Talk:Israel and apartheid/Archive 4

John Dugard 2006 United Nation report
This reference was added in March 2006 in Apartheid wall (old edit) and deleted by User JayZ on March 27 (old edit) under the excuse of : "(none of these are arguments that proponents of the term "apartheid wall" make; please focus on the subject of the article. The article you're looking for is Israeli West Bank barrier)" &mdash; no doubt that if it was considered unappropriate on "apartheid wall" page by this user he would, however, have considered it perfectly legitimate on Israeli West Bank barrier. Consequently to the nomination for deletion of all Apartheid (disambiguation) articles, I've added it here and on Afd to prove the point that the United Nations have used the term. Same User JayZ reverted it on June 1, 19h53, June 1, 20h04 before finally accepting it. User Moshe Constantine then deleted it again on June 2, 07h48. Of course none of them provided explanation for this deletion, although the statement is sourced and is perfectly relevant &mdash; probably the reason for which it was deleted. Satyagit 16:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The statement was removed for two reasons: (1) The source cited was actually not the Dugard report, but an AI article which does not refer to "Apartheid". (2) the sentence Dugard used did not say Apartheid either, it called the Palestinian territories "cantons or Bantustans". If it is legitimate to infer that he thinks Israel is an Aprtheid state based on the word "Bantustan", then surely it is just as legitimate to infer he thinks Israel is like Switzerland, or that the Swiss Federal system of cantons is also Apartheid? All this has been explained here on Talk before. Isarig 17:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is obviously an opinion not shared by everyone. Bantustans have a very clear link to apartheid, do you want me to draw a picture for you? Satyagit 19:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Whatever the source, the report is there. The original source inserted in the first time had a direct link to the report, which has gone dead. But the report is still there, it hasn't "disappeared" in thin air. The true reason for its repeated deletion is of course that it is a UN report, but that's simple vandalism let me tell you, not an attempt at NPOV. So Israel is like Switzerland in your eyes? Of course, the country of chocolate, banks and mountains! Why didn't I think of it before??? Satyagit 19:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Linda McQuaig article
From today's Toronto Star:

Union drawing attention to Israeli injustice

CJCurrie 23:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS and mis quotes.
Much of the content in this article is based on sources which do not conform to WP:RS. They are propaganda sources who mislead the facts, making irrelevant claims and false categorizations based on misleading compressions.

The lead paragraph claims that Israel former minister is among those who call Israel an "apartheid state" but read carefully she only said Israel is getting close to it. There is a big difference between being an apartheid state and not being an apartheid state. If she wanted to say Israel is such a state she could have said it. I also have serious doubts if she used it in the context that this article points too. This is the real problem with such loaded words used as polemic analogy: different people use them for different rhetoric arguments.

Writing an encyclopedia article on such a term should have been done with great care, careful adherence to policy (especially WP:RS and WP:NPOV. There is no place in such articles to quotes from people and organizations which are known to engage in a propaganda war (either against Israel or for Israel). As such this article needs to become much shorter and describe:

Who uses the term Why they use it What are they trying to get by using it Where it is used

i.e. the article should be about  the phrase and avoid becoming a soapbox or an internet discussion board.

PS, the person who instigated all that has also got the article "protected" after he got it to the shape he watnted it. This is a serious disrupption for wikipedia in order to make his WP:Point. Enough. !!!! Zeq 03:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, read the opening sentence carefully. It does *not* assert that Aloni claims Israel is now an "apartheid state" it simply asserts that she uses the phrase "apartheid state". Moreover, her actual quotation is included so there can be no misinterpretation of what she means which is that Israel may become an apartheid state if it isn't already. Homey 13:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

what is there to understand:

"'used by some Palestinian-rights activists[1], some anti-Zionists, as well as some prominent left wing Zionist politicans'"

Let me ask you this :

Do you claim that she has used this pharse ? yes or no ?

14:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Aloni has used the phrase "apartheid state" in relation to Israel. She said that Israel was on its way to becoming one, if it wasn't already. Zeq, I have yet to see one editor who agrees with your hairsplitting. Homey 14:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Aloni has not used the term "israeli aprheide"
 * Aloni has not claimed that Israel is now such a state

What is there not to understand ? What you did is inject your own propeganda into an article. Zeq 15:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, Aloni used the term "apartheid state" arguing that Israel was in danger of becoming one if it isn't one already (her words). There's no shilly-shallying around it because her quotation is actually in the paragraph. I don't see any editors supporting you on this so I see no reason to explain this to you again in the future. The quotation is sourced so as you are on probation for removing sourced material and as you've already been banned from this article once I strongly advise you to not tamper with the inclusion of Aloni's "apartheid state" quotation. Homey 15:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you find any other reference for that statement? The source is somewhat partial and I can't find any other web hits for the phrase. --Coroebus 15:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If I can weigh in the quotation is from Yedeot Ahranot on Jan. 1 2002. You can find it it was also repeated in an editorial of the Jerusalem Post, November 22, 2002 CryingLion 16:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

here's a better source for the same quotation. The Jerusalem Post, November 2002.CryingLion 16:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Cheers, I see the original quote was a misquote of "if we are not an apartheid state, we are getting much, much closer to it." --Coroebus 16:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Bottomline, the facts are:


 * Aloni has not used the term "israeli apartheide"
 * Aloni has not claimed that Israel is now such a state

Zeq 17:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we cannot say that she referred to Israel as an apartheid state unless she did unamibiguously.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

She used the term "apartheid state" in the Israeli context. That is the whole point.But, if you want something clear there is Zehava Gal-On's comment "The Supreme Court could have taken a braver decision and not relegated us to the level of an apartheid state"Homey 17:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. Just because Aloni used the word "apartheid state" when talking about Israel it means that she thinks Israel is an apatheid nation? So I guess that Joseph Mcarthy thought that the US was a communist country because he said "communist" when talking about the United States.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a bit disingenuous isn't it...she said that Israel is getting close to being an apartheid state, that is like McCarthy saying he thought that the US was getting close to being a communist country - which would be ridiculous but certainly notable. I guess the problem is that the article is about the idea that Israel might be an apartheid state, but the article is called 'Israeli apartheid (phrase)', I'm not too sure how to square that circle --Coroebus 18:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a bit disingenuous isn't it...she said that Israel is getting close to being an apartheid state, that is like McCarthy saying he thought that the US was getting close to being a communist country - which would be ridiculous but certainly notable. I guess the problem is that the article is about the idea that Israel might be an apartheid state, but the article is called 'Israeli apartheid (phrase)', I'm not too sure how to square that circle --Coroebus 18:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Aloni did not say anything that unambiguously indicated that it was her position that Israel was an apartheid state. Her inclusion gave the impression that she believed it, which is a jump we are not permitted to make.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh I agree, but it isn't really parallel to McCarthy and communism though, since she was indicating she thought that Israel was getting dangerously close. --Coroebus 18:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected
I have unprotected the article, as the reason for blocking was edit war during AfD, and the closure of that takes away one part of that motivation. If the edit war starts again, I will also reblock the article if needed. Edit warring is just not the way to resolve conflicts of any kind.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If the gentlemen and ladies at this page think that edit warring is the way to resolve disputes, I am perfectly willing to block the page again until a full resolution of the text has been reached by consensus forming. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should protect the page and try to facilitate a consensus?Homey 19:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I will consider facilitating/mediating if and only if all 'kind of regular' editors would agree with that, and if we can set a few basic rules of how to deal with things, such as discussions are limited to the content, not the fellow editors. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Fertile land
The article include this:

"'*Israel has constructed 'Jewish-only' settlements in the West Bank, which preclude 'some of the most fertile land and richest water resources in the West Bank' from the 'indigenous population' . (Ibid)'"

The source for this are political activists:

"Lucy Mair is currently based in Jerusalem and works as the Palestine Program Representative for Boston-based Grassroots International. Mair has worked on human rights and development projects in New York and Palestine for the past five years."

"Robyn Long works with the Palestinian Environmental NGOs Network (PENGON) and Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign; in Jerusalem. In 2002-2003, Long undertook research and volunteer work on Palestinian land rights in the West Bank as a Compton Fellow)'"

This statement has no real basis in facts (the settlements are usually build on hill tops which are mostly barren). The Israeli settlers are for the most part not working in agriculture.

The source is poor and did not go through editing review of a news paper or per review of academic source. (see /Talk:Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29

The source is clearly biased.

Even if the statement was true this has nothing to do with the concept of "apartheid".

I therefore removing this line from the article. Zeq 16:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Another dishonest edit by homey
I have explained in talk why a specific setnce should be removed but homey just trying to "sneak it in":



By not mentioning it in the edit summary.

Homey, You behaviour in this article is getiing to be VERY disruptive. Clearly you are pushing Aloni although the facts how she did not use the ord you calim "used by .. such as(her)" Zeq 17:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Poisoning the well
How can anyone justify referncing David Duke in the first paragraph, who has only used the phrase twice and has never been quoted using it in major media, while not mentioning users of the phrase like Desmond Tutu, Aloni or various Israeli MKs? This is an attempt to poison the well. Homey 17:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It is the inteded use that counts. Duke wanted to delegitimize Israel. As someone once told me "politics makes starge bedfellows"

PS the desire by the people who use this political ephiphet phrase to get a ban on Israel (like the one that brough down South Africa) is missing from this article. Zeq 18:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

We are not including David Duke because he is a reputable or reliable source. We are including his opinion because he is a notable personality. That said, I would not have a large problem with moving him to the body.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

He's *already* in the body of the article. Why are you including him in the lead and excluding Desmond Tutu and Gal-On? Why are you including reference to neo-nazis and excluding reference to Israeli politicians and analysts?Homey 18:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The statements by the Israeli politicians were mostly ambiguous (I suspect purposely), except the ones by the Arab Mks.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Gal-On is Jewish, not Arab and as much as you'd like to dismiss it or explain it away he used the phrase "apartheid state" and used it in the present tense, not as something that might be. Homey 18:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

And why did you exclude Tutu, Moshe?Homey 18:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I never said the Gal was arab, it is assuming bad faith to suggest I am tryign to dissmiss on the basis of ethnicity. I was referring to the actual arab mks in the arab parties.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

My point is he was quite clear and he's Jewish.Homey 18:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it can be constued multiple ways. Also I never thought and never said he's not Jewish, although that really doesn't mean all that much, especially in Israel.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The point is he used the phrase "apartheid state" in relation to Israel - he equated Israel to an apartheid state, saying Israel is at the same level as an apartheid state. It's quite clear. There is no way you can deny this is an example of a left wing Israeli Jewish politician using the phrase "apartheid state" in reference to Israel hence his being cited in the opening. Homey 18:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that exactly. I am saying that he didn't directly call Israel an apartheid state. You are implying that he is, which would constitute original research.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? The quotation is right there in front of your eyes. The meaning is explicit. He is using the phrase "apartheid state" in reference to Israel. Homey 18:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Another misquote by homey
Homey claimed Galon used the  phrase  "israel apartheid" while infact she said "the level of an apartheide state". There is a different and I again ask that remove the false you put into this article accuracy is important here. Zeq 18:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I claimed he used the phrase "apartheid state" in relation to Israel and, as you show above, he did just that. Homey 18:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

She talked about "the level of an apartheide state". is this artcle about the phrase: "The level of..." .

In sensitive articles like this one you need to be 100% accurate. Zeq 18:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Is he using the phrase "apartheid state" in relation to Israel? Yes. Is he equating Israel to an "apartheid state"? Yes. The phrase is "100% accurate". Homey 18:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge Notice
Was it not perhaps a little late to propose a merge immediately after the article has just gone through AFD? --Coroebus 18:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ask Jayjg yourself at User talk:Jayjg. Homey 18:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Why would it be? AfD is about deletion, merging is about merging, and the article suggested is one that has not been mentioned before.  Let's hope it sticks around, too; so far Homey has deleted it once and renamed it once. Jayjg (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well it might've been an idea to mention its existence at the AFD, but then I've only just discovered it so maybe you have too? --Coroebus 19:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, his first edit to that article was on August 22, 2005. It is curious that he didn't propose merging to it during the AFD though. Perhaps he didn't think there'd be any support?Homey 19:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, a more likely reason would have been that you deleted it on May 29, and it was quite difficult to find again. Basically it was another abuse of admin powers; in this case, trying to win an edit war by disappearing an article.  However, the main reason was I don't like to muddy the waters with AfDs; if you give people too many incompatible options, then it's impossible to figure out any sort of consensus. Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Misrepresentation. The article had actually been blanked and redirected last February to segregation. I deleted the redirect in May because [nothing linked to it - in other words it had been used as a repository for the deterius of the [[apartheid]] dispute and then dispersed and turned into an redirect (an orphaned one at that). You've only recreated it for purposes of political expediency. Homey 21:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if the afd was relevant, it still wouldn't matter because the result was no consensus, so it didn't even pass it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid outside of South Africa was merged with racial segregation last February (and no, not by me). It was orphaned (no links to it) and I deleted it a few weeks ago. Jay has recreated it for no other reason than to try to get rid of Israeli apartheid. Homey 21:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It is rude and incivil to accuse someone of such motivation, and not to mention an obvious assumption of bad faith.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * On top of that, his argument is complete nonsense. In fact, re-directs should not be linked to, and any you find should be changed into direct links - this is much easier on Wikipedia's servers. His reason for deleting it has no place in policy or good practice.  What's more, he had no problem with the re-direct existing when it directed to Apartheid (disambiguation), but when he got into an edit-war over that he deleted the article, effectively hiding it so it would no longer show up on Watch lists.  Even more telling, he didn't try to delete Apartheid Outside South Africa (also not linked to), just Apartheid outside of South Africa; this made it extremely difficult to even find the article again, which was a problem because the latter was the one that had all the history. Jayjg (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Jay, I'm curious, you and a few others systematically removed all references to Isreal in Apartheid out of South Africa over a period of time. Looks to me like you were trying to "disappear" any reference to apartheid in Israel. The history of the article says that the article was dismembered over time and then, ultimately, redirected to racial segregation. Why the sudden desire to recreate it? You dont, by any chance, want to do the same thing yet again and gradually eliminate all references to apartheid in Israel, do you?Homey 22:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"It is rude and incivil to accuse someone of such motivation, and not to mention an obvious assumption of bad faith.-" And what did Jay do with his selective recollection of what happened to the article? Recalling that I deleted it but not saying that it was no longer an article when I did so but an orphaned redirect? Not mentioning that the article had been merged months before?

"this made it extremely difficult to even find the article again,"

Find *what* article Jay, the article had been merged months before? Why are you now, unilaterally, reversing the merge? Homey 22:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes your right we are members of a vast conspiracy to take over wikipedia. Since obviously a pov neoligism like Israeli Apartheid is completely encyclopedic enough for wikipedia, clearly the only reason that someone would remove it is because of nefarious plotting.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Moshe, bad faith is letting the AFD go by and then recreating an article that had previously been merged for the sole purpose of trying to "disappear" Israeli apartheid and now pretending he didn't know where to find the article and only suddenly remembered the day after the AFD. Jay's performance over the last year, first with the original apartheid article, then with Apartheid outside of South Africa and now with this article have been nothing but a POV motivated attempt to censor and hide any references connecting Israel and apartheid - and now he's trying to do it again by trying to merge this with an article that he only just now recreated following its dismemberment in February. Homey 22:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Yes your right we are members of a vast conspiracy to take over wikipedia"

Don't pull that nonsense with me. Not a "vast conspiracy" just an editor or two trying to push their POV and eliminate all references connecting Israel and apartheid. Homey 22:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I know that I have been trying to remove it because it is a pov neoligism, your reasoning is unclear, as you could apply the same term to many other countries and subjects just as easily, but then again you actually did to that so that you could create that disambiguation page. Also don't tell me you just meant one or two editors, you have been vaguely accusing an entire group of editors for conspiring against you for the last week.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is what Jay was proposing for Apartheid outside of South Africa last February:
 * == List of political epithets ==
 * I've suggested that this article be merged (in highly pruned form) back into List of political epithets, as that is all the term really means in this context. Thoughts? Jayjg (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've suggested that this article be merged (in highly pruned form) back into List of political epithets, as that is all the term really means in this context. Thoughts? Jayjg (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Kind of makes one wonder why he suddenly, now, the day after the Israeli apartheid AFD, recreates the article and calls for it to be merged with this one?Homey 22:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

And Moshe here's you removing the last mention of Israel from Apartheid outside of South Africa last February. Tell me, if you didn't think Israel belonged in the article on February 8th why could you possibly think it belongs now? Homey 22:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, just because Moshe and Jay got away with this trick once doesn't mean you can do it again. Israeli apartheid passed the AFD so it has a right to remain. It is sourced, there are over 300,000 hits on the phrase, it has been used in popular media and academic texts. The only justification for making it "disappear" is your POV desire to abolish or minimize as many negative references to Israel as possible, particularly any linkage of Israel and the concept of apartheid. Homey 22:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If may possibly deserve a section in an article, but it most assuredly should not have its own article. Besides you are really really pushing it if you had to find an edit I made 5 months ago to have something to argue about.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, just because Moshe and Jay got away with this trick once doesn't mean you can do it again. Israeli apartheid passed the AFD so it has a right to remain. It is sourced, there are over 300,000 hits on the phrase, it has been used in popular media and academic texts. The only justification for making it "disappear" is your POV desire to abolish or minimize as many negative references to Israel as possible, particularly any linkage of Israel and the concept of apartheid. Moshe your sudden support for an article you helped dismember a scant three months ago is rather remarkable. As is your sudden desire to include a country you explictly removed from that same article.Homey 22:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again, is it too much to ask not comment on our motivations? Is it entirely necessary to accuse us of "getting away with tricks"?. Anyways the number of Google hits is an extremly poor way to establish notability, since even when the search is in quotes most of the hits will either be irrelevant or repeats.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Once again, is it too much to ask not comment on our motivations?"

Not when there's no explanation for why you now support doing the exact opposite of what you did a few months ago. Not when, you removed any mention of Israel from the article you now want to merge with Israeli apartheid. I think it's reasonable to ask for an explanation, particularly if you want anyone else to believe you are sincere and that this article should be merged. Sorry if I doubt your motivations but given the fact that you "disappeared" all references to Israel from Apartheid outside of South Africa only four months ago I have trouble believing your excuses thus far. Homey 22:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This has all been explained to you, Homey. Wikipedia really shouldn't have articles on POV pejorative political terms, and so the article was cleaned up, then re-directed.  However, since you've forced them on Wikipedia now, then they should at least be presented in a WP:NPOV way and context. How many times must this be explained to you? Jayjg (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You should have argued that in the AFD (and indeed you did) and you failed to create a consensus. You should leave it at that rather than try to circumvent a failed AFD by reviving an article you yourself helped to wipe out just a few months ago.


 * Homey, you not asking for an explanation, you are accusing me of acting with alterior motives, that does not show good faith. For god's sake I edited this article once 5 months ago and haven't touched it until today, and now you are accusing me of "suddenly" changing my mind? Do you even remotely understand the concept of time?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you would be against having Israel mentioned in an article five months ago and now support it being merged with an article on Israel. Such a flip-flop requires an explanation. "I don't remember" is unconvincing. Homey 23:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I never said I don't remember, it is completely irrelevant if I do or don't, it requires no explanation at all, your continuing persistance on this matter is becoming increasingly irritating. Perhaps you should take a breather.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Since there is a merge tag, let's get on with the merge discussion. The tags direct to the Apartheid outside of South Africa page, so that is where I started a discussion of my proposal: Talk:Apartheid outside of South Africa  6SJ7 03:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you propsing a move ?
This edit is very starnge maybe we should move the whole article to apartheide state(phrase to accomodate this strange edit ? Zeq 18:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What? No, I'm just saying if it's already bold, we don't need scare quotes. &mdash; Khoikhoi 18:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq's pov edit
Zeq, where is your evidence that Gal-On used the term apartheid state in an effort to convince world public opinion to "dismantling" what they term as an "apartheid state" and replacing it with a Binational solution? I see no evidence of Gal-On supporting binationalism. Your following sentence is extremely POV The term is used to de-legitimize Israel's right to exist with a hope to force's Israel demise in the same way that the apartheid regimen in South Africa was brought down after international boycott. Homey 19:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Remove the Gal-on quote as it is really not part of this article. She talked about "Level" and you choose to include it. If you think she she used "israeli aparthide" or specifically called Israel "aparthide state" find us a source that sais so. So far you have not shown us such a source. Zeq 19:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The use of this quote in the WP:Lead section
While the source is verifiable and conform to WP:RS this : is just a fishing expodiation to find the word "aparheide state" and finding it in a news report which bring politions initial sound bites about a specific law in Israel.

Such a quote should not be used in the WP:Lead section where the main issues about the phrase are handled. This quote should be moved to a specific sentnce about the marrige law. Zeq 19:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The quotation shows that the term "apartheid state" is being used by Jewish politicians in reference to Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians. Homey 19:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)