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 editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:18, 7 October 2024 editABHammad (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,702 edits Tags: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:10, 20 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,309,962 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Israeli apartheid/Archive 44) (bot 
(248 intermediate revisions by 46 users not shown)
Line 79: Line 79:
}} }}
{{Old peer review |reviewedname=Israeli apartheid |archive=1 |ID=58811773 |date=17 June 2006}} {{Old peer review |reviewedname=Israeli apartheid |archive=1 |ID=58811773 |date=17 June 2006}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|1= {{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Discrimination |importance=high}} {{WikiProject Discrimination |importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Israel |importance=mid}} {{WikiProject Israel |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Law |importance=mid}} {{WikiProject Law |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Palestine |importance=mid}} {{WikiProject Palestine |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Human rights |importance=Mid}} {{WikiProject Human rights |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject History|importance=high}}
}} }}
}} }}
Line 121: Line 124:
|archivedate4 = <!-- do not wikilink --> |archivedate4 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
|accessdate4 = August 6, 2024 |accessdate4 = August 6, 2024

|author5 = Aaron Bandler
|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 =
|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
|title7 = Weaponizing Misplaced Pages against Israel: How the global information pipeline is being hijacked by digital jihadists.
|date7 = November 11, 2024
|org7 = aish
|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 ''']'''.}} {{Mbox |image=] |text=For a list of references that may be useful when improving this article in the future, please see ''']'''.}}
Line 136: Line 172:
}} }}


== ICJ and apartheid == == Recent lede edit ==

The issue of what the ICJ opinion really means regarding racial segregation versus apartheid is unclear from the opinion itself and this is why so-called RSs can't agree on it. However, the matter is discussed at length in the . See in particular the opinions of Brant, Iwasawa, Nolte, Salam and Tladi. I read somewhere the suggestion that the lack of elucidation on this point in the official opinion was so that more judges would sign up to it. None of the judges argued against the ruling that Israel is in violation of Para 3 of CERD, but they did not agree on exactly what that means regarding apartheid. Hopefully we will soon get learned articles in law journals that we can cite. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

On the particular point:-
"The International Court of Justice has established that certain human rights obligations apply to Israel, including in relation to the occupied territories. It has established a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which prohibits racial segregation and apartheid. However, … the ICJ has not decided on one of the two options." ] (]) 19:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

We now have some more detailed legal analysis. Confirms "a breach of Article 3 could refer to racial segregation, apartheid, or both. This is seen in the Separate Opinions, some of which considered the finding of a breach of Article 3 as a finding of apartheid; others believing the Court had not made such a finding."
Also, as regards the still ongoing CERD proceedings "CERD has yet to reach a final decision in this case. With a strong finding of a breach of Article 3 from the ICJ and several judicial opinions interpreting this as a finding of apartheid, this may well create a platform for CERD to determine the issue." & "The questions put by UNGA to the Court ‘concern Israel’s "discriminatory legislation and measures" under international human rights law and not apartheid as an international crime." "the Opinion considered that the Apartheid Convention and Rome Statute 'can inform the interpretation of Article 3 of CERD'". ] (]) 15:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

"For example, regarding whether Israel’s policies and practices amount to apartheid, the Court stated that Israel violates the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid set in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), but did not specify which elements of the article Israel violated. In separate declarations they published, some of the majority Judges explicitly state that Israel is implementing an apartheid policy, while others assert that the Court did not make such a determination or that there is no basis for such a claim. ] (]) 16:12, 2 August 2024 (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)
:I would personally deprioritize German and Israeli sources. ] (]) 07:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
::These aren't direct government sources, but legal professors, thinks tanks – the usual commentators. ] (]) 07:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
:::The German source above is an official statement by the German spokesperson for the Federal Foreign Office, while the other Israeli source is the ] which has every interest in downplaying the ICJ ruling. Just as I wouldn't trust a South African think tank or US government in the 1980s to comment on apartheid in SA. ] (]) 08:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
::::No, it's reporting and commentary on it by a professor. Check it. ] (]) 08:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::Though specifically quoting the German government on page obviously wouldn't be particularly useful. ] (]) 08:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm not saying they are good sources, and there are certainly caveats that would be worth discussing in their use, but your initial statement was cavalier. ] (]) 08:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::True, but since these two examples hold fringe opinions they should not be taken as seriously as the rest of the sources. ] (]) 09:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::The "best" one (in the sense of having the deeper analysis, not just the opinion but how it relates to the ongoing CERD case) is the second one but the others are not "bad". What we are seeing is a slow but steady accumulation of material explaining the advisory opinion as it relates to this particular article. There are two salient points I would say, the first being that only certain of the ICJ judges have said that the breach of Article 3 constitutes apartheid and that what the various judges have said may well have some impact on the ongoing CERD case and the outcome there.
::::::At any rate it is quite clear that some commentators jumped the gun, notably HRW, altho it was only a press release. ] (]) 09:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::. ] (]) 16:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::What may turn out to be more important as time goes on, is the attitude of third states to the advisory opinion and whether they consider themselves bound to act on it. Opinion formers such as have a role to play there, see as well . Also see . ] (]) 09:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
gives quotes from some of the judges on the subject. ] (]) 17:10, 9 August 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 {{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)
The ad hoc conciliation commission has produced its report/appendices, available , and . We will have to wait for secondary reporting filtering it all but the recommendations look a lot like giving up and passing the buck to CERD/UNSC, that's just my opinion tho. ] (]) 13:13, 23 August 2024 (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 ==
:Report seems to also say that Israel is in breach of article 3 of the convention in both its apartheid and racial segregation aspects: "44. The commission, having considered the serious allegations raised by the State of Palestine under article 3 of the Convention regarding discriminatory practices and policies of racial discrimination and apartheid committed by Israeli authorities, recalls that in recommendations addressed to Israel, the Committee has urged the State party to take immediate measures to prohibit and eradicate such policies or practices which severely and disproportionately affect the Palestinian population in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and which violate the provisions of article 3 of the Convention." ] (]) 17:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
::I did notice that slightly ambiguous wording, I think CERD itself, (rather than the conciliation commission, whose job really was to get the sides to reconcile), needs to step up here and clarify the state of play having regard to ICJ AO. We'll see. ] (]) 17:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)


Hi @],
== Move ==


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)
So how does this work now? Can I have the honor of moving the page? {{ping|SafariScribe}} ] (]) 09:08, 5 August 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)
:Needs admin to move it, requested. ] (]) 09:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
::It makes more sense in context, but it's still tangential. If you go to "American views", it's there currently:
:@], Selfstudier has answered you. Also, you can't move the page because you are ], hence it must require another editor in a good standing (also not involved) to move the article. The move was delayed because it is a contentious topic that will '''''only''''' require an admin to move the article. Cheers! <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span><sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 11:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
::{{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)


== Social stratification == == 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.
Do we have any content on the social stratification; the hierarchal rights of Palestinians of GZ, EJ, WB, Israel, and the diaspora? ] (]) 10:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)


(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)
:Try the Amnesty report Section 5 p61 et seq. ] (]) 13:40, 5 August 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)
== Old moves template ==


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>
I noticed that the most recent move is noted in its own banner at the top of this Talk, separated from the list of other moves several banners above it. Would someone be willing to rectify this? (Or is this intentional? for some reason I'm not grasping?) I would do it myself but I don't quite understand how the {{tl|old moves}} template works. It also looks like the discussion links all need to be updated. --] (]) 19:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)


: 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)
:{{Half done}}. Thanks. There is still work to do regarding the links. ] should be used. —] 09:50, 17 August 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)
== Lede ==
:::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}}
{{ping|GhostOfNoMan}} Can you explain your edits and its relation to your edit summary? ] (]) 12:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)


== Request for Sources and Balanced Representation ==
:Ah, my apologies – I realise now you were introducing the change and the diff in that discussion was your self-rv. I thought I was reinstating the agreed-upon wording; I should've read more carefully. I've undone my edit. <span style="border: 1px solid red; padding: 2px;">]</span> 12:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|GhostOfNoMan}} Thanks. ] (]) 10:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC) {{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)
== Tags ==
{{Hab}}


== I believe that the revised version of this article fails to maintain absolute impartiality and neutrality based on both sides. ==
{{re|ABHammad}} Kindly explain the added tags (and why there are several for apparently the same thing)? ] (]) 08:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)


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)
:I reverted @]'s changes as the phrasing is backed by RS and has long-standing consensus. Ideally they should discuss this change here before applying that label. ] (]) 08:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::I reverted the tags, I agree there is a major problem with the current wording. This article is written like apartheid is a fact in Israel but this is obviously contested. Why is Misplaced Pages the only mainstream source in the west that says this like a fact? ] (]) 10:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Apartheid is fact per every international human rights organization including ] (]) 10:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Using human rights watch interpretation of the ICJ does not mean that "the world's foremost court" have decided such if they didn't say it clearly. And any way there's much to the world beside the ICJ. Give me one Western liberal country that adopted this usage? thanks ] (]) 10:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Why are "Western liberal" countries the authority? It's the consensus of human rights organizations. ] ] 11:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Human rights organizations have their own (deep) biases. It is not only there isn't consensus among western liberal democracies and main media sources, I don't think any of them has ever endorsed this claim. I think it shows that the usage of apartheid in regards to Israel is primarily a talking point of activists, politicians, and progressive groups, and except those, the allegations are viewed as extremely fringe. ] (]) 11:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Governments are not reliable sources. Human Rights Watch is a . There is no equivalency. ] (]) 11:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::An article wide tag is not necessary if the complaint is adequately addressed by inline tags so I removed that.
:::::::The opinion of any {{tq|Western liberal country}}, in other words, politicians, are noted but not relevant.
:::::::The ICJ has concluded that Israel is in breach of article 3 of the convention and "Article 3 obligates governments to prevent, prohibit, and eradicate all racial segregation and apartheid".
:::::::Subsequently the UNGA has passed a resolution (this is not yet in the article afaics) stating "Calls upon all States to comply with their obligations under international law, inter alia, as reflected in the advisory opinion.." and "systemic discrimination based on, inter alia, race, religion or ethnic origin in violation of the relevant rules of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention,3 the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 4 the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights5 and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination6 and customary international law".
:::::::If there is anything left to decide, it is how exactly to summarize the cumulative opinions of NGOs such as Amnesty, the ICJ/UNGA view, and potentially, the ICC view "Salam’s discussion of the crime should be studied by relevant criminal justice authorities, including the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor, as it outlines the legal framework needed to investigate the crime of apartheid." ] (]) 11:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Framing the current situation as apartheid in WP:VOICE, solely based on the views of human rights groups whose worldviews increasingly diverge from Western mainstream perspectives, is problematic and has no real impact on the ground. There is a clear reason why the Western world, the only part of the world that actually cares for human rights, including not just governments but also major news outlets, has not endorsed these apartheid allegations—and that is what truly matters in reality. The only countries that endorsed the claims of apartheid (and genocide, and ethnic cleansing, and all the other terms commonly used in recent propaganda) are, ironically, countries like Iran and Syria, which are not very known for their human rights record. ] (]) 12:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Latest 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