than "compliment" the findings of the ICJ opinion, I suspect your misuse of the term was in fact a more accurate assessment. I did in fact read the report, but I question whether  you read my post above, since your soapboxing did not address the issue at all.  My point is that if you read the policy of WP:LEAD you will find that the lead is supposed to have certain characteristics, one being that it summarizes the main points of the article.  That sentence does not do that. In fact there is very little in the article about the fence at all, so its inclusion in the lead is misplaced.  Stellarkid (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Kinsley on the lack of Mandela
I have removed this passage: Citing what he calls "the most tragic difference," Kinsley concludes: "If Israel is white South Africa and the Palestinians are supposed to be the blacks, where is their Mandela?"

It is unclear how that relates to the concept of apartheid. Unomi (talk) 05:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The difference is that Marwan Barghouti uses terrorism, which makes him a strange choice for "Palestine's Mandela". Hcobb (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mandela, too, was convicted of terrorism. In his famous speech from the dock, he said "I, and the others who started the organisation, felt that without violence there would be no way open to the African people to succeed in their struggle against the principle of white supremacy. All lawful modes of expressing opposition to this principle had been closed by legislation, and we were placed in a position in which we had either to accept a permanent state of inferiority, or to defy the government. We chose to defy the law." RolandR (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And indeed, the similarity ends where that begins, since not only is this not an issue of "white supremacy," but the Palestinians within Israel have access to the courts and representatives in the legislature, and with respect to the Palestinians in the disputed territories, Israel has always been open to negotiations as long as no preconditions are demanded. So this analogy fails miserably.  Stellarkid (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That should read "Israel has always been open to negotiations so long as its preconditions are conceded, and there is no discussion of return of dispersed Palestinian, sovereignty over Jerusalem, or the Jewish nature of the state". RolandR (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Pentagon called the ANC a major terrorist organization in the late 80's. But that is besides the point, my question is: what do personalities of the south african apartheid have to do with the analogy that the Israel government employs apartheid policies? Mandela and the ANC were a reaction to apartheid, not a fundamental aspect of the concept. Unomi (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it just shows how the analogists are choking on straws. Let's move the article to Israel and the lebensraum analogy. Hcobb (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hcobb, I don't understand what you are getting at? Dershowitz holds that the ANC was practicing counterterrorism, but still.. Why are we discussing identifiable actors in South African politics in an article on the analogous nature of government policies? As for lebensraum, surely you mean ארץ ישראל השלמה? Unomi (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah! Another bright and funny editor! :D  Stellarkid (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you find any reliable sources making that comparison? We have hundreds comparing Israel's policies with apartheid. RolandR (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Try Googling "Greater Israel", lol -- Stellarkid (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Getting back to the point, I agree with Unomi in that the deleted text doesn't seem notable, since surely no-one is claiming that without Mandela, there wouldn't have been apartheid in South Africa. --Dailycare (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

CAMERA material removed for discussion
CAMERA is not a reliable source. The statements of Benny Morris cannot be included without making reference to his publicly acknowledged support and acceptance of ethnic cleansing and forced population transfers involving Palestinians.

The International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid was contained in General Assembly resolution 3068 (XXVIII) of 30 November 1973. The resolution says that the "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" contains certain acts which may also be qualified as acts of apartheid. The preamble of the Apartheid Convention observes that, "inhuman acts resulting from the policy of apartheid" are included in the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity.

Morris has attempted to justify the atrocities and ethnic cleansing committed by Israel in 1948, including the total destruction of hundreds of villages; the removal by force of several hundreds of thousands of the Palestinian inhabitants; the confiscation of the refugees private and communal lands; and the labeling of the possible return of the Palestinian inhabitants as a demographic threat. He has stated that sometimes ethnic cleansing is a good thing. See "Survival of the fittest", A scheduled appearance by Morris at Cambridge recently resulted in an uproar. Ben White, who authored the book Israeli Apartheid: A Beginners Guide, complained that “on different occasions, Morris has expressed Islamophobic and racist sentiments towards Arabs and Muslims.” See "Benny Morris talk stirs uproar at Cambridge", By Jonny Paul, 07/02/2010, Jerusalem Post
 * New Historian Benny Morris told CAMERA:"'Israel is not an apartheid state — rather the opposite, it is easily the most democratic and politically egalitarian state in the Middle East, in which Arabs Israelis enjoy far more freedom, better social services, etc. than in all the Arab states surrounding it. Indeed, Arab representatives in the Knesset, who continuously call for dismantling the Jewish state, support the Hezbollah, etc., enjoy more freedom than many Western democracies give their internal Oppositions. (The U.S. would prosecute and jail Congressmen calling for the overthrow of the U.S. Govt. or the demise of the U.S.) The best comparison would be the treatment of Japanese Americans by the US Govt ... and the British Govt. [incarceration] of German émigrés in Britain WWII ... Israel's Arabs by and large identify with Israel's enemies, the Palestinians. But Israel hasn't jailed or curtailed their freedoms en masse (since 1966 [when Israel lifted its state of martial law])."


 * Morris later added: "Israel ... has not jailed tens of thousands of Arabs indiscriminately out of fear that they might support the Arab states warring with Israel; it did not do so in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 or 1982 — despite the Israeli Arabs' support for the enemy Arab states.""'As to the occupied territories, Israeli policy is fueled by security considerations (whether one agrees with them or not, or with all the specific measures adopted at any given time) rather than racism (though, to be sure, there are Israelis who are motivated by racism in their attitude and actions towards Arabs) — and indeed the Arab population suffers as a result. But Gaza's and the West Bank's population (Arabs) are not Israeli citizens and cannot expect to benefit from the same rights as Israeli citizens so long as the occupation or semi-occupation (more accurately) continues, which itself is a function of the continued state of war between the Hamas-led Palestinians (and their Syrian and other Arab allies) and Israel.'"

harlan (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This seems to break down into two issues. 1) Is CAMERA a reliable source for the opinions of Benny Morris? I would think it may well be, even though it's not a reliable source for facts. 2) Is Benny Morris a commentator whose opinions are significant to the subject of this article? Personally, I think that if Benny Morris's arguments are representative of those who argue against the apartheid analogy, and he is a public commentator who many people consider to represent their perspective, then we should include his opinions while making clear that they are opinions. NPOV only requires us to present opinions on both sides of an issue with weight relative to their significance, not to ensure that those opinions are "factual" or that the person holding the opinions is held in high esteem by all other commentators. Ryan Paddy (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * CAMERA is "RS" only for its own opinions and nothing else, IMO. The notability of CAMERAs opinions is dubious. Currently CAMERA is mentioned in the lead of this article, which I'm presently going to rectify. --Dailycare (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The first finding in the ARBCOM case on this article prohibits the use of Wikipedia for propaganda. I believe that rules out the use of CAMERA material that is verifiable, but known to be false or misleading. The Nelson Mandela quote mentioned in a subsection above can be sourced to the Wall Street Journal, the NY Post, the Chicago Tribune, the Jerusalem Post, Commentary Magazine, and several books. Nonetheless, it has been left out because the consensus of opinion is that it may not be "factual". Randy mentioned that CAMERA isn't a reliable source for facts, but may not have noticed that the material above is only sourced to a CAMERA webpage which says "Benny Morris told CAMERA" & etc....


 * Several interested parties in the ICJ Wall case pointed out that state-supported ethnic cleansing is a constituent act of the crime of apartheid. The CAMERA article ignores Morris' own published reports and views regarding atrocities and ethnic cleansing operations that were carried out against the Palestinian people by elements of the organized Jewish militias. Those operations enlarged the territory controlled by the state of Israel well beyond the boundaries proposed by the UN, and have displaced the majority of the Arab inhabitants for more than 60 years. NPOV requires the inclusion of all the significant views that have been published on that topic. Morris disagrees with historians, like Ilan Pappe, who have concluded that displacement of the Arab inhabitants was one of the goals of Zionist policy. In any event, Morris' works detail actions taken by the State of Israel to capitalize upon and maintain the situations that were created on its behalf.


 * Morris' works were cited in the written statements that were submitted to the ICJ. See for example para 26 on page 172 of the Written Statement of Jordan, Annex 1, "Origins and Early Phases of Israel's Policy of Expulsion and Displacement of Palestinians" . One of the Court's findings in the Wall case was that Israel had altered the demographic composition of the occupied territory by methods that contravene the prohibitions on displacement contained in article 49 paragraph 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. See paragraph 122, 133,and 134


 * The Jordanian statement cited the guiding principles of international law reflected in UN doc. E/CN.4/1998/53/Add.2 . It says that the prohibition of arbitrary displacement includes displacement when it is based on policies of apartheid, "ethnic cleansing" or similar practices aimed at/or resulting in altering the ethnic, religious or racial composition of the affected population. The Security Council, General Assembly, and ICJ have each held that the State of Israel must provide a just settlement to the Palestinians that have been displaced since 1948, including either the right of return or compensation. Legal publicists and scholars, like Alexander Orakhelashvili, have stated that a "just settlement" can only refer to a settlement guaranteeing the return of displaced Palestinians. Orakhelashvili said that it must be presumed that the Security Council did not adopt decisions that validated mass deportation or displacement, since expulsion or deportation are crimes against humanity or an exceptionally serious war crime. See The Impact of Peremptory Norms on the Interpretation and Application of United Nations Security Council Resolutions, by Alexander Orakhelashvili, The European Journal of International Law Vol. 16 no.1, pp 59-88. harlan (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Benny Morris is a highly respected historian. You can't poison the well every time he is mentioned by accusing him of advocating ethnic cleansing because you personally dislike him. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How is it well poisoning? Read the interview ""There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing." Unomi (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Unpublished Synthesis - removed for discussion
For the purposes of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, the term "the crime of apartheid", included similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practiced in southern Africa, not just South Africa. The UN had condemned both South African and Portuguese governments as apartheid regimes, and refused to recognize Rhodesia after it adopted a constitution that reserved political rights for whites only. The neutral voice of the encyclopedia cannot be used to publish original research which labels organizations, groups, and individuals as "supporters of the analogy" or "opponents of the analogy". I've made numerous talk page requests for the use of WP:RS sources for the so-called "analogy". In the "Analogy" subsection of the article, the terms of the Convention are misquoted - South Africa vs southern Africa - and none of the sources that are cited actually identify themselves as "Supporters of the analogy". In fact, one of the articles is actually titled "Not an Analogy: Israel under Apartheid". Another article (Znet) applies sections of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid "directly" to the JNF and ILA. The subsections of the Convention that are quoted contained no comparison to southern Africa, they only recite the constituent acts and elements of the criminal offense.

This is an example of deliberately presenting a subject in an unfair way through selective representation of sources. The NPOV tutorial describes it as an example of Information Suppression]: "Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors." Sources which cite Israeli violations of the relevant international conventions are not necessarily employing an analogy, they are describing Israeli policies and practices that violate international law.
 * ==Analogy==
 * Supporters of the analogy cite the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, which says that the crime of apartheid includes similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as those that were practiced in South Africa under apartheid.  According to this view, the legal standard doesn't require that the two systems be identical, only that they share certain similarities. Those who propose the analogy argue that the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law limits the citizenship rights of Arab citizens. They also point to differences in the political rights, voting and representation of the Palestinian population, the existences of differentiated national identification cards, difference in land tenure and access to education, infrastructure, transport, travel, and movement between Israelis and Palestinians.

harlan (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Supporters is a very common term on WP, so reverting. List of integral thinkers and supporters  List of supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States etc.  Hcobb (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. Sorry, but I've been asking for references on this for months now. Simply reverting and tagging is no longer sufficient, since this material is outright WP:OR and WP:Synth. The article asserts that authors of articles which say they are NOT discussing an analogy are "supporters of the analogy". That is utter nonsense that deliberately misrepresents what the sources actually say. harlan (talk) 04:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, so where do we go? Apartheid policies of Israel? Unomi (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That would prejuding the issue before our sources have shifted to that position. For example if an international court found Israel guilty of Apartheid then we should rename from analogy to reality.  Hcobb (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the solution here not to just add a "Critics of the analogy say that...." paragraph to try and present both sides of the argument? NickCT (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Lebanon did not utilize or criticize "the analogy". It filed a written submission with the ICJ saying "The construction of the wall and the resulting situation correspond to a number of the constituent acts of the crime of apartheid, as enumerated in Article 2 of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid

The title Israel and the prohibition of apartheid would not prejudge anything, but Israel and the apartheid analogy is deliberately misleading. Many of the sources are discussing the crime of apartheid, not an analogy to South Africa.

The Statutes adopted by the UN Security Council for the Ad Hoc international criminal tribunals recognized the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I as customary international law that is binding on non-signatories. The Conventions designate population displacement or transfer, and apartheid as grave breaches and war crimes. See Article 85(4)(a)&(b), and 85(5). The contracting parties to the Geneva Conventions agree to adopt national legislation which addresses grave beaches. The jurisdiction of the ICC is "complimentary" to the jurisdiction of the national courts of its member states. Several states have either asked that Israel be investigated or have charged Israel with genocide, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and persecution in written submissions that are pending before various national and international courts. For example, the League of Arab States recently submitted a report which cited the ICJ Wall case and requested that the ICC investigate and prosecute the responsible individuals. The written and oral submissions in the Wall case and the judgment itself contained evidence of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, ethnic cleansing/displacement, and apartheid. 

South Africa was never found to be guilty of the "crime of apartheid". The ICJ rejected the request that it consider factual evidence submitted by South Africa. It simply determined the policy of apartheid as applied by South Africa in Namibia was not in conformity with the international obligations assumed by South Africa under the Charter of the United Nations. See paragraph 129 of the Nambia Advisory Opinion. A binding determination made by a competent organ of the United Nations to the effect that a situation is illegal does not require any further findings from the judicial organs before the international responsibility of UN member states is engaged. It was the political organs of the United Nations and the contracting state parties to the various conventions which determined that apartheid is a violation of international law; that it is a crime against humanity; and that it isn't subject to any statute of limitations. For example, the US adopted its Comprehensive anti-Apartheid Act on the strength of UN Security Council resolution 418, which was cited in the Act. harlan (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am fine with Israel and the prohibition of apartheid, I think the title is more becoming of an encyclopedia and is more in line with the quality of the discourse in serious sources. Unomi (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused. A number of people have made an "analogy with apartheid" in relation to the current situation in Israel (e.g. Carter).  It would appear to me that the "analogy" has been made so many times, that the viewpoint is WP:NOTABLE.  This article is intended to discuss the analogy that's been made, regardless of wether or not it's valid.
 * If you're arguing that the title of this article is SYNTH b/c what's happening in Israel isn't technically apartheid, you're missing the point b/c the title doesn't suggest what's happening in Israel is appartheid.
 * I'm still a little confused about whether your issue is with the title of the article, or the content Harlan? NickCT (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think, but I could be wrong, that the issue is that Crime of apartheid exists as a legal definition which is inspired by but separate from Apartheid in South Africa. There are sources that are in fact not making claims of analogy, they are making claims that extant policies do in fact fall under Crime of apartheid. Labeling those views as making claims of analogy is to do them a disservice. Unomi (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Unomi for a concise and clear explination. I get it now.  I guess the point is that two groups of critics exist.  Group 1 (analogy group) says "What is happening in Israel is like apartheid". Group 2 (legal group) says "What is happening in Israel is  apartheid as defined by international law".  Including Group 2 in this artcle is wrong because they are not making an analogy.
 * If that is an accurate description of the debate, my response would be that this article (with the current title) should only cover Group 1's view point, and maybe give brief mention to Group 2.
 * If you want to rename the article to so that both groups viewpoints might be described without doing them a disservice that's fine; however, Israel and the prohibition of apartheid is definately no-good becuse 1) It obfuscates the issue (which might be harlan's intent) and 2) It suggest apartheid has been prohibitted in Israel, which seems to poison-the-well and have serious POV issues.
 * Perhaps Allegations of Apartheid in Israel? Israel and Apartheid Allegations? Claims of Israeli Apartheid? Suggest Apartheid in Israel ? NickCT (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, this is the previous, very short, discussion. Unomi (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok.... perhaps take another poll of "allegations" to see if conensus has changed? I don't know.  Do you have other suggestions?  I just know Israel and the prohibition of apartheid ain't kosher. NickCT (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have any strong feelings about it either way, I agree that the current title is unsatisfactory though. At the moment I don't see a problem with Allegations of.. Harlan, how does that sound to you? Unomi (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Editors have correctly pointed out that Allegations of the crime of apartheid is a biased title, since many of the sources cited in the article merely make casual comparisons that aren't intended to be criminal indictments. Israel and the prohibition of apartheid allows for the incorporation of material from sources that make criminal allegations, use analogies, or sources that do both. An "analogy" article is not suitable for material that falls within the scope of the Human Rights or International Law projects. The usual practice is to have an accurate title with subsections that present opposing views, or "criticisms of"/"reception of" subsections. harlan (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You didn't adress either of the concerns I'd listed above. I think Israel and the prohibition of apartheid is unacceptable. We can poll it if you like, but I largely suggest that will result in "no consensus". NickCT (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * An ordinary editor can use the move tab without obtaining consensus. You suggested that Israel and the prohibition of apartheid "ain't kosher" because it suggests that apartheid has been prohibited in Israel. I didn't respond because Israel is a signatory of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Article 3 provides that "States Parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction." Many of the sources cited in the article claim, or take as a "given", that discrimination in employment, public accommodation, civil rights, & etc. is prohibited under Israeli law. So, unlike "the analogy", there is an acknowledged published source for "the prohibition" of apartheid. harlan (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, ok, so we now know that Apartheid is prohibited in Israel. I do concede that at first blush Israel and the prohibition of apartheid seems a bit clunky. How about simply Israel and apartheid? That seems fairly neutral and open ended? Unomi (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Harlan - This is an article about a widely expressed viewpoint concerning apartheid in Israel. You are clearly trying to select a title that dismisses that viewpoint out of hand.  Now, as I assume good faith, I assume you're not simply POV pushing here, but I'd suggest you drop the legalistic antics and forget Israel and the prohibition of apartheid.
 * Unomi - I'm good with your suggestion, but at this point I wonder if we should poll it.... NickCT (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually Nick, I don't think that Harlan wants to dismiss it at all, I myself am not quite clear on the specific value of the article name he ventured, but I am fairly sure that this comes down to a failure on my part. I do however think that Israel and Apartheid is short, concise and offers a good basis on which to compare and contrast. I wish we had some more editors involved in this discussion. Perhaps polling will bring them out of the woodwork. Unomi (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the strangest and useless discussions I've witnessed. There's nothing wrong with the current title regardless of what legalese Harlan wants to throw in here. It seems Harlan has zero ability to try to look at things neutrally. The current title is completely sufficient given that an analogy can be true OR it can be false!!! Harlan is absurdly poisoning the well by trying to presuppose that Israel is guilty of "apartheid." Let's drop this pointless discussion. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to echo the above sentiments. Not sure how this discussion about synthesis meandered into a name change. The current name was the result of a long discussed consensus. Any change from the status quo would have to go through an official page move thread, lest anyone think this little chitchat is a consensus for a move.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Plot Spoiler and Brewcrewer the written submissions of the state parties in the ICJ Wall case did not mention any analogy. They cited examples of the constituent acts of apartheid contained in the international convention that defines the crime of apartheid. In several instances, material about the crime of apartheid has been removed or synth'd into an analogy by editors who claim this article is only about the analogy, not apartheid. See for example So, some editors insist that everything is an analogy, and that the analogy is not equivalent to apartheid. I think this little chitchat will result in a request for clarification from Arbcom.


 * NickCT I believe that POV pushing like that has resulted in there being no suitable Wikipedia article about anything but the so-called analogy. Several editors have explained the need for an article about the analogy on the ground that it represents a well-known POV. I've looked through the archives and ARBCOM decisions and can't find any evidence of there being an agreement to that effect. Wikipedia does allow "Articles whose subject is a POV", like Creationism and Evolution, but there is no corresponding article that actually reviews Israeli practices relative to the prohibition of apartheid in international law. The result is that articles about international law and human rights get linked to an article about the analogy POV. harlan (talk) 05:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Harlan, What are the downsides to Israel and Apartheid? Unomi (talk) 05:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem with it. harlan (talk) 06:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, for my part I see it as short and simple with a neutral tone. I suspect that you have a few detailed arguments for why the current name is inadequate, I would suggest that it would be beneficial to the casual reader to also offer up a 'talking points' version. Unomi (talk) 06:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I'm OK with Israel and Apartheid too. The main rub with the present title, IMO, is that some editors have criticised some content of this article for not making an analogy to South African apartheid, which in my view isn't the purpose since the analogy refers to the crime of apartheid. So while I don't see this as a major issue, I do support move to "Israel and apartheid". --Dailycare (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not OK with the name discussed above. A much better name would be Propaganda regarding Israel and apartheid. That name is not POV, as it is now, and not another POV as it suggested here by Harlan wilkerson and unomi, and that name is much better represents the topics discussed in the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I find myself in agreement with Plot Spoiler & brew. I think hell just froze over. I support no change. But I'm a little confused when PlotSpo says "Harlan is absurdly poisoning the well by trying to presuppose that Israel is guilty of "apartheid."  I would have said the title tries to presuppose Israel is innocent of "apartheid".  The word "prohibition" means to ban (i.e. prohibition of slavery).  If I made an article called "America and the prohibition of slavery" does the title suggest america is guilty of slavery? In conclusion, to be clear I support no change or change to Israel and apartheid .  Obviously Mbz's suggestion is unacceptable as it is a sensless attempt to inject POV (no surprise there). NickCT (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Proposal: Rename article to "Israel and allegations of apartheid". This removes the analogy term without prejudging the nation or citizens therein guilty of a crime before this is found to be so in some court of law.  Do I have a second for the motion?  Hcobb (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes NickCT, believe it or not we can have some shared opinions as it should be. No change. This whole discussion is pointless and is an attempt by Harlan to presuppose that Israel is guilty of apartheid. What a waste of (virtual) ink! Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Could those against Israel and Apartheid please tell me why they find it problematic? Unomi (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * @Hcobb - read above. Your proposal already offered and discussed. NickCT (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay with how Israel and the apartheid analogy includes discussion of the crime of apartheid. I think discussion of whether the crime of apartheid has been committed is a subset of the analogy. Especially because this hasn't gone to the international court, so any discussion of whether a crime is being committed by Israel is speculation (speculation by UN figures, but still speculation), and that speculation necessarily involves a comparison, even if it's an indirect one. However, I would also be okay with Israel and apartheid, in fact that was my preferred title last time a move was discussed. Alternatively, I would also be happy with a split, with the legal discussion being split to Israel and the crime of apartheid and summarised here in the analogy article. I don't like any of the other suggestions. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ryan, the implementation of the Apartheid convention does not require that matters be submitted to the international court. The convention contains no compromissory clause which would make the jurisdiction of the ICJ compulsory in the event of a dispute between parties. General Assembly Resolution 60/251 (i) decided that the Human Rights Council would maintain a system of special procedures, expert advice and a complaint procedure; (ii) review, based on objective and reliable information, of the fulfilment by each State of its human rights obligations; and (iii) that it would address situations of violations of human rights, including gross and systematic violations. The Special Rapporteur already made a determination that the situation in the occupied territories constitutes apartheid. He merely suggested that an advisory opinion might be obtained regarding the separate question of the legal consequences of a regime of prolonged occupation with features of colonialism and apartheid for the occupied people, the occupying Power and third States.


 * The political organs of the family of nations have declared that certain acts are prohibited at all times, regardless of motive. See for example Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. They have also established international organizations and treaty monitoring bodies to peacefully settle disputes or suppress threats to peace and international order without the need to constantly submit matters to the international courts. The non-judicial organs of the UN routinely make determinations that a violation of international law has occurred within their areas of competence. See for example, HRC/RES/S-9/1,  which decided to dispatch an international fact-finding mission to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory.


 * Those sort of determinations are in keeping with international jurisprudence. For example, the London Agreement regarding the establishment of the Nuremberg Trial Proceedings was based on earlier non-judicial determinations that crimes had been committed. It explained that the United Nations had "from time to time made declarations of their intention that War Criminals shall be brought to justice". The Security Council followed that earlier legal precedent when it established the ad hoc international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. It relied upon the reports of its own panels of legal experts and rapporteurs to determine that crimes had been committed, and then it ordered the establishment of tribunals so that the responsible parties could be brought to justice. General Assembly Resolution ES-10/13 determined that the construction of the wall in the occupied Palestinian territory violated international law. Resolution ES-10/14 merely requested an advisory opinion regarding the possible legal consequences that resulted from that situation. harlan (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Why this article is NOT NEUTRAL
An article about an analogy should not attempt to prove the analogy, but to describe it. "A is to B as C is to D"  Africa apartheid is to its black citizens as Israel  government is to its Arab citizens. The article purports to be about the analogy but it doesn't compare Israel's behavior to that of South Africa. What happens is that the article is not about the analogy at all, but rather is used as a slur against Israel. The analogy should be presented fairly and honestly, instead the article seeks to prove the case, which is not neutral. To pretend that a few words of "Criticism of the Apartheid analogy" somehow makes the article neutral is silly.

Starting with the lead: The State of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians  has been likened to South Africa's  treatment of non-whites  during its apartheid era. United Nations Special Rapporteur John Dugard   has reported to the responsible treaty monitoring bodies alleging that a  system of control including separate roads, inequities in  infrastructure, legal rights, and access to land and resources between  Palestinians and Israeli residents in the Israeli-occupied territories is different from the apartheid  regime, but  resembles some of its aspects. Some advocates of Palestinian rights extend this analogy to include Arab citizens of Israel, who have the same civil and  political rights as do Israeli Jews,  describing their citizenship status as second-class. Others use the analogy in relation to the special status that Israel accords to Jews, or to Orthodox Jews, without reference to  Palestinians. Palestinian advocacy groups have also accused Israel committing the crime of apartheid. An International Court of Justice  judgment declared that the Israeli security fence violates the human  rights of Palestinians in the occupied territory and that "the  construction of the wall and its associated régime  are contrary to  international law".

Those who reject the analogy describe Arab citizens of Israel as having the  same rights as all other Israeli citizens. They state that "full social and political equality of all [Israel's] citizens, without distinction  of race, creed or sex" is specifically guaranteed by Israeli law. They also argue that the State of Israel's treatment of Palestinians in the  occupied territories is driven by security considerations. They state that the comparison reflects a double standard applied to Israel but not to neighbouring  Arab countries.

The UN Special Rapporteur says it is different but resembles it in some aspects? That makes it a weak analogy from the start, but with the "system of control" "separate roads" "inequities in infrastructure", "legal rights, and access to land and resources" implies the truthiness of the allegation --ie tries to suggest the truth of the analogy without having to go to the trouble of describing it or providing evidence. But, in fact, the analogy only "resembles it in some respects". "Some advocates of Palestinian rights" include Arab citizens of Israel as having 2nd class rights. Meanwhile "others" & "Palestinian advocacy groups have accused Israel of the crime of apartheid. Now we are no longer talking an analogy. Now we are talking law and the International Court of Justice.  Does the ICJ refer to the apartheid analogy in their comment on the "security fence"?  No?  Then what are they doing in the lead right after Palestinian advocacy groups have accused Israel of the crime of apartheid?  Are we trying to suggest that the ICJ has employed/ agrees with this analogy? Suddenly we are discussing the ICJ's verdict on the fence?  What does that have to do with apartheid?  But we do see, really.  We are trying to suggest that Israel is guilty of a crime.  Any crime at all will do to prove the case for the apartheid analogy.  It is totally unrelated to apartheid analogy and is only used to do it by some side-smearing. If you want to make a case that the fence is similar to what was done to the blacks under apartheid you must compare them. And when I tried to expand the second paragraph to try to present Israel's view a teensy bit, I was reverted. That's why, in my view, the tag goes on. Besides being a poorly written, confused article, it is mainly "anti-Zionist" apologetics. Stellarkid (talk) 05:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Next section under Analogy: "Supporters of the analogy cite the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, which says that the crime of apartheid includes similar  policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as  those that were practiced in South Africa  under apartheid.    According to this view, the legal standard doesn't require that the two  systems be identical, only that they share certain similarities. Those  who propose the analogy argue that the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law limits the citizenship rights of  Arab citizens. They also point to differences in the political rights,  voting and representation of the Palestinian population, the existences  of differentiated national identification cards, difference in land tenure  and access to education, infrastructure, transport, travel, and  movement between Israelis  and Palestinians."
 * Supporters of this analogy in their attempt to convict Israel of the legal crime of apartheid, are satisfied with citing similar policies and practices without of course having to actually compare those policies and practices with the actual facts on the ground in our WP article.  For example, are these policies, whatever they are, undertaken because of racial reasons, or for security reasons?  Were separate roads made to separate the ethnicities or to provide security?  These separate roads are for Israeli citizens and non-Israeli citizens, is that not so?  But of course with all the wikilinks it looks very truthy. Stellarkid (talk) 05:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And from there on in, scrolling down the article, it is one long (attempt at) indictment of Israel after another, until we get to the bottom of the article, should anybody care to get there after having read the rest. Stellarkid (talk) 05:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

As you've only specifically criticised the lead, that's what I'll address in response. The article is replete with sources comparing "separate roads, inequities in infrastructure, legal rights, and access to land and resources" in Israel/Palestine to apartheid. If you push the issue, we could stack a selection of sources up after this sentence from the body of the article. However that would be inelegant, it's cleaner to just given one important source that supports the sentence, which is what the Dugard source current does. Dugard says "Although the two regimes are different, Israel’s laws and practices in the OPT certainly resemble aspects of apartheid, as shown in paragraphs 49-50 above, and probably fall within the scope of the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid." Obviously (duh) the two regimes are not identical, no two regimes ever are. But the source is unequivocal that Israeli practices resemble some aspects of apartheid, even if they don't mirror every single aspect of it. And that's what an analogy is, it's a statement of resemblance. The phrasing of our text could perhaps reflect Dugard better in this respect. Furthermore, Dugard not only says that Israeli practices in the occupied Palestinian territories resemble apartheid (with some differences), he suggests that they resemble it closely enough that they are probably in violation of international laws regarding the crime of apartheid. So clearly he's not making a weak analogy. Which leads us to your next criticism. After outlining the analogy, the lead describes the more specific allegations of violations of the international crime of apartheid. To accuse Israel of violating the international law regarding apartheid is a very specific and strong form of the apartheid analogy. It's a "child" subject of this article, one that is currently embedded in the article. Even if there was to be a separate article on Israel and the crime of apartheid the subject would still have a section in this article, with a link to the full article. Therefore it should be described in the lead, and the only logical place to put it is where it is, after the general analogy is described.

So your criticism of the lead doesn't stand up. What you perceive as the lead attempting to prove the analogy, is actually a systematic approach to describing its use. First the lead says that some sources make a comparison to South African apartheid (i.e. the apartheid analogy), then it says that some sources go further and suggest the crime of apartheid is being committed. What you're perceiving as a polemic is actually about the only logical way to outline the public discourse comparing Israeli policy to apartheid. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well it may strike you as "the only logical way to outline public discourse" but there are quite a number of people who disagree with you, as witness the huge numbers of AfD's for this article. These people  mostly feel the article is so far gone as to be unsalvageable. And granted it is close but if totally reworked, starting with the lead maybe we can introduce some neutrality to it.  The first step is adding the POV tag.  Now to address your points.
 * "The article is replete with sources comparing "separate roads, inequities in  infrastructure, legal rights, and access to land and  resources" in Israel/Palestine to apartheid."  Well we were supposedly talking about the lead, but seeing  how they are interrelated ok. Take the Land and Infrastructure section for example.  How is the analogy to apartheid made in that section?  How is it compared to the African system on which the crime of apartheid is modeled? How are the similarities described? Obviously an analogy is not an equation, only a correspondence, but how is the correspondence described?
 * an assistant college prof says "[m]any view these Israeli policies of territorial integration and societal separation as apartheid, even if they were never given such a name."
 * B'Tselem wrote in 2004 that "Palestinians are barred from or have restricted access to 450 miles of West Bank roads, a system with 'clear similarities' to South Africa's former apartheid regime".[57]
 * B'Tselem described this as a first step towards "total 'road apartheid'".[59]
 * a Palestinian legislator and former presidential candidate, said that apartheid was the only word to describe Israel's creation of separate roads for Palestinians.
 * To answer my question, it is not. We have one biased college professor, 2 quotes from a self-acknowledged Palestinian advocacy group, and a Palestinian politician and legislator who claim that parts of the road system are "the first step to", "have clear similarities to" and that "many view it as" (even if they don't say so), and that "apartheid" is the only way to describe it. (Sounds like you above "the only logical way," lol)  Of course no one describes the South African road system and its similarities to the Israeli system  or shows in just what way these are similar.  I guess we could say, because they say it is. But there are a number of points of difference, I think, though I am not quite sure what the road system was like in South Africa, certainly this article doesn't tell me.  For one though, I would ask, did the Black South Africans have access to the Federal courts and sometimes get rulings in their favor over the Whites?  Take for example Highway 443 which was closed to Palestinian traffic in  2002, during the second intifada, after terrorist attacks  against Israeli vehicles which killed six people.  In 2009 the Israeli court ruled in favor of the Palestinians, and opened the road to them again.  While many in Israel did not like the ruling, (and cited an instance where a road was opened for Palestinians by the High Court and shortly thereafter "a girl was burned"),  how does the ability to have one's grievances redressed in court compare to the African system?.  You see, there is no description of the South African side, no real comparisons of much of anything, no descriptions of the situation of apartheid which we are presumably comparing it to (showing those similarities you were talking about), no discussion or description or the parallels, just a lot of negative assertions and assumptions. In fact most of this article could be turned into a LIST List of people and groups that believe the apartheid analogy Stellarkid (talk) 06:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does strike me as the only logical way to present the discourse, and you haven't presented a suitable alternative. The many AfDs are irrelevant, except to demonstrate that the existence of the article has repeatedly been found to be in keeping with Wikipedia policies and guidelines by community consensus, because all the AfDs failed. Curiously, when you list all those sources regarding land/roads (and bearing in mind the other sources on the topic in the article, including Dugard), I draw exactly the opposite conclusion to you. These sources demonstrate that the analogy is being made in relation to land/roads, which is all we need here. All the article should do is present the various positions held on this subject. It doesn't matter that you don't hold the sources in high regard, in relation to sources of opinion NPOV only asks that each side "be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material". You may be right that the article would benefit from more in-depth explanation for the reasons behind the specific analogy such as that regarding land & movement. However, that is not a POV issue. Nothing that you've present so far is a POV issue as defined in NPOV, all the article does at present is in keeping with the policy to "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." You need to present your objection in a more specific manner, with reference to actual Wikipedia policy. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but perhaps what you are concerned by is parity? You may consider the apartheid analogy to be a fringe perspective, which should not be described on an equal footing with the view that there is no comparison. That's an assertion we could have an actual POV discussion about, because it raises the possibility of a violation of the actual Wikipedia NPOV policy, unlike your arguments to date. However, I'd have to warn you that I believe this assertion has also been raised repeatedly, and like the AfDs the community consensus is against it. When it comes to the apartheid analogy, there appears to be a very real division in the scholarship among political scientists - this isn't a question like Holocaust denial where the proponents are a tiny minority of clear crackpots. Ryan Paddy (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The lede never defines the so-called "apartheid analogy". For some reason, which has never been explained, the definition of the crime of apartheid was removed from the article too. That fact, and the extremely poor choice of a title makes intelligent discourse almost impossible. If you make or draw an analogy between two things, you show that they are similar in some way. See the dictionary entry for analogy |en&hl=en&q=analogy Article 2 of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid says that the crime of apartheid consists, among other things, of similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as those that were practiced in South Africa. In short, both the proponents and the opponents of the so-called "analogy" are saying that the policies and practices of Israel and South Africa are similar in some way.

The proponents of the so-called analogy have wasted a lot of space and effort without ever explaining what elements of similarity give rise to criminal responsibility, and what elements do not. For example, the "argument" that "the State of Israel's treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories is driven by security considerations" would not alter the legal responsibility or consequences, since Article 3 of the Apartheid Convention provides that "International criminal responsibility shall apply, irrespective of the motive involved". In the Namibia and Wall cases, the Court didn't even inquire into all of the possible motivations that might lay behind the violation of fundamental human rights, since international law does not permit their derogation.

I suggest that the article be moved to Israel and the prohibition of apartheid, because the UN reports and judgments do not mention any "analogy" and seldom, if ever, are based upon a mere comparison to South Africa. I'm not aware of any published authority who has identified his or her self as an "opponent of the analogy" either. In the HSRC study, John Dugard et al took great pains to explain that acts in potential violation of international law are correctly measured against the provisions and necessary elements of the legal instruments drafted to address them. Other cases where their violation occurred are merely illustrative.

In 1995, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination stated that practices identical to apartheid, as defined by the statute, continued to exist in several parts of the world. See A/50/18, 22 September 1995. The Apartheid Convention is drafted in such a way as not to apply solely to the South African case, although South Africa was mentioned as an example. The prevailing view of international legal scholars is that the Convention is clearly universal in character and not confined to the practice of apartheid as seen in southern Africa. See Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, General Recommendation No. 19: Racial segregation and apartheid (Art. 3), 18 August 1995; Roger S. Clark, ‘Apartheid’, in M. Cherif Bassiouni, International Criminal Law, Volume I, 1999, 643, pp. 643-644; and Ilias Bantekas and Susan Nash, International Criminal Law, Second Edition, (Cavendish, 2003), pp. 121-122. The fact that Dugard said that Israeli practices had a resemblance to those of South Africa hardly disposes of the mstter, since the same report contained a finding that elements of the occupation constituted colonialism and actual apartheid. harlan (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Harlan. You seem to be viewing this solely from a legal perspective. As I see it, it makes sense to first discuss the comparison that many authors have made between Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and apartheid South Africa, and then to discuss the legal implications of this comparison that have also sometimes been raised. It's not correct to say that nobody discusses the analogy: many of the other scholars are quoted in the article discussing the analogy without reference to legal implications, and Adam and Moodley explicitly refer to it as an analogy. Likewise, while United Nations sources are important and relevant, we also have many non-UN sources of information on the subject ranging from academics to journalists and politicians, many of whom aren't discussing legal implications. I think what you're wanting is an article about Israel and the crime of apartheid. This isn't that article, although it does contain a section summarises that subject. Ryan Paddy (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Randy you missed the point. This article is cited using a template in a subsection of the Human rights in Israel article. It is listed in the See Also section of the Crime of Apartheid article. Yet there is little, if any, evidence that this article has ever contained coverage of the provisions of the relevant conventions, responsible treaty bodies, country reports, and court submissions on the topic of Israel and the prohibition of apartheid. The title indicates that this is a POV fork representing the "Criticisms of" or "Reception of" viewpoint for which no main article actually exists (see WP:CRIT). It obscures the legal issues and official statements made by the government of Israel and other state parties to the CERD and ICJ. It gives undue weight to irrelevant arguments and editorials that completely ignore the prescribed elements of the offense and constituent acts of the crime of apartheid. harlan (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that would be a fine addition and it sounds like you would be well equipped to take a stab at writing such a section. Unomi (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This article isn't a POV fork, unless the POV fork you have in mind is that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians can be compared to apartheid South African treatment of non-whites as a general subject, with the legal ramifications being one aspect of that subject. I don't think that's a limited point of view, I think it's a fairly common approach to the subject matter that is taken by a number of the reliable sources in the article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course this article is a POV fork, the ARBCOM history shows there was a wheel war over titles based upon allegations of the crime of apartheid vs. the apartheid analogy. The fact is that many of the sources cited have nothing to do with any analogy. I cited links from Human Rights in Israel and the Crime of Apartheid to this article. Those are subjects of international law, not comparisons to South Africa. The analogy is irrelevant in that context and should only be mentioned in the "criticisms of" or "reception of" section of the article. The international conventions do not even mention South Africa. Although one of them mentions "southern Africa", the negotiating history indicates that it was simply cited for the purpose of illustration and has no connection to satisfying the necessary elements of the criminal offense. harlan (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The article still does not meet the standards of a neutral Wikipedia article. It still reads as an essay style (ie: I believe this theory, here is my proof). This is understandable: the main contributors have been anti-Israel warriors who have sought information to build their case against Israel. The small criticism section does not solve the NPOV issues. This article, to be an appropriate Wikipedia article about an analogy, needs a MAJOR rewrite to read more informatively and less preachily. It needs to be encyclopedic, describing only who compares Israel to apartheid and what their reasoning is. It cannot be so apparently one-sided. If people have ideas as to how to deal with this issue, I welcome discussion. PS: now that the discussion is no longer dormant, I am reinserting the NPOV tag. Breein1007 (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Please identify a specific passage in the article that you think has an WP:NPOV issue, and if there's consensus from the other editors we can fix it. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess you didn't understand what I meant in my last message. I'll try to be more concise. The article needs a major rewrite. There is not one section posing a problem. The entire article is not written in an encyclopedic manner in a neutral tone. It presents one side as right and goes out of its way to prove it, and then gives a small section of "criticism" in a way that makes it seem as if the criticism is coming from a small group of people and is unfounded. Breein1007 (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If the "entire article is not written in an encyclopedic manner in a neutral tone" then it will be easy for you to identify a specific passage that's not written in an encyclopedic manner in a neutral tone. As I see it, the article presents the analogy and the criticism in a neutral manner, each weighted according to the reliable sources we have available for them, per WP:NPOV. If you believe that the presentation of the analogy is too positive, then make suggestions of how it could be more neutral. If you think that there are more criticisms of the analogy that should be made or they should be presented differently, then let's see your sources and how you think they should be presented. Talk pages are for constructive discussion, not for hand-waving criticism with no movement towards solutions. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

crime of apartheid
The topic is covered by high quality sources, see for instance: (there are a few more by this same author, a professor of law at OSU published by Oxford, Harvard, Duke, and so on. Yall get the point) There were some primary sources here, but primary sources may be used. The information removed is clearly relevant to the topic.  nableezy  - 01:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There is also several legal studies which are based upon an analysis of the Rome Statute and Apartheid Convention:
 * The HSRC "Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid", or ;
 * Badil, "Applicability of the crime of apartheid to Israel", ;
 * Luciana Coconi and David Bondia, International Public Law and International Relations at the Universidad de Barcelona, "Apartheid against the Palestinian people" or  harlan (talk) 04:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. We don't really need to rely on primary sources. The report from the Barcelona group above is under Creative Commons License. It provides analysis and overview based upon the latest reports from each of the UN treaty monitoring bodies, for each human rights instrument, and for each special rule or Rapporteur. harlan (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Quigley is not a reliable source about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, since he is highly associated with Palestinian PR groups. I would gladly hear his opinion on other subjects, but he is way too biased on this one. As for Badil, this is a Palestinian organization that have clear interest in presenting Israel as a criminal country. That's like asking a nationalist Georgian organization to give their opinion about human rights in Russia. What kind of report would you expect? The HSRC document talks about the WB and Gaza, not about Israel itself, so I fail to see its relevancy here, unless you claim these territories are part of Israel after all. Nacnikparos (talk) 12:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC) (Drork sockpuppet      ←   ZScarpia  10:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC))

Misuse of POV tag on this page
The continuing misuse of the POV tag on this page is a clear breach of the usage guidelines. This tag should not be used as a badge of shame. Its purpose is to draw attention to a current discussion on the talk page regarding how perceived breaches of the WP:NPOV policy on the page should be fixed. There is no such current discussion, the last discussion on this topic ended nearly two weeks ago. The editor removing the tag with the comment "the discussion is not dormant" might as well be saying "day is night", it's complete doublethink. I encourage all editors to either remove the tag in keeping with Wikipedia's guidelines for its use, or to engage in a good faith discussion about how their NPOV concerns can be addressed through changes to the article. And not to just talk about it, but to reach a consensus and make the changes. In the absence of such constructive discussion, the only reasonably conclusion is that the tag is being mis-used as a badge of shame. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are the only one treating the tag as a badge of shame by insisting that it be removed. There is a discussion ongoing on this talk page, scroll up to see it. The tag is not there to be a badge of shame, but to inform other interested editors that if they would like to help, they can come to the talk page and improve this article. I don't know why you are denying that this discussion exists. The last post before mine was on April 1, and for some reason people gave up on it. I made another post today and hope that others will participate in the discussion, because so far it has not led to any improvements of the article, which still suffers BADLY from POV issues. If you encourage other users to remove the tag while the discussion is ongoing, you are encouraging other editors to violate Wikipedia policies and continue the edit war that you started. Now instead of wasting all of our time with this nonsense, why don't you rejoin the discussion above? Breein1007 (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see now that you added a comment to the two-week-dormant discussion before you most recently re-added of the tag. However, your previous re-addition of the tag was inappropriate for the reasons I've outlined above. Given the order of events, it appears that you've continued an old POV discussion purely so that you can have the tag, especially given that your comments are very vague and therefore not conductive to actual editing to fix the issues your perceive. It's hard to assume good faith in such situations, it smells like some sort of filibuster to give this article a perpetual tag, contrary to the temporary purpose of the tag. Nevertheless, let's try to make some progress on your concerns in the talk section above. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Your comments in the "Why this article is NOT NEUTRAL" section amount to a vague "the whole article is broken". If you won't engage in a constructive discussion of any issues you perceive with the intention of fixing them, then it's clear that meaningful discussion is in fact dormant, and in keeping with the spirit of the policy such stalling maneuvers should not prevent the removal of the tag. Bear in mind that the purpose of the tag is not to inform readers that some editors think the article is not neutral, rather it is to draw attention to a constructive discussion about how to fix any issues. If the discussion is unconstructive, the tag is pointless. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Let it sit until and unless both sides can agree that it is a neutral article. When I read Wikipedia and I see the POV tag, I think  that I had best take what I read with a possibly large grain of salt, and think for myself.  That is what I see it as about, and to remove it is to be telling readers that Wikipedians agree that this article reflects reality.  We don't, and it doesn't.  If it never does, that's OK too.  So it always has the tag.  Maybe it's a "badge of shame" that the world can't solve the situation to make both sides happy either, but that's the way it is and pretending that its otherwise is unencylopedic fiction.  Stellarkid (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If editors don't articulate what they take issue with then we can't know to what degree it is real or imagined and if real, how to resolve it. Unomi (talk) 03:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This discussion is dormant.  The tag should be removed.  If anyone disagrees please point to exact language that you think has POV issues.
 * @Steller - Re"Let it sit until and unless both sides can agree that it is a neutral article". The onus is on people who support the tag to point at what they feel is non-neutral. NickCT (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I also agreed that it should be removed. Bjmullan (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Stellarkid, your reasoning is the exact opposite of the usage guidelines for this tag. We don't get to invent reasons to put a tag on an article, we follow the guidelines. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There is an on-going discussion about the title of this article and there is a POV template that was developed to address those situations . I don't really care, so long as this moves along to Moderation or a request for clarification of the ARBCOM decision. The "analogy" isn't even mentioned in much of the available material the article sources and is simply inapplicable. If we are going to prohibit the use of sources that don't mention the term apartheid, then what is the justification for the mischaracterization of sources which do not use the term "analogy"? If it has limited application then it should be kept to sources that actually discuss "the analogy". Those should be located in a "reception of" or "criticisms" subsection, or alternatively split into a separate article whose subject represents that POV, like Creationism and Evolution. What is not acceptable is the continued use of the well known propaganda technique of refactoring a viewpoint's "world-view" into the words of its detractors.  harlan (talk) 02:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The editors adding the POV tag (apart from yourself) seem happy with the existing title. It's true that you've been raising concerns about the neutrality of the title in talk and attempting constructive dialogue, and technically you could apply the POV-title tag. However, given that we're probably about to enter mediation regarding the title I'd urge that we try to reach a consensus there first.
 * We're not prohibiting sources that don't mention apartheid, several such sources are used in the article. But such sources should be used in moderation, and care is required to ensure they provide context without being WP:OR.
 * I agree that we should be careful about describing sources' positions in relation to "the analogy" if they do not express their position as an analogy. I agree that if a source is describing a perceived breach of international law then we should not describe their position as an analogy. We should work to fix any passages that mischaracterise statements from sources in this way. Where I possibly differ from you is that I feel if a source is clearly making a comparison or analogy to apartheid in Africa, even if the source are not using the word "analogy" explicitly, then I don't feel it's misleading or OR to include them among "proponents of the analogy". If they're making a comparison/analogy, then it's not OR to describe it as such.
 * I understand your position that you would like the term "analogy" purged from the article because you feel it's a term of propaganda. If you can provide substantial reliable sources demonstrating that it's a propaganda term, then those sources might be of use in the hopefully upcoming title mediation, and in future discussions about the use of the term in the article. However, if this is more of a personal opinion of yours then it's not something we can really take into account. Personally, I don't find the term "analogy" to be misleading so long as a comparison is being made to apartheid in Africa. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) The article cites several sources, including John Dugard, Hazem Jamjoum, and HSRC which explain that, in terms of law, describing Israel as an apartheid state does not revolve around levels of difference and similarity with the policies and practices of the South African Apartheid regime, and that the definition of the crime of apartheid contains acts that were never attributed to the South African regime. I've added that information to the lede. The rest of the article needs reorganization that can wait on clarification or moderation.

UN organs can make legal determinations within their area of competence that are NOT allegations. There are separate procedures for communications regarding complaints, allegations, fact finding reports, and reports regarding violations of international law under the rules regarding special questions and Rapporteurs.

The ICJ is the primary, not the only, judicial or arbital organ of the United Nations. The ICERD convention explicitly states that the CERD members are elected and serve in a personal capacity and that they do not represent any particular state. The convention says the committee of CERD experts shall deal with a matter referred to it in conformity with the generally recognized principles of international law and establishes rules for the election of Commissions to handle the resolution of cases. Israel is bound by those terms as a result of its signature on the convention. The convention also addresses disputes between states. The compromissory clause regarding the jurisdiction of the ICJ in the ICERD only applies to disputes arising between states, not to disputes with the CERD. In any event, Israel entered a reservation which says it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of the article which invokes the jurisdiction of the ICJ.

The General Assembly also gave the Human Rights Council a general mandate to operate a complaints system, conduct fact finding missions, and report on violations of international law. harlan (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the basic fact is that whether what is happening in Israel is actually appartheid is POV. Whereas everybody generally agrees that South Africa had apartheid, not everyone agrees that this is the case in present day Israel.  When there are major disputes on subjective issues(political,religous or otherwise) WP must be very cautious about taking sides in the debate.  I think the current title is good, b/c it leaves open the question as to whether the current situation is actually apartheid. NickCT (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Several published sources explain that contracting state parties to the human rights conventions have agreed to accept the legal competence of the committees which are incorporated in the treaty monitoring bodies. It is their job to report on violations and deal with them in conformity with international law. See for example VIOLATIONS IDENTIFIED BY THE TREATY COMMITTEES, page 15, in Luciana Coconi and David Bondia, International Public Law and International Relations at the Universidad de Barcelona, "Apartheid against the Palestinian people"
 * Article 104 of the UN Charter provides that "The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each of its Members such legal capacity as may be necessary for the exercise of its functions and the fulfilment of its purposes." Israel has adopted the practice of arresting, detaining, and expelling or otherwise preventing UN Rapporteurs from fulfilling their missions in the occupied territories. If you have a published source which says those aren't the basic facts, then you should cite it as an opposing viewpoint and stop temporizing. harlan (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you'll get much support if you're suggesting that one body exists that definitively determines what is, and what is not in contravention of international law. NickCT (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Harlan - that's a strange response to the dialogue we were having. It would help if you were clearer about the relevance to the article. If you're elaborating on your point that some of the article's content is not about an analogy, and therefore the title is incorrect, then I can only say that you've made the point in sufficient detail previously, it's something I for one am open to considering as a valid point, and that my last remarks were not contrary to that point. I'm hoping that mediation will help us resolve the question of a suitable title. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, I've redacted your edit. You need a source for that, and it should appear in the body of the article and then be summarised in the lead. I'm not at all sure why we're discussing it here, in a section about the POV tag, but there you go. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I take it you've never read the UN statute for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. The reported violations of international human rights and humanitarian law that the Security Council acted upon came from special questions procedures, Rapporteurs, and panels of experts, NOT from the ICJ. The Security Council has created several of its own subordinate organs which have reported that Israel's actions to establish settlements and alter the demographics of the occupied territories are a flagrant violation of international law. The General Assembly has made similar declarations. It can also create ad hoc and general criminal tribunals. The General Assembly established the International Law Commission which drafted the Rome Statute, and it convened the Rome Conference which established the International Criminal Court.

The review of Israel's report by the CERD panel of experts stated that the establishment of Jewish-only settlements in the occupied territories violated article 3 of the ICERD: "The status of the settlements was clearly inconsistent with Article 3 of the Convention which, as noted in the Committee's General Recommendation XIX, prohibited all forms of racial segregation in all countries. There was a consensus among publicists that the prohibition of racial discrimination, irrespective of territories, was an imperative norm of international law. See CERD/C/SR.1250, 9 March 1998 The ICJ ruled that Palestinians had been displaced by illegal settlements in violation of international law - the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Conference of Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention also reaffirmed the illegality of the settlements in the occupied territories. harlan (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Harlan, I've re-added my comments above that you deleted. Please be more careful. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, if I deleted your comments it was unintentional. The information I added to the lede actually was a summary of information contained in sources that are discussed in the article. I had already pointed out a few of them here on the talk page, and the positions they expressed on matters of law were not challenged at the time.

The other comment isn't stange at all. I was pointing out the various international bodies which have made binding determinations regarding the establishment of Jewish-only settlements. The CERD has pointed out that the practice violates article 3 of the ICERD convention and many other international conventions.

It is POV to say that it is merely "alleged" that Israel is violating international obligations erga omnes in which all states have a legal interest. Most human rights and international humanitarian law treaties do not confer jurisdiction on the International Court of Justice for the commission of internationally wrongful acts committed by States under such conventions. See for example para 31-33 of the Report of the Independent Fact Finding Committee On Gaza The ICJ has affirmed on several occasions that UN organs have the capacity to make binding legal determinations within the areas of their competence under the terms of the applicable treaties. States can prosecute human rights offenders in their national courts on the basis of complimentary or universal jurisdiction. The Arab League report is one example which illustrates that states are pursuing solutions along those lines. harlan (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for using references in your article edit. It's still a bit awkward in how it fits into the opening paragraph, but it does seem like it may be a relevant point that needs to be covered somehow. In your comments above, are you saying that there has been a determination by the relevant UN body(s) that Israel is in violation of the crime of apartheid, so that in essence the official UN position is that the law is being violated? Do you feel this position is adequately covered in the article? Ryan Paddy (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the General Assembly determined that apartheid was a crime against humanity on its own behalf, without the need for any ICJ opinion, e.g. A/RES/3068 (XXVIII). The General Assembly resolution mentioned in the title of Dugard's report, and treaties like the ICERD, contain mandates for the appointment or election of qualified experts to find facts and report on violations of international law. Some of the International Conventions gave the ICJ compulsory jurisdiction to determine "State responsibility". For example, Article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide says:"Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in article III, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute."
 * The Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity and ICERD (which has its own elected panel of experts) are cited in the preamble of the Apartheid Convention. The Apartheid Convention contained a voluntary, or Comprommisory clause, that does not include ICJ jurisdiction to determine State responsibility in Article XII:"Disputes between States Parties arising out of the interpretation, application or implementation of the present Convention which have not been settled by negotiation shall, at the request of the States parties to the dispute, be brought before the International Court of Justice, save where the parties to the dispute have agreed on some other form of settlement."
 * Dugard suggested an advisory opinion (not a contentious case) be obtained. The question he proposed was based upon the existing findings in his report that elements of the occupation constitute apartheid. The question did not require a determination of apartheid from the court, other than an opinion regarding the legal consequences arising from such a situation. In practice this would not be a case involving a dispute between two states, because all states have a legal interest in apartheid and other crimes against humanity. harlan (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to know why my stipulation that "Some" Israeli Journalists refer to this analogy was removed. It is definitely not true that all of them support this analogy as you currently imply. This form of historical revisionism leads me to contest the entire validity of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.179.205.145 (talk) 07:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed in accordance with long standing wikipedia policy (see WP:WEASEL). NickCT (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)