Talk:Apartheid/Israel


The talk below has been archived from Talk:Apartheid

I know the term originated in South Africa, but recently:

  • apartheid was made a "human rights" violation, even for something as minor as not letting people organize a labor union
  • a new supranational count (the ICC) claims jurisdiction to prosecute human rights violations everywhere in the world, even countries which did not ratify the ICC treaty
  • my POV is that there's a trick here: the ICC/apartheid thing will be used selectively against Israel

Ed Poor

A "trick"? Are Israel guilty of apartheid or aren't they? If they are, shouldn't they be made to stop doing it? GrahamN

If there is large enough group of people (e.g., Arabs in general or a specific Arab group or leader) who thinks Israel is guilty of apartheid, please mention this in the article. Suppose, for example that Mustapha Muhammed (to pick a name out of thin air) believes that Israel discriminates against Palestinians by not letting them form labor unions. Simply add that to the article. I would say something like:

The UN definition of "apartheid" includes preventing an ethnic group from forming a labor union. Mustapha Muhammad, deputy commissinor of labor for the Palestinian Authority says that Israel is preventing Arabs in the West Bank from forming labor unions. They abolished the Hamas Haberdashers and Rug-Weavers local 319 in Jenin this summer.

Okay? Ed Poor

Okay. I will do some research. In the mean time I will delete the reference to Israel. GrahamN

I've put the Israel paragraph back in, citing Desmond Tutu's April 2002 speech and providing links to its text. This was immediately vandalised by pro-Israel propaganda:
"It has sometimes been argued, by supporters of the Palestinian cause..."
The limitations Israel imposed upon the Palestinians are not shared by Israeli Arabs; supporters of Israel, therefore, claim that the Israeli policies are caused solely by political and military reasons, pending the institution of an independent Palestinian state or state-like entity.
I've deleted the above on the grounds that this article is about apartheid, not about presenting an Israeli POV. Jacob
You bring a charge here against Israel (that is, a POV saying that Israel's policies are Apartheid). Please be so kind as to entertain a counter-argument, or delete the discussion entirely. --Uri
Actually, the NPOV doesn't require "balance". It only requires that the contributor attribute the point of view to its actual author. So if some international organizations have redefined "genocide" or "apartheid" to include Israels actions in the so-called "occupied territories", we need only report which organizations advocate these definitions. Even though you and I know they are 100% wrong, we can't use the Wikipedia as a bully pulpit. --Ed Poor
That's true, but I didn't delete (the reference to) Tutu's statement. I merely indicated the existence of 2 other views (one belonging to most countries world-wide and the other to Israel). Not mentioning them would also be wrong, since they are important to the discussion. --Uri
Mention all the POVs you want. I read Tutu's statement, and although it starts off well I think he veers into liberation theology, which I despise. It is, however (a) his point of view and (b) representative of many anti-Israeli folks. So it merits inclusion, as in: Tutu says that Israel that Israel's only alternatives to giving up the "occupied territories" are "genocide" or eternal "stalemate". (source here) --Ed Poor

Beginning of the partizan text It has sometimes been argued by supporters of the Palestinian cause, for example, Archbishop Desmond Tutu in a speech in Capetown in April 2002 - that the state of Israel is guilty of this crime, with regard to its treatment of the Palestinians on areas captured during the Six-Day War. In particular, they have been accused of breaching paragraphs (a)(iii), (c), (d) and (f) of Article II.

The text below is not, by any stretch of the imagination, NPOV. It is opinion, and unsourced/unreferenced opinion at that. If there are those who have a contrary opinion then kindly reference them. For example, if "most governments world-wide" disagree then finding quotes from half a dozen governments shouldn't be too hard, should it? The second paragraphi is pure commentary - which, again, needs to be referenced and attributed.
You may not like it, but it is NPOV. The Israeli settlements page lists specifically which governments and international bodies regard Israel's control of the territories as military occupation. The status of civilians under Fourth Geneva Convention is by definition not equal to citizenship, which is a significant insight on why criticism against Israel is confined mostly to private bodies. Secondly, what's the "pure commentary" in the second paragraph? It merely describes the way the Israeli public feels. See for instance [www.israelnewsagency.com/mfa10.23.html], [1]--Uri
Is it sourced? Is it referenced? What is your evidence that this is a claim of "supporters of Israel"? Has there been an opinion poll? If so, reference it. Any opinion or comment which is not sourced/referenced is commentary - and an encyclopaedia is no place for commentary.
I (Uri Yanover) claim that this is the opinion shared by the majority of the Israeli public. It has been represented on these pages, in particular by an Israeli government official. That was good enough for your references; that's also good enough for me.
If you can source/reference these opinions then, by all means, do so, as "X claims that Israel does not practice apartheid because Y (source)", or similar. Until a claim can be sourced (and I note you've added some links above in the edit-clash just now) then it shouldn't appear in an encyclopaedia, which is supposed to be a repository of facts. An opinion is not a fact - but it can be a fact that "X" (where "X" is some person or group of note) *holds* an opinion "Y".
In that case, however, I demand that you reference the exact legal status of the accusations against Israel (preferably with a lawyer knowledgeable in international law), and also bring a precise list of which organizations have supported this claim. You should also indicate in which cases the claims were revoked (see UN resolution about Zionism), and in which cases it was accompanied with openly anti-Semitic acts and declarations (see the PLO effort at Durban which included selling coppies of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion) --Uri
What's this "in that case" supposed to mean? If you're saying that you doubt the NPOV of citing articles, then fine - perhaps that does need to be researched. That is a very different claim from what you have been making so far, however (i.e. that presenting your own opinion is a reasonable thing to do in an encyclopaedia article).
You're declaring certain standards for writing the article. If you demand them for the Israeli POVs - they must also work for the Palestinian ones. Presenting an opinion which I share with the rest of the Israeli public as an Israeli opinion seems good enough to me. Other Wikipedians have done it repeatedly and with much success.
OK, I've now had a look at the links you noted above. The first has Peres, when asked whether Israel practices apartheid, basically not answering the question. I can't see how that is relevant to your commentary. The second is a press pack from the World Union of Jewish Students, which presents their opinion with no facts to back it up. But, fine, why not say "But the World Union of Jewish Students disagrees (source)"?
Peres clearly stated that the restrictions on the Palestinians are to be cancelled when they stop terrorism. This makes the Israeli policy not race- but security-oriented. As to the view by World Union of Jewish Students, it is also shared by the great majority of Israelis.
As for your latest edit-added points - please do try to keep an eye on what we're supposed to be doing here (i.e. producing a NPOV encyclopaedia article, not a personal hobby horse for Uri).
Jacob, your persistence on personal warfare seems obscure to me; I do not share it. --Uri
Most governments world-wide would not support this view, due to their declared stance that the West Bank and Gaza constitute territories under military occupation, meaning their status of civilians inside them is by definition different from that of the Israeli citizens.
The limitations Israel imposed upon the Palestinians are not shared by Israeli Arabs; supporters of Israel therefore claim that the Israeli policies are caused solely by political and military reasons, pending the institution of an independent Palestinian state or state-like entity.


Ed - I'm afraid Tutu does clearly draw a parallel between Israel's treatment of Palestinians and apartheid. Take this quote, for example: "I've been very deeply distressed in my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us blacks in South Africa. I have seen the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about"

Re-editing Tutu's meaning to avoid offending Israelis does neither him nor Wiki any service.

Archibishop Desmond Tutu, a leading anti-apartheid campaigner in South Africa, stated, in a speech about Israel, "I've been very deeply distressed in my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us blacks in South Africa. I have seen the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about." (speech in Cape Town, April 2002 [2])

This seems to have been put here as an example of someone criticising Israel for apartheid. While Tutu is very critical of Israel here, he doesn't make that accusation, so I think this quote is out of place. It could be appropriate to look for a quote from someone who is actually attempting to use the term apartheid (as legally defined) against Israel - for example an Arab leader. But here I think Tutu was misrepresented, so I removed it. I also removed the following quotation from Shimon Peres, which is equally out of place until we can put it in it's proper context in this article:

When asked about the policies regarding Palestinians, Shimon Peres, at a time Prime Minister of Israel and at the time of the interview the Foreign Minister, has replied: "We don't look upon it as a punishment, and we are trying all the time to look for ways and means to enable them to move freely and to work. And even now, under the terrible tension, we have introduced many measures to ease life. The minute they will control terror, that minute they will become totally free". [www.israelnewsagency.com/mfa10.23.html]

I removed this until our discussion is over and we paste the opinions - all opinions - back in. Presenting just Tutu's opinion is an attack against Israel, "guilty till proven innocent". That's unilateral and unfair. --Uri
No - I am presenting the opinion, referenced and sourced, of a prominent anti-apartheid campaigner. Nothing more, nothing less. It's even a direct quote. If there are contrary opinions then state them similarly. But to claim that NPOV means silencing any opinion critical of Israel is nonsensical. And, frankly, distasteful.
I see no reason to claim that this is not NPOV, and every reason to state clearly and succinctly that it is. I will re-place this quote shortly, unless a convincing argument is given otherwise. And by "convincing argument", I mean one from a third party, such as Ed Poor. Ed - where do you stand on this specific quote?
This is not NPOV when brought alone, as it presents a criticism which is left unanswered. Look for example at Palestinian views of the peace process. How would you feel if I deleted all "pro-peace" quotes? --Uri
Then answer it with counter-quotes, properly sourced and referenced.
Fairly well. --Uri
Some advocates seek to use this law against Israel, saying its treatment of Arab Palestinians violates it. Others disagree, claming that military occupation is a different case.

Is this supposed to be NPOV? Can't you see what you are doing here?! --GayCom

Sounds NPOV to me. -- Zoe
Then I can only give up. Try reading the article, and see how out of place it is. A rather vicious counterattack to an attack that isn't even any longer there. --GayCom

OK, I reckon the current version looks fine now - a clear statement, one from each POV and neither written in a biased fashion, followed by two quotes, one from each POV and each clearly attributed and referenced - and each from comparable speakers, with no extraneous comment or insinuations as to which is "correct".

Well actually there's a third POV. There's one belonging to Tutu, another belongs Peres, and the third is a logical consequence of the "Territories are occupied" stance. --Uri

Most countries and international organizations have declared their treatment of West Bank and Gaza as territories under Israeli occupation; since apartheid-like policies can only be applied to the citizens within a single country, a logical conclusion would be that these parties would not characterize the Israeli policy as apartheid.

Okay, I think this is a rather weird statement to have as part of an Apharteid article. As for my own POV, I'm actually kind of delighted, because it reads like a 5 year old's self-satisfied excuse for having eaten cookies on a weekday, and makes the POV it's pursuing look silly. :)
But my point today here is that this article in its entirety is beginning to look very strange because of all the Israel-related information. That part probably needs to be that long in order to be balanced - so what we really need to do now is expand the rest of the article, to reduce absurdity. I'll put it on my watch list and try to do something about it, but I'm really not very knowledgable on the area, so please help out everyone. -- GayCom


Yes this is silly - Apartheid is a specific thing and there should not be much mention of Israeli-related stuff. I will take a look at the article and hack out whatever seems to be off-topic. --mav 16:40 Aug 6, 2002 (PDT)

Ay-yay-eye! Ah well, here's the paragraph:
Most countries and international organizations have declared their treatment of West Bank and Gaza as territories under Israeli occupation; since apartheid-like policies can only be applied to the citizens within a single country, a logical conclusion would be that these parties would not characterize the Israeli policy as apartheid.
OK, there may be a case for mentioning this, if you want to open up the whole Israeli-arabs and arab-only/jews-only villages, and the whole Israel Land Administration [3] can-of-worms, none of which - I feel - really belongs here.
No, it probably does not, but if we bother to mention Israel, we should mention all sides of the issue. As to ILA, you're forgetting that in general both Arabs and Jews can settle anywhere there want (which is the conslusion of one Suprme Court case several years ago), and that there are mixed cities (Haifa, Nazareth).
On the paragraph itself, I think we'd need an actual source, and it would probably make clear that this is a legal technicality/semantic quibbling, since non-Israeli Palestinians are treated as "protected persons" under the 4th Geneva Convention, and thus the Israeli government has legal responsibility for ensuring that their rights under that convention are assured.
Yes, but the status of civilians under Fourth Geneva Convention is by definition different from citizenship; their rights under the convention are not the same as the right of regular citizens. So it's either you either recognize Israel's takeover of the territories, and claim it's an apartheid, or you don't recognize but then the treatment would be different anyway. --Uri