Talk:Omar Barghouti

Neutrality?
I edited this stub as requested. Can I challenge its neutrality? What can I do to help improve this? Bearian 22:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This article was NPOV tagged by Bearian in March 2007. But neither Bearian nor anybody else has provided any reasoning for or against such a tag. I think after nearly 2 years of silence, we can consider the issue resolved by inaction. If nmoone comes forward adding some substance, I plan to remove that tag SS. Wefa (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This article lacks reliable sources and might actually qualify for WP:LIBEL. This is because it attributes some quotes to Omar Barghouti but provides no reliable sources. For instance, the source provided for the quote "My studies at Tel Aviv University are a personal matter and I have no interest in commenting" is a blog (http://engageonline.wordpress.com). Also, the quotes from the Criticisms section are from another unreliable source (http://www.opendemocracy.net). Furthermore, I tried looking for reliable third-party sources that attributes those quotes to Omar Barghouti and found none. The quote: "My studies at Tel Aviv University are a personal matter and I have no interest in commenting" is especially suspicious because of the PACBI statement on this topic explaining Omar Barghouti's decision to study at Tel Aviv University and defending it. 130.64.134.240 (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added the Jewish Chronicle as a source for that statement. there are many more, in the Gruniard, etc... Momma&#39;s Little Helper (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC).

Edit request on 9 May 2013
The phrase "After debunking several of his statements" is an unsupported assessment of the accuracy of a Daily News article itself and should be removed.

Gnaevets2 (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Removed the quoted phrase above. Left the rest as it's attributed to the Daily News. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Universities in the Palestinian Authority territories
At the end of the "Education" section of the article, it is claimed, in defense of Barghouti's studies at Tel Aviv University, that there are no opportunities for higher degrees in the Palestinian territories, and that if he did not study in Israel he would be excluded from higher studies altogether. (This ignores, however, that even he, the Palestinian leader of the academic BDS campaign and born in Qatar and educated in Egypt -- where there certainly are universities -- can in fact pursue academic degrees in Israel itself, which undermines the claims behind the entire campaign to boycott Israeli academic institutions.) It should be mentioned in the article in any case that there are some 14 universities in the West Bank and Gaza, some of quite good quality. See, for a full list (which could be cited in footnote 2 without further commentary), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_universities_and_colleges. This is an unquestionably reliable and satisfactory source to cite.122.107.228.214 (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ten days have passed, and there has been absolutely no response from the editors of this locked article. This editorial silence, while still retaining the false declaration made by the Palestinian organization run by Barghouti justifying his attendance at an Israeli university, sufficiently demonstrates that this entire article is written from a BDS advocacy viewpoint, and does not preserve NPOV.  It is strongly partisan, unfitting an encyclopedia article.  Even the so-called "Criticism" section is an apologia for Barghouti, and manages to leave out any reference to critics of his forthright statements, made on many occasions, that the actual goal of his BDS program is the elimination of Israel, not peace at all.  He is harshly critical of the Palestinian Authority leadership which at least publicly declares itself willing to enter into peace negotiations, and which supposedly supports a two-state solution.  Barghouti has said numerous times that he is against peace negotiations, and wants only a one-state solution, namely the replacement of Israel with a Palestinian state.  If there were any point in it, I would provide the references to his own statements, but I know that they will not be allowed into the actual article.122.107.228.214 (talk) 09:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless you provide a reliable source that precisely supports the content you propose adding, nothing is going to happen. It's as simple as that. Wikipedia is not a reliable source (see WP:CIRCULAR), so your statement "This is an unquestionably reliable and satisfactory source to cite" is incorrect. Furthermore, editors are not allowed to carry out original research and synthesize content (see WP:OR), "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." There is no conspiracy of silence here. There is just your inaction and unfamiliarity with Wikipedia policy.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * PACBI ref was removed. We'd need a secondary source which reflects on PACBI position. Otherwise the ref does not appear worthy for inclusion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Anything that removes content from this article gets my support. I think the article needs to be 'stubified' and I may do that at some point. Much of it has been written by advocates, nationalists, sockpuppets and people with a conflict of interest. The views section is almost completely wiki editor sampling of primary sources. The criticism section is the usual pointless partisan crap that contaminates the encyclopedia. It's a good example of why Wikipedia shouldn't host articles about certain living people, especially Palestinians, because the content (and the people) can't be protected from the rampant dishonesty and POV pushing in the topic area.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If there is to be an end to rampant dishonesty, then, Sean, perhaps there will have to be a willingness to acknowledge what Omar Barghouti has actually said, and criticisms of him that have actually been made. So here are some suggestions for improvement of the article, particularly in the "Views" and "Criticism" sections, in which very much of both his most crucial views and criticism of them is simply absent.  Barghouti has insisted, in some of his articles for a general readership, that he has no specific political goals for the BDS movement he heads (e.g., in in his opinion piece in The Guardian of August 12, 2010, "Besieging Israel's siege," at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/12/besieging-israel-siege-palestinian-boycott).  More often, he says he does not accept a two-state-solution (or therefore Israel's continued existence) but conceives his BDS campaign to be oriented to a one-state-solution, "a secular democratic state in the entire area of historic Palestine," as he puts it in his "Why is BDS a Moral Duty Today?  A Response to Bernard-Henri Levy," Huffington Post, February 1, 2011, at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-barghouti/why-is-bds-a-moral-duty-t_b_816990.html ).  This single Palestine will be created by the "Right of Return" influx of millions of Palestinians into the territory presently constituting Israel.  Another article affirming these goals is his December 12-14 2003 article, on Counterpunch.org, "Relative Humanity, the essential Obstacle to a Just Peace in Palestine," at: http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/12/12/relative-humanity-the-essential-obstacle-to-a-just-peace-in-palestine/ .  In this article he hails the bloodshed of the Second Intifada as finally and definitively killing any future two-state-solution, and thus contributing to the demise of Israel as such.  Also see his December 2007 interview with Silvia Cattori, "Omar Barghouti: 'No State Has the Right to Exist as a Racist State'" at: http://www.voltairenet.org/article153536.html.  In this interview he acknowledges that implementing the Right of Return would necessarily mean the dissolution of the Jewish state and of Zionism.  He also sharply attacks the ruling circles of the Palestinian Authority for abandoning the goals of the P.L.O. to eliminate Israel, and their replacement of this with recognition of Israel and peace talks with it leading to a two-state-solution.  Also see his articles "A Secular-Democratic State Solution: The Light at the End of the Gaza-Ramallah Tunnel," Counterpunch, June 20, 2007 (http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/06/20/the-light-at-the-end-of-the-gaza-ramallah-tunnel/), and "Virtual Statehood or the Right of Return," on the al-Jazeera website, September 14, 2011 (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/09/201191394042383843.html).


 * However, his formulation of the outcome of the BDS movement he leads has sometimes shifted to a vision of two states, both of which are Palestinian-run and -dominated due to the "Right of Return." In a video released on YouTube, showing a speech by Barghouti in 2010 to a university campus Palestinian solidarity audience (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnpilMYsR0I, he says (4 minutes into the video) "As you can see, I clearly do not buy into the two-state-solution." He then says, (at 4:58 minutes into the video), "If the refugees were to return, you would not have a two-state-solution.  You would have a Palestine next to a Palestine, rather than a Palestine next to Israel."  Juda Engelmayer has cited these video statements, and other declarations by Barghouti including one-state advocacy, as evidence that Barghouti is not interested in furthering peace developments at all, but to stop them altogether: see his "Economic Jihad against Israel: Palestinians Using Academics and Liberal Ideals to Promote an Extremist Agenda," August 2, 2010, on the news blog The Cutting Edge (http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=12443&pageid=&pagename).  Bernard-Henri Levy, in his "Why the Call to 'Boycott Israel' is Crap," Huffington Post, January 25, 2011 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernardhenri-levy/why-the-call-to-boycott-i_b_813856.html) also criticises Barghouti for his attempt to delegitimize the Jewish state as such, an essentially eliminationist agenda.122.107.228.214 (talk) 12:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No surprise at the complete absence of response to the above detailed documentation; it is just as I predicted in my second post above. Nevertheless, I cannot resist adding one further citation relating to Barghouti's comments at the BDS conference currently being held in Bethlehem; Barghouti was interviewed at it by AFP reporters, and said that the BDS goal was to force Israel to bow to the "Right of Return" of millions of Palestinians inside Israel -- either that, or outright violence, were the only alternatives.  He expressly rejected any BDS support for peace negotiations, no matter what Israel's concessions, and criticised PA leaders for entertaining such ideas.  See Rina Tzvi, "BDS Leaders: 'Only Solution is Violence,'" Israel National News 12 June, 2013, at: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/168846#.UbgYb3BVo-   To the above item, I return to add yet another of the almost daily articles substantiating these points; Asaf Rominowsky, columnist of The Algemeiner, in a June 14, 2013 article about the aforementioned BDS conference in Bethlehem, "BDS vs. Palestinian Statehood," at http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/06/14/bds-vs-palestinian-statehood/,  criticised the "hypocrisy" of Barghouti's benefitting from enrollment at an Israeli university while calling for a world-wide boycott of it, emphasized the underlying anti-peace agenda of the BDS movement, its eliminationist goals regarding Israel, and its indifference to the violation of human rights of Palestinians by the P.A. authorities themselves, leading to physical assaults on dissidents even at the conference. 122.107.228.214 (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Choreographer
He is also a choreographer. It should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.232.190.128 (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Where is the criticsm
Since the BDS is inheriently a racist movement, how come this is not mentioned on this page? 74.104.159.130 (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

How is BDS inherantly racist? It is political, not racist. It doesn't boycott all Jews, no matter what you hear from Bibi's rants. It advocates for boycotting ANY company that takes part in violations of what are considered to be by the vast majority of the international community and international institutions as human rights and international law. This includes Israeli companies, settlement companies and companies overseas that take part in these crimes, like HP (not Israeli) or Hyundai (not Israeli). It is not by any stretch of the imagination advocating for a total boycott of Jews, or based on religion or race. So how can it be considered racist? Are sanctions against Russia racist despite the justification of human rights abuses and the annexation of Crimea? Aren't they the only Russian state? What is the difference? Please stop politicising racism. Claims like this minimise the severity of actual racism. Lets remember there are still actual Nazis in this world. Lets focus on them, not human rights activists.


 * "It advocates for boycotting ANY company that takes part in violations of what are considered to be by the vast majority of the international community and international institutions as human rights and international law." - yet, doesn't boycott Hamas, Fatah, or the PA for human rights violations. Why not? BDS practices a double standard with regard to human rights, which is obvious to everyone but BDS. It also appears disingenuous to say that BDS is not inherently antisemitic because it boycotts companies that support the Jewish state, when the whole reason to punish the international market (whether Jewish or not) is to indirectly attack the Jewish state.

Of course BDS is anti-Semitic as noted by the respect Simon weisenthal center. It is based on the Nazi Kristalchallant and Barghouti is part of the terrorist network.2603:8081:6B04:5300:2CE4:ADB7:CFAC:954F (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * From "Is B.D.S. Anti-Semitic? A Closer Look at the Boycott Israel Campaign," The New York Times, July 27, 2019:
 * But many Israelis and American Jews say it is, using the so-called three-Ds test to distinguish fair criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism: Does the criticism delegitimize Israel, apply a double standard or demonize it?


 * B.D.S. does all three, its critics say, by questioning Israel’s right to exist, and by singling out Israel for its treatment of Israel’s Arab citizens when minorities in some countries suffer far more. The columnist Ben-Dror Yemini, a critic of the movement, said B.D.S. supporters also demonize Israel when they portray the country as “the great danger to humanity.”

Improper use of op-eds
I removed a paragraph containing statements of fact that were sourced to an op-ed. This was reverted, with an edit summary saying that the passage did not include statements of fact. Here is an example: "He also denied a right to self-determination of the Jewish people." This is clearly a statement of fact. It now needs to be removed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The paragraph starts with an attribution. If you want to put attribution at the begining of each and every single sentence, go ahead. The reference closes the paragraph and it is clear it all belongs together. 95.86.114.137 (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As 95.86... says, that entire paragraph is attributed, in the first sentence which begins "Roberta Seid describes...". I don't think any reasonable person would mistake the 2nd or 3rd sentence for a non-attributed statement of fact, but if you feel there may be confusion, add "She also said..." or something similar before them. All Rows4 (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether he denied a right of self-determination is not something that can be a matter of opinion. He either did or he didn't; either way, it would be a fact.  Using someone's attributed view via an op-ed does not conform with WP:RS.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course it is a matter of opinion, unless he was quoted directly. If he aid something like "Israel should not be a Jewish state, it should be a bi-national one", one can interpret that as denial of the Jewish right to self determination. that is an interpretation, and hence, an opinion. Attributed opinions are perfectly in line with WP:RS, reread it.All Rows4 (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * An op-ed from a non-notable? You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel, here. Should be removed. Huldra (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What makes you think she is not notable? She is an academic, an historian, specializing in Israeli history. She currently holds research positions in academic institutions. All Rows4 (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

More on statement of fact: "A rabbi stormed out declaring 'This is anti-Semitic!' after Barghouti claimed a Jewish state isn't accepted by many large Jewish communities." I suppose now we'll see a claim that this sentence is also an opinion? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've attributed every sentence. I hope that solves the problem. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

biased presentation of Omar Barghouti
There is an obvious bias in the presentation of the material on Omar Barghouti as it now stands. Particular problems have been pointed out by others. The most damaging element(to Wikipedia as well as the subject matter and the truth)is that the writer/editors' intention is apparently to label Mr. Barghouti negatively in various ways rather than openly and fully explore his actions, words and beliefs. Poor documentation aside, using sources like a New York newspapers' Editorial Bd's opinions amounts to using Wikipedia as a political opinion forum rather than an encyclopedia. Allowing this type of posting on Wiki does irreparable damage to intellectual exploration and to the integrity of 2602:306:326F:8BE0:3C1D:F685:1E09:742F (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)Wikipedia. Yes biased in favor. Now that the U.S has barred him for being a terrorist and he is labeled as one by Israel, can this accusation put on the page.173.220.158.11 (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 June 2018
I wanted to add the following sentence and citation after the existing passage beginning "In response to BDS being referred to as anti-Semitic" (as of June 21, 2018): "Barghouti has also spoken out against anti-Semitism in the Palestinian solidarity movement." citations: 1) https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/palestinian-writers-activists-disavow-racism-anti-semitism-gilad-atzmon and 2) https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/struggle-palestinian-rights-incompatible-any-form-racism-or-bigotry-statement

I wish to add these edits to show evidence that Barghouti has spoken out against anti-Semitism to offer a balance to the assertions that he is "anti-Israel" and "anti-Semitic." Wonderstrider01 (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Assuming Electronic Intifada is reliable as it's already being used for other references within the article. Fish +Karate 09:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Such controversial edits to such article should gain consensus first per WP:ER . Though AI may be reliable for views of Barghuti but its clearly WP:UNDUE Shrike (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Seemed uncontroversial to me but fair enough. I was just clearing protected edit requests, I don’t mind what the article says. Fish +Karate 20:22, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Request to Remove/Edit Unsourced Statement in "Views"
"The descendants of Palestinian refugees will have the right to immigrate to this state, while Jews from the Jewish diaspora will not, in opposition to the current situation.[18]" This statement mischaracterizes its citation. The citation from Electronic Intifada states that, "The historic land of Palestine belongs to all who live in it and to those who were expelled or exiled from it since 1948, regardless of religion, ethnicity, national origin or current citizenship status," and further goes on to support a "Right of Return for Palestinian refugees". It is likely that the declaration is in opposition to the Israeli Law of Return which gives preference to Jews immigrating to Israel, leading to the possible confusion.

"This solution has thus been criticized[who?] as being, effectively, a national Palestinian state," has no citation, but if any can be found, then this statement doesn't need to be outright removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Degenwave (talk • contribs) 17:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Intentionally Deceptive Article - what religion is he?
Why, in a religious flash-point like Israel, is there no mention of what religion Barghouti is? What well-know Arab personage, has an article written about them, that doesn't state their religious background? Intentionally leaving out that information draws suspicion to the neutrality of the article.Jimhoward72 (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

BDS
According to https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/no-omar-barghouti-is-not-a-co-founder-of-the-israel-boycott-movement-bds-1.489828 Omar Barghouti isn't a co-founder of BDS. Perhaps the article should refer to that. Mcljlm (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * NGO Monitor isn't credible. Usually when someone founds something successful they want to be known for it. But here we have a cabal of international and Palestinian NGO's using Barghouti as a frontman and letting him get all the credit. Not plausible.ImTheIP (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit request for section on Israeli government intimidation
The Yisrael Katz linked is the wrong one (the one currently linked to died six years before the event) 2A10:8004:9E2E:0:D9C8:BA9B:A3F1:B50D (talk) 06:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 December 2023
Married to Palestinian-Israeli, not Arab-Israeli. Hkhuri (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: changing wouldn't explain the Israeli permanent residency. M.Bitton (talk) 14:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Heavy sourcing from depreciated (and highly unreliable) EI, which to keep and which to delete?
As EI is depreciated per RFC: Electronic Intifada, I have removed all uses that aren’t ABOUTSELF and replaced them with cn, while leaving those that I consider ABOUTSELF. If someone disagrees with this course of action or a specific choice, I am happy to discuss. FortunateSons (talk) 11:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)