Talk:Israeli apartheid

Not only "Hafrada"

The page should mention that there are different teminologies regarding the barrier. While some rather calling it "seperation wall", Israeli officials prefer to use the term "security fence" instead. Well perhaps we could use a better 'terminology' and 'analogy' about the 'nature' of Israel's 'occupied territories', an abstract neutered concept, as defined in Oxford dictionary; con·cen·tra·tion camp. /ˌkänsənˈtrāSHən ˈˌkamp/ "A place where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities..."

A discussion on the scope of this article is needed

This article's scope seems to be primarily about various people making analogies to apartheid, and I feel like there needs to be a separate article about the actual system of apartheid itself now that many prominent human rights (HR) organizations have explicitly referred to Israel's HR violations as apartheid. The topic of Israeli apartheid has developed rapidly since 1 February 2022, in large part due to Amnesty International, one of the largest HR organizations in the world, declaring Israel to be guilty of apartheid. This article focuses too much on the analogy itself, and gives WP:UNDUE weight to various government officials talking about whether or not it is appropriate to call Israel apartheid in general, rather than a focus on the actual HR abuses that constitute apartheid according to the HR organizations. I don't think that Amnesty International's article (https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/) written by human rights experts needs to be balanced with the Israeli foreign minister or some other non-scholarly government official essentially saying "nuh-uh". That's WP:UNDUE weight. Instead, WP:NPOV (specifically, WP:VOICE) requires fair and proportionate balance of views and focus on actual subject matter experts (HR organizations) and not simply what notable people think. I use the Uyghur genocide article as comparison, which is what I used as a template for writing the Israeli apartheid article (this is a link to my sandbox on what I think an Israeli apartheid article should look like). The Chinese government, which disagrees with the characterization of genocide, has its views in the article, but ultimately, the article itself focuses on the HR abuses documented in the sources and references. In the same way, an article about Israeli apartheid should focus on the actual HR abuses primarily, and give space for people who deny the human rights abuses, but the scope of the article should not be formatted as a kind of debate between human rights experts and the non-expert foreign ministers of various countries expressing their views. Note that it is called Uyghur genocide despite there being no consensus among WP:RS that the HR violations in China constitute a genocide. It is not called "China and the genocide analogy" with a focus on who and when people are comparing (or disagreeing with) the Chinese government's HR violations to genocide. In the same way, there needs to be an article that primarily focuses on Israel's HR violations that various HR groups have categorized as a system of apartheid. The reason for this is because Israel's HR violations collectively have the WP:COMMONNAME of apartheid, and this is something that simply did not exist way back in 2006 when this article was first created, which is over a decade prior to major HR organizations assigning the apartheid label.

For this reasons, I'm asking for a discussion on what needs to be done.

• Option A: This article continues to exist, but has its scope narrowed exclusively to pre-2021 analogies to apartheid that predate major HR organization characterizations of Israeli HR abuses as apartheid, and a separate new article of Israeli apartheid focuses primarily on the HR violations that the HR organizations say constitute apartheid.
• Option B: This article is moved to Israeli apartheid and its scope is altered accordingly to focus primarily on the HR abuses and not the opinions of various people on whether or not the HR abuses constitute apartheid.
• Option C: Status quo.
• Option D: Something else (please specify in your replies).

I'm looking forward to working with people on improvements to the coverage of Israeli apartheid on Wikipedia. --JasonMacker (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• Option B - but the target should be Israel and the crime of apartheid so that concerns that the title is claiming something are assuaged. But we do not need, nor have we ever needed, a repository of unqualified opinions on this or any other topic. This should focus on what serious sources say about whether or not, and how and why or how not or why not, Israel's actions constitute violations of the prohibition on the crime of apartheid. It wouldn't even need a radical refocusing, most of the article is already about that. Not about an analogy, a silly title that nearly all involved agreed was silly but was the only thing that could be relatively stable when this article was in fact mostly a repository of unqualified opinions. But that day has come and gone, and an abundance of serious sources discuss Israel actions as constituting acts of apartheid. And that should be the scope of this article. nableezy - 20:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
• Option B - also agree that the target should be Israel and the crime of apartheid, and the 'analogical' material that at the present largely involves comparisons to South African apartheid – which is related to but not the same as the 2002 Rome Statute crime of apartheid – should be split off into another narrowly focused, suitably named article about that specific comparison. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment If we take a look at the articles with the word apartheid in the title, we have (starting at the "top") Apartheid which is pretty much defined as South African apartheid although there is a small poorly sourced section at the bottom about the "crime". Then we have Apartheid (crime) which is obvious but it includes a list of countries under a heading "Accusations of apartheid by country"; of those countries, besides Israel, which have an associated main, there is Apartheid in South Africa which just redirects to Apartheid, Sudan and the apartheid analogy which redirects to War in Darfur#Allegations of apartheid and Saudi Arabia and the apartheid analogy which redirects to Human rights in Saudi Arabia along with a couple other (China, Qatar) linking out to HR titles and a few others less specific. Idk myself how many of these actually meet the crime definition.

• So, apart from South Africa and Israel, they all link out to HR titles, implying that apartheid is as well HR abuse, It is a serious human rights violation which is prohibited in public international law, HR abuse++ if you like. Then where's the article covering the HR abuse in Palestine? Human rights in Israel#Human_rights_in_the_occupied_territories which has a sub section Apartheid analogy linking back to here. Duh.

• SA is a proven case and the titles reflect that, all the others essentially go to HR articles of the country that is the alleged abuser but here we have apartheid + occupation, a special case. Until such time as a UN body/ICJ (or the ICC) puts its imprimatur on the allegation, I would rather go with what is easily demonstrable right now, taking all that HR stuff out of the Israel HR article into a new article with an appropriate title, rather than attempting to change the title here. If I was forced to pick one right now, I would go with Israel, Palestine, and Apartheid[1] Selfstudier (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• Option C: Status quo. Zaathras (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  Why? nableezy - 01:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  Because "Israeli apartheid" is an accusation, not fact? Zaathras (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  I will ask the same as I have asked before, when would you consider it to be a fact? Israel ‘Is an Apartheid State,' a Quarter of U.S. Jews Say in New Poll. A third of younger voters agreed that Israel is committing genocide, a position that even human rights lawyers who are critical of Israel say is extreme; more than a third agreed that Israel is an apartheid state. Selfstudier (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  That question isnt relevant. nableezy - 21:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  I know what you mean but every time the renaming question is approached, this typifies the reaction to it. Selfstudier (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

  A quarter of US Jews don't say that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  Polls have a margin of error, true. It's a quarter, statistically speaking, not an actual quarter. Ditto the rest of the statistics from the poll. It's from last year, probably gone up since then.Selfstudier (talk) 08:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

  No, the study was not done with any sort of accuracy. The RS ripped apart this study. Further, only in Wikipedia is Haaretz considered mainstream opinion. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  Only in Israel is Haaretz not considered mainstream. It's also a paper of record, not precisely sure why, but it is.

  Which RS ripped apart this study? Here's the Guardian a couple months ago reporting the findings as fact "Support for Israeli government policies is even falling within the US Jewish community, with a poll last year finding that 25% of American Jews agreed that “Israel is an apartheid state”. Selfstudier (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  What does that have to do with this topic? Would a title Israel and the crime of apartheid alleviate your concern about the title being an accusation. Why shouldn't we have the focus be tighter, and not include "analogies" that are of little importance? nableezy - 21:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  Again, you're trying to suggest an article on something that does not exist - "Israeli apartheid". This entire topic revolves around the comparison of Israel's actions towards palestinians with the actions of S. Africa. Zaathras (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  Have you even looked at the article? The overwhelming majority of it deals with Israel and the crime of apartheid. Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy#Crime_of_apartheid_and_Israel. These are not comparisons to South Africa. These are accusations that Israel's actions constitute apartheid (crime). Not Apartheid. That is what this article already covers. nableezy - 23:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  I am well-aware of where the critics of Israel noted in the article stand, re: the 3D test, yes. Zaathras (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

  Oh dear, an unwarranted AS allegation, things must be desperate, nothing else to say then. Selfstudier (talk) 08:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Zaathras: You are really exemplifying the reasons why the Rome Statute definition and South African analogies so desperately need separating thematically. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

  On the contrary, I exemplify why the status quo is adequate. These are not separate topics. Zaathras (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

  Um, hello, Apartheid and apartheid (crime) are separate topics. If you do not understand that ok, but that is manifestly true. One is a system of oppression in South Africa, and only South Africa, one is a crime under international law. Just saying no that isnt true is asinine. nableezy - 14:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  There are articles for Apartheid and for Apartheid (crime) so they are indeed separate topics.Selfstudier (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• If we want change of scope/name we want a real RFC a not something started by editor without ECP status --Shrike (talk) 07:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  Non ecp's are allowed to contribute constructively in talk pages. It seems like a constructive contribution to me.Selfstudier (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  They not allowed to particpate are !voting like discussion anyhow any change of scope or name require a WP:rfc or WP:PCM you may start one if you want of course but that not it Shrike (talk) 08:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  And it is always preferable to have a robust discussion prior to an official RFC - in fact, the main complaint at most RFCs is the lack of prior discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  I don't have any problem with discussion but we need a real RFC to change something in the article scope/name Shrike (talk) 08:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone has said otherwise, Shrike.Selfstudier (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment:I am only raising the discussion. I will not be !voting in this. It seemed premature for me to request an RFC. I would rather that someone more experienced than me make the determination as to whether an RFC is necessary.--JasonMacker (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

If people want to maintain the status quo with this title then I would say everything that is not analogy to South African Apartheid should be moved out of this article to one focused on the crime. nableezy - 23:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable approach.Selfstudier (talk) 08:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Actually, yes, I suppose that would be a more straightforward approach than moving the article only to then split analogy content back into a newly named analogy article. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

No agreement the scope of the article is not only about south Africa but about the allegation in general Shrike (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I think we've shifted to 'accusation' at this point; 'allegation' carries the connotation of a lack of proof, when here, we clearly have entire dossiers of collated evidence. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, "you think". Your opinion does not drive article content. Zaathras (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• Option C: I see no reason for a change. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is real complex, so to understand the current situation, you have to learn history. The allegations of Apartheid are a distortion of reality, a tool used by one side to delegitimize the other; there's a good reason why some countries (mostly liberal democracies) reject it, while others (under the Arab League, OIC) promote it. Wikipedia should stay neutral, and avoid adopting one-sided terminology. I believe that a single article which describes the allegations from a balanced standpoint is more than enough. Tombah (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

  Like Zaathras (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, "you think". Your opinion does not drive article content. I think you must have meant this as a reply to Tombah, who apparently believes that Amnesty, HRW and B'tselem are tools of the Palestinians. Or perhaps you only "like" opinions that you agree with :) Selfstudier (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  Let me get this straight, when you agree with a UN agency you reject all other sources, following only theirs as in here, but when you disagree they are just agents of the Arab League? I got that right? nableezy - 14:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Yall arguing that the arguments that the UN, Amnesty International, HRW, B'tselem make are wrong. Thats fine for you to feel that, but it is a non-argument on Wikipedia. Whatever you feel about the accusations is not material that is to be discussed on Wikipedia or its talk pages. I dont give half a shit what anybody thinks about a tool used by one side to delegitimize the other, and the misuse of this page and others can reach a point of WP:DE if it continues. Discuss the content and the sources, not your feelings, because nobody cares about your feelings here. nableezy - 14:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Just because you don't like someone's opinion doesn't mean it is invalid, I'm afraid. Sorry the discussion above didn't go your way. Zaathras (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

That the parts of this page which deal with accusations of Apartheid (crime) be split into a separate page called Israel and accusations of the crime of apartheid and the remaining content of the current page be retitled to Israel and the apartheid analogy with South Africa Selfstudier (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration notified.Selfstudier (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy/Archive 42#Requested move 4 December 2021 Most recent RM.

• Support Over time, the analogy with South African apartheid, while still in some degree relevant, has been displaced in sources by accusations of the crime of apartheid. The relevant sourcing and arguments are distinct and better dealt with in separate articles. Readers may consult the previous section for background to the proposal, as well as the articles Apartheid and Apartheid (crime) for background on the distinction.Selfstudier (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support: Agree in principle, although does the renaming for this article need to be discussed separately, and would Israel and the South African apartheid analogy be better? Iskandar323 (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

No objection personally as to the title for this page, it could stay as is, if there was consensus for that. I thought it better to clarify that the analogy is with South African apartheid. Selfstudier (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Same subject. "Analogy" and "accusations" mean basically the same: opinions. Not to say that all three titles are obfuscating: a simple and clear title would be: Accusations of apartheid in Israel. This "and" clause is weird. Loew Galitz (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

  Pointless rhetoric aside, this isn't a renaming discussion, but "in Israel" would be fundamentally incorrect, because that would exclude accusations related to the West Bank. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• Opppose: The current article deals essentially with "Israeli Apartheid", though with a cleverly crafted neutral title. This article which is really written like an essay and not like an article does not really need to be split into two essays. I really struggle to see a reason for an article about a "comparison between the situation in one state to another" and an article about "a country and accusation of a certain crime". Best keep it this way. I don't think the readers really distinguish between the analogy with South Africa and the accusations and I don't think this distinction really justifies the creation of another article about essentially the same subject.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

  There are already two articles covering this distinction, Apartheid and Apartheid (crime) so that argument doesn't hold water. Selfstudier (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I totally follow the logic here. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a source of knowledge and enlightenment. If readers do not understand the different between two things, what, if not an encyclopedia, is the right resource for clarifying that lack of understanding? Is that not its principle job? The crime per the Rome Statute and the South African archetype are very separate concepts. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• I guess that's part of a deeper discussion. I have a say, but I don't see it leading anywhere productive. Dropping out of the discussion. Good luck.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Creating another article on same subject with different name is fully meaningless. This article needs urgent repair (as it falls shorth of all Wikipedia standards) and not further multiplication.Tritomex (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  Christ alive people, when did reading go out of fashion? Selfstudier provided the links to the two distinct subject here: Apartheid and Apartheid (crime). Anyone who cannot distinguish between these two really should not be commenting here, or, if they truly believe it, they should be proposing a merger between the two. For now, however, the community consensus is that these are different. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  Nothing is correct from what you said and there is no consensus for your POV. Tritomex (talk) 01:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Yes, Wikipedia distinguishes between the South African Apartheid and the Apartheid as a crime. However, as I mentioned above, in the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Apartheid allegations are so controversial and disputed that they have been rejected by most liberal democracies. However, the allegations are promoted by organizations such as the Arab League, the OIC, which are not exactly known for their commitment to human rights, and by NGOs and newspapers that regularly attack Israel and are generally seen as being far-left and anti-Zionist.

The paradox is that on the one hand, all of the West Bank's locations are listed here as being in the "State of Palestine", while on the other, the apartheid allegations are pushed so hard (and even made their way into the lede of the One-State Solution article). I bet our readers are pretty confused by now. Is there a Palestinian state? Was the two-state solution finally implemented? Or it is really a one-state? or is it maybe apartheid? What's going on in here? Are we sure this is a neutral and balanced encyclopedia? Sometime it feels like we have already endorsed the narrative of one side, and ignored the other.

To sum up, Wikipedia should stay out of this narrative war, and do not adopt the terminology used only by one of the sides. For that purpose, a single article called summarizing the main points from a neutral point-of-view is more than enough. Tombah (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• Dont care, dont think we need an article on analogies anyway. But the idea that it is "Wikipedia distinguishes between the South African Apartheid and the Apartheid as a crime" is nonsense, apartheid is a crime according to international law, and that has nothing to do with Apartheid. People are trying to bluster their way into making this a thing about western democracies versus the Arab league. Israel has been accused of a crime under international law by numerous sources. Some of them we have had RFCs to designate as reliable sources. Regardless of what happens in this article, I fully intend to create one on the actual crime and Israel, and so long as this one is titled about an analogy I will remove material not related to an analogy at that point. And that doesnt need a vote or an RFC. Nonsense such as "narratives" and "terminology of one side" is just that, and will be disregarded as non-arguments on Wikipedia. nableezy - 14:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  I did give some thought to the idea of just splitting it and be done with it but finally settled on an attempt at a consensus process. The oppose arguments at this point do not impress and the obvious problem with the current article is not going to go away regardless. Selfstudier (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  I have to say @Selfstudier, you really opened Pandora's box with this one. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say that, see the above comments. There are two articles today, one about Apartheid in South Africa, and the other about Apartheid (the crime). Personally I agree, Apartheid is Apartheid. Even so, the assertion that the West Bank situation represents an example of Apartheid is disputed, to say the least. While acknowledging the complexity of the situation in the West Bank - the Apartheid claims are entirely rejected by other liberal democracies. Sorry, but these are the facts. And that's what we should do here, on Wikipedia. Tombah (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Your "above comments" are a nice speech, nothing more. This is a discussion about a split, do try and stay on point. Selfstudier (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

That's was an answer for Nableezy. As my opinion appears in my nice speech, it must be clear by now. I oppose this split. I don't think we need more articles about apartheid in the West Bank. Tombah (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia distinguishes between the South African Apartheid and the Apartheid as a crime. This bit, you mean? So why then are you opposing the same split here? Selfstudier (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Of course it is disputed, and we would of course cover that dispute. But the topics are manifestly different. One is covering comparisons between Israel and South Africa under Apartheid. One is accusations that Israel is committing the formal crime of apartheid. And of course we would cover who rejects that accusation. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the topics are disparate, only on whether or not the accusations are accurate. And whether or not they are accurate is simply not something that we should be discussing on a talk page. Again, this is not a forum to discuss the actual topic. It is a talk page to discuss content, not argue over whether or not such and such is justified. Finally, please understand the difference between Apartheid and apartheid. Big A, Africa. Little a, international law. I am talking about little a. Yes, several governments dispute that Israel is guilty of apartheid. Several western sources, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, say that they are in fact guilty of that crime. Our article will cover all aspects of that. nableezy - 15:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. The way I see it, and the way I explained in the section of this talk page I started, is that multiple human rights (HR) organizations have accused Israel of committing systemic human rights abuses, and say that these abuses amount to apartheid. So there are two questions at play here. One is, are these human rights violations true? According the HR organizations, they are. This is simply a statement of fact from multiple reliable sources and isn't in contention. But the second question is this: Do these HR abuses constitute apartheid? That is where people disagree. I've never seen the people who deny the apartheid comparison also say that there are no HR violations in Israel. So there needs to be an article that goes into detail specifically on these HR violations that WP:RS say constitute apartheid. Then, that article can also have a section on denial and the people who deny that Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid. But the WP:COMMONNAME of those systematic HR abuses is "apartheid" these days. Laypeople who are government representatives can disagree with that designation all they want, but WP:VOICE requires us to give more weight to the actual subject matter experts. Israeli apartheid, Apartheid in Israel, Apartheid in Israel and the Palestinian territories, Israel and the crime of apartheid, or something else along those lines would have a better scope than this "Israel and the apartheid analogy" article. Amnesty International is not making an "apartheid analogy", and shouldn't be in this article. They are directly stating that Israel is guilty of HR abuses that constitute a crime of apartheid. So a better scope for an article would be something that takes that into consideration. --JasonMacker (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  HRW is WP:RS for its own properly attributed claims, not an international court that establishes someone guilt, nor are claims of any NGOS necessary correct and without many specific bias. NGOs are not more reliable sources than government official's or elected representatives and if we look on that matter the position of vast majority of world is that Israel is not involved in apartheid policy (This certainly includes whole Europe, US and I would say most if not all countries that maintains diplomatic relationship with Israel). So giving UNDUE weight to one or another NGO and placing it in position of legal judge is a POV driven argument. I would remained you that more countries equalize the apartheid analogy (by accepting IHRA definition) with Antisemitism, than claiming that Israel is apartheid state. Tritomex (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  For one, "the vast majority of the world" has not spoken on whether Israel has apartheid or not. And even if they did, ok? Wikipedia is not simply based on majority rule, but rather what people/organizations who have informed opinions have to say. The "vast majority of the world" also does not support the designation of Uyghur genocide, yet that article is still on Wikipedia. The way you're talking is as though if most countries had an official position of genocide denial (regarding Holocaust or Armenian genocide or whatever), that it would not be suitable for Wikipedia to instead focus on what historians and other academic experts say. That sounds like a violation of WP:VOICE. The vast majority of the western world (plus Japan and Israel) continued diplomatic relations with Apartheid South Africa, so I don't see why Apartheid Israel also having diplomatic relations matters or if most western nations reject the consensus of human rights experts, various human rights organizations, and other subject matter experts. WP:UNDUE actually goes against what you're saying here. That policy requires us to give more weight to experts, and not laypeople. And of course, the fact that western countries are in denial should be featured prominently in its own article (maybe an apartheid denial article akin Holocaust denial?) or a section of the article ( like Uyghur_genocide#Denial). --JasonMacker (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  I did not say that NGOs shouldn't be included in accordance of their weight in relevant articles. I said the question of Israels involvement in apartheied is primarily a legal question, based on international laws and international legal court rulings (and not an opinion of cherry picked NGOs). In every article regarding legal statuses, for example regarding Israel occupation of West Bank, the position of international community, as reflected by their officially declared positions on this legal matter is given the main weight. So my question is which states officially designed Israel as apartheid country and which judicial entity had such ruling? ? As for IHRA definition of Antisemitism, it specifically mentions this issue, and equalize the apartheid analogy with Antisemitism by saying that claims such as "The State of Israel is a racist (apartheid) endeavor" is a form of Antisemitism. This definition of Antisemitism was officially adopted by 45 UN member states and many other political and non political institutions around the globe. My question was, once again, which countries, legal entities and international institution's designed Israel as "apartheied state"? Tritomex (talk) 07:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  The NGO's are not cherry picked, there is an international consensus of NGO's on this question in relation to the occupied territories, less so in respect of Israel proper. Apartheid has nothing whatever to do with antisemitism, that is a distraction (and your comments in that respect demonstrably incorrect in any case). Nor has anyone suggested that the apartheid case has been "proven" (as in a court of law) so that is yet another distraction. Please confine your comments to the question at hand, the proposed split. Note that the material is for all practical purposes already split in the article right now. Selfstudier (talk) 09:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  Hahahaha, oh @Tritomex you made me chuckle: "NGOs are not more reliable sources than government official's". None speak true like politicians. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  On the subject of 'guilt' in a court of law, no one is proposing an article asserting guilt in a court of law. That would be only possible in a news headline-style format such as "Israel guilty of apartheid". Wikipedia simply sets the subjects alongside each other, with the facts as presented by subject-matter experts, and then lets any interested readers go figure. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  We have to establish the weight of such claims, that is why I see the question I asked as important. In the questions regarding international law, as it is extensively done on Wikipedia regarding the status of West Bank, the official position of states and international institution's (as UN and others) has the most important merit. That is why with every mentioning of anything related with West Bank, Palestine, or Gaza, we add that the "international community" sees those territories as "occupied by international law" 45 countries designed the Israel-Apartheid accusation as anti-Semitic rhetoric. They did it officially by accepting the IHRA definition [2], and I do not see any relevant international body or state claiming that Israel is in fact an "apartheid state" That is among other issues (like the poorly written article) the most important reason why this splitting is not justified. Tritomex (talk) 12:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  See above, AS/IHRA connection is garbage. Pushing such obvious and irrelevant nonsense verges on tendentious editing. And if you really want to improve the article, splitting it is the way to go.Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  Jason, your contributions are welcome but strictly speaking you should not be participating in this discussion, which counts as a formal discussion. You can comment constructively on the talk page but if you would do it in a section outside of this discussion that would be best. Thanks. Selfstudier (talk) 09:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. Jason, if you have something to say just go ahead and say it. -Daveout(talk) 12:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

This is not a "formal" discussion, this is not a noticeboard, an RM, or an RFC. nableezy - 13:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

We already had an ARCA amendment to clarify that page moves are included, the split proposal includes a possible page move. If you think we need another ARCA to formally clarify that WP:SPLIT discussions are also included in "etc" we can do that but previous discussions on the point are to my mind clear enough about the intention. Selfstudier (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, page moves are formal discussions. This is not. We dont need a formal discussion to split anything, and I honestly am not really sure what the point of this is. It legit does not matter if editors are opposed to splitting this topic, they can argue that AFD if they want to. I am 100% going to create the article on the crime of apartheid and Israel, and this section has no bearing on that. The thing worth discussing is how to remove much of the crime material from here as off-topic. nableezy - 13:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I was wondering about closing it, it has been a useful clarification and preparatory step imo. Removal of material as out of scope is justified at this stage by way of simple transfer to the existing article Apartheid (crime)#Israel. Subsequent discussion on a spin out can then take place there. Of course, I support directly creating an article as well, that was a main point in this discussion but it might be easier to go in steps.Selfstudier (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I shouldn't be using the expression "formal discussion", that's been replaced with "Internal project discussions" that "include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions." Selfstudier (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

First this is talk page, not an "editing" Second If you see IHRA definition of Antisemitism as garbage, it is your point of view and I have taken notice of it. Relevant secondary sources and relevant international bodies do not see it in such way and that is what meters to me. Tritomex (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Please read and internalize WP:OR, your personal opinions on if the IHRA definition makes it so states consider calling Israel's human rights violations apartheid to be antisemitic is completely irrelevant, and WP:FORUM forbids such misuse of a talk page. If you have a source that supports that incredibly silly idea then bring it, if not keep it to yourself. Thank you. nableezy - 13:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Non ecp editors may not participate in formal discussions, this is such a discussion. Tritomex, this discussion is about splitting the article, not your views on IHRA and other irrelevancies.Selfstudier (talk) Selfstudier (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt "Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b). This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc." Selfstudier (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

All his comments have been constructive and the 500 edits requirement is obviously meant to bar accounts created recently by bad faith actors, not editors who have been around for over a decade. It's an special case. Putting his comments in another section would only make things needlessly complicated. -Daveout(talk) 13:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

That's your opinion, get it ratified in an ARCA and I'll pay attention. Selfstudier (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I think WP:IAR has been ratified enough. -Daveout(talk) 13:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Your obviously meant to bar accounts created recently by bad faith actors exception doesn't appear in it. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Extended_confirmed_restriction Selfstudier (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I already explained that due to WP:WEIGHT issues with such accusations, splitting is not justified. Again I ask which international bodies, institution's (like UN; EU, international criminal court in Hague etc), or states have designed Israel as apartheid state and I ask for relevant secondary sources to back such parallels. Tritomex (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

What has designating Israel as an apartheid state got to do with the splitting proposal? It doesn't mention the phrase "apartheid state" anywhere? Nor does the article, if memory serves. I don't understand your argument about weight, how is splitting the article a weight issue? The proposed new article speaks of accusations, there are in fact accusations so again, I don't really understand your objection.Selfstudier (talk) 12:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

In order to create a page titled "Israel and the apartheid analogy with South Africa" by splitting this page, you need WEIGHT for such claim. If Israel is designed as apartheid country, as South Africa was, by itself or by relevant international bodies, states and institution's, such weight do exist, otherwise not. Tritomex (talk) 12:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is about the balance of material within articles. It is unrelated to WP:SPLIT. Content stands on the basis of reliable sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

If you want to keep the existing page title, I already said that for myself, I have no objection to that. It's obvious from the content that a comparison with South Africa is being made. If you are claiming that the title of the new article has no basis, it is the same material already present in the existing article and since it is present, it must have weight, no? Selfstudier (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I also think is right to do. Those accusation per WP:NPOV have right place here, but their weight do not justify a separate article under such name. Tritomex (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

In the present, the accusations of the crime are far more relevant and important (carrying far more "weight" to use your terminology) than the older analogy with South African apartheid. The majority of current sources and conversations are given over to the crime rather than the analogy.Selfstudier (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Those who compare Israel and apartheid in South Africa are doing this not out of abstract fun, but to argue that Israel is committing a crime, therefore spitting the subject in two is splitting hairs. Second, Apartheid<==Apartheid in South Africa is just a special, "namesake", case of Apartheid (crime) (and the crime definition wass based on what was observed in S.A., not as some abstract legal scholarhip ), and they are not really different subjects, but one is a subtopic of another and they are split per WP:Summary style, rather that a matter of disambiguation. Loew Galitz (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  That is not anywhere close to being true, people can compare Israel to South Africa without making any reference to what was criminalized in the Rome Statute in 2002. In fact people were making that comparison well before apartheid was ever a crime. And the people and organizations making the claim that Israel is guilty of the crime do so without referencing South Africa or Apartheid at all. nableezy - 03:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  Yes it is true. The comparison was made for the purpose of accusation. When the term become a legal term, the accusers simply got a new tool. Loew Galitz (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  I have no idea what The comparison was made for the purpose of accusation means, and the people saying Israel is guilty of the crime are not the same people who made the analogy to South African Apartheid, and the two things are not at all related except that South African Apartheid was so odious that the world agreed to criminalize such race-based systemic oppression. And now several human rights organizations and a UN Special Rapporteur have said that Israel is guilt of that crime of race-based oppression. That has nothing to do with an analogy to South Africa, which is what this article is about. nableezy - 18:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  Comparing A and B and saying that both A and B have the same bad feature means accusation that A is bad. Anyway, I think I am starting to see your point: the current article title does not match is actual scope, the latter being both analogy and crime. And I agree it is a mismatch. But my vote remains valid, because as I said earlier, the proper solution would be to rename the article (but my suggested title was not good; may be something like Accusations of Israel of apartheid). Loew Galitz (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  But the accusation of the crime is not a comparison between A and B. Thats my point, that there are people who compare South Africa under Apartheid with Israel, and that is the analogy, and there are people that accuse Israel of committing a specific violation of international law, and that is not a comparison or an analogy. It is like saying the difference between China's treatment of the Uyghurs has been analogized to the Myanmar oppression of the Rohingya, and the accusation that China is guilty of the crime of genocide in international law. They are two separate topics, popular comparisons, and specific violations of international law. nableezy - 01:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  Most groups have stated that they are not drawing a direct comparison with South Africa, but rather referring to apartheid as it is described in international law. Selfstudier (talk) 10:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  Of course they do not need to draw paralells now, after the term was made into legal framework. Loew Galitz (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  Water is also wet.Selfstudier (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you, I am done here. I am not willing to talk with people who are demonstrating smartassness. Loew Galitz (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support split will allow disentanglement of the comparison with South Africa vs the direct accusation that Israel practices apartheid, which makes up the bulk of the article. If not split it should be moved to Israel and the crime of apartheid or Israel and apartheid. (t · c) buidhe 22:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment With the proposed split, care should be taken to sort assertions and responses between those that are pre-Rome Statute (1998–2002) and post-Rome Statue. Sources that exist prior to the definition of apartheid as a crime are likely overwhelmingly about the South Africa Apartheid analogy, though I imagine there is some theoretical legal discussion about the possibility of it being defined as a crime during this period. On the other hand, post-Rome Statute sources are more much and increasingly likely with time to be about the crime. I'm sure this is obvious to some, but it will be a very important distinction to make. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Per the previous section, there aren't two topics, there is only the comparison of current Israeli practices to that of apartheid-era South Africa. What it seems like is that proponents of one side just want their own WP:POVFORK sandbox to play in. Zaathras (talk) 23:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  I wonder whether we need a Statute formalising Wikicrimes against productivity, such a blithely ignoring and then miscontruing the issues at hand in a talk page discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

  Seems we should first have an RFC to determine whether this article contains two topics :) Selfstudier (talk) 08:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• support. This should solve the long lasting discontentment with the scope of this article. The new article won't necessarily be biased, 'accused of' doesn't mean 'guilty of', and it'll obviously have a criticism section with counter-arguments to balance thing up. I have a feeling that a number of readers could be looking specifically for the latest developments of this matter... so a separate article would make things easier for them. -Daveout(talk) 18:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• Suggestion. Content for the proposed two articles cannot be easily distinguished because Apartheid crime accusations, right or wrong, are still logically related to claims for the analogy to apartheid. So, consensus on a more detailed proposal is needed before a responsible split. I suggest keeping the current article name. The section “Crime of Apartheid and Israel” could be renamed “Israel and the Crime of Apartheid” — which would then be the name of the spin-off article. (“accusation” is not a good word for titles, though of course the article would discuss accusations and defenses) Perhaps what some said above re: Option B.
• But what about all the substantive sections, eg land, education, water? How will these be covered without a POVfork outcome? Will the new article include a background section that summarizes earlier discourse about the apartheid analogy (and links back here)? (Cf. above Iskandar323 re pre-Rome)

Years back, I spent a long time working on the conflict over this article and related editing disputes. I founded Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration and from that experience, I can say I appreciate the effort with the proposal and encourage you to keep at it. Maybe create a draft to show proposed changes?

HG | Talk 05:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Dead-end Articles

This is a dead-end article. Because there is no consensus on the content of the article, any structural or major editorial change becomes impossible. Suggestions for changes that an uninvolved observer might consider neutral and noncontroversial immediately grow into voluminous discussions, never actually ending but often leading to complaints of misconduct and calls for disciplinary action.

Since the article deals with a current subject, there is perforce a need to include new developments. These developments, however trivial, immediately get blown completely out of proportion, with editors from each side adding more and more citations, factoids and conjectures (all, of course, from "reliable sources") to support their own particular spin on events. As a result, the article places excessive emphasis on the vaguely relevant while burying the crux of the issue in mountains of rhetoric.

Of course, this is not the only article stuck in a dead end. The dynamic of dead-end editing is endemic, and is inherent in the collaborative, consensus-driven model of Wikipedia. There are entire families of articles at the dead end. These articles sully the name of Wikipedia and impinge on its reputation as a reliable and useful source of information.

What can be done about this? It is, in my mind, an issue of grave importance for the entire Wikipedia community. It is an issue that requires novel and bold approaches, and perhaps an alternative to collaborative editing. Is there a discussion of this problem anywhere on any of the community forums? Might the editors of this article be a motive force for some kind of change to help us back out of the dead end? --Ravpapa (talk) 05:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I dont think there is a dead end, the answer is always try to engage more and more people. But can I ask that you be more specific? the article places excessive emphasis on the vaguely relevant while burying the crux of the issue in mountains of rhetoric. What is the vaguely relevant, and what specifically is the crux of the issue? nableezy - 05:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• crux of the issue : specific items that are presented as evidence of aparteid in Israeli state - Palestinian people relations, such as "restricted access to roads".
• mountain of rhetoric is numerous statements of various pundits that either "israel is apartheid" or "israel is not apartheid", such as "Yesh Din found meets the definition of the crime of apartheid". And Knesset found that this is bullshit. So what?
• Unless we operate with specific items, the article will grow endlessly and meaninglessly with growing number of speakers on both sides.

My suggestion is that the article structured as folloews: section "Background", section "Arguments" (there is a finite number of them) + Section "Voices": - simply a list of notable speakers with indications of their general positions, in simple words, without political babble: "YEs apartheid" / "No apartheid" / "Trying to see both sides" . And of course section "In popular culture" (Ha ha, only serious., I am pretty sure there are novels and films about which critics say that they describe the regime of apartheid. ) Loew Galitz (talk) 06:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Any talk of restructuring is somewhat secondary to the much broader topic raised on this thread of the potential need for a split. An analogy article versus a specific crime accusation article would be different creatures entirely and different structures would be needed to handle the information. Above you also miss any mention of 'evidence/examples', which is what pertain most directly to your: "crux of the issue : specific items that are presented as evidence of aparteid in Israeli state" - by "presented as", I think you mean "stated in reliable sources to be". Iskandar323 (talk) 07:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The "crux" are contained in any number of our articles, Palestinian enclaves has the roads for example (a contiguity issue affecting freedom of movement). The various reports covering the crime are simply the accumulation of all these separate specifics at a meta level. Nableezy and I have suggested two different ways out of the "deadend" dilemma, create a new article for the crime and defend it at AfD if needs be or simply transfer the crime components of this article to the existing crime article as an interim step. If anyone has another useful idea, that can be considered of course. Selfstudier (talk) 11:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Splitting the article will not solve your "dead-end" problem. Instead of one dead-end article you will have two, with ever-growing lists of opinions of pundits. Loew Galitz (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The article on the crime does not need "opinions of pundits". The article on the analogy is useless imo. nableezy - 17:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree on both points. (1) How you prevent opinions fro the article? All political controversive article have very sections "Reactions", which are nothing but opinions. Under the term "pundit" I put political commenters, state officials, organization spokespersons, tik-tok stars, etc. (2) if you think the article on analogy is useless, then why you are for split? Loew Galitz (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Im actually for creating a new article on the crime and deleting this one entirely. Or restructuring this to be just about the crime. I think you are always going to have some amount of he said she said in an article like this, but it should be required to have substantial sourcing to show that a specific view merits mention. Like the US view that the charge is completely false, that is widely covered and should be included. But we do not need random op-eds. Academic papers in peer-reviewed journals are of course not included in "he said she said". nableezy - 17:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

you also miss any mention of 'evidence/examples' - NO reason to mention: evidence/examples should be a part of the discussion of a "specific item". Loew Galitz (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

talk of restructuring is somewhat secondary - no it is not. As soon as you realize that the most encyclopedic part is specific items that are presented as evidence, you will also realize that most of them will go into both suggested articles: as items of comparison and as items of crime, i.e., it will be an unnecessary duplication of the content. Loew Galitz (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Not really. For example, the enclaves that Palestinians have been increasingly forced into through state-sponsored encroachment by settlers, zoning laws, etc. have been compared to the South African Apartheid creation of Bantustans. But such comparisons are irrelevant to apartheid as a crime, which is solely framed by legal criteria. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

There is no duplication now so there will not be any when split either, except possibly for the views of dissenters which tend to be the same regardless of which report it is and rarely address the detail anyway. The fact of the reports is in some ways more important than the precise detail within them. Selfstudier (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Little bit long, worth a look, Agnès Callamard elaborates and takes on the criticisms. As is said, pp 51 to 60 of the Amnesty report just lays it out. For balance, the completely reliable and totally predictable Jewish Chronicle getting hot under the collar about what Callamard said.Selfstudier (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Question

I want to preface my comment by making it clear that I have no dog in this fight. This is more of a question about Wikipedia and its policies. Does the proposer get to add a support vote? Seems redundant. Isn't the usual practice to explain the reason behind the proposal in the proposal statement? (PS: I am fairly new to Wikipedia and don't claim to be an expert in any way). Thank you! NebulaOblongata (talk) 07:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@NebulaOblongata: I moved your query to it's own section. Idk is the short answer, usually the opening statement for discussions is a neutral statement, RMs are excepted from this so I suppose RM's are understood to be an automatic support and don't need a specific support/oppose. Maybe it doesn't matter so much, an experienced closer is not going to have difficulty in sorting things out. If you haven't come across it, there is WP:TEAHOUSE for new users.Selfstudier (talk) 08:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Teahouse looks nice. Thanks! NebulaOblongata (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)