Talk:Israel/Archive 82

Archive 75

←

Archive 80

Archive 81

Archive 82

Archive 83

Archive 84

Archive 85

Amnesty revert

Clearly we WP:UNDUE also one sided propaganda cannot be WP:RS

That is a vapid edit summary Shrike, so you'd better explain what you mean. (a)Why is the fact I added, undue, especially given the fact that in Israel only 10% of the Arab population lives in 'urban' areas, unlike the 90% of 'Israelis' who do, as the preceding sentence asserts? I'll give you an assist. The word 'Israeli' is often used in the text to refer to ethnic Jews (compare the life span statistics. The one given ignores the fact that Palestinian Israelis do not have an average lifespan of 82 years, as the text states) (b) 'one-sided propaganda'. In rhetoric Shrike that is called a pleonasm, and a particularly dumb one because the adjective suggests that there is a kind of propaganda, let's call it, hasbara, that is not one-sided. Secondly, Amnesty International is RS ,everywhere on Wikipedia however much you dislike its point of view(at the most you could insist on attribution). Finally, what is cited from the Amnesty International report is a fact, that is not contested in Israel, since its own bureau of statistics can confirm it.

So stop abusing the revert right with rubbishy assertions that are meaningless in terms of wiki editing practice and policy. Explain yourself Nishidani (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I would myself be quite interested to hear an explanation for that revert. Straightforward info from Amnesty is one sided propaganda? And undue? Why? Selfstudier (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

"One sided propaganda"? Do you hear yourselves here? Is what Amnesty is cited for even in dispute? Or is this reflex at this point? nableezy - 03:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The word "restricted" gives the impression that Arab citizens are not allowed to leave those areas or live elsewhere in the country, which is obviously not the case. It should say "concentrated" in the Galilee, Negev, Little Triangle, etc. Also the link should be changed to the more accepted 'Arab citizens of Israel'.

Certanly not "restricted". "Concentrated" also has the wrong connotation. Actions of Israeli Arabs should be described in active voice, they "settle", "congregate", "gather" or "group" in these areas. Palestinian citizens of Israel is the wrong link here, since that article only deals with a part of Israeli Arabs that self-identify as Palestinian. The source presumably gives statistics of all of Israeli Arabs, while incorrectly describing all of them as "Palestinian". “WarKosign” 08:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I see academic source is added if it so then I suggest to remove questionable amnesty source --Shrike (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Shrike, Amnesty is not a questionable source. WarKosign The source presumably gives statistics of all of Israeli Arabs, while incorrectly describing all of them as "Palestinian". Amnesty explains its use of the phrase Palestinian citizens of Israel at page 14 of its report:

"With respect to Palestinian citizens of Israel, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs officially classifies them as "Arab citizens of Israel", an inclusive term that describes a number of different and primarily Arabic-speaking groups, including Muslim Arabs (this classification includes Bedouins), Christian Arabs, Druze and Circassians. However, in public discourse, Israeli authorities and media generally refer only to Muslim Arabs and Christian Arabs – those who generally self-identify as Palestinians – as Israeli Arabs and associate them with Palestinians living in the OPT and beyond, using the specific terms Druze and Circassians for those other non-Jewish groups. The authorities also clearly consider Palestinian citizens of Israel as a single group different from Druze and Circassians since they exempt this group alone from military service in “consideration for their family, religious, and cultural affiliations with the Arab world (which has subjected Israel to frequent attacks), as well as concern over possible dual loyalties."

Then on page 16, we have:

"Today, Palestinian citizens and permanent residents of Israel comprise some 21% of Israel’s population and number approximately 1.9 million. Some 90% of Palestinians with Israeli citizenship live in 139 densely populated towns and villages in the Galilee and Triangle regions in northern Israel and the Negev/Naqab region in the south, as a result of deliberate segregation policies. The vast majority of the remaining 10% live in "mixed cities".

All clear now? Selfstudier (talk) 10:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Not clear at all. Even the biased Amnesty source doesnt use the term "restricted". I suggest to delete the whole content of "Palestinian Israelis" until consensus is reached. Also, what is Amnesty's complain in this case? The fact that most Arabs choose to live in towns and villages of Galilee and the Negev rather than big cities in the Tel Aviv area? Honest question — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:73C0:502:D7CF:0:0:38:3A30 (talk) 11:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Israel has used similar land expropriation measures across

all territorial domains under the Judaization policy, which seeks to maximize Jewish control over land

while effectively restricting Palestinians to living in separate, densely populated enclaves to minimize their presence.p.22

Amnesty is not making a complaint, it is saying that "deliberate segregation policies" have produced a result, not a "choice". These policies are described in detail at p145 et seq and elsewhere. The word "restricted" has no added meaning, one could equally write "confined" without it necessarily meaning imprisoned. The given context is clear. Selfstudier (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I suggest editors, rather than react (often viscerally) to snippets, sit down, download and read the 276 page report, because several remarks above suggest unfamiliarity with the numerous details in that broader report which will influence our choice of language. For example.

Certanly not "restricted". "Concentrated" also has the wrong connotation. Actions of Israeli Arabs should be described in active voice, they "settle", "congregate", "gather" or "group" in these areas

It is not an 'active choice' where Palestinian citizens of Israel dwell, as everyone here knows, or should know, and if they don't, can verify by reading scores of academic works published in Israel or sumnmarized in the Amnesty Report pp.,129ff. Israel is an ethnic state, for Jews. It allocates land to Jews, and 'concentrates' or 'restricts' Arab/Palestinian residential mobility. This phrasing is not about the right like everyone else to drive around the country and visit friends or go to clubs. All we need is a footnote to clarify that.Nishidani (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Cities naturally have Jewish, Arab or mixed majority and are labeled as such, but nobody is "concentrated" or "restricted". There is no legal mechanism to prevent or complicate sale of real estate to people of the "wrong" ethinicity. Some individuals surely can consider nature of the neighbourhood and ethnicity of their potential buyers/sellers when making real estate decisions, but that is their personal racism and not an official policy. “WarKosign” 13:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

To sum up: Amnesty report is a great source for what Amnesty believes and claims. It is not a valid source for any facts. If they make an indisputable claim, there must be less biased sources that say the same, otherwise this claim cannot be stated in Wikipedia voice without attributing it to Amnesty and balancing it with a response per WP:NPOV. “WarKosign” 13:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

BS, there are countless sources about the concentration of Arabs in the triangle. And there are countless sources on how the Arabs are not, such as the bullshit about 90% of all Israelis, in urban areas. See for example here, or here. Some individuals surely is is just the latest in the list of unsourced nonsense meant to wave away from what actual sources say. nableezy - 13:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

WarKosign. Unless you read the report, arguing here is pointless since we will get meaningless assertions like the one you just made:

There is no legal mechanism to prevent or complicate sale of real estate to people of the "wrong" ethinicity.

The reality is that while the Supreme Court overruled attempts to restrict Israeli Palestinian access to land, in practice, state agencies and Jewish agencies make it virtually impossible for them to do so. Where there is no explicit law, but in reality exclusion of non-Jewish ethnicities from land purchase is the unwritten norm, we can cite the law (theory), but only by glossing it with the informal a administrative practice which replaces it in effect.(i.e. facts on the ground in the pays réel)

Jewish national bodies generally do not lease land to non-Jews and do not accept them in the housing projects and/or communities they establish and other housing projects on state lands that have been developed specifically for new Jewish immigrants. About 13% of state land in Israel, or over 2.5 million dunams, is owned and administered solely through the JNF/KKL for use by Jews. The discriminatory allocation of state land by the Israel Land Administration to the JNF/KKL, which in turn only developed the land exclusively for Jewish Israelis, was legally challenged in 2000. In the Ka’adan ruling, the Supreme Court of Israel held that the state cannot discriminate in the allocation of land on the basis of religion or nationality, after a Palestinian couple attempted to buy land in a Jewish locality established by the JNF/KKL on previously public land that had been allocated to it by the Israel Land Administration. The new village had a committee to admit members who could become residents; one of its admission conditions was military service. The court ruled that this resulted in discriminatory land allocation. However, the decision stated that its impact was not retroactive. Hence, all past discriminatory land dispossession and allocation would not be scrutinized.p.130

Following the Ka’adan ruling, the prevention of Palestinian citizens of Israel from leasing land from the JNF/KKL became less categorical, but it remains extremely rare for Palestinians to be able to do so even on new allocations. This is partly because the new allocations are generally for the expansion of Jewish communities and not Palestinian ones. It is partly because new localities began to utilize other means of profiling and selecting the residents. The exclusion of Palestinian citizens of Israel from state land continued, and Jewish national institutions retained their formal status in Israel’s land policies and development'pp.130-131

To circumvent the potential implications of the Ka’adan ruling, the Knesset passed in 2011 the Communities Acceptance Law. This allows “admissions committees” to determine who can be admitted to Jewish communities of fewer than 400 households in the Negev/Naqab and Galilee areas. Under the Law to Amend the Cooperative Societies Ordinance (No. 8), the “admissions committees” can base their selection on a set of vague standards, including the candidate’s “social suitability” or lack of “compatibility with the social and cultural fabric” of the community, which is determined based on a “professional opinion by someone who is expert in identifying such suitability.” An “admissions committee” is made up of five members, including three representatives of the community, one representative of the WZO and the Jewish Agency for Israel, and one representative of the regional council that has jurisdiction over the community. The functioning of the committees is not subject to any supervision by the Israeli authorities.' p.131Nishidani (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

To sum up: Amnesty report is a great source for what Amnesty believes and claims

Again, read the source source. Don't just make wild assertions. The AI report is not 'a great source for what Amnesty International believes.' That is an attempt to subjectivize known facts as mere opinions. But the report has 1559 footnotes which scrupulously source all the minutiae in the report to the specialized literature on these topics. The report itself is nothing more than a summary of what thousands of books and research papers, produced in Israel and elsewhere, states. Given AI's credibility as a neutral HR body that does intensive research, attempts to dismiss it can only work if, unlike government hasbara so far, readers show by numerous e3xamples that it has misconstrued its sources, slipped up in citing the Israeli Bureau of Statistics, or the legal literature, or the budget figures etc.Nishidani (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Per this discussion amnesty as biased and non factual source doesn't meet WP:ONUS and should be removed Shrike (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense, per this discussion a couple of editors have made sweeping claims that do not stand up to any scrutiny. Amnesty says Palestinians but a Wikipedia editor says no they mean Arabs not Palestinians. Amnesty is a perfectly usable source for facts, it is widely cited in other reliable sources and complaints centered on WP:JDLI should be given their appropriate weight, that being 0. nableezy - 13:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Most sources are biased, bring contradictory sources if you think it so. Which part is non-factual? Selfstudier (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

What are those facts? That majority of Israeli Arabs live in certain areas? There are better sources, such as CBS, but ok. That there are "deliberate segregation policies"? POV nonsense, must not be presented without attributing it to Amnesty and without a rebuttal. Certainly WP:UNDUE here. “WarKosign” 15:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Straightforward to find material https://pomeps.org/segregation-integration-and-intergroup-relations-in-israel. Feel free to rebut Amnesty + scholarly sourcing explaining that this is not "POV nonsense". Selfstudier (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

That 'deliberate segregation practices', even in mixed cities, are Israeli policy has been attested time and again in the scholarly literature. If you persist in calling a deeply documented fact as POV nonsense, I suggest you familiarize yourself with that literature which examines a large range of measures that deny Israeli Palestinians land and building rights. I can list a dozen of them, if this obvious fact, which is regularly noted in Israeli newspapers, has escaped your attention. So far we have documentation opposed by generic policy flag-waving with no clear relevance (WP:Undue etc). Any objections require counter-arguments or evidence, not exasperated protests that core facts have no place in this article. Nishidani (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for accidentally removing your comment with the summary I intended for a different edit.

As I've written in the summary, the facts about the distribution of Arab citizens of Israel should be presented according to the WP:NPOV. "Restricted" isn't found in the source. There's no real contrast in the urbanisation level which would justify "though." "Densely" makes it feel like the Arab towns are particularly densely populated without actually saying it. If it's true then we should be able to find a better source, though I doubt it, considering that Gush Dan is quite densely populated as well. Alaexis_¿question? 10:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

That is not an argument. When we do not use direct quotes, we are obliged to paraphrase, as I did in writing 'restricted' to convey the ssense of the source's reference to Palestinians who live in those areas as a result of deliberate segregation policies. The quibble about the non-POV quality of the phrasing 'densely populated' is likewise odd: that, unlike restricted, is a direct reflection of the wording in the source. Please read up on the topic area. No better sources are requirted because what was stated here is known to everyone, and mninutely documented in Israeli sources, and to equivocate that there is something unusual in these statements is simply denialism. Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Complaining about the use of this or that word as an excuse for a revert of properly sourced easily verifiable information is nothing more than pettifoggery.Selfstudier (talk) 10:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, the paraphrasing needs to be NPOV-compliant and here it's clearly not. Regarding the "densely populated" the problem is due weight of a given source in a given context. Suppose we agree that it's relevant to discuss the comparative density of the Arab and Jewish population in Israel - then we need to find sources which describe it and summarise them. Alaexis_¿question? 10:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

For the record, cities in Israel are defined by population centers with over 20,000 inhabitants, whereas towns have at least 2,000. Ergo, most Israelis, Jews and non-Jews alike, live in urban centers (towns or cities). This is also the case with Arab citizens. The Amnesty content doesnt contradict the previous sentence nor adds any information of particular value to article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.246.130.136 (talk • contribs)

For the record, wikipedia editing is based on sourced knowledge, not private opinionizing of the kind you give above (and please sign your posts). Three editors here, closely identified with an Israeli POV, Sir Joseph, WarKosign and Shrike, had no arguments in reverting, other than vague policy flagwaving. In attempting to provide a rationale, you, Alaexis, fussed over one word, which could have been easily altered, as I have now done, but you then removed a datum which is widely attested and relevant -the pattern of Palestinian Israeli dwelling- and which had nothing to do with the contested adjective. Israel by its own admission and laws is an ethnic state privileging people of Jewish ethnicity over non-Jews, in its immigration, planning, marriage laws, administrative practices, funding and resource allocation. That is what the government states, its statistical bureau confirms, and the consensus of analysts, using this documentation, underwrite. An article which consistently ignores the differential reality regarding the 21% minority's population violated NPOV by consistently using 'Israelis' to implicitly denote the Jewish majority, ignoring that significant fifth of the other Israel. Nishidani (talk) 11:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

In removing Amnesty International Shrike, you state it is a 'questionable source'. It is used all over wikipedia, and a standard reference for scholarship, so it cannot be called 'questionable'. If you think so, the venue to assert that quixotic opinion is RSN. And the fact that we have a second source is irrelevant: Amnesty's report has significant information regarding Israel generally, not just this single datum from 280 pages. The quote provided has been removed, I imagine, because it speaks of segregation. That is a significant viewpoint, and impeccably documented in numerous academic sources. All this is leading to is an invitation to provide an extensive addition of scholarly sources I or anyone else can provide to underline that fact.Nishidani (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

An editor has now twice referred to Amnesty International as a "questionable" source. Per RS, questionable means generally unreliable or worse. A source frequently cited with approval by mainstream RS, by scholarly RS, by governments, including the US government as long as its not about Israel. Perhaps it is time that we resolved the Amnesty reliability question at RSP by way of RFC.Selfstudier (talk) 11:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that is necessary. This is patent obstructionism. Every objector/reverter here knows from reading Israeli newspapers that what Amnesty states is correct, that ethnic segregation exists as policy and practice in Israel. You don't have to read the scholarship or reports in detail in books or from other organizations like Human Rights Watch ('Israel: Discriminatory Land Policies Hem in Palestinians: Palestinian Towns Squeezed While Jewish Towns Grow,' Human Rights Watch 12 May 2020). All you need do is remember what your local newspapers regularly report. I.e.

'The fact that Arabs are barred from living in these areas due to their ethnicity, while almost any Jewish citizen who meets the relevant socioeconomic criteria can live there, means that Jews have considerably more options than Arabs when it comes to choosing a place to live. Both the Israeli establishment and the greater public have completely disregarded the dire statistics about the Arab community's housing shortage, which stems from blatant discrimination in the allocation of land, the expansion of existing communities’ jurisdictions and the approval of master plans. .'Jack Khoury, 'Israel's Discriminatory Housing Message: This Is a Jewish State; Arabs Out,' Haaretz22 February 2022

The Amnesty Report states a truism, one every informed editor cannot but know is factual. The objections are contemptuous of e only references to data that are undisputed, even in Israel. It is therefore not a question about Amnesty International's reliability at all. Rather, the objection is to the mention of these kinds of core facts on the Israel page, which is promotional in its 'normalizing' approach. Israel is not unique: the comparative literature shows similar policies in other ethnic states. This is editing in bad faith, in short where the only tactic is one of not replying to the talk page documentation, but strongarm erasure of what one disapproves of in the article.Nishidani (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I have posted to RSN with the intention of resolving Amnesty status. We cannot really have a situation where an editor unilaterally decides that a source such as Amnesty International is "questionable" and makes use of that assertion as a basis for reverting.14:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Selfstudier (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Re this version, I think that 'densely' is taken out of context and if we need to make a statement about the relative or absolute population density we should find a source which discusses it specifically. As I said earlier, "though" doesn't make sense considering that the previous sentence simply says that 92% of Israelis live in urban areas. Alaexis_¿question? 12:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

'Densely populated' in this precise context can be referenced by dozens of sources. 'Though' is functional. The previous sentence asserts an 'Israeli' (Jewish) reality that ignores the Arab sector reality's different statistical profile.Nishidani (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Does this "we" include you? Which context is "densely" taken out of? What is your suggestion for a wording? Selfstudier (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest "The majority (90%) of the Arab citizens of Israel live in Galilee, the Triangle area and Negev, while the rest live in mixed cities such as Haifa, Jerusalem and Acre." Alaexis_¿question? 16:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

In an article that bends over backwards to historicize a Jewish Israel, why are you opposed to any language that even hints that the 139 Palestinian Israeli villages are densely populated? After all these 1.9 million Palestinian Israelis are the direct descendants of the 156,000 who stayed on in 1948, and we all know why they are 'densely concentrated' in just 139 villages, don't we? I.e. since 1948 Israel has built hundreds of towns and villages for Jews, and zero new villages for Palestinians, while declaring most of the agricultural land round the Palestinian villages Israeli )i.e. 'Jewish') state land hallmarked for Jewish use. Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

My point is that the population density of the Jewish population - or Jewish-majority settlement is similar or higher. The population density of Tel Aviv and Haifa is 8k/km2 and 4.5k/km2 respectively. For the whole Gush Dan metro area which houses the more than a half of all the Jewish population, it's 2300/km2. I've looked at a few Arab cities and it's around 2-3k/km2. Of course the urban density is hard to compare as it depends a lot on how you draw municipality boundaries so it's hard to say whose average density is higher. Alaexis_¿question? 20:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

As u:Shrike noted elsewhere, it seems like the 90% figure isn't right either. Summing up the Arab population of Jerusalem, Haifa, Ramla, Lod, Jaffa and Nof HaGalil I get around 375,000, which is 20% of the 1,890,000 Arab resident population. Alaexis_¿question? 09:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The Arab population in Jerusalem isnt in Israel. nableezy - 22:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

This has also been dealt with as part of the WP:RS discussion on Amnesty. Amnesty refer to Palestinian citizens of Israel and East Jerusalemite Arabs are as well not citizens notwithstanding Israel including their number in overall population statistics.Selfstudier (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be a fairly clear consensus at RSN that AI is a perfectly usable source for facts, and until it stops snowing there Im going to restore it here. nableezy - 22:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

well wouldnt want a wikilawyer to hold the intervening bot edit as making it a second revert, but I think anybody can and should revert Shrike's bogus removal. nableezy - 22:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Apartheid material

Do we really need to go to RFC for inclusion?

Israel's treatment of the Palestinians within the occupied territories has drawn accusations that it is guilty of the crime of apartheid by human rights groups such as B'tselem, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, with the criticism extending in to its treatment of Palestinians within Israel as well. Israel rejects that it is guilty of the crime against humanity. Selfstudier (talk) 09:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

At least you should add the fact that Germany, the United States and the UK reject that as well (and maybe other NGOs?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:73C0:601:3D8F:0:0:BCCB:93FC (talk) 09:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

And that the Arab League and OIC approve of it? We can each make a list of who does and who doesn't? By the way, afaics there is no official UK position and an apparently off the record comment objects to the use of the term not the report itself, ditto Germany. We have the maker of the allegation and the response from the target of the allegation, why do we need more than that? There is a fuller discussion at Israel and the apartheid analogy which probably ought to be wikilinked for additional context but we don't need to transcribe all that here.Selfstudier (talk) 09:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-rejects-use-word-apartheid-connection-with-israel-2022-02-02/

https://www.jpost.com/international/article-695246

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-695546

adding that only Israel rejects this characterization, as opposed to most Western democracies, is false, POV and shows lack of balance) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:73C0:601:3D8F:0:0:BCCB:93FC (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Picking out things that support the Israeli side of the argument isn't helping. As well as being repetitive.Selfstudier (talk) 11:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Such cheer squad grouping of what are political reactions to reports, and not sober foreign ministry review results, are utterly pointless, also considering the numbers of EU countries supportive of Israel that have held back and remained silent. There are strategic and political calculations that are uppermost in such public declarations. Allies cannot be seen as conniving with states that potentially are in breach of international law,etc. If Israel is serious about the accusations, then rather than pull strings with foreign politicians, it should find someone of the stature of Michael Ben-Yair, a political insider, to rebut the charges which Ben-Yair, a former Attorney General of Israel, endorsed in his own response to Amnesty's report. Unlikely. Nothing of the kind was done when Human Rights Watch made essentially the same diagnosis back in April 2021. It can't be done, because the reports have no serious flaws i their intricate listing of discriminatory practices. One just hopes that the furor will die under silent contempt so 'we' can move on, and finishy the job.Nishidani (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

This is nonsensical, the material included Israel's response and yet the claim is that it is one-sided? We have a child article Israel and the apartheid analogy, this article is supposed to summarize that. Just saying get consensus is a. tendentious editing, and b. nonsensical when there is no argument made against the material on the talk page. I am restoring what was removed. nableezy - 17:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Opinion of one or two cherry picked NGOs has UNDUE weight for this article. Tritomex (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

DUE is determined by sources, and the accusation by several human rights groups and scholars is widely covered in those sources and as such carries weight to be included. This article is not an arm of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, we do not exist to sanitize an image. nableezy - 17:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I added a bit on responses, including that Israel's allies reject the accusation. But the idea that this widely covered accusation may not be included here is a non-starter, NPOV demands the inclusion of all significant views, and the view that Israel is guilty of this crime against humanity is widely covered in reliable sources and as such must be included here. nableezy - 17:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The views of NGOs about one particular subject are not relevant for this article. There are thousands of NGOOs with tens of thousands of opinion's. Its not acceptable to pull out out one of them and prioritize its particular position on whatever subject you choose. There are many other issues and many other opinion's. Should we suppose to mention other NGOs and their position on other subject here? (Arab exodus, Jewish exodus from Arab countries, Arab immigration to Palestine, rights of non Muslims in Palestine, Antisemitism and apartheid analogy etc) Should we turn the entire article about Israel into debate between NGOS? All this views should be mentioned in related article's according to their weight. Here we have one fringe view which is not endorsed by the vast majority of international community and this NGO got exceptional privilege of being inserted in typical cherry picked style into non political article that is not supposed to have primarily political focus.Tritomex (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

WEIGHT is determined by sources, and the idea that any of this is "fringe" is laughable. The view of AI, HRW, and Btselem on this has been widely covered in reliable sources, see 38k results for "amnesty international" israel apartheid 2022 on google news. That you or anybody else dislikes Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch is a personal problem, but here on WP they are respected sources and, crucially, given that their views are widely covered in reliable sources they have the weight to be included here. There is nothing cherry-picked here, there is however a sustained effort to censor out material that reliable sources give weight to. And that effort is in direct violation of several of our policies. The sources here support the weight given to this material. Your dislike of it is immaterial. nableezy - 21:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems to me that if we are going to treat this, it would be useful to give something more a bit more substantive than just a "he said - she said". It would be useful to give a sense of what may be the points of similarity that have led people like Desmond Tutu to see a parallel and repeatedly make the comparison -- and, equally, what are the points of difference that for others make any comparison so distorted as to be utterly inappropriate. On the one side it's easy enough to point to different legal codes and policing (police vs army) applying to settlers compared to West-bankers; movement restrictions, yellow-plate-only roads, "Bantustans in the West Bank" (yes, we even have that redirect); cultural identification by the effective authority with one side rather than the other, and asserted collusion (cf middle part of this Observer piece from last year); other aspects of unequal treatment (eg building permissions, water rights, access to electricty, etc) as detailed in the Amnesty report. What we're not doing so well at the moment is setting out why others believe, equally vehemently, that any comparison with old South Africa is so unbalanced and so utterly exaggerated that it can only be malicious. At the moment the references we do provide do little more than point to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - there are other regimes that are worse, why single Israel out for this comparison. Just as WP:OSE isn't an argument that cuts much weight in internal discussions here, so we should be helping people wanting information about this to find a stronger rebuttal case.

IMO a proper treatment of the subject, with sufficient exploration, probably requires a section of another article. We need to be careful of WP:UNDUE, and about the framing of what is important about a country, of which the extent of the discussion in an article is a strong cue. But it's a charge that's made often enough that IMO it's probably worth making sure people can at least find that discussion from here, if this is where they came to looking for it. Others' views may differ. Jheald (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I beg to differ.

The problem is that it is a highly political article. The main issue is WP:NPOV/ neutrality. Israel, unlike Western democracies is an ethnic state which explicitly states its priorities regard the 75% of the population that is Jewish. Our article reflects this faithfully. Any section you examine will show that 'Israeli' overwhelmingly describes the Jewish component. Take Education. Israel has 2 systems, for Jews and Palestinians. The last time I looked, 95% of the section deals with the Jewish educational sector. I think there is just one allusion to the others. In a neutral article for such a peculiar situation, here WP:DUE would technically mean distributing coverage proportionately 75/25 to cover the respective realities that emerge from the choice to create distinct, dual institutions for the major and minority ethnos. Editors here haven't created this socioeconomic structural duality, amply covered in secondary sources. Israel has, and we are obliged to describe the complexity, not ignoreit, as the article as edited so far does. I hope this talk page can begin to seriously address this duality by discussing how to ensure the whole reality of Israel is described, and not just its programmatic 'Jewishness.' Nishidani (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I'm probably being slow. What you just wrote seems fair enough, but I don't see how it relates to what I was saying? Jheald (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Jheald, the issue is that we are talking about little a apartheid, the crime against humanity, and not big A Apartheid, the South African system of racial exclusion. This is not about a comparison to South Africa, this is about the accusation that Israel is guilty of a crime against humanity. nableezy - 00:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

No problem.Your remarks introducing SA seemed to come out of left field compared to the issues being discussed so I tried to clarify what underlies the conflict on this page recently.By the way, Amnesty International's report studiously avoids the South African comparison you raise.

The framework of apartheid allows a omnicomprehensive understanding, grounded in international law, of a situation of segregation, oppression and domination by one racial group over another. Amnesty International notes and clarifies that systems of oppression and domination will never be identical. Therefore, it does not seek to argue that, or assess whether, any system of oppression and domination as perpetrated in Israel and the OPT is, for instance, the same or analogous to the system of segregation, oppression and domination as perpetrated in South Africa between 1948 and 1994.pp.13-14

Human Rights Watch's report last year, which contains the same argument as Amnesty's, does not even nominate the South African case. So I think we should avoid that specific analogy here. Both prefer the meaning of Apartheid as defined in international lawNishidani (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Now you point that out, it is quite striking in the article text -- for example under "Demographics" where a paragraph starts "Three quarters of the population are Jews... ", followed by a paragraph discussing the various different backgrounds of that 75%, followed by.... nothing at all about the composition of the other 25% ?

The article could indeed use a root-and-branch go-through to make sure that each section considers how it relates to the whole population, not just 75%.

It may be that there is also a case for a specific section looking more specifically at the different communal groups, the extent to which they are separate and to what extent they mix, how similar or different are their outcomes and lived experiences -- a question of relevance to very many countries, either on its own or as part of a wider sub-section "socio-economic challenges", which is found in some country articles, since an increasing distance between poor and rich has also become an increasing social issue. Such a section might be a place to allude to some of the issues considered at Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy#Issues_in_Israel_proper, considered on their own concrete terms, rather than as manifestations of the 'a' word. Though such a section might naturally end with a line "some consider that this amounts to small-a apartheid, though others utterly reject this", working in a link to the article, but effectively burying the lead rather than highlighting it, treating the substance of the issue with appropriate DUE weight, without distorting the overall framing.

In terms of the distinction between small-a and large-a apartheid, that's a very interesting point, and probably one that would not be on the initial radar of 99% of the readership (myself included) on hearing the term 'apartheid' related to Israel. But this is not the place to get into it -- which is why it is important to hand off any mention of the a-word as quickly as possible to another article, which has the room to get into such nuances (however important). Also, for what it's worth, I don't think the phrasing "crime of apartheid" / "crime against humanity" works to signal this -- I have to confess I read straight past those word, filtering them as hyperbole, without appreciating the nuance that they were trying to signal. If this is a distinction the article should make, then a phrase like "small-a apartheid" may do the job better, if we're trying to flag that "the word 'apartheid' may not be being used in quite the way you may be expecting". Though, at least in relation to the territories, I suspect it actually is the suggestion of a comparison with large-a apartheid that carries more sting, and causes more upset, as being altogether more concrete and less abstract.

But: yes, the article does indeed need root-and-branch review, to make sure that all sections give due balance to all of the population, not just 75% of it. And also, IMO, serious consideration should be given to a section exploring questions of integration and whether different sections of the population experience very different lives (which might also touch on other areas of integration -- for example the pretty free integration, at least comparatively, of the LGBT community in Israel). Jheald (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with respect to the labeling. As you say, many will auto-associate the word/label with big A and our "analogy" article doesn't help because the analogy is precisely big A (compared to SA) and many do continue to make use of the analogy. That's historical, that article title was the result of much argument and does not reflect the current state of debate most of which relates to little a (the crime). There are ongoing discussions about how to deal with that in our articles. It is notable that much of the public objection is directed at the label itself and not at the constituent hr issues that go to make up that which we are calling little a. Selfstudier (talk) 11:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The AI article was removed because it had that word in the title. That Israel practices,in four forms (Gershon Shafir 2018 et al.), a policy of 'segregation' on ethnic lines is far too well established by Israeli scholarship to challenge. It is a major feature of institutional, paralegal, and local administrative practices, and cannot be avoided. An encyclopedia informs the global public of historical and current realities by synthesizing the best sources bearing on the topic, rather than cautiously stepping around issues in deference to public opinion. That two of the foremost human rights bodies in the world, and Israel's finest NGO specialist, are both highly critical of Palestinian human rights abuses, and, at the same time, concur that the form of segregation practiced in Israel approximates to the social form generally designating ethnic discrimination in social arrangements known as apartheid is worth a note, at a minimum. I personally do not think the word should be hammered, or made into a separate section, or showcased. The issue is, how do we describe the ethnic divide in its multiple forms within Israeli society. We have several possible terms, separation, segregation etc., as well as apartheid. In my view, all that is required is to ensure that, in the generic description, section by section, of divisions -institutional, fiscal, demographic, geographic, historical, etc-.- duly balance the generalizations where Israeli means implicitly 'Jewish', by qualifying the situation with regard to the 25& of the population, where that is missing. If the page lists numerous examples of Israeli firsts, quite properly because it has done remarkably well in several fields, it should also note, for example, that Israel has the biggest gap between different socio-economic groups, Jewish as opposed to Arab students, of the 79 countries participating in OECD PISA tests. Things like that, per NPOV. Factual, not ideological.Nishidani (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The claim that one or two NGO are "finest" or "best" is not evidence based fact but a POV driven opinion. The same goes for opposite claims, that see this NGOd as antisemitic. Factually the apartheid claim of this particular NGO is not supported by almost any serious international institution and has been ignored by virtually all government's. As for the claim regarding Palestinian Israelis, most of Israeli Arabs according the surveys do not define themselves as Palestinians. Second, there are today no exclusively Jewish cities in Israel and all cities in Israel are virtually mixed, Tel Aviv, Beersheba, Carmiel, Safed, Hof Hagalil, even East Jerusalem Jewish neighborhoods like French Hill or Pisgat Zeev have substantial Arab population. Although Israel did built Arab towns in Negev, Arab population us present in all towns above 10 000 inhabitants in Israel, from Eilat to Nahariya in increasing numbers.Tritomex (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

DUE has been clearly demonstrated. Then go to RSN or NPOV board and make an argument there, try to get a consensus. At present, AI is reliable for fact and attributable for opinion in respect of all their reports. I fail to see why Israel ought to be specially exempt.Selfstudier (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Tag bombing, how trite.Selfstudier (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: For a similar discussion about NGOs I could recommend one see Talk:Predictions of a genocide in Ethiopia#Requested move 29 November 2021 Dunutubble (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, DUE has not been demonstrated by any mean. If you want to include claims without concensus, than you should go to those noticeboard and open a discussion there. Tritomex (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Tritomex your last two edits are composed of assertions based on unfamiliarity with the topic. They are generic opinions. No one is interested in what you or I think (your remarks about towns). It is boring to hear you expatiate why AI's statement about a very specific demographic reality is wrong. Lastly, what AI states is based on a vast survey of sources, and happens to reflect what many senior Israeli politicians, NGOs and thinkers have often stated.Yossi Sarid, Ehud Barak, Ehud Olmert, Michael Ben-Yair, Ami Ayalon and A. B. Yehoshua have drawn the comparison; Israeli NGOS like B'tselem and Yesh Din idem. It's the impression 25% of American Jews have,that “Israel is an apartheid state”(Ron Kampeas, ‘Poll finds a quarter of US Jews think Israel is ‘apartheid state’,’ Times of Israel 13 July 2021; Chris McGreal,Amnesty says Israel is an apartheid state. Many Israeli politicians agree The Guardian 5 February 2022 Nishidani (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

None of the above confirms that Amnestry's judgement is correct. It simply affirms that in Israeli political and intellectual discourse that analogy has been present for 4 decades. And therefore, it is a perfectable acceptable point of view as one way of interpreting the socioeconomic and historic data, neither scandalous nor fringe.Nishidani (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to add my voice to what has already been said, it is very difficult to argue WP:UNDUE about an amnesty report which was covered by every major newspaper in the world, including those in Israel itself. We are entering "just don't like it" territory here. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Many things are covered in WP:RS it doesn't mean their content are factual or WP:DUE to include Shrike (talk) 08:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Many things are covered in WP:RS What does this even mean? If this is another way of repeating your assertion that AI is a questionable source, then you are just wrong, it is reliable for facts and attributable for opinion. Material is self evidently due even if the NYT failed to cover it, alone of the major news outlets, an argument to the contrary is not even worth consideration.Selfstudier (talk) 09:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

It means that this article is about Israel, not the Amnesty report or even the disputed territories. The report is probably notable enough to merit its own article, yet it doesn't mean it has to appear here directly. USB flash drive is an Israeli invention about as prominent in the news as the Amnesty report, yet nobody in their right mind would insist that Israel needs to have a paragraph dedicated to it. Keep in mind that this is is supposed to be a well-balanced and neutral article about Israel, not "every hateful thing about Israel we can think of". “WarKosign” 12:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPOV requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Not the exclusion of them which this article in particular has a tendency to do.Selfstudier (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello to everybody. Sorry for introducing myself to this conversation. But here is my humble proposal to solve this: Why don't we add a few more words in the paragraph that already talks about criticism with a link to the article discussing the apartheid analogy for Israel, intead of a separate paragraph that will make people go crazy with reactions and counter-reactions and what should be included or not? It would be something like this: ...."The allegations include violations of international humanitarian law[439] by the UN Human Rights Council,[440] with local residents having "limited ability to hold governing authorities accountable for such abuses" by the U.S. State Department,[441] mass arbitrary arrests, torture, unlawful killings, systemic abuses, impunity AND APARTHEID by Amnesty International and others[442][443][444][445][446][447] and a denial of the right to Palestinian self-determination..." (For God's sake, even Amnesty is already mentioned! We don't need to reinvent the wheel)Dalaufer (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Afaics, this all blew up when straightforward factual info in relation to Israeli demographics and referenced to AI was inserted in the article. Diff Your suggestion does not mention that, the material you are referencing relates to the territories and not Israeli demographics, and at that time (2017), Amnesty was not accusing Israel of apartheid practices. I agree this does need resolving, not like that though.Selfstudier (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Eh?! Who is talking about demographics? I don't care how it started. You wanted to add an entire paragraph on the apartheid accusation and the other side rejected it completely, so I'm trying to reach a compromise. Just mention apartheid with a link to the analogy together with all the other accusations by Amnesty and the rest (together with unlawful killings, denial of self-determination, etc). What difference does it make that the accusation didn't exist in 2017? Who cares? The paragraph already present about criticism of Israel doesn't distinguish between years, and it doesn't deal only with the occupied territories. I'm trying to reach a middle ground here. If you insist on making a separate paragraph, the other side won't accept it. I suggest you take my compromise.Dalaufer (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Going by your recent editing, I don't think that would be wise.Selfstudier (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• I think coverage of apartheid accusations are due, as long as they're not given an over-sized amount of space within this broad article. I haven't checked diffs to see what's actually been added, I'm just going off the basis of the text proposed at the start of this conversation, which is perfectly fine as the accusations are clearly attributed (to well-regarded rights groups). How frequently is the accusation of apartheid also levelled at the treatment of Palestinians within Israel (compared to the occupied territories)? Perhaps the wording about Palestinians within Israel should be more cautious (e.g. "sometimes extended to")? Also, I don't think it's necessary to spell out and wikilink crime against humanity if crime of apartheid is already linked. Note: I came to this discussion as I watch this talk page. For full disclosure, I received an unsolicited email from User:Anycryme trying to canvass me to this conversation. This didn't affect my view on the question. I presume the user is a new sock of יניב הורון and I've notified an admin. Jr8825 • Talk 16:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  Additionally, I think we should prioritise substantive/fact-based information about the inequalities Palestinians in Israel face over the argument about a legal accusation/assertion. Preceding the sentence about the accusation of apartheid, I would support the following text: Israel's constitutional and legal structures do not grant Palestinian Arabs within Israel full equality with Jews; in particular, Palestinians face restrictions purchasing land and accessing public funds. I haven't read the article in its entirety, so apologies if this is already covered, although this contextual info does seems to be missing at first glance. Jr8825 • Talk 17:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Jr8825 - I also got an email from Ancryme telling me to participate in this conversation. I don't know if he's a sockpuppet or not but I'd like to share that I was directed to this section by one of his emails too. Dunutubble (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for those suggestions. The text you propose looks fine though I think we might think about Dowty. He's an excellent source, but the text goes back to 1999. Where would you suggest we place it?

As to your other comments, I agree that editors should avoid jumping on the 3 human rights reportsng to recast the article. What is important, as you say, is to get the details about significant socioeconomic gaps among Israelis succinctly stated throughout the texts. No hot air. Nishidani (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC).

I'm currently working my way through a large list of journal articles on the democracy vs ethnocracy debate regarding Israel as part of my university research, and expect I'll come across more recent articles making the same point. There are also NGO reports, of course (which I'm not going to have time to look through). However, I like the Dowty source as it's partially a literature review summarising preceding academic discussion and it spells out the nature of the inequality and its widespread acceptance by scholars explicitly, so even though it's now quite old I don't imagine its validity has changed. The precise wording is: "It is difficult to argue (and so far no participant in this debate has argued) that Palestinian Arabs in Israel enjoy full equality with Jews either de jure (that is, in terms of constitutional and legal structures ) or de facto. As a minority, they are systematically excluded from important areas of Israeli life." This obviously excludes the treatment of non-Israeli citizen Palestinians in the West Bank who fall outside the de jure application of Israeli law, and although accusations of apartheid are often made with this group in mind, we do cover them in a more detailed manner in the section Israel § Israeli-occupied territories. Jr8825 • Talk 19:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Fascinating, and my best wishes for your research wherever it leads. Virginia Tilley’s Beyond Occupation: Apartheid, Colonialism and International Law in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, (2012) has a solid update on Dowty’s list and is academic rather than NGO. She’s interesting also because her UN report, with Richard Falk ( 2017) was withdrawn after severe political pressure demanded its erasure from their website, and this too probably tipped the scales for the subsequent NGO series of reports four years later (B’tselem, HRW and Amnesty Reports). But you clearly have a much deeper grasp on the literature than I, so suggestions are pointless. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Given the absurd claims of UNDUE for material with hundreds of reliable sources, Ive raised this at NPOVN. See here. nableezy - 20:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The information is well sourced and presented as being from the sources, WarKosigns removal of it claiming "WP:POV and WP:UNDUE" doesn't make any sense.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Honestly there appears to be a consensus for the material here anyway. The claim on DUE has been asserted, not shown, and the mass of sources provided directly refutes it. This is blatant WP:IDLI editing, but we can see what outside editors at NPOVN have to say. nableezy - 23:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I mean to be fair WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an argument usually meant to be used in deletion discussions. But then again that article also states that in some cases it can be used outside of that context.... I'm just musing here, don't take me too seriously. Dunutubble (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The apartheid analogy at the very least deserves a paragraph under the "Israeli-occupied territories" section. X-Editor (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Refs

References

Map Change

I think the map which should be used in the Article is the one with the Golan Heights as a fully integrated territory and the west bank as not fully intergrated because it's the more correct situation currently, in which Israel is the sovereign of these territories. This map is already used in many articles such as the German and the French ones. I would like if someone would open a poll on this change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by עצם בלתי מזוהה (talk • contribs) 21:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks but - Which map are you referring to? The one in the infobox or somewhere else in the article? Dunutubble (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)