This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
Whenever protection is over, we could add Paulson, Michael (2007-10-28). "Tutu urges Jews to challenge oppression of Palestinians". The Boston Globe.. The relevant quote: "The pro-Israel demonstrators said Tutu's comparison of Israel to apartheid in South Africa was unfair because Israel is a democracy where Arabs have rights." -- 146.115.58.152 21:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to waste everyone's time and cause more trouble than we've already had by posting an AFD, but as time goes by I am wondering if this article is really worth all the trouble - for anyone.
I'll stipulate that Israel's policy has been compared often enough with apartheid that the comparison is notable, but I think it's also clear that there is nothing approaching even a mainstream view as to what this comparison contributes to the debate, on either side. Those who are opposed to Israel's policies will inevitably get bogged down in having to defend their definition of apartheid and whether it applies to Israel; similarly, those who support Israel's policies, have to defend what is essentially a strawman argument, originally posited to make a point. The legitimate, factual issues, e.g., what Israel does and how it affects Palestinians (and for that matter, vice versa) get buried in all the noise.
I'd like to see a proposal that resolves this issue to the point that we all can get on with topics that really deserve our attention and commitment, but more importantly will yield something productive out of the disagreements. -- Leifern 17:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I would say that anyone who is campaigning for the article to not exist really has no place in the discussion of the editing issues. It is the epitome of counter-productiveness to bring defeated AfD arguments to the table. Tarc 23:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Suppose we re-engage here.
The article does exist. It's not going away. WP:WTA leads us to the inescapable conclusion that "allegations" is problematic. That means we need a name change. if you're serious about contributing here, please share a specific idea you have in response to the question above: What Should The Article Be Called? Then we can talk about the pros and cons of the various ideas like grownups.
Personally, I'm warming to HG's suggestion Israel and apartheid. (Compare, as he suggested, Christianity and anti-Semitism.) BYT 16:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
6SJ7, I really value your opinions on this, and I am in fact trying to build consensus here.
What I'm proposing is that people stop spending quite so much time addressing what they don't want to see happen here, and perhaps a little more time identifying a specific option that they do endorse. Otherwise we're like any other bulletin-board on the Internet. Ultimately it does come down to creating and improving an encyclopedia.
Again: Although I didn't start out with this outlook, I could now see this article working with the title Israel and apartheid, per HG. And yes, let's get serious here, and try to actually get some work done. If that Israel and apartheid option doesn't work for people, what's an example of an option that does? 6sJ7, I would very much like to hear your insights and ideas. BYT 12:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Re the title, allow me to suggest "A goddamn mess". Jtrainor 06:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
As we've learned from Leifern and Tarc, folks may need to share some core presuppositions in order to work out a stable resolution here. If somebody is motivated only to delete the article, they can't very well participate in good faith on renaming it. (Instead, they can recuse themselves and pursue other means to delete it.) However, letting go of deletion isn't the only presupposition needed here. Let me articulate what I see as the necessary presuppositions for consensus. These challenge folks on both sides of what has been a battle. Sorry if I get some of this wrong. Key pt -- I'm not saying you have to agree to these as Truths. Rather, based on my reading of the situation, everyone should be prepared to accept -- maybe begrudgingly or with bitter resignation -- the following presuppositions:
Will editors be able to work from these presuppositions? It's not easy. I suspect presuppositions #1 and #2 are hardest for the pro-Israel POV and #3 for the Israel-critics POV. If you are a dedicated POV warrior for either "side" here, you may find it difficult to accept these presuppositions. Even if you think of yourself as fairly neutral, it's my experience that most everybody finds that the whole package requires some concessions. After all, these are merely presuppositions, not Truths. What gives me hope? Time and again, we hear editors shift positions and speak out for alternatives, even against their preferred choice(s). Scan back up the page, you'll see people expressing a willingness to find common ground. Start with CJCurrie, whose suggestion wasn't a first choice and move down from there. (Or look at the flexibility expressed in our August/September discussions.) It's been very frustrating, but it should be possible for us to fairly describe even the most disputed verifiable content.
How would our working from these (or modified) presuppositions help lead us to resolution? First, some editors would understand when they need to recuse themselves from the discussion. Second, the presuppositions will help us identify the merit of various arguments or concerns. If an argument depends on, or boils down to, a disagreement with a core presupposition, then it would be tabled. (Even if True for some folks.) Finally, by adopting all three presuppositions, we gain some momentum to move forward. Does this make sense? Do you think that these presuppositions would be useful? If you don't agree with a presupposition, can you still use it as a working assumption? Thanks for hearing me out. HG | Talk 13:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
No one's talking about silencing any viewpoint, Duke. On talk pages, though, let's stick to questions of notability, rather than whether the existence of a given article is good or bad for Israel. (Or Lichtenstein. Or the Confederacy.) .
HG, may I ask you -- what do you think needs to happen for this page to be unlocked? BYT 14:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
After reading this thread, here is what I think. If someone wants to propose something about the article, they should just propose it. Then people could discuss it. This would be much more productive than asking other people to propose something; or talking about who gets to discuss and who doesn't; or discussing how to discuss the article. 6SJ7 02:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
HG, regarding #3 - allegations versus Israeli apartheid; the best thing to do I think and already recommended once suggesting that over 80kB is too much for one article - is to split the article into two articles:
6SJ7, there are different ways to propose changes. In simple cases, BRD suffices. In difficult cases, a new title can be proposed and discussed. Even harder cases? Here, we've already seen many proposals -- they make us weary and leave us with a sense of impasse or polarization. We took a break from proposals during the ArbCom case, but I don't think you/we should encourage more willy-nilly proposals. Instead, our guidelines encourage various discussion techniques. For instance, we discussed alternative titles. We drafted a synthesis of the naming arguments. By making explicit the 3 fruitful presuppositions, above, I'm trying to help us reason our way towards a consensus proposal.
That said, why haven't you read my comment as a proposal? Look again. In effect, I am proposing that we rename the article. I am proposing that the new title will encompass two notable, verifiable parts (subtopics). I am proposing that the new title should exclude both the word "allegations" and the phrase "Israeli apartheid." //* Note below//... 6SJ7 and others, do you support these proposals? If no, then why not? Let's discuss the presuppositions. If yes, then we have strong momentum to rename the article and we've greatly narrowed down the title options. We'll likely end up with 2-3 title candidates. At that point, the discussion will be much easier if we've accepted the presuppositions ("proposals") and don't have to re-argue them over and over again. I don't think this is instruction creep, it's merely following a somewhat orderly path toward a difficult decision. So, now what do you think of these proposals? HG | Talk 01:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Two academic papers (copies on line) from a French political geographer specialist of South Africa exist on that issue of the use of the analogy with apartheid for the Israelian-Palestinian situation. Based on the distinction between all the forms of the South-african apartheid and on the large range of the uses of the analogy, It argues that the analogy doesn't make sens for the nature and the legal system of the Israelian state, but it could be accurate on some aspects between the "Grand apartheid" and the way to deal with "occupied territories". Nevetheless, the israelian policy towards occupied territories miss one fundamental caracteristics of the "Grand apartheid", which wasthe systematic exploitation of the work force of the former bantustans. Another caracteristic was missing but is no longer with Gaza with the disengagement but is still with West bank, it is the attempt to tranfer new territories in order to "consolidate the so called new homeland state and trying to obtain an international recognition as a decolonized state. It would be interesting to add those references and to use it for new synthetic version.
GIRAUT F., 2004, “Apartheid et Israël/Palestine, enseignements et contresens d’une analogie”, Cybergéo (Revue Européenne en ligne de Géographie) Points Chauds, 20 p, http://www.cybergeo.eu/docannexe/file/5454/apartheid.pdf
GIRAUT F., 2004, “Apartheid et Israël/Palestine, analogie et contresens”,Outre-Terre 9, pp. 145-154. http://cairn.webnext.com/sommaire.php?ID_REVUE=OUTE&ID_NUMPUBLIE=OUTE_009
Frederic Giraut 19:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Fred Frederic Giraut 19:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am and I just would like to add this two references to the "further reading" section, thinking it could be accurate. Frederic Giraut 85.5.198.102 23:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Nobody is perfect, but thank you very much for your efforts and your attention.
I'm wondering how you would characterize some of the authors you discuss.
How many of these authors do you see as capable of publishing on this topic (Israel and apartheid) in peer reviewed academic journals? Just few have done it: Yiftachel and Glazer. (I disagree with the second one). Unfortunately good specialists (in history, political geography or law) of both situations are not numerous. And because of that, the argumentative and serious pamphlets must be considered too and seriously criticized when it needs.
Are you saying that Roane Carey or François Maspéro are pursuing a constructive critique? Just that they are claiming to contribute towards peace, and they are not in the same use of the analogy as thoose who tried to condemn the zionism as a whole. It doesn't mean that they are really constructive. Do you differentiate between radical and more scholarly uses of the analogy? Between, on the one hand, the radical use applied to the zionism and the Isrelian state proper, and, on the other hand, the critical use applied to the occupation of the west bank.
Thanks. HG | Talk 04:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC) ... Also, I gather that the Cybergeo article is a more complete version of you study? Yes
frederic giraut 85.5.198.102 23:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I think links should be in english; after all, this is the english wikipedia. Yahel Guhan 01:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems that the most recent effort to find consensus on an article title has come to nothing ... much like all previous efforts. While disappointing, this is hardly surprising. The stalemate that has engulfed this page for well over a year shows no sign of abating, and is unlikely to be resolved by the current participants on this talk page.
I've been reluctant to contribute to this page in recent weeks, for the simple reason that I have no desire to become trapped in an endless series of discussions and negotiations that all participants know, or should know, will lead nowhere. These sorts of discussions are meaningless distractions when carried out by the likes of Olmert and Abbas, and are equally meaningless here. We need to find a different route.
To that end, I'd like to remind readers of the following ArbComm resolution, as determined during the 2006 discussions (not to be confused with the more recent round):
Given that the resolution requires parties to enter into good faith mediation if negotiations are unsuccessful, and given that negotiations on the name of the article have been going on for months without progress, I think it's fairly obvious that the time for binding mediation has arrived. Indeed, the language of the resolution seems to imply that this is not voluntary.
Comments welcome. CJCurrie 06:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
First I believe that to make the article more neutral we should put the emphasis on whether or not Israel is guilty of the crime of Apartheid. Moreover, simple facts should mostly make up this thread : Definition of the crime of Apartheid, Allegations of Israel apartheid in the UN, etc. That section should be at the start since it is easier to make it neutral and gives a historical backround to further analysis which are based on interpretations and suppositions.
There should also be a description of the war-crime defined as Apartheid by the U.N. And which portion applies to Israel(especially for each law discussed in the first section). If there has been such crimes as murder, enslavement, deprivation of physical liberty, forced relocation, sexual violence, and collective persecution. And for each crime that could have been commited officially or allegedly, if it was "systematic" and "committed in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick.N.L ( talk • contribs) 08:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:GTL I have been trying to trim these sections in articles. If the link really is relevant and has not been linked before, can it be worked into the article? This is more of a MOS issue folks, not really that hardcore. Thanks, -- Tom ( talk) 15:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
We should identify exactly what the problems are, so we can work together to fix them.
Some version of this discussion took place a few months ago, but I'd like to reconnect on this based on the article's current (and no doubt flawed) embodiment. Thanks, BYT ( talk) 17:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
based on this: [1] this article should be named controversy about using the term Apartheid in the context of the Israeli-palestinian conflict Zeq ( talk) 19:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
see this name: Controversy_about_Saudi-Arabian_textbooks - based on that this article should be named: controversy in the context of the Israeli-palestinian conflict -- Zeq ( talk) 06:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm assuming people are not serious about this. It's a parody of a title, not a title. BYT ( talk) 23:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it would help to use neutral terms to describe people. Judging from the article, one of the first leading statesmen to use the term was the President of Uganda in 1975. Describing him as a dictator shows bias and in in this context is unencyclopedic. (It would be acceptable in an article on the governance of Uganda.) I personally think that President Carter was the second worst US President ever - but mentioning this just to discredit his use of a term would be just as unencyclopedic as calling the President of Uganda a dictator.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 19:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
In the spirit of compromise, the last time I edited this article, I did not change "President" back to "dictator", instead I changed it to "military ruler and self-appointed President-for-life." This has the benefit of being both adequately descriptive (which "President" is not, in this case), and absolutely, indisputably true. Of course, that did not stop Suladna from reverting it anyway, along with his/her removals of all mention of David Duke. I can understand this, after all we would not want to suggest that any disreputable characters ever accused Israel of apartheid -- even if they did. 6SJ7 ( talk) 02:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure which thread is about what anymore, because they have gotten mixed together. I think this section was started to talk about whether we describe Idi Amin as a "dictator", the next section is to talk about whether we mention David Duke, and the one after that has been started to discuss whether we mention Idi Amin's religion. It would probably be best if we keep them separate that way.
As for Idi Amin's dictator-hood, it is absolutely relevant. It provides pertinent information that a reader can use to evaluate Amin's statements (which is similar to what Tarc says a few sections down.) For the same reason, the see-also to Amin's persecution of his own people (often on the basis of race or ethnicity!) also is relevant. I don't think there is any question that Amin was a dictator and I don't understand why there is any debate about it. I do understand, however, that the NPOV policy often leads us to use "softer" words than might otherwise be warranted. (By the way, the source article describes Amin as a "murderous dictator.") It is for that reason that I inserted the description "military ruler and self-appointed President-for-life". It is undeniably true, it is consistent with Wikipedia's own article on Idi Amin, and it more-or-less gets the point across. To describe Amin simply as "President", using the same word we use for Jimmy Carter for example, is ridiculous. "President" implies some sort of democratic process. I think it should be left the way it is right now (not surprisingly, since I wrote it.) 6SJ7 ( talk) 18:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I did not know that some people consider the word president implied some sort of democratic process. Well, I suppose it takes all sorts.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 21:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Duke is a notable person, who has notable views on Jews and related issues. I can see no good reason not to include his views here. IronDuke 20:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
i'm sure there will be some resistance to describing idi amin as 'muslim', but i consider it to be a notable issue in the arab-israeli conflict. subsection open to hear your points. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 12:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
From the article:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/929439.html -- Cerasitans ( talk) 17:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Here is another, this one entitled "Olmert: Failure Will Sink Israel Into Apartheid." http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3929618
Also in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency here:
-- Cerasitans ( talk) 17:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
You know, the thought crosses my mind that if the article were called Analogy between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa, there wouldn't be any need for this discussion as to the relevance of Olmert's remarks. CJCurrie 21:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with the article mentioning concrete connections with apartheid S Africa, as this is relevant to the topic (although not in any sense evidence of Israel being an apartheid state). However, it should not go in the lede. If anyone is tempted to revert it back in again, please justify here and reach a consensus. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 17:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Supply a better rephrasal; criticise particulars; suggestions; instead of just reverting please. (unsigned, Asgrrr, 10:06, 1 December 2007)
I have put back the quote by Olmert deleted by Jaakobou. It seems highly pertinent to know the exact words, rather than a watered down version.
"If the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, then the State of Israel is finished." [2] [3]
-- Toddy1 13:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the way the quotes (2004 and 2007) are handled right now is not so bad, although more of the 2007 quote should be in there because it explains why he thinks it would be the "end of Israel" and in what sense he thinks Israel would be "finished." I am not going to do that right now. I do think the paraphrase above, saying that he was "drawing comparisons with the end of Apartheid in South Africa", is completely wrong. Fortunately that sentence is not currently in the article. In fact he was drawing a comparison with the beginning of apartheid in South Africa, not the end. 6SJ7 18:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Jaakobou has made an edit inserting that the USSR was a Cold War Ally of the enemies of Israel. I am not really sure that it is pertinent, but if we accept that it is, then it must also be pertinent that when the US Ambassador criticised President Amin, the US was Israel's ally and financial backer. Either both are relevant, or neither are.-- Toddy1 13:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
If this were a normal article about a political catch-phrase, then the origins of the article would be very clearly placed at the top of the article.
However as President Amin of Uganda is a deeply unfashionable political figure these day, he is relegated to the bottom along with some minor US politician, who is only quoted as it helps discredit the phrase.
Personally I think this is a terrible article. The reason it is so bad, is that the people writing it are too involved in the subject to be objective.
To turn this into a good article, it should lead with a section identifying the circumstances in which the phrase was first used, a quote from President Amin's speech, references to the UN resolution, etc. (If this was put into context it would show just how cynical Amin and the other African leaders were.) The next part should explain who resurrected Amin's phrase and why. Only then should it go into the question of whether the comment is fair (which unfortunately is most of the article) -- Toddy1 13:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
This page is roughly a million kilobytes long and there isn't a single picture in the entire thing! Can someone rustle up some images - any images? Hermione is a dude ( talk) 06:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The following text is at issue: In a speech to the United Nations General Assembly in 1975, Idi Amin Dada, then head of the Organisation of African Unity and self-appointed President for Life of Uganda, accused Israel of committing apartheid. The US ambassador criticized President Amin as someone "scarcely qualified to cast the first stone" inasmuch as he had expelled Uganda's Asian population and murdered Ugandans of many tribes while promoting fellow Muslims and tribesmen. [6] [7]
The first reference is an opinion editorial from Joel Pollak in Business Day, ZA's main financial newspaper. Besides the fact that it begins with a false smear of somebody else, the only information relevant to our article is the writer's claim, "the first person to compare Israel to apartheid SA at the UN [was] Idi Amin Dada, the murderous dictator of Uganda, who made the comparison in a speech to the General Assembly in 1975. Shortly thereafter, the Arab states pushed through the infamous UN resolution equating Zionism with racism". Nothing about the response, nothing about how bad Amin was. It adds very little since it's such a poor quality source, too.
The second reference is a contemporaneous TIME story, which states:
"Daniel P. Moynihan ... found himself embroiled in his first major diplomatic brawl since becoming U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations three months ago. Publicly squared off against him initially were U.N. representatives of numerous African states, who were furious at what they regarded as his rude attack on Uganda's President Idi Amin Dada and, by implication, on other black African leaders as well ... The Africans were angered by a weekend speech that Moynihan gave at the AFL-CIO convention in San Francisco. There, he sharply denounced the bizarre anti-U.S. address that Amin had delivered to the General Assembly two days earlier, in which Big Daddy had also demanded 'the extinction of Israel as a state'"
This is all very interesting, but nothing in the article discusses the apartheid allegation. In fact, Moynihan is quoted "insisting that Amin had started [the furor] when 'he slandered and blasphemed the American people by saying that we let the country be run by Zionists.'". So if anywhere, this reference might be relevant at some page about anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, but not to this page. < eleland/ talk edits> 18:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe the quote as it is supports Israeli Apartheid. Any quote that is brought that is not neutral must be clearly defined as such especially in this case where unneutrality of the character is flagrant. The attempts to say it indirectly just bring unnecessary facts that can be found on the Admin Dada page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick.N.L ( talk • contribs) 20:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
Whenever protection is over, we could add Paulson, Michael (2007-10-28). "Tutu urges Jews to challenge oppression of Palestinians". The Boston Globe.. The relevant quote: "The pro-Israel demonstrators said Tutu's comparison of Israel to apartheid in South Africa was unfair because Israel is a democracy where Arabs have rights." -- 146.115.58.152 21:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to waste everyone's time and cause more trouble than we've already had by posting an AFD, but as time goes by I am wondering if this article is really worth all the trouble - for anyone.
I'll stipulate that Israel's policy has been compared often enough with apartheid that the comparison is notable, but I think it's also clear that there is nothing approaching even a mainstream view as to what this comparison contributes to the debate, on either side. Those who are opposed to Israel's policies will inevitably get bogged down in having to defend their definition of apartheid and whether it applies to Israel; similarly, those who support Israel's policies, have to defend what is essentially a strawman argument, originally posited to make a point. The legitimate, factual issues, e.g., what Israel does and how it affects Palestinians (and for that matter, vice versa) get buried in all the noise.
I'd like to see a proposal that resolves this issue to the point that we all can get on with topics that really deserve our attention and commitment, but more importantly will yield something productive out of the disagreements. -- Leifern 17:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I would say that anyone who is campaigning for the article to not exist really has no place in the discussion of the editing issues. It is the epitome of counter-productiveness to bring defeated AfD arguments to the table. Tarc 23:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Suppose we re-engage here.
The article does exist. It's not going away. WP:WTA leads us to the inescapable conclusion that "allegations" is problematic. That means we need a name change. if you're serious about contributing here, please share a specific idea you have in response to the question above: What Should The Article Be Called? Then we can talk about the pros and cons of the various ideas like grownups.
Personally, I'm warming to HG's suggestion Israel and apartheid. (Compare, as he suggested, Christianity and anti-Semitism.) BYT 16:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
6SJ7, I really value your opinions on this, and I am in fact trying to build consensus here.
What I'm proposing is that people stop spending quite so much time addressing what they don't want to see happen here, and perhaps a little more time identifying a specific option that they do endorse. Otherwise we're like any other bulletin-board on the Internet. Ultimately it does come down to creating and improving an encyclopedia.
Again: Although I didn't start out with this outlook, I could now see this article working with the title Israel and apartheid, per HG. And yes, let's get serious here, and try to actually get some work done. If that Israel and apartheid option doesn't work for people, what's an example of an option that does? 6sJ7, I would very much like to hear your insights and ideas. BYT 12:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Re the title, allow me to suggest "A goddamn mess". Jtrainor 06:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
As we've learned from Leifern and Tarc, folks may need to share some core presuppositions in order to work out a stable resolution here. If somebody is motivated only to delete the article, they can't very well participate in good faith on renaming it. (Instead, they can recuse themselves and pursue other means to delete it.) However, letting go of deletion isn't the only presupposition needed here. Let me articulate what I see as the necessary presuppositions for consensus. These challenge folks on both sides of what has been a battle. Sorry if I get some of this wrong. Key pt -- I'm not saying you have to agree to these as Truths. Rather, based on my reading of the situation, everyone should be prepared to accept -- maybe begrudgingly or with bitter resignation -- the following presuppositions:
Will editors be able to work from these presuppositions? It's not easy. I suspect presuppositions #1 and #2 are hardest for the pro-Israel POV and #3 for the Israel-critics POV. If you are a dedicated POV warrior for either "side" here, you may find it difficult to accept these presuppositions. Even if you think of yourself as fairly neutral, it's my experience that most everybody finds that the whole package requires some concessions. After all, these are merely presuppositions, not Truths. What gives me hope? Time and again, we hear editors shift positions and speak out for alternatives, even against their preferred choice(s). Scan back up the page, you'll see people expressing a willingness to find common ground. Start with CJCurrie, whose suggestion wasn't a first choice and move down from there. (Or look at the flexibility expressed in our August/September discussions.) It's been very frustrating, but it should be possible for us to fairly describe even the most disputed verifiable content.
How would our working from these (or modified) presuppositions help lead us to resolution? First, some editors would understand when they need to recuse themselves from the discussion. Second, the presuppositions will help us identify the merit of various arguments or concerns. If an argument depends on, or boils down to, a disagreement with a core presupposition, then it would be tabled. (Even if True for some folks.) Finally, by adopting all three presuppositions, we gain some momentum to move forward. Does this make sense? Do you think that these presuppositions would be useful? If you don't agree with a presupposition, can you still use it as a working assumption? Thanks for hearing me out. HG | Talk 13:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
No one's talking about silencing any viewpoint, Duke. On talk pages, though, let's stick to questions of notability, rather than whether the existence of a given article is good or bad for Israel. (Or Lichtenstein. Or the Confederacy.) .
HG, may I ask you -- what do you think needs to happen for this page to be unlocked? BYT 14:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
After reading this thread, here is what I think. If someone wants to propose something about the article, they should just propose it. Then people could discuss it. This would be much more productive than asking other people to propose something; or talking about who gets to discuss and who doesn't; or discussing how to discuss the article. 6SJ7 02:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
HG, regarding #3 - allegations versus Israeli apartheid; the best thing to do I think and already recommended once suggesting that over 80kB is too much for one article - is to split the article into two articles:
6SJ7, there are different ways to propose changes. In simple cases, BRD suffices. In difficult cases, a new title can be proposed and discussed. Even harder cases? Here, we've already seen many proposals -- they make us weary and leave us with a sense of impasse or polarization. We took a break from proposals during the ArbCom case, but I don't think you/we should encourage more willy-nilly proposals. Instead, our guidelines encourage various discussion techniques. For instance, we discussed alternative titles. We drafted a synthesis of the naming arguments. By making explicit the 3 fruitful presuppositions, above, I'm trying to help us reason our way towards a consensus proposal.
That said, why haven't you read my comment as a proposal? Look again. In effect, I am proposing that we rename the article. I am proposing that the new title will encompass two notable, verifiable parts (subtopics). I am proposing that the new title should exclude both the word "allegations" and the phrase "Israeli apartheid." //* Note below//... 6SJ7 and others, do you support these proposals? If no, then why not? Let's discuss the presuppositions. If yes, then we have strong momentum to rename the article and we've greatly narrowed down the title options. We'll likely end up with 2-3 title candidates. At that point, the discussion will be much easier if we've accepted the presuppositions ("proposals") and don't have to re-argue them over and over again. I don't think this is instruction creep, it's merely following a somewhat orderly path toward a difficult decision. So, now what do you think of these proposals? HG | Talk 01:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Two academic papers (copies on line) from a French political geographer specialist of South Africa exist on that issue of the use of the analogy with apartheid for the Israelian-Palestinian situation. Based on the distinction between all the forms of the South-african apartheid and on the large range of the uses of the analogy, It argues that the analogy doesn't make sens for the nature and the legal system of the Israelian state, but it could be accurate on some aspects between the "Grand apartheid" and the way to deal with "occupied territories". Nevetheless, the israelian policy towards occupied territories miss one fundamental caracteristics of the "Grand apartheid", which wasthe systematic exploitation of the work force of the former bantustans. Another caracteristic was missing but is no longer with Gaza with the disengagement but is still with West bank, it is the attempt to tranfer new territories in order to "consolidate the so called new homeland state and trying to obtain an international recognition as a decolonized state. It would be interesting to add those references and to use it for new synthetic version.
GIRAUT F., 2004, “Apartheid et Israël/Palestine, enseignements et contresens d’une analogie”, Cybergéo (Revue Européenne en ligne de Géographie) Points Chauds, 20 p, http://www.cybergeo.eu/docannexe/file/5454/apartheid.pdf
GIRAUT F., 2004, “Apartheid et Israël/Palestine, analogie et contresens”,Outre-Terre 9, pp. 145-154. http://cairn.webnext.com/sommaire.php?ID_REVUE=OUTE&ID_NUMPUBLIE=OUTE_009
Frederic Giraut 19:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Fred Frederic Giraut 19:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am and I just would like to add this two references to the "further reading" section, thinking it could be accurate. Frederic Giraut 85.5.198.102 23:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Nobody is perfect, but thank you very much for your efforts and your attention.
I'm wondering how you would characterize some of the authors you discuss.
How many of these authors do you see as capable of publishing on this topic (Israel and apartheid) in peer reviewed academic journals? Just few have done it: Yiftachel and Glazer. (I disagree with the second one). Unfortunately good specialists (in history, political geography or law) of both situations are not numerous. And because of that, the argumentative and serious pamphlets must be considered too and seriously criticized when it needs.
Are you saying that Roane Carey or François Maspéro are pursuing a constructive critique? Just that they are claiming to contribute towards peace, and they are not in the same use of the analogy as thoose who tried to condemn the zionism as a whole. It doesn't mean that they are really constructive. Do you differentiate between radical and more scholarly uses of the analogy? Between, on the one hand, the radical use applied to the zionism and the Isrelian state proper, and, on the other hand, the critical use applied to the occupation of the west bank.
Thanks. HG | Talk 04:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC) ... Also, I gather that the Cybergeo article is a more complete version of you study? Yes
frederic giraut 85.5.198.102 23:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I think links should be in english; after all, this is the english wikipedia. Yahel Guhan 01:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems that the most recent effort to find consensus on an article title has come to nothing ... much like all previous efforts. While disappointing, this is hardly surprising. The stalemate that has engulfed this page for well over a year shows no sign of abating, and is unlikely to be resolved by the current participants on this talk page.
I've been reluctant to contribute to this page in recent weeks, for the simple reason that I have no desire to become trapped in an endless series of discussions and negotiations that all participants know, or should know, will lead nowhere. These sorts of discussions are meaningless distractions when carried out by the likes of Olmert and Abbas, and are equally meaningless here. We need to find a different route.
To that end, I'd like to remind readers of the following ArbComm resolution, as determined during the 2006 discussions (not to be confused with the more recent round):
Given that the resolution requires parties to enter into good faith mediation if negotiations are unsuccessful, and given that negotiations on the name of the article have been going on for months without progress, I think it's fairly obvious that the time for binding mediation has arrived. Indeed, the language of the resolution seems to imply that this is not voluntary.
Comments welcome. CJCurrie 06:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
First I believe that to make the article more neutral we should put the emphasis on whether or not Israel is guilty of the crime of Apartheid. Moreover, simple facts should mostly make up this thread : Definition of the crime of Apartheid, Allegations of Israel apartheid in the UN, etc. That section should be at the start since it is easier to make it neutral and gives a historical backround to further analysis which are based on interpretations and suppositions.
There should also be a description of the war-crime defined as Apartheid by the U.N. And which portion applies to Israel(especially for each law discussed in the first section). If there has been such crimes as murder, enslavement, deprivation of physical liberty, forced relocation, sexual violence, and collective persecution. And for each crime that could have been commited officially or allegedly, if it was "systematic" and "committed in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick.N.L ( talk • contribs) 08:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:GTL I have been trying to trim these sections in articles. If the link really is relevant and has not been linked before, can it be worked into the article? This is more of a MOS issue folks, not really that hardcore. Thanks, -- Tom ( talk) 15:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
We should identify exactly what the problems are, so we can work together to fix them.
Some version of this discussion took place a few months ago, but I'd like to reconnect on this based on the article's current (and no doubt flawed) embodiment. Thanks, BYT ( talk) 17:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
based on this: [1] this article should be named controversy about using the term Apartheid in the context of the Israeli-palestinian conflict Zeq ( talk) 19:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
see this name: Controversy_about_Saudi-Arabian_textbooks - based on that this article should be named: controversy in the context of the Israeli-palestinian conflict -- Zeq ( talk) 06:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm assuming people are not serious about this. It's a parody of a title, not a title. BYT ( talk) 23:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it would help to use neutral terms to describe people. Judging from the article, one of the first leading statesmen to use the term was the President of Uganda in 1975. Describing him as a dictator shows bias and in in this context is unencyclopedic. (It would be acceptable in an article on the governance of Uganda.) I personally think that President Carter was the second worst US President ever - but mentioning this just to discredit his use of a term would be just as unencyclopedic as calling the President of Uganda a dictator.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 19:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
In the spirit of compromise, the last time I edited this article, I did not change "President" back to "dictator", instead I changed it to "military ruler and self-appointed President-for-life." This has the benefit of being both adequately descriptive (which "President" is not, in this case), and absolutely, indisputably true. Of course, that did not stop Suladna from reverting it anyway, along with his/her removals of all mention of David Duke. I can understand this, after all we would not want to suggest that any disreputable characters ever accused Israel of apartheid -- even if they did. 6SJ7 ( talk) 02:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure which thread is about what anymore, because they have gotten mixed together. I think this section was started to talk about whether we describe Idi Amin as a "dictator", the next section is to talk about whether we mention David Duke, and the one after that has been started to discuss whether we mention Idi Amin's religion. It would probably be best if we keep them separate that way.
As for Idi Amin's dictator-hood, it is absolutely relevant. It provides pertinent information that a reader can use to evaluate Amin's statements (which is similar to what Tarc says a few sections down.) For the same reason, the see-also to Amin's persecution of his own people (often on the basis of race or ethnicity!) also is relevant. I don't think there is any question that Amin was a dictator and I don't understand why there is any debate about it. I do understand, however, that the NPOV policy often leads us to use "softer" words than might otherwise be warranted. (By the way, the source article describes Amin as a "murderous dictator.") It is for that reason that I inserted the description "military ruler and self-appointed President-for-life". It is undeniably true, it is consistent with Wikipedia's own article on Idi Amin, and it more-or-less gets the point across. To describe Amin simply as "President", using the same word we use for Jimmy Carter for example, is ridiculous. "President" implies some sort of democratic process. I think it should be left the way it is right now (not surprisingly, since I wrote it.) 6SJ7 ( talk) 18:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I did not know that some people consider the word president implied some sort of democratic process. Well, I suppose it takes all sorts.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 21:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Duke is a notable person, who has notable views on Jews and related issues. I can see no good reason not to include his views here. IronDuke 20:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
i'm sure there will be some resistance to describing idi amin as 'muslim', but i consider it to be a notable issue in the arab-israeli conflict. subsection open to hear your points. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 12:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
From the article:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/929439.html -- Cerasitans ( talk) 17:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Here is another, this one entitled "Olmert: Failure Will Sink Israel Into Apartheid." http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3929618
Also in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency here:
-- Cerasitans ( talk) 17:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
You know, the thought crosses my mind that if the article were called Analogy between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa, there wouldn't be any need for this discussion as to the relevance of Olmert's remarks. CJCurrie 21:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with the article mentioning concrete connections with apartheid S Africa, as this is relevant to the topic (although not in any sense evidence of Israel being an apartheid state). However, it should not go in the lede. If anyone is tempted to revert it back in again, please justify here and reach a consensus. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 17:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Supply a better rephrasal; criticise particulars; suggestions; instead of just reverting please. (unsigned, Asgrrr, 10:06, 1 December 2007)
I have put back the quote by Olmert deleted by Jaakobou. It seems highly pertinent to know the exact words, rather than a watered down version.
"If the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, then the State of Israel is finished." [2] [3]
-- Toddy1 13:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the way the quotes (2004 and 2007) are handled right now is not so bad, although more of the 2007 quote should be in there because it explains why he thinks it would be the "end of Israel" and in what sense he thinks Israel would be "finished." I am not going to do that right now. I do think the paraphrase above, saying that he was "drawing comparisons with the end of Apartheid in South Africa", is completely wrong. Fortunately that sentence is not currently in the article. In fact he was drawing a comparison with the beginning of apartheid in South Africa, not the end. 6SJ7 18:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Jaakobou has made an edit inserting that the USSR was a Cold War Ally of the enemies of Israel. I am not really sure that it is pertinent, but if we accept that it is, then it must also be pertinent that when the US Ambassador criticised President Amin, the US was Israel's ally and financial backer. Either both are relevant, or neither are.-- Toddy1 13:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
If this were a normal article about a political catch-phrase, then the origins of the article would be very clearly placed at the top of the article.
However as President Amin of Uganda is a deeply unfashionable political figure these day, he is relegated to the bottom along with some minor US politician, who is only quoted as it helps discredit the phrase.
Personally I think this is a terrible article. The reason it is so bad, is that the people writing it are too involved in the subject to be objective.
To turn this into a good article, it should lead with a section identifying the circumstances in which the phrase was first used, a quote from President Amin's speech, references to the UN resolution, etc. (If this was put into context it would show just how cynical Amin and the other African leaders were.) The next part should explain who resurrected Amin's phrase and why. Only then should it go into the question of whether the comment is fair (which unfortunately is most of the article) -- Toddy1 13:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
This page is roughly a million kilobytes long and there isn't a single picture in the entire thing! Can someone rustle up some images - any images? Hermione is a dude ( talk) 06:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The following text is at issue: In a speech to the United Nations General Assembly in 1975, Idi Amin Dada, then head of the Organisation of African Unity and self-appointed President for Life of Uganda, accused Israel of committing apartheid. The US ambassador criticized President Amin as someone "scarcely qualified to cast the first stone" inasmuch as he had expelled Uganda's Asian population and murdered Ugandans of many tribes while promoting fellow Muslims and tribesmen. [6] [7]
The first reference is an opinion editorial from Joel Pollak in Business Day, ZA's main financial newspaper. Besides the fact that it begins with a false smear of somebody else, the only information relevant to our article is the writer's claim, "the first person to compare Israel to apartheid SA at the UN [was] Idi Amin Dada, the murderous dictator of Uganda, who made the comparison in a speech to the General Assembly in 1975. Shortly thereafter, the Arab states pushed through the infamous UN resolution equating Zionism with racism". Nothing about the response, nothing about how bad Amin was. It adds very little since it's such a poor quality source, too.
The second reference is a contemporaneous TIME story, which states:
"Daniel P. Moynihan ... found himself embroiled in his first major diplomatic brawl since becoming U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations three months ago. Publicly squared off against him initially were U.N. representatives of numerous African states, who were furious at what they regarded as his rude attack on Uganda's President Idi Amin Dada and, by implication, on other black African leaders as well ... The Africans were angered by a weekend speech that Moynihan gave at the AFL-CIO convention in San Francisco. There, he sharply denounced the bizarre anti-U.S. address that Amin had delivered to the General Assembly two days earlier, in which Big Daddy had also demanded 'the extinction of Israel as a state'"
This is all very interesting, but nothing in the article discusses the apartheid allegation. In fact, Moynihan is quoted "insisting that Amin had started [the furor] when 'he slandered and blasphemed the American people by saying that we let the country be run by Zionists.'". So if anywhere, this reference might be relevant at some page about anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, but not to this page. < eleland/ talk edits> 18:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe the quote as it is supports Israeli Apartheid. Any quote that is brought that is not neutral must be clearly defined as such especially in this case where unneutrality of the character is flagrant. The attempts to say it indirectly just bring unnecessary facts that can be found on the Admin Dada page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick.N.L ( talk • contribs) 20:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)