Talk:Israeli apartheid

This merge is repellent.

I am shocked to find that this page on the view of the alleged genocide against the Palestinians (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocide_against_Palestinians&oldid=1179969952) has been replaced and merged into this page. As mentioned by others above, allegations of genocide simply do not just fall under allegations of apartheid and the magnitude of such accusations mean that it should have its own page. Pro-Israel editors seem to have also removed most claims that Israel has committed or is committing a genocide and instead reversed them. Such claims are interesting and perhaps true in some ways, but they should not overshadow the claims against Israel. As a result, the current section on genocide below is heavily biased and one-sided. This is wrong and frankly disrespectful and disturbing. I suggest that the page ‘Genocide against Palestinians’ be restored, and that a page representing more of the other side of the argument, e.g ‘Genocide against Israelis’, could be created.

Here is the section of heavy bias:

After the rise of Islamic fundamentalist groups as political forces in the region, some scholars and pundits began using the language of genocide in discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both to describe calls for the destruction of Israel and the indiscriminate killing of civilians by Hamas and other Palestinian extremist groups, and also to describe the cumulative effect of Israeli policies in the Gaza Strip. In 2000, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights reported being "shocked by calls broadcast on Palestinian television and radio urging the killing of all Jews." Some human rights organizations and policy makers called out the commitment to destruction and violence against Jews in the Hamas Charter as incitement to genocide.

After the Israeli disengagement from Gaza in 2005 and the electoral success of Hamas, some of these concerns about genocide perpetrated by Hamas were attributed to the actions of Gaza as a whole. Since then spokespeople for both Israel and Palestine frequently accuse the other of planning a scheme of genocide. During spikes in violence in the conflict, some scholars have described attacks by Hamas as illegal under the Genocide Convention, and others such as New Historian Ilan Pappéhave compared retaliation by Israel and its overall policies in the Gaza Strip as a form of genocide, often broadening the term beyond the definitions of that convention. Scientelensia (talk) 09:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The issue is one of WP:NOTABILITY. Is there enough mention in WP:RELIABLE sources to warrant separate articles? From what I can see, there is. We appear to have a situation where one or more WP editors have ignored WP:POL. 14.2.204.143 (talk) 11:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

See Genocide against Palestinians. Selfstudier (talk) 11:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 October 2023

Perhaps somewhere in the lede there should be a link to "Israel". I mean.... 38.73.253.217 (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Solid point, done. nableezy - 03:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

thank you 38.73.253.217 (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Revert

Why you have deleted my edit? You have provided the explanation: "In article body, controversial, inappropriate for the lead".

This is already mentioned in the article: In December 2019, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination announced commencing a review of the Palestinian complaint that Israel's policies in the West Bank amount to apartheid. Soon afterwards, two Israeli human rights NGOs, Yesh Din (July 2020), and B'Tselem (January 2021) issued separate reports that concluded, in the latter's words, that "the bar for labeling the Israeli regime as apartheid has been met." In April 2021, Human Rights Watch became the first major international human rights body to say Israel had crossed the threshold. It accused Israel of apartheid, and called for prosecution of Israeli officials under international law, calling for an International Criminal Court investigation. Amnesty International issued a report with similar findings on 1 February 2022.

So, my edit: "In 2017, a report by the UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia concluded that Israel is "guilty of the crime of apartheid"." is not starting some new topic but provides additional information for what it is already said.

Keeping in mind this, I don't see how providing information from the UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia is "controversial" and why it is "inappropriate for the lead" when there are already information in the article about international and Israeli organizations claiming that Israel is an apartheid state (Zdravko mk (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)) Selfstudier (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@Zdravko mk: As you can see from the article, the 2017 report is covered in the article and that it was also not accepted officially by the UN. Therefore it is not appropriate to include a summary in the lead that says only "In 2017, a report by the UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia concluded that Israel is "guilty of the crime of apartheid". The other reports deal with the situation adequately without the need for this particular report (in the lead). Selfstudier (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Lede problem

Lede is focused more on the issue of "debates" which doesn't really summarize the body that focuses on the details of apartheid system. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The usual problem, for now, it is more about the accusation/denial than the actual facts, depressing but true. Selfstudier (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

But does that really reflect the body, as a lede should do? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Propose to remove first sentence

The first sentence in the lead does not add anything. I propose we remove it. "Israel's policies and actions in its ongoing occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn accusations that it is committing the crime of apartheid."

The first paragraph would then become: "Leading Palestinian, Israeli and international human rights groups have said that the totality and severity of the human rights violations against the Palestinian population in the occupied territories, and by some in Israel proper, amount to the crime against humanity of apartheid. Israel and some of its Western allies have rejected the accusation, with the former often labeling the charge antisemitic." DMH223344 (talk) 03:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

It does no harm to have an intro sentence tho (Tell'em whatcha gonna tell 'em). Recall that the article is titled Israel and apartheid not Israeli apartheid. Selfstudier (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

But it doesn't add anything, no? DMH223344 (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I actually think the first sentence is FALSEBALANCE. It's not just that Israeli actions have drawn accusations--every notable human rights organization and authority on the subject has stated that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid. Just because "Israel and some of its Western allies have rejected the accusation" does not mean that the characterization is legitimately called into question.

In any case, I'm not suggesting we say anything in wikivoice here. I'm suggesting that the first sentence suggests the description as apartheid is a spurious accusation. I do think "accusation" is not the right word to use here at all. DMH223344 (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the current lede structure makes sense: first we say that there are accusations, then we say who makes them and then who disputes it. Alaexis_¿question? 16:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Otherwise we have to argue about which accusing group gets named first. Starting an article about Israel with the words "Leading Palestinian" would look like we are trying to undermine the apartheid viewpoint by highlighting that some of those who hold that view have a conflict of interest. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The phrasing "Leading Palestinian" can be changed to "Leading Israeli and Palestinian". DMH223344 (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

What's the point of saying there are accusations. Why not just say what the accusations are? DMH223344 (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

It's an introductory sentence, get to the heart of the matter, which is not just the accusations but what has produced them. Selfstudier (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I still don't see how it isn't totally redundant with the sentence that follows (although somewhat awkwardly the second sentence does not mention who is performing the human rights violations). DMH223344 (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

A year ago, the first sentences were "Israel is accused by international, Israeli and Palestinian rights groups of committing the crime of apartheid under the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, both in the occupied Palestinian territories and, by some, in Israel proper. Israel and its supporters deny the charges."

Which do you prefer?

References

Selfstudier (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The current version is fine. The proposed version "Leading...." places the focus of the article on the organizations making the "accusation"; while the other proposed version "Israel is accused" has an extremely negative connotation as if the allegations are unfounded. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are one of the world's leading rights organizations and they are reliable sources per WP; we are treating their claims with the seriousness they deserve. These claims are based on years of research and meticulous reporting. These are not claims made by Facebook pages, social clubs or government with conflict of interests. Adding to what I just noted, I think it's time we go even further and refocus the article on the existing apartheid system, rather than making this an article about the debates on the issue. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of wikilink

This edit simply ignores the fact that two separate sources with quotes supporting weaponization of antisemitism in the context of apartheid accusations were added in support of the statement made and that it is therefore entirely appropriate to wikilink that statement to Weaponization of antisemitism. The newly added refs were not reverted, if the reverting editor agrees with the refs then it is difficult to see what is wrong with the wikilink. Selfstudier (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The addition of attribution to an RS that does not require one made the issue even worse by distracting from the main topic at hand-Israeli apartheid. I have reverted and waiting for the opposing editors to join the talk page discussion here so we can reach a proper agreement. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Pinging האופה to make sure they're aware of this discussion. Do we feel the body of sources is strong enough that we can say in wikivoice that Israel is engaging in weaponization of antisemitism when it calls apartheid accusations antisemitic? If so, we should summarize those sources in the body of the article and make the claim explicitly in the lead. If not, then we need to attribute. I tried to get at the fact that it's not just Amnesty International, but I'm also sensitive to taking up too much space in the lead with this issue. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, I only looked explicitly for the specific phrase but we all know what it means and what it is referring to. If we don't require the use of the specific phrase, I think it should be quite easy to source the fact that allegations of antisemitism in relation to apartheid accusations are being made for political purposes. Selfstudier (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

So, in a nutshell, the first paragraph says this: Israel is accused of apartheid, which is really severe, a crime against humanity. Only its "Western allies" think it's wrong (... so it must be true), and Israel itself says the allegation is antisemitic, but according to the very groups making the accusation, Israel is weaponizing the term antisemitism, so why care. and that's supposed to be a neutral intro. Sorry for being sarcastic, but the state of this article is... ridiculous. The intro paragraph is a one big POV violation. I propose we team up to enhance the neutrality of this article. I agree with what Firefangledfeathers is suggesting above: The weaponization thing is taking too much space in the lead. IMO, it is totally one-sided, making this undue. HaOfa (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

If it had been left as I left it, it wouldn't be a problem. Take up issues with the neutrality of the article in another section if desired, this section is just about the Weaponisation thing. Selfstudier (talk) 10:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

This discussion went stale and now we're back to edit warring. I'm thinking to seek some outside opinions, maybe from WP:NPOVN. Anyone have a different preference? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

It is a fact that reliable sources cover weaponized accusations of antisemitism in the context of apartheid and I cannot see why a wikilink is causing so much angst, well I can but it is of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT variety. I don't think this is a question of attribution, after all, what else would you call it? "Politically motivated/bad faith accusations of antisemitism"? On WP, if editors went around doing that, we'd wheel out aspersions and blocks posthaste. Selfstudier (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Let's assume for a second that I actually have NPOV concerns, and not just IDONTLIKEIT concerns. Given that assumption, would you rather I raise the question at WP:NPOVN or another location? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to your good self, other than in respect of attribution. I don't think it needs raising elsewhere, editors wishing to contest the lead as it stands can raise an RFC with this convo as RFCbefore. That's the most straightforward way to proceed as well as involve more editors. Selfstudier (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I would also be fine with an RfC. How about a question like:

Should the lead include or remove the wikilink to Weaponization of antisemitism in the line "Israel and some of its Western allies have rejected the accusation, with Israel often labeling the charge antisemitic."? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Selfstudier (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Wikilink to Weaponization of antisemitism

Should the lead include or remove the wikilink to Weaponization of antisemitism in the line "Israel and some of its Western allies have rejected the accusation, with Israel often labeling the charge antisemitic."? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Survey (Wikilink RfC)

• Remove. If the link is included, we'll be making a wikivoice claim that when Israel labels the apartheid charges antisemitic, it is engaging in weaponization of antisemitism. This claim is unmentioned in the body of the article. Two sources were added (to the lead only) to support the claim:
  1. This Amnesty International article, originally published as an opinion piece in Politico. Per WP:RSP, AI is a generally reliable source, though the summary goes on to say "in controversial cases editors may wish to consider attribution for opinion". It's not clear if AI itself supports the weaponization claim, since the source itself attributes the claim as an argument made by "12 Israeli human rights organizations".
  2. A tweet from Kenneth Roth. Though obviously self-published, Roth is a subject-matter expert, having led Human Rights Watch for many decades.
  I don't think this body of sourcing is strong enough to support a wikivoice claim. If we determine that it is, I would rather be clear about the claim and not make it via an eggy link, and I'd rather see it mentioned in the body and then summarized in the lead. If we decide attribution is needed, I think that's fine, as long as the additional wordage necessary for attribution doesn't overweight this aspect of the subject. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep nothing extraordinary about the linking and is supported by RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, a well-known fact, let me know how many RS are needed, because they are aplenty at the fingertip.[1][2][3][4] Wikipedia can state well-published facts in its own voice. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• Remove The premature attempt to shoehorn this term in this article appears to be a part of a soapboxing effort to promote a potentially WP:FRINGE and WP:POVTITLE use of a term whose actual definition is currently being debated on the parent article's talk page. Should remain off this page until that debate is concluded.Mistamystery (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• Remove. Wikilinking would essentially mean that the rejection of these accusations is always done for political purposes. Obviously no sources make this claim. It's better to not try to make a point by wikilinking but rather to write it explicitly "Israel and some of its Western allies have rejected the accusation, with Israel often labeling the charge antisemitic (in the lede, no wikilinking) "X, Y and Z consider the accusations of antisemitism to be an example of weaponization of antisemitism (not in the lede, because the lede should summarise the article). Alaexis_¿question? 20:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• Remove per the arguments made above, particularly by @Alaexis and @Firefangledfeathers. It either goes beyond or improperly simplifies the body, in a way that is at best not fully supported by a due weight of RS. I strongly doubt that there is enough content to allow a complete explanation, and a link to a page would be improper as well. FortunateSons (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Firstly, no-one is arguing with the sentence per se, only whether the wikilink is appropriate. I would also support the revised wording as suggested by @Gitz6666: in the discussion section

  Attempts by Israel and some of its Western allies to dismiss accusations of apartheid as antisemitic have been denounced as a way of silencing legitimate criticism.

  . I frankly do not understand such misplaced comments such as shoehorning, soapboxing, fringe in the given context, it is a perfectly valid wikilink for the given sentence (or for the suggested one or for any other consensus wording). Selfstudier (talk) 11:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
• Remove. Wikilinks should not be surprising to the reader per WP:EASTEREGG; when they click on "labeling the charge antisemitic", I bet they are not looking for an insight into weaponization of antisemitism. That wikilink would add meaning to the sentence by offering an interpretation and critique of Israel's official discourse. As explained below, I would instead agree to include the wikilink to weaponization of antisemitism if the sentence were phrased a bit differently. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• Remove It is unneutral to dismiss Israel's response as weaponization, even if some sources say so. Wikipedia simply should not take sides in the conflict. Galamore (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep In addition to the sources cited above there are additional sources such as David Hirsh [5] that discuss Israeli weaponization of antisemitism quite explicitly. Simonm223 (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  Do you believe the existence of this source (and several others) means our article can use Wp:voice to label Israel's response to the apartheid claims as a case of weaponization? This view exists, but it doesn't mean we should present it as a fact. Galamore (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Wikilinking an article is not presenting the claim as fact, this is a fundamental misunderstanding here. Currently the article says "with Israel often labeling the charge antisemitic", which is a true statement. Now some are arguing that wikilinking that means that we are stating that those accusations are a weaponziation. But that's not correct, it is a wikilink to an article where that is discussed. The wording can be tweaked a la Gitz to make that more clear "Attempts by Israel and some of its Western allies to dismiss accusations of apartheid as antisemitic have been denounced as a way of silencing legitimate criticism", the wikilink can equally be inserted there. Selfstudier (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Precisely. Frankly it's a neutral and balanced approach to the issue. Simonm223 (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep the wikilink Other editors have provided more than sufficient WP:RS to demonstrate that it's supported. TarnishedPath^talk 13:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep a link and reference to it in some form, since it's a central part of the discussions over that aspect of the topic and is at least as significant as Israel's position itself; however, I would be open to rewording it ala the suggestion by Gitz6666 below - something that makes it clear that it is a response or descriptor, possibly describing it as attributed / described opinion or just generally describing it as a response, presuming more specific attribution exists in the body. --Aquillion (talk) 03:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per above GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 02:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
• Remove, because such a link is itself a claim that Israel's labeling it that is an example of said "weaponization", while that claim is not in the text. If such a claim is actually supported by a large majority of RS, it should be in the text, not just a link; conversely, if it is significantly disputed, then such a claim cannot be smuggled into the encyclopedia via linking as though it is the sole mainstream position, but should be described with in-text attribution (e.g. Israel and some of its Western allies have rejected the accusation, with Israel often labeling the charge antisemitic. Critics of Israel argue that this constitutes a weaponization of antisemitism.) There is no scenario whatsoever in which linking can properly be used to make factual claims aside from what is in the text. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• Remove due to neutrality - but the link should be kept in a different context. The usage of the link in that context violates NPOV, but it should still be mentioned. I agree with Alaexis that both Israel's and others' points of view should be included, to say that Israel alleges antisemitism, and that others accuse Israel of weaponizing antisemitism, without giving precedence to either allegation.. RAGentry (talk) (contributions) 18:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Remove, this clearly violates NPOV. The very suggestion of using this link in this context, in an encyclopedia intended to maintain neutrality is concerning, to say the least. ABHammad (talk) 05:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Wikilink RfC)

The link was first added on 7 April 2024 (diff), followed by many back-and-forth reverts and the above discussion. Pinging editors involved in the editing or discussion: @GLORIOUSEXISTENCE, ElLuzDelSur, Makeandtoss, Alaexis, Selfstudier, האופה, RolandR, Galamore, and Kashmiri. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment 'Twas I that added the two sources to the lead only, in response to the wikilink being removed. At the time, I had thought that a resolution of the matter but clearly I was mistaken. Selfstudier (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. Wouldn't New antisemitism be a more appropriate (and less contentious) wikilink? Quoting from our dedicated article:

  Proponents of the concept generally posit that in the late 20th and early 21st centuries much of what is purported to be criticism of Israel is in fact tantamount to demonization, and that [...] such demonization represents an evolution in the appearance of antisemitic beliefs. Proponents argue that anti-Zionism and demonization of Israel, or double standards applied to its conduct [...] may be linked to antisemitism, or constitute disguised antisemitism, particularly when emanating simultaneously from the far-left, Islamism, and the far-right

  Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  Well, if there is an explanation how characterizing apartheid allegations made by the likes of Amnesty and HRW (and many other notables, including Israelis) as antisemitic is not a misuse of the allegation for political purposes I would be interested to hear that. What does PM Netanyahu mean when he says that Amnesty (and its report) is antisemitic? I am pretty sure he is not accusing them of new antisemitism or else I have the completely wrong idea about what that is. Selfstudier (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  I believe that Netanyahu means that the allegation of apartheid is based on hatred towards Israel, and that hatred towards Israel is the contemporary form of antisemitism. To interpret hatred towards Israel (criticism of Israel) as antisemitism is what defines "new antisemitism". I am not endorsing Netanyahu's point of view, I'm just trying to explain it. I think that if we want to add a wikilink in the line with Israel often labeling the charge antisemitic, that link should point to the way Israel understands "antisemitism" (criticism of Israel = antisemitism), not to the way Israel's critics understand the charge of antisemitism (charging AI of antisemitism = weaponizing antisemitism). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, he is saying that Amnesty, HRW and the rest "hate Israel"? And that criticism of Israel (or, more precisely, of the policies of successive Israeli governments) is antisemitic? In no way is that "new antisemitism" as I understand it. It is simply a way to avoid having to deal with the facts, which he carefully does not address at all. In other words, a weaponized accusation of antisemitism for political purposes.(there is an ongoing RM to change the wikilinked article to Weaponization of antisemitism accusations) Selfstudier (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  Accusations of antisemitism or "new" antisemitism when saying Israel is an apartheid state are two sides of the same coin; attempts to slander critics of Israel as bigots. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  I understand your argument, but even assuming it, it does not follow that the wikilink should be to "Weaponization of antisemitism". In that sentence of the article, we are talking about Israel's point of view. I woudl be in favour of having the wikilink to "Weaponization of antisemitism" if the sentence was modified in this way:

  Attempts by Israel and some of its Western allies to dismiss accusations of apartheid as antisemitic have been denounced as a way of silencing legitimate criticism.

  Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, that's fine. Selfstudier (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  I will admit that this phrasing is better than previously suggested ones. But bear in mind that this phrasing would make more sense in the body, since this is the opening paragraph we are discussing here. Phrasing it this way would distract from the main point. That's why the link exists without elaboration, so that the focus isn't pulled away to other things. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment As per discussion on article talk page, there is significant argument that the term in this usage fails basic POV test, and should only be used in context of academic critical use and analysis.Mistamystery (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  a) It's not a term, it's a descriptive title, therefore b) it doesn't have (or need) a definition. Selfstudier (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)