Misplaced Pages

Talk:Israeli apartheid: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:26, 29 May 2006 editFormeruser-82 (talk | contribs)15,744 edits Preposterous← Previous edit Revision as of 16:10, 20 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,118 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Israeli apartheid/Archive 44) (botNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{expand}} {{Pp-move-indef}}
{{peerreview}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes|search=no}}
<!-- Do not remove the sanction template -->
{{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}
{{Controversial}}
{{Round in circles|search=no}}
{{Be calm}}
{{Banner holder |collapsed=yes |text=Article history and WikiProjects |1=
{{Old XfD multi
|date=3 June 2006<!-- oldid 56729010 -->
|page=Israeli apartheid (phrase)
|result='''No consensus'''


|date2=15 July 2006<!-- oldid 64035264 -->
==POV tag==
|page2=Allegations of Israeli apartheid (2nd nomination)
Would it be possible to make this more POV? I don't think so. ←] <sup>]</sup> 02:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
|result2='''Speedy keep'''


|date3=11 August 2006<!-- oldid 69110851 -->
Ironically, you posted your pov notice while I was writing a "criticism" section. ] 03:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
|page3=Allegations of Israeli apartheid
|result3='''No consensus'''


|date4=4 April 2007<!-- oldid 120120303 -->
|page4=Allegations of Israeli apartheid (4th nomination)
|result4='''Keep'''


|date5=24 April 2007<!-- oldid 125667783 -->
== Expansion Needed ==
|page5=Allegations of Israeli apartheid (5th nomination)
|result5='''No consensus'''


|date6=26 June 2007<!-- oldid 140841349 -->
To avoid POV you may wish to focus more centrally on the history of the idea of Israeli apartheid and make sure that you distinguish Zionism and Israel because I think that the term is more often meant to be Zionist Israeli Apartheid rather than Israeli Apartheid. It is, however, a legit term but I think it needs to be presented is a different fashion. --] 03:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
|page6=Allegations of Israeli apartheid (6th nomination)
|result6='''Speedy keep'''


|date7=4 September 2007<!-- oldid 155568006 -->
==Preposterous==
|page7=Allegations of Israeli apartheid (7th nomination)
Even with the "criticism" section, this article is completely preposterous. So now every time someone calls something a name, there has to be an article about it? Between this, "Wall of Shame," "Apartheid Wall" and other "articles," Misplaced Pages is quickly becoming an Encyclopedia of Name-Calling. If I knew how to request the deletion of an article (yes, I know I should), I would do it with this one. It's ridiculous. ] 04:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
|result7='''No consensus'''
:um. The concept of Israeli apartheid is not new. I've heard it since the early nineties. It is, however, controversial but the article does not claim to take a stance on it. The article seems to be improving and making itself to be more about the controversy surrounding the term. I still believe that it needs to do more research into the history of the term itself though because it would also be quite interesting. --] 04:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


|date8=11 June 2008<!-- oldid 218733282 -->
6SJ7, you would have a point if there were only a handful of instances where the term has been used. However, if you google "Israeli apartheid" you will get approximately '''240,000 hits'''. I would agree that "every time someone calls something a name" there needn't be an article about it but when 240,000 people use a phrase it's notable. ] 04:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
|page8=Allegations of Israeli apartheid (8th nomination)
:Well there you have it. But please keep up your work in doing research into this article and improving it. The article should not stand on Google alone. Make the article one that stands on solid research. --] 04:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
|result8='''No consensus'''


|date9=21 August 2010<!-- oldid 380158466 -->
6SJ7, you must be more specific. What, exactly, in the article is inaccurate? What, exactly, is NPOV? Please give specific examples. ] 04:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
|page9=Israel and the apartheid analogy (9th nomination)
|result9='''Keep''' per ]
}}
{{Old moves
|title1=Allegations of Apartheid in Israel
|title2=Allegations of Israeli apartheid
|title3=Apartheid in Israel
|title4=Israel and apartheid
|title5=Israel and the apartheid analogy
|title6=Israel and the apartheid analogy allegations
|title7=Israeli apartheid
|title8=Israeli apartheid (epithet)
|title9=Israeli apartheid (phrase)
|title10=Israeli apartheid (term)
|title11=Israeli apartheid allegations
|title12=Israeli apartheid analogy
|title13=Israel and apartheid
|list=
* Israel and apartheid → Israeli apartheid, '''Moved''', 20 July 2024, see ].
* Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israel and apartheid, '''Moved''', 24 July 2022, see ].
* Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israeli apartheid allegation, '''No consensus''', 4 December 2021, see ].
* Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israel and apartheid, '''Withdrawn''' per ], 3 May 2021, see ].
* Israel and the apartheid analogy → Claims of Israeli apartheid, '''No consensus''', 8 June 2017, see ].
* Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israeli apartheid analogy, '''No consensus''' due to procedural issue, 29 May 2017, see ].
|oldlist=
* Israel and the apartheid analogy → ''?'', '''Not moved''', 12 January 2017, see ].
* Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israeli apartheid, '''Not moved''', 13 January 2011, see ].
* Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israel and apartheid '']<nowiki>]</nowiki>'', '''No consensus''', 20 August 2010, see ].
* Israel and the apartheid analogy → Allegations of Israeli apartheid, '''No consensus''', 3 May 2009, see ].
* Allegations of Israeli apartheid → Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, '''No consensus''', 28 August 2007, see ].
* Allegations of Israeli apartheid → Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, '''No consensus''', 17 August 2007, see ].
* Allegations of Israeli apartheid → Israeli apartheid, '''No consensus''', 16 March 2007, see ].
* Allegations of Israeli apartheid → Israeli apartheid, '''Not moved''', 14 December 2006, see ].
* Allegations of Israeli apartheid → Israeli apartheid, '''Not moved''', 6 October 2006, see ].
* Israeli apartheid → Allegations of Israeli apartheid, '''Move''', 26 June 2006, see ].
}}
{{Old peer review |reviewedname=Israeli apartheid |archive=1 |ID=58811773 |date=17 June 2006}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Discrimination |importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Israel |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Law |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Palestine |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Human rights |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject History|importance=high}}
}}
}}
{{press
| author=Haviv Rettig Gur
| title=Israeli-Palestinian conflict rages on Misplaced Pages
| org=The Jerusalem Post
| url=http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=175660
| date=16 May 2010


| author2=Omer Benjakob
And what, specifically, in ] is being violated?] 04:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
| title2=On Misplaced Pages, Israel Is Losing the Battle Against the Word 'Apartheid'
| org2=Haaretz
| url2=https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-on-wikipedia-israel-is-losing-the-battle-against-the-word-apartheid-1.9330590
| date2=26 November 2020


|author3 = Hava Mendelle
I'm reinserting the unencyclopedic tag, just because the name has a couple hundred thousand hits does not automatically mean there should be an article about it. It clearly represents a strong pov, just because it doesn't take an explicit stance on the subject doesn't mean it isn't doing it implicitly.- ] | ] 04:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
|title3 = The World Jewish Congress investigates Misplaced Pages
:I agree that an article can take an implicit stance, however, I feel that an article which is taking a controversial but established term, such as this one, and presents both sides of the controversy is not violating POV. The point is, this article will have to present both sides clearly and equally and establish the history of the term in a well-cited well-researched manner that includes verifiable and reliable sources. --] 04:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
|date3 = March 23, 2024
|org3 = ]
|url3 = https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/03/the-world-jewish-congress-investigates-wikipedia/
|lang3 =
|quote3 =
|archiveurl3 =
|archivedate3 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
|accessdate3 = March 23, 2024
|author4 = Yaakov Menken
|title4 = Misplaced Pages hates Israel and Jews
|date4 = August 6, 2024
|org4 = ]
|url4 = https://www.jns.org/wikipedia-hates-israel-and-jews/
|lang4 =
|quote4 =
|archiveurl4 =
|archivedate4 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
|accessdate4 = August 6, 2024


|author5 = Aaron Bandler
:: The qualification "established" should apply to academic community, rather than hateblog. ←] <sup>]</sup> 05:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
|title5 = Misplaced Pages Editors Title Article “Israeli Apartheid”
|date5 = September 26, 2024
|org5 = ]
|url5 = https://jewishjournal.com/commentary/opinion/375347/wikipedia-editors-title-article-israeli-apartheid/
|lang5 =
|quote5 =
|archiveurl5 =
|archivedate5 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
|accessdate5 = October 7, 2024


|author6 =
::By virtue of the fact that the article is called Israeli apartheid it is taking a stance on the subject. The term itself represents a pov, if it should be mentioned on[REDACTED] at all it should be on another article.- ] | ] 05:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
|title6 = Misplaced Pages Decrees: Israel is an Apartheid State
|date6 = September 19, 2024
|org6 = The Misplaced Pages Flood
|url6 = https://thewikipediaflood.blogspot.com/2024/09/wikipedia-decrees-israel-is-apartheid.html
|lang6 =
|quote6 =
|archiveurl6 =
|archivedate6 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
|accessdate6 = October 7, 2024


|author7 = Shraga Simmons
1) Moshe, can you give me a specific citation of what in ] is being violated? If you can't do this then the tag can't stay on. ] 05:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
|title7 = Weaponizing Misplaced Pages against Israel: How the global information pipeline is being hijacked by digital jihadists.
2)"By virtue of the fact that the article is called Israeli apartheid it is taking a stance on the subject." That's absolutely preposterous. The term is widely used and merits definition and exposition. Just because you don't like a phrase doesn't mean you can ban it from[REDACTED] if it is in broad use. This looks like an attempt to censor a concept for POV reasons. The term is in wide use, your comments on NPOV should be directed at the article, not its title. ] 05:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
|date7 = November 11, 2024
:: I don't think that anything has been established and if articles were required, in practice, to generally meet that requirement on Misplaced Pages then most articles here would be speedily deleted and I feel that the community is growing impatient with my AfD's. I don't think that this article even approaches hateblog right now. All this is why I requested a peer review so that the article will get the attention it needs. --] 05:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
|org7 = aish
:: Because of the title it's taking a stance?? I could see that if the title was ] but it's not. It's presenting the term, which is a term which exists and is established. --] 05:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
|url7 = https://aish.com/weaponizing-wikipedia-against-israel/
|lang7 =
|quote7 =
|archiveurl7 = https://web.archive.org/web/20241113082217/https://aish.com/weaponizing-wikipedia-against-israel/
|archivedate7 = November 13, 2024
|accessdate7 = December 1, 2024
}}
{{Mbox |image=] |text=For a list of references that may be useful when improving this article in the future, please see ''']'''.}}
{{Archives|banner=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 44
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Israeli apartheid/Archive %(counter)d
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index
|mask=Israel and the apartheid analogy/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template=
}}


== Recent lede edit ==
I have now been edit-conflicted out of commenting four times, so some of this may seem out of place. My original explanations for my tags didn't make it to the page when I thought it did, and now the explanation is already moot and the tags have been changed back and forth several times. Humus and Moshe have expressed what I would have said, and I feel the tags are ok as they are now -- but only as a preliminary to eliminating or merging this article out of existence, or at least re-titling it. After all, Misplaced Pages is the place where you can't have an article called "Palestinian terrorism" (something that undoubtedly exists and has existed for many years) without it being turned into "Palestinian political violence," and I and others have had to fight just to keep the word "terrorism" somewhere in the first paragraph -- and yet there can be an article "Israeli apartheid"? Ridiculous. ] 05:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
: You should be warned that it's going to be '''really really really difficult''' to ] with your edits when you've admitted to wishing to edit this article in order to destroy it. --] 05:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
::And where exactly did I do that? Please notice that I have not touched one word of the text of the article, and I do not intend to. So how is that I have admitted wishing to edit it in order to destroy it? I am not editing it. There are procedures on Misplaced Pages for deleting, merging and re-naming articles, and if I do not get around to following one of those procedures, I hope someone else does. This article cannot become a proper encyclopedia article, and that is why I have put back the unencyclopedic tag. By the way, that tag is justified by Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, and Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. ] 05:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


The whole paragraph should be trimmed: "The International Court of Justice in its 2024 advisory opinion found that Israel's occupation {{strikethrough|of the Palestinian territories constitutes systemic discrimination and}} is in breach of Article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which prohibits racial segregation and apartheid. {{strikethrough|The opinion itself was silent as to whether the discrimination amounted to apartheid while individual judges were split on the issue}}" ] (]) 19:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
There's also an article called ]. ] 05:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
:I hope the "Evil Empire" is in quotes. If not, it should be. I would say that a phrase that was a centerpiece of a major speech (probably more than one) by a president of the United States becomes encyclopedic all by itself. ] 05:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


:I think the former trim would be fine; with the latter it seems important to somehow clarify how the opinion relates to the topic of apartheid. We could trim {{tq|while individual judges were split on the issue}} though which is a non-essential detail. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 15:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
What about a phrase used by a Nobel Prize Winner like ]?] 05:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
::Fyi {{ping|AlsoWukai}} since you just copy edited the latter sentence. Waiting for other opinions as well. ] (]) 14:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Fwiw, I think the "systemic discrimination" element is due, because it is that finding that led to the Article 3 finding. ] (]) 14:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

== Racism and Zionism in lede ==

Hi @],

I tried to make your recent edit work in the lede, but I ultimately removed it as out of place and ]. Since the lede is a summary of the overall topic, it doesn't need to go into that level of detail about a matter which is tangential to the topic of apartheid. I think you'll need to get consensus here first before reinstating. ] (]) 10:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

:I agree with your removal and would have removed it myself, it is irrelevant to the article in general not just the lede which is about the israeli apartheid, not whether zionism is racist or not. ] (]) 14:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
::It makes more sense in context, but it's still tangential. If you go to "American views", it's there currently:
::{{blockquote|In 1975, former ] ] voiced the United States' strong disagreement with the ] that "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination", saying that unlike apartheid, Zionism is not a racist ideology. He said that racist ideologies such as apartheid favor discrimination on the grounds of alleged biological differences, yet few people are as biologically heterogeneous as the Jews. Moynihan called the UN resolution "a great evil", adding, "the abomination of anti-Semitism has been given the appearance of international sanction by the UN". ], executive director of the ], said the resolution smeared the 'racist' label on Zionism, adding that Black people could “easily smell out the fact that ‘anti-Zionism’ in this context is a code word for anti-Semitism”. The General Assembly's resolution equating Zionism with racism was revoked in 1991.}}
::Neither Moynihan nor his argument is important enough to go into the lede and it takes up far too much time to explain its relevance to the topic anyway. Hence, ]. And, TBH, the statement is still probably overly long where it is, even now. ] (]) 17:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

== Israeli civil law ==

{{ping|Makeandtoss}} In the sentence that conveys who in the West Bank is subject to Israeli civil law, I changed "Jewish settlers" to "Israeli settlers" because it is precisely the Israelis there who are subject to Israeli civil law. The previous wording, by ], misled the reader into wrongly thinking that the legal determination of which law to apply is governed by religion, rather than citizenship.

(which you claim to be a "middle ground") return the article to that ]. The article you mention in your edit message ("A Threshold Crossed") does indeed use the phrase "Jewish Israelis", but does not claim that some other laws apply to non-Jewish Israelis in the West Bank. If you wish to convey that non-Jewish Israeli residents of the West Bank are not subject to Israeli civil law, please first find a reliable source that supports such a claim. Or do you have some other motivation? ] (]) 14:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

:WP reflects RS, as I clearly linked HRW in my edit summary. Jewish Israelis and Palestinians are the primary groups involved in this analysis about apartheid: HRW: "Two primary groups live today in Israel and the OPT: Jewish Israelis and Palestinians. One primary sovereign, the Israeli government, rules over them." Further details are footnotes to this primary framing by RS. ] (]) 08:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I suggest adding a note to the effect that the vast majority of Israeli settlers are of Jewish nationality as it says in first sentence of the lead at ]. "They are populated by Israeli citizens, almost exclusively of ],<ref name=Haklai2015>{{cite book | last1=Haklai | first1=O. | last2=Loizides | first2=N. | title=Settlers in Contested Lands: Territorial Disputes and Ethnic Conflicts | publisher=Stanford University Press | year=2015 | isbn=978-0-8047-9650-7 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xeyACgAAQBAJ&pg=PA19 | access-date=2018-12-14 | page=19 | quote=the Israel settlers reside almost solely in exclusively Jewish communities (one exception is a small enclave within the city of Hebron).}}</ref><ref name=Dumper2014>{{cite book | last=Dumper | first=M. | title=Jerusalem Unbound: Geography, History, and the Future of the Holy City | publisher=Columbia University Press | year=2014 | isbn=978-0-231-53735-3 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=E8nbAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA85 | access-date=2018-12-14 | page=85 | quote=This is despite huge efforts by successive governments to fragment and encircle Palestinian residential areas with exclusively Jewish zones of residence – the settlements.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-settlements-idUSKBN0JL0D620141207|title=Leave or let live? Arabs move in to Jewish settlements|newspaper=Reuters|date=7 December 2014|via=www.reuters.com|access-date=21 February 2023|archive-date=30 July 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150730104133/http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/07/us-israel-palestinians-settlements-idUSKBN0JL0D620141207|url-status=live}}</ref>

: The situation is more complex than this implies. First, it isn't just a matter of where someone lives but also where they are when they commit an "offence". Second, the rules are somewhat flexible, and in some cases should be called policies rather than rules; this allows the fate of individuals to be decided on a case by case basis. This makes it difficult to find a definitive description. Generally speaking, a Palestinian who is an Israeli citizen will be tried in a civil court, but this needs a search for sources and there are probably exceptions. However, Jews who are not Israeli citizens are always, or almost always, tried in civil courts. Since 1984 this has been explicit policy; the order includes "persons entitled to citizenship under the Law of Return" (i.e. Jews) in the same category as citizens. Many military orders have the same clause. Sorry no citations for now, too busy. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

::Another complicating factor is which courts handle West Bank cases involving tourists. But, for the sentence being edited, the question at hand is (IMO) whether all cases involving Israeli defendants are handled by Israeli civil law, or whether some are handled differently. ] (]) 05:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The HRW report (ie dealing with the apartheid issue) "Israeli authorities also maintain parallel criminal justice systems for settlers and Palestinians in the West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem. Israeli authorities try Palestinians charged with crimes in military courts, where they face a conviction rate of nearly 100 percent. By contrast, authorities have passed regulations that extend Israeli criminal law on a personal basis to settlers, and grant Israeli courts jurisdiction over them, while authorities have followed a longstanding policy not to prosecute Jewish settlers in military courts. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) found in a 2014 report that “since the 1980s, all Israeli citizens brought to trial before the military courts were Arab citizens and residents of Israel."
:::This imo is the main point for the lead, two systems, one territory, technicalities and sundry irrelevant details can be dealt with in the article body. ] (]) 11:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Good find. Links to the 2014 ACRI report can be found at the bottom of . The HRW report cites p. 37 of the ACRI report, but it's worth reading all of section B (pp. 36-39), including footnotes. ] (]) 12:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::That is good support for "Jewish Israelis" rather than just "Israelis". We can always add clarity via a quote in the reference. ] (]) 09:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

{{reftalk}}

== Request for Sources and Balanced Representation ==
{{hat|]. ] (]) 00:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
I noticed that the article has recently shifted its language to refer to Israel as an "apartheid state" and the stance now being solidified due to the ongoing war. Its language refers to Israel as an "apartheid state" in a way that seems more definitive. Given that this term is highly contested and there are valid arguments on both sides, I believe it's important to ensure that we present the full spectrum of perspectives. Could we include more references to sources that provide an opposing viewpoint, particularly those that challenge the use of the term "apartheid" in relation to Israel? This would help maintain neutrality and offer readers a broader understanding of the issue. ] (]) 00:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

:No. See ]. ] (]) 00:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Hab}}

== I believe that the revised version of this article fails to maintain absolute impartiality and neutrality based on both sides. ==

I believe that the new version of this article violates the rule of neutrality, and is, to an extent, leaning towards an opinionated Palestinian narrative. While it is a fact that Israel's occupation may be seen by some as being characteristic and similar to the apartheid system of South Africa, I believe that much of the information sources given on this topic are very obviously influenced by Hamas - the media department is notoriously versatile and, while sometimes telling the truth, spreads falsified or over-exaggerated statistics and information. For example, the article mentions that the Law of Return is part of the apartheid system, which lacks a citation and, quite frankly, sense in itself, or the mention of Israel's alleged 'mistreatment' of its own Palestinian citizens, which also lacks a citation and appears to be more of an opinion rather than a factual piece of information. I will reiterate that it is important to remember that both Israel and Palestine are doing things wrong and unlawful within this seemingly perpetual conflict, however we must also remember to factor in the other side, such as the verified sources of Israel's pro-immigration policies, or the slight indoctrination of the Gaza strip by Hamas of elements of hatred for the Jewish people. Please note, I am not pro-Israel or pro-Palestine, I am pro-solution - this really is not neutral. ] (]) 18:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:10, 20 January 2025

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Israeli apartheid article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
          Article history and WikiProjects
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

  • Israel and apartheid → Israeli apartheid, Moved, 20 July 2024, see discussion.
  • Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israel and apartheid, Moved, 24 July 2022, see discussion.
  • Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israeli apartheid allegation, No consensus, 4 December 2021, see discussion.
  • Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israel and apartheid, Withdrawn per WP:SNOW, 3 May 2021, see discussion.
  • Israel and the apartheid analogy → Claims of Israeli apartheid, No consensus, 8 June 2017, see discussion.
  • Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israeli apartheid analogy, No consensus due to procedural issue, 29 May 2017, see discussion.
Older discussions:
  • Israel and the apartheid analogy → ?, Not moved, 12 January 2017, see discussion.
  • Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israeli apartheid, Not moved, 13 January 2011, see discussion.
  • Israel and the apartheid analogy → Israel and apartheid , No consensus, 20 August 2010, see discussion.
  • Israel and the apartheid analogy → Allegations of Israeli apartheid, No consensus, 3 May 2009, see discussion.
  • Allegations of Israeli apartheid → Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, No consensus, 28 August 2007, see discussion.
  • Allegations of Israeli apartheid → Apartheid controversy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, No consensus, 17 August 2007, see discussion.
  • Allegations of Israeli apartheid → Israeli apartheid, No consensus, 16 March 2007, see discussion.
  • Allegations of Israeli apartheid → Israeli apartheid, Not moved, 14 December 2006, see discussion.
  • Allegations of Israeli apartheid → Israeli apartheid, Not moved, 6 October 2006, see discussion.
  • Israeli apartheid → Allegations of Israeli apartheid, Move, 26 June 2006, see discussion.
Israeli apartheid (final version) received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which on 17 June 2006 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
[REDACTED] Discrimination High‑importance
[REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconIsrael Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconLaw Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPalestine Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHuman rights High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEthnic groups High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

WikiProject iconPolitics High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHistory High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
For a list of references that may be useful when improving this article in the future, please see Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid/RS.

Archiving icon

Archives: Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44


This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Recent lede edit

The whole paragraph should be trimmed: "The International Court of Justice in its 2024 advisory opinion found that Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories constitutes systemic discrimination and is in breach of Article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which prohibits racial segregation and apartheid. The opinion itself was silent as to whether the discrimination amounted to apartheid while individual judges were split on the issue" Makeandtoss (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the former trim would be fine; with the latter it seems important to somehow clarify how the opinion relates to the topic of apartheid. We could trim while individual judges were split on the issue though which is a non-essential detail. — xDanielx /C\ 15:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Fyi @AlsoWukai: since you just copy edited the latter sentence. Waiting for other opinions as well. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Fwiw, I think the "systemic discrimination" element is due, because it is that finding that led to the Article 3 finding. Selfstudier (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Racism and Zionism in lede

Hi @Allthemilescombined1,

I tried to make your recent edit work in the lede, but I ultimately removed it as out of place and WP:UNDUE. Since the lede is a summary of the overall topic, it doesn't need to go into that level of detail about a matter which is tangential to the topic of apartheid. I think you'll need to get consensus here first before reinstating. Lewisguile (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your removal and would have removed it myself, it is irrelevant to the article in general not just the lede which is about the israeli apartheid, not whether zionism is racist or not. Stephan rostie (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
It makes more sense in context, but it's still tangential. If you go to "American views", it's there currently:

In 1975, former US Ambassador to the United Nations Daniel Patrick Moynihan voiced the United States' strong disagreement with the General Assembly's resolution that "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination", saying that unlike apartheid, Zionism is not a racist ideology. He said that racist ideologies such as apartheid favor discrimination on the grounds of alleged biological differences, yet few people are as biologically heterogeneous as the Jews. Moynihan called the UN resolution "a great evil", adding, "the abomination of anti-Semitism has been given the appearance of international sanction by the UN". Vernon Jordan, executive director of the National Urban League, said the resolution smeared the 'racist' label on Zionism, adding that Black people could “easily smell out the fact that ‘anti-Zionism’ in this context is a code word for anti-Semitism”. The General Assembly's resolution equating Zionism with racism was revoked in 1991.

Neither Moynihan nor his argument is important enough to go into the lede and it takes up far too much time to explain its relevance to the topic anyway. Hence, WP:UNDUE. And, TBH, the statement is still probably overly long where it is, even now. Lewisguile (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Israeli civil law

@Makeandtoss: In the sentence that conveys who in the West Bank is subject to Israeli civil law, I changed "Jewish settlers" to "Israeli settlers" because it is precisely the Israelis there who are subject to Israeli civil law. The previous wording, by the principle of relevance, misled the reader into wrongly thinking that the legal determination of which law to apply is governed by religion, rather than citizenship.

Your edits (which you claim to be a "middle ground") return the article to that false implication. The article you mention in your edit message ("A Threshold Crossed") does indeed use the phrase "Jewish Israelis", but does not claim that some other laws apply to non-Jewish Israelis in the West Bank. If you wish to convey that non-Jewish Israeli residents of the West Bank are not subject to Israeli civil law, please first find a reliable source that supports such a claim. Or do you have some other motivation? Dotyoyo (talk) 14:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

WP reflects RS, as I clearly linked HRW in my edit summary. Jewish Israelis and Palestinians are the primary groups involved in this analysis about apartheid: HRW: "Two primary groups live today in Israel and the OPT: Jewish Israelis and Palestinians. One primary sovereign, the Israeli government, rules over them." Further details are footnotes to this primary framing by RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I suggest adding a note to the effect that the vast majority of Israeli settlers are of Jewish nationality as it says in first sentence of the lead at Israeli settlement. "They are populated by Israeli citizens, almost exclusively of Jewish identity or ethnicity,

The situation is more complex than this implies. First, it isn't just a matter of where someone lives but also where they are when they commit an "offence". Second, the rules are somewhat flexible, and in some cases should be called policies rather than rules; this allows the fate of individuals to be decided on a case by case basis. This makes it difficult to find a definitive description. Generally speaking, a Palestinian who is an Israeli citizen will be tried in a civil court, but this needs a search for sources and there are probably exceptions. However, Jews who are not Israeli citizens are always, or almost always, tried in civil courts. Since 1984 this has been explicit policy; the order includes "persons entitled to citizenship under the Law of Return" (i.e. Jews) in the same category as citizens. Many military orders have the same clause. Sorry no citations for now, too busy. Zero 01:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Another complicating factor is which courts handle West Bank cases involving tourists. But, for the sentence being edited, the question at hand is (IMO) whether all cases involving Israeli defendants are handled by Israeli civil law, or whether some are handled differently. Dotyoyo (talk) 05:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
The HRW report (ie dealing with the apartheid issue) "Israeli authorities also maintain parallel criminal justice systems for settlers and Palestinians in the West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem. Israeli authorities try Palestinians charged with crimes in military courts, where they face a conviction rate of nearly 100 percent. By contrast, authorities have passed regulations that extend Israeli criminal law on a personal basis to settlers, and grant Israeli courts jurisdiction over them, while authorities have followed a longstanding policy not to prosecute Jewish settlers in military courts. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) found in a 2014 report that “since the 1980s, all Israeli citizens brought to trial before the military courts were Arab citizens and residents of Israel."
This imo is the main point for the lead, two systems, one territory, technicalities and sundry irrelevant details can be dealt with in the article body. Selfstudier (talk) 11:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Good find. Links to the 2014 ACRI report can be found at the bottom of this page. The HRW report cites p. 37 of the ACRI report, but it's worth reading all of section B (pp. 36-39), including footnotes. Dotyoyo (talk) 12:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
That is good support for "Jewish Israelis" rather than just "Israelis". We can always add clarity via a quote in the reference. Lewisguile (talk) 09:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. Haklai, O.; Loizides, N. (2015). Settlers in Contested Lands: Territorial Disputes and Ethnic Conflicts. Stanford University Press. p. 19. ISBN 978-0-8047-9650-7. Retrieved 2018-12-14. the Israel settlers reside almost solely in exclusively Jewish communities (one exception is a small enclave within the city of Hebron).
  2. Dumper, M. (2014). Jerusalem Unbound: Geography, History, and the Future of the Holy City. Columbia University Press. p. 85. ISBN 978-0-231-53735-3. Retrieved 2018-12-14. This is despite huge efforts by successive governments to fragment and encircle Palestinian residential areas with exclusively Jewish zones of residence – the settlements.
  3. "Leave or let live? Arabs move in to Jewish settlements". Reuters. 7 December 2014. Archived from the original on 30 July 2015. Retrieved 21 February 2023 – via www.reuters.com.

Request for Sources and Balanced Representation

WP:ECR. M.Bitton (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I noticed that the article has recently shifted its language to refer to Israel as an "apartheid state" and the stance now being solidified due to the ongoing war. Its language refers to Israel as an "apartheid state" in a way that seems more definitive. Given that this term is highly contested and there are valid arguments on both sides, I believe it's important to ensure that we present the full spectrum of perspectives. Could we include more references to sources that provide an opposing viewpoint, particularly those that challenge the use of the term "apartheid" in relation to Israel? This would help maintain neutrality and offer readers a broader understanding of the issue. 72.179.16.52 (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

No. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe that the revised version of this article fails to maintain absolute impartiality and neutrality based on both sides.

I believe that the new version of this article violates the rule of neutrality, and is, to an extent, leaning towards an opinionated Palestinian narrative. While it is a fact that Israel's occupation may be seen by some as being characteristic and similar to the apartheid system of South Africa, I believe that much of the information sources given on this topic are very obviously influenced by Hamas - the media department is notoriously versatile and, while sometimes telling the truth, spreads falsified or over-exaggerated statistics and information. For example, the article mentions that the Law of Return is part of the apartheid system, which lacks a citation and, quite frankly, sense in itself, or the mention of Israel's alleged 'mistreatment' of its own Palestinian citizens, which also lacks a citation and appears to be more of an opinion rather than a factual piece of information. I will reiterate that it is important to remember that both Israel and Palestine are doing things wrong and unlawful within this seemingly perpetual conflict, however we must also remember to factor in the other side, such as the verified sources of Israel's pro-immigration policies, or the slight indoctrination of the Gaza strip by Hamas of elements of hatred for the Jewish people. Please note, I am not pro-Israel or pro-Palestine, I am pro-solution - this really is not neutral. Canyouseedis (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Israeli apartheid: Difference between revisions Add topic