Talk:Apartheid

Older discussions about apartheid has been moved to Talk:Apartheid/Israel and to Talk:Apartheid/Archive1

---

After a careful reading of this debate, I really have to side with Ed Poor and GrahamN: because the issue has been widely raised on the international scene, it is appropriate to discuss "Alleged apartheid in Israel" under this heading, as long as it is cited as an allegation rather than a fact, with sources, and balanced opposing views. GrahamN has provided sources, and I'm surprised he hasn't mentioned the Conference on Racism, where this became a major issue.

As far as I can tell, much of the early disagreement boils down to: "I don't agree with the allegation, therefore we should not include it in this article." That is not in line with Wiikipedia policy, as everyone here very well knows. This is not a fringe-view like Holocaust revisionism; it is a very serious debate that has become part of international policy and is still being discussed in the United Nations. Frequently. We do ourselves a disservice if we fail to mention such an issue.

As to whether it should be covered in this article, or given a heading and a pointer to a spin-off article, as Slrubenstein I feel it isn't the major issue as long as it is well covered. However, it is most appropriate to discuss here what apartheid now means in international law; and as such, spinning off to a new article may be premature, as the apartheid-in-Israel issue is entangled with the issue of wider international law. -- April

In its current state, I am now opposed to the material on Apartheid in Isreal in this article. In its current form, this material seems more suited to the article on the Israel/Palestine conflict. Here is why: as far as I can tell, the allegations against Israel are made primarily within the context of that conflict, and have not yet been made in the form of any official charge in a court of international law. If this article is going to have a section on "Apartheid in International Law," fine. And in that case, any (and all!) official legal proceedings against a member state in the UN should be discussed in this article. I draw a strong distinction between a report that there are people who believe that Israel practices a form of Apartheid (or even, people who believe that Israel violates International Law), on the one hand, and a report that some court or instrument or agent of Insternational Law is currently considering charges against Israel, its government, or members of its government. The latter would be appropriate to this article; the former would be appropriate for some kind of article, but not this one. Slrubenstein

As usual, I appreciate Slrubenstein's remarks. By the way, thank you also for your calm and reasoned commentary in discussion with GrahamN on another talk page (I forget which, exactly).

More to the point: there exists an argument or series of arguments against Israel (or its policies), on the grounds that Israel's treatment of Arab Palestinians violates international norms. Whether it's apartheid, racism, genocide, or crimes against humanity, you'll find someone ready to accuse Israel of it.

Regardless of my own opinion (which is staunchly pro-Israel) I suggest that the various charges be documented and attributed to the accusers.

Likewise, if there is some proponent who surmises or hypothecates that the recent treaties, formulations and definitions are part of some sort of plot to "get" Israel, then we should also write about this POV in the appropriate articles.

We already started this with the Jenin article. We reported the allegation of a massacre (genocide?), the investigation by various organizations, the withdrawal (or attenuation) of the initial allegation, and the final statements of all involved parties. Note that the Wikipedia never said that there was or was not a massacre in Jenin. We did only what we could: we reported what the various observers and advocates said.

I believe that we can and should treat other subjects, such as apartheid, genocide, Zionism and anti-Semitism in the same neutral way. --Ed Poor

---

The allegations are founded on the observation that Israel, like apartheid-era South Africa, formally classifies people according to their ethnicity, and affords them different legal rights and responsibilities according to this classification.

This statement is not full and it fails to represent the full information relevant to the issue. In particular, take notice of the fact that no serious entities have ever declared Israel's treatment of Israeli Arabs (i.e. with Israeli citizenship) apartheid-like; the claims only go towards Palestinian Arabs. Claims of discrimination have been voiced, and I am willing to move part of the debate to Discrimination. --Uri

---

Israelis point out that Arabs have precisely the same laws for their own people, and that many Arab nations refuse to allow Jews to become citizens of Arab nations. If the Israeli position is grounds for charges of apartheid, so is the Arab position.

no it could be racism, anti-semitism or apartheid. It is not yet determined. You will need to add some support and put it in a different section. I'm no supporter of middle east arab countries Karl

I agree with your logic. However, it is also true that the Arab claims about Israel being guilty of apartheid are also equally not determined. The reasons for the current state of affairs could also be for other reasons. I agree that what I just added to the article can, and perhaps should, be rephrased as you said. Yet perhaps part of the claims about Israel having apartheid might also be rephrased somewhat? RK

1. These aren't arab claims at this point - it is true that arabs make the claim, and it is true that in some cases these claims are based on views other than aparthied is wrong - ie: it is arabs that should be on top. I believe that the Israel is an afront to Islam, because it is not a muslim nation would fit this.

It's not really clear what you're trying to say here.

2. Regarding torture - I think that a case can be made that there is almost no room for doubt that Israel uses torture. I am perfectly happy removing all the arguments about torture and leaving it that Israel uses torture as origanly stated.

It would be interesting to know how you feel about Iraq, which actually employs rapists for routine use against prisoners' family members, and Israel, which you claim "threatened" rape against a single individual.

3. regarding apartheid - I believe that a consistant set of actions equalling apartheid can be shown in the case of Israel.

Fine: amend the article to say, "Karl firmly believes that..." I must point out, though, that a set of actions in response to a present threat can arguably e interpreted differently than a set of actions in response to racist ideology in the absence of any threat. This article is not there to proclaim your beliefs as truth.

This is what this section is about. I firmly believe that Israel is engaged in aparthied.

Fine: amend the article to say, "Karl firmly believes that...." The article is not there to proclaim truth as you see it; it is there to fairly represent different viewpoints.

Other explinations exist, I believe that aparthied is the best. (Personally, I would be overjoyed to see Ariel Sharon and Yasar Arafat sitting infront of the ICC charged with crimes against humanity.)

other thoughts on apartheid and directions I may be headed in.

4. I believe that other countries *need* to be added to the list. What is apartheid? I believe that a much simpler deffinition can be made, and one that is far more usefull. I believe that Canada has engaged in behaviour that has things in common with apartheid. Residential Schools for Native Children, Chinese disporia from British Columbia being two quick examples. The difference between Canada and Israel is I don't hear anyone supporting the atrocities that Canada has committed. If I did, I probably wouldn't be spending my time with this article.

5. A list of people who are alegded or are anti-semetic.

How many terabytes does Wikipedia own? ;-)

sorry - clarification - people who are aledged or are anti-semetic listed in Wikipedia. I will wait until Desmond Tutu is again listed as an alegded anti-semite.

---

Israelis point out that terrorism in Israel arising from the intifada creates serious military and civil security problems which are being addressed with vigorous law enforcement efforts. They point out that "torture" allegations by Palestinians closely resemble claims of "police brutality" lodged against law enforcement in many countries. Authorities question the propriety of characterizing such incidents, even if actual, as the deliberate implementation of a racist policy, which is the meaning of "apartheid". Israeli have countered with the observation that such allegations, if true, are explainable in terms of over-zealous law enforcement.

This paragraph does not answer the charge by AI of torture. It sets up a straw dog, palestinians and attacks it. Further it throws in "police brutality" without ever quesioning AI. If you want police brutality, you have to at least partially discredit AI to do it.

---

I guess I ought to make a statement, as I just took a buzzsaw to the section on allegations of apartheid in Israel. I think that we need to really really re-think our approach on this. Serious allegations have been made in international fora, like the WCAR, like the UN, et cetera. It is our responsibility to find and report those allegations, and the responses. It is not our responsibility to make those allegations or rebut them ourselves. So, down the list of things I removed:

• it is an absolutely heinous, slanderous thing to casually call Desmond Tutu or the entire "Israel is an apartheid state" movement anti-semitic. If people have called them anti-semitic, document who called them that.
• Karl, nothing personal, I always remove requests for assistance within articles. This is Wikipedia; everybody knows that we ought to improve articles. What if that request stays there for the next 12 months?
• RE: arab treatment of jews: this is a red herring in a section on allegations of Israeli apartheid. If you want to write a section on allegations of apartheid in Saudi Arabia, or something like that, find the allegations and write the section.
• RE: the case of the Arab woman: really, we don't need specific cases unless they're famous, like the ones we picked for South Africa. AI can make their case for themselves, and we can link to it.
• re: Israeli press freedom. Press freedom--or lack thereof--is not part of the definition of apartheid. As best as I can tell, this was saying that "Israel may have apartheid but we don't know about it, because there's no press freedom" which is so far into analysis that I really don't think it belongs. (Also, I'm a little surprised: many people strongly critical of the Israeli government champion much of the Israeli press as courageously open. cf: noam chomsky)

DanKeshet 16:06 Dec 13, 2002 (UTC)

regarding the following paragraphs under section of alledged torture:

A report prepared by the former state controller Miryan Ben-Porat regarding the Bet interrogation facilities from Sept 1991-Dec 1992 made the following observations:

"even after the release of the Landau Commission Report, the habit of telling lies did not cease among Shin Bet investigators. Some lied while testifying in court or other investigation and inspection bodies, others lied in reporting to their supervisors and others in the Shin Bet itself."

"The irregularities were not, for the most part, the result of not knowing the line between the permissible and the forbidden, but rather were committed knowingly. Veteran and even senior interrogators in the facility in Gaza committed severe and systematic deviations [from the regulations]. During the inspection period, senior Shin Bet commanders did not prevent these irregularities, whether by allowing the use of pressure methods not included in the file compiled by the Landau Commission, by ignoring restrictions with which the Landau Commission qualified the permits [it gave for using "moderate physical pressure"] or by refraining from rooting out these practices, as required by their position."

If there is no reason given why they were remove, I will put them back.

I removed them. The point, a single point in a bulleted list, is arguably acceptable: AI alleges; Israelis deny. If you want to expand it into a whole article on "Torture in Israel", then write that article--don't contaminate the existing article on Apartheid with endless POV debate trying to prove your point. You aren't going to get a chance to "prove" anything. This is an encyclopedia. It tells who said what. If you want to convince people of something, keep it to Talk (or usenet). --User:LenBudney

Why is there no discussion of the huge amounts of state-mandated torture in many Arab nations? Why single out only Israel, which likely has the 'least' amount in the region. This obsession with Israel only is bothersome. Further, this has nothing to do with the topic. If it did, then just about every Arab nation in the world would have to be classified as practicing apartheid! RK

Agreed; the motivation is primarily anti Israeli, if not outright anti-semitic. I only observed that if someone wants to discuss whether Israelis use torture, he should take it to a new article. Naturally, he will not get away with unsubstantiated statements anywhere in Wiki-land, but at least things will be somewhat organized. On a related note, the use of torture in the PA would make in interesting article! Between Lebanon, Syria, Hamas, Fatah, and the PA authorities, those poor folks are really screwed, aren't they?

re Len: And I thought that the view that Israel does not use torture to be POV. I thought that the evidence is overwelming that it does use torture.

Karl: What in BLAZES are you talking about? Notice that I have not attempted to remove all allegations against Israel; nor have I attempted random, in-line, point-for-point rebuttal of said allegations. I have taken only steps required to help ensure balance.

Note also that random jamming of your POV text into an article is not just POV, it's also crappy writing. Part of the goal here is to produce a quality piece of writing. Your random anti-Israel insertions, attested or not, amount to vandalism. Get a grip on yourself and try to find a way to express your view (1) cogently, (2) articulately, and (3) without vandalizing others attempts to balance the record. --Len

re RK: From globe and Mail A23 Dec 12, Gabor Mate "It owes nothing to anti-Semitism that Israel is the subject of more critical scrutiny than are the neighbouring Arab autarchies, dictatorships and pseudo-democracies. No one mistakes the true nature of those regimes. No credible voices are raised in their defence, nor do the abhorrent Palestinian suicide bombings have any serious apologists. Only Israel's relentless and ultimately self-destructive expansionism, militarism and state violence find many supporters."

The motivation is not (necessarily) anti-Israel -- it is simply that this is where the most information is available to whoever wrote it. This is, of course, a problem across Wikipedia: a NPOV requires that as many views as possible are represented, but each individual can only write sufficiently from their own points of view, and perhaps others they are familiar with. The problem here is that there is still work to be done, and (possibly) the question of what to prioritise (which can be done in various ways: by personally prioritising it, and making it appear on recent changes persistently, by linking it, etc). -- Sam

---

Statements like:

For the last time, you idiot, "torture" is ALLEGED for the purposes of this article. If you think you can prove it, go try--in the relevant article

really are not an appropriate thing to be placing in edit summaries (which everyone sees in Recent Changes and becomes part of the permanent history of the article). Please, both of you stop the edit war. LenBudney; why is it necessary to have an extra "alleged" before a term in a list when the introduction of the list already has the word "alleged" in it? --mav 21:00 Dec 13, 2002 (UTC)

1,000 pardons; heat of the moment and all that. Karl is clearly seeking to subvert the NPOV of this article. (I have a POV, too! If I had my druthers, I'd delete the whole ridiculous section on "Apartheid" in Israel, since Israel clearly has no such policy. Israel certainly has racism, between Jews and Arabs, Arabs and Jews, and all sorts of other flavors, but that is not the same as an official segregationist policy.) Anyway, I think a quietus has been reached: I will not touch the new article on "Vicious Israeli abuse of Innocent Palestinian Lambkins", or whatever Elian has lately named it, for as long as I can refrain. Once it's somewhat taken shape, I will release myself from this promise and take a look at it. Meanwhile, I hope Karl will be courteous enough to leave the "alleged" in the Apartheid article, and feel free to knock himself out filling the other article with the heinous Jewish atrocities of which he no doubt has tons of proof. --Len.

Fair enough. I have often been blinded in the heat of the moment too. Karl could have left an explanation in the edit summary to point out that the second "alleged" was redundant. --mav

It isn't over yet - I've noticed that you, mav seem somewhat quick to take sides and assign motives to me. If you are trying for pax you aren't helping. Actually I didn't notice the other alleged. This argument will probably come up later, again. I said exactly what I meant - take the offending paragraph to discuss and explain what is wrong with it. That did not happen. I am going to take a look at the articles on NPOV and on various forms of anti-semitism and see what is alleged and what is stated as fact. I believe that a double standard is in play here. Karl

Perhaps a good read of the above thread is in order. If anything I was far more critical of LenBudney than to you. The only side I was taking was the side that wanted the edit war to stop. I also asked why LenBudney was adding the extra "alleged". --mav

Mav, out of deference to your observation of the other "alleged", I'll let Karl's deletion stand. Karl, your inability to distinguish fact from opinion is really disturbing. You seem to go around with a well meaning idea that you are here to tell the truth as you see it. There is a difference between that and the actual intent of this project, which is to provide accurate information. Since you can't seem to tell the difference, you will keep running into problems of this sort and wondering sadly to yourself why people persecute you so. (On a personal note, I really wonder who you are. How does a Quaker get so emotionally invested in Islam, and so anti-semitic?) --Len

I removed the following text, because it just really isn't related to this article, nor is it well-written.

While the Russian yoke of most of its imperial subjects is subsiding, except for resilient cases like Northern Caucasus, after the fall of the Soviet Empire, the Chinese encroachment of culturally distinctive societies under its shadow has just begun, in light of the new "Big Game" to be played in Eurasia. The world is expecting to see pariah, diaspora peoples coming out of this region, treading the path of the old European Jewry, the Palestinians, the Armenians, the Kurds, etc.

---

Removed references to China.

Assimilation, acculturation, de-ethnicization, and co-opting local indigenous leaders are not apartheid and neither are structural social barriers limiting advancement of minorities. The comparison to British in Ireland also argues against calling Chinese policies apartheid since I don't know of anyone who has used apartheid to describe British policies in Ireland.

Even given the above, China might be worth mentioning if some prominent group alleges that China practices apartheid, but I don't know of any group that does so.

-- User:Roadrunner

-- User:Samo[?]

I believe an article on Apartheid to focus entirely on South Africa - and not include the Middle East.

What goes on in Israel may be very much like Apartheid, but it is not Apartheid. Apartheid refers specifically to the policies of the Nationalist South African regime. Perhaps an article on "Palestine", "Palestianians", "Intifada", or "The Israeli Occupation of Palestine" would be a more appropriate place for this topic. Or perhaps a broader article could be made on all forms of ethnic, racial, and religious segreagtion. This is not due to a pro-Israel or pro-Arab bias.

As far as I know, no one on either side of the Israeli, Palestinian conflict makes an explicit 'biological' argument for separation as did Apartheid South Africa or the segregationalist American South.

You should take this up with the UN, not with us! Apartheid is defined in international law. The definition belongs in this article, I hope you agree. Israel stands accused of Apartheid as defined by the UN. This is relevant to this article. You may not like it, but it is true. GrahamN 16:56 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)