Talk:Israel and apartheid

Propose to remove first sentence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which do you prefer?

References

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

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

Deletion of wikilink

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: Wikilink to Weaponization of antisemitism

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

Survey (Wikilink RfC)

• Remove. If the link is included, we'll be making a wikivoice claim that when Israel labels the apartheid charges antisemitic, it is engaging in weaponization of antisemitism. This claim is unmentioned in the body of the article. Two sources were added (to the lead only) to support the claim:
  1. This Amnesty International article, originally published as an opinion piece in Politico. Per WP:RSP, AI is a generally reliable source, though the summary goes on to say "in controversial cases editors may wish to consider attribution for opinion". It's not clear if AI itself supports the weaponization claim, since the source itself attributes the claim as an argument made by "12 Israeli human rights organizations".
  2. A tweet from Kenneth Roth. Though obviously self-published, Roth is a subject-matter expert, having led Human Rights Watch for many decades.
  I don't think this body of sourcing is strong enough to support a wikivoice claim. If we determine that it is, I would rather be clear about the claim and not make it via an eggy link, and I'd rather see it mentioned in the body and then summarized in the lead. If we decide attribution is needed, I think that's fine, as long as the additional wordage necessary for attribution doesn't overweight this aspect of the subject. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
  • The additional sources provided below have not changed my view. kashmiri provides four opinion pieces, which lend some weight to the idea that this view should be mentioned in the body and perhaps summarized in the lead. They do not suggest that we should make a wiki-voice statement—which we should never do based on opinion sources—and certainly not a veiled one via wikilink.
    Simonm223 provides the highest-quality source available thus far, a journal article from David Hirsh, and it argues against the use of "they're weaponizing antisemitism" as a way of shutting down legitimate criticism of antisemitic discourse. A source like this is further suggestion that there are good reasons to present this claim with attribution, not in wikivoice, and not via implied wikivoice using an eggy link.
    I would be fine with proposals to explicitly state and attribute the weaponization claim. I'd prefer Crossroads' suggestion over Selfstudiers'. Both would necessitate being explicit in the body of the article about who the "critics" are.
    Finally, I've come to regret the wording of the options in this RfC, since "Keep/Remove" suggest that the link as currently presented is part of the stable version of this article. In the event of a "no consensus" closure, I'd encourage the closer to look into the history of the disputed content. For ease of reference, it was added on 7 April, removed nine days later, and added/removed nine more times before the start of this RfC. It was added/removed four more times during the run of this RfC. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs)
• Keep nothing extraordinary about the linking and is supported by RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, a well-known fact, let me know how many RS are needed, because they are aplenty at the fingertip.[1][2][3][4] Wikipedia can state well-published facts in its own voice. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• Remove The premature attempt to shoehorn this term in this article appears to be a part of a soapboxing effort to promote a potentially WP:FRINGE and WP:POVTITLE use of a term whose actual definition is currently being debated on the parent article's talk page. Should remain off this page until that debate is concluded.Mistamystery (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• Remove. Wikilinking would essentially mean that the rejection of these accusations is always done for political purposes. Obviously no sources make this claim. It's better to not try to make a point by wikilinking but rather to write it explicitly "Israel and some of its Western allies have rejected the accusation, with Israel often labeling the charge antisemitic (in the lede, no wikilinking) "X, Y and Z consider the accusations of antisemitism to be an example of weaponization of antisemitism (not in the lede, because the lede should summarise the article). Alaexis_¿question? 20:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• Remove per the arguments made above, particularly by @Alaexis and @Firefangledfeathers. It either goes beyond or improperly simplifies the body, in a way that is at best not fully supported by a due weight of RS. I strongly doubt that there is enough content to allow a complete explanation, and a link to a page would be improper as well. FortunateSons (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Firstly, no-one is arguing with the sentence per se, only whether the wikilink is appropriate. I would also support the revised wording as suggested by @Gitz6666: in the discussion section

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

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

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

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

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

• Keep the wikilink Other editors have provided more than sufficient WP:RS to demonstrate that it's supported. TarnishedPath^talk 13:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep a link and reference to it in some form, since it's a central part of the discussions over that aspect of the topic and is at least as significant as Israel's position itself; however, I would be open to rewording it ala the suggestion by Gitz6666 below - something that makes it clear that it is a response or descriptor, possibly describing it as attributed / described opinion or just generally describing it as a response, presuming more specific attribution exists in the body. --Aquillion (talk) 03:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per above GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 02:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
• Remove, because such a link is itself a claim that Israel's labeling it that is an example of said "weaponization", while that claim is not in the text. If such a claim is actually supported by a large majority of RS, it should be in the text, not just a link; conversely, if it is significantly disputed, then such a claim cannot be smuggled into the encyclopedia via linking as though it is the sole mainstream position, but should be described with in-text attribution (e.g. Israel and some of its Western allies have rejected the accusation, with Israel often labeling the charge antisemitic. Critics of Israel argue that this constitutes a weaponization of antisemitism.) There is no scenario whatsoever in which linking can properly be used to make factual claims aside from what is in the text. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• Remove due to neutrality - but the link should be kept in a different context. The usage of the link in that context violates NPOV, but it should still be mentioned. I agree with Alaexis that both Israel's and others' points of view should be included, to say that Israel alleges antisemitism, and that others accuse Israel of weaponizing antisemitism, without giving precedence to either allegation.. RAGentry (talk) (contributions) 18:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Remove, this clearly violates NPOV. The very suggestion of using this link in this context, in an encyclopedia intended to maintain neutrality is concerning, to say the least. ABHammad (talk) 05:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
• Remove This link violates EASTEREGG because most readers would not expect to go to weaponization of antisemitism from a link that says labeling the charge antisemitic. It also violates NPOV by taking a side on whether it is weaponization in wikivoice. I support the alternate version shown by Crossroads, if it appears in the body. As a side note, it probably should appear in the body, since the sources definitely exist. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  Easteregg is a valid argument, what if it is reworded? Say "Israel and some of its Western allies reject the accusation. Critics accuse Israel and others that label the charge as antisemitic of weaponizing antisemitism. Selfstudier (talk) 11:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  I would support that wording. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  The proposal by Selfstudier is a very good solution. TucanHolmes (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  Provided that there are good sources - and indeed there are - I also agree with Selfstudier's proposal. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• Remove. "with Israel often labeling the charge antisemitic" is NOT a reference to Weaponization of antisemitism. A claim by the state of Israel (or others) that something was antisemitic may be true or not, and can frequently be disputed. By making such link we say in WP voice that the claim was definitely false as an example of the "weaponization" rather than merely providing a claim that we can not make and should not judge ourselves here. However, including link to the New antisemitism would be OK. My very best wishes (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)ourselves. My very best wishes (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  And the proposed rewording above? Selfstudier (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Selfstudier's proposal at 11:06, 22 May 2024 above solves the problem. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Skitash (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Remove. People may pretend that there is widely and scientifically accepted apartheid which is not the case, there are only allegations. Since when we should even discuss adding NPOV? Wikipedia presents well-known facts but avoids controversial opinions that might manipulate readers or suggest a particular viewpoint. To add links it should have mainstream scientific support for this claim, be neutral and not marginal. Proposed link will directly imply the point which it untrue, trying to make a point that Israel is engaging in weaponization of antisemitism. Such highly controversial statements should not be done in Wikipedia which should be unbiased. Adding sources to the lead to try to support unneutral point already shows that the point is weak to begin with. Wikipedia may state facts which are well-known in its own voice, but not some marginal controversial weak views and opinions. A few opinions wouldn't be sufficient to include a contentious claim. Strong arguments require well-respected, peer-reviewed scientific studies. There is an attempt to indirectly manipulate readers opinion in such a way that denial of such accusations is always done for political purposes which is not true. Wikipedia presents well-known facts, not marginal or manipulative opinions. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
• Remove. The wikilink in question would be blatantly POV. Whoever added it should get a topic ban from the subject area. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Wikilink RfC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, removers are essentially saying that the wikilink is not a "relevant connection to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully" and that the wikilink is not to an "article with relevant information", when the wikilink obviously is that. In addition, the linked article exists, is therefore neutral and notable, it is on topic and the statement being linked in the article is sourced (with other sources easily available) so there is no neutrality question, on the contrary it is NPOV Selfstudier (talk) 08:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  • This seriously mischaracterizes the arguments of those suggesting removal, who have mostly objected to the way the link is presented, and the implied claim that presentation is making. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

    I have suggested an alternative non eggy wording above, why not comment on that? Selfstudier (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

    I have already done so. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

    I can't see it. QuicoleJR !voted remove but said he would support the suggested alternative wording. Selfstudier (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

    Below, you quoted from my second comment in the survey section. From that same comment: "I would be fine with proposals to explicitly state and attribute the weaponization claim. I'd prefer Crossroads' suggestion over Selfstudiers'. Both would necessitate being explicit in the body of the article about who the "critics" are." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

    Requiring attribution of multiple sources in the lead is not practical (or usual). Selfstudier (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

    "explicit in the body of the article" (emphasis added). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

    OK but the RFc is about the sentence in the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

    Also, The additional sources provided below have not changed my view. kashmiri provides four opinion pieces, which lend some weight to the idea that this view should be mentioned in the body and perhaps summarized in the lead. Suggest you look at the sources actually in the article.Selfstudier (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

    The addition of more opinion sources doesn't strengthen the case for an implied wikivoice claim. If this claim is commonly made by opinion sources, then we should obviously state it as an attributed opinion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

    They are not opinion sources. Selfstudier (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

    Of the five currently cited sources, which do you believe are not opinion sources? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

    There are two expert opinion sources. Selfstudier (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

    I don't disagree with that at all. Actually, I would say two is an undercount of the experts involved. I just think expert opinion is still opinion, best presented with attribution (where we can be clear about the expertise of the authors). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

    Typically in AI topic area, we avoid opinion pieces in favor of RS (which includes expert opinion). Otherwise we could add quite a few others to those 5. Selfstudier (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

    WP:RS includes even non-expert opinion! The guideline just makes it clear that we need to present statements of opinion as what they are, not as statements of fact. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

    I'm aware, just that we usually avoid pure opinion, there are always objections to such. Selfstudier (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• Remove per the arguments made above, particularly by @Alaexis and @[[User:Firefangledfeathers| מתיאל (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)מתיאל

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article claims that Israel has never had a law against miscegenation

This is not true. Israel currently has a law against miscegenation. It is illegal in Israel for a Jewish person to marry and Arab. Interreligious marriage within Israel is strictly forbidden by law. TerraTorment (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Ill look for better sourcing on this, but thank you. nableezy - 08:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Marriage in Israel Selfstudier (talk) 09:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

miscegenation are laws based on race? Afaics (WP is not a source), the Israeli laws are based on religion? Selfstudier (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

They are based on nominal religion. Being an atheist isn't enough to exclude someone from the rule about their nominal religion. I'm not sure about converts to a different religion. On the other hand, Israel recognises other marriages if they are performed overseas (but such people can have trouble if they seek to divorce). The answer to the title question depends on the definitions. Zero^talk 11:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know, thats accurate. So the article saying that there is no law against it is correct. FortunateSons (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

By some definitions it can also be based on ethnicity. In Israel, religion is also not just treated as religion, but as a proxy of supposed ethnicity, and a means of racializing identity, so these concepts all become rather blurry. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

This is the term that the source uses, so we need to base any changes on other RS, rather that on interpretations made by Wikipedia editors.

The issue of the interfaith marriages (which is a perfectly good term) should be discussed in the appropriate article - it's in fact no longer needed to physically be abroad to marry. This topic should only be mentioned here if there are multiple RS that discuss them in the context of apartheid.

To give some context, in Egypt a non-Muslim man cannot marry a Muslim woman [6], and no one says there is an apartheid there (this is not to defend the practice, personally I think it's fucked up, it just doesn't have anything to do with apartheid). Alaexis_¿question? 19:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

References

A misleading quote in the end of the article

in the last Paragraph, Israel was quoted "calling Palestinians "the modern heirs of the Nazis"." it is sourced from a JPost article where it is stated: "In speaking with reporters, Levy said, “History will judge South Africa for abetting the modern heirs of the Nazis. We assure South Africa’s leaders: history will judge you, and it will judge you without mercy.”"

A bit later in the article, Levy is quoted saying: "Levy said that Hamas had “a clear mission to murder as many Israelis as possible – as sadistically as possible. It was an act of genocide perpetrated with Nazi-like cruelty and Nazi-like efficiency, in the service of a Nazi-like ideology." I think it is from here appearent that when Levy refered to "the modern heirs of the Nazis", he meant Hamas, and not the Palestinians. I suggest this quote should therefore be removed Stone fridge (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Added [Hamas] next to Palestinians since Hamas members are Palestinians. Selfstudier (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Erm ... Isn't none of this section (other than the part about Cyril Ramaphosa's specific comments on apartheid) actually about apartheid? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

OK with me if removed. Selfstudier (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed it. This page is long enough without including off-topic material as well. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Are there any objections to this edit? [7] Makeandtoss (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Nope. Selfstudier (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

No, that looks like an improvement to me. Flagging this in case someone has the time and inclination: we need those sources to be presented and summarized in the body of the article somewhere. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I readded and did the body summary. Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

ICJ verdict

I just read that today's icj verdict states that Israel's policies in the oPT amount to apartheid—can anyone confirm this in a reliable source? (t · c) buidhe 14:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I am listening to French bit right now, said to be a breach of CERD articles 2 and 3 (apart from that, pretty much everything Israel is doing is illegal and illegal use of force/illegal annexation) Selfstudier (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Cease all settlement activity, evacuate settlers, dismantle wall in OPT, end occupation asap, repeal all illegal laws in OPT, reparations/restitution, etcetera since 67. Selfstudier (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

And of course, the occupation is itself illegal, third states obliged to bring about rectification. Selfstudier (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

GA/UNSC to decide how to bring about an end to the illegal occupation. Threat to international peace and security reiterated. Self determination for Palestinians a must. Selfstudier (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Reparations. Wow. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, I would wait for the RS (it will take them some time to absorb it, methinks). Selfstudier (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Here: [8] — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

And a summary: [9] — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Graz, if you want to watch the whole thing https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k13/k136ri1smc Selfstudier (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks like confirming the accusation of apartheid without saying it explicitly (page 14–15 of the Summary). — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

It's because Israel is a party to CERD. Selfstudier (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

the ICJ summary seems to me like the judges disagree on whether they decided that Israel's actions amount to apartheid.

so far, the sources I am seeing are not talking about whether the decision means Israel committed apartheid AP NBC Washington Post Rainsage (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Haaretz: "The world court said Israel has been committing apartheid and should make restitution over its occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem" Rainsage (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Not quite sure where Haaretz is getting its quotes from, this one "systematic discrimination, segregation and apartheid.". Selfstudier (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

yeah I don't know. "systemic discrimination" (not "systematic") is included in the summary and the opinion but in a separate paragraph from "Segregation" or "apartheid" Rainsage (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The Beeb goes with "Among its other far-reaching conclusions, the court said Israeli restrictions on Palestinians in the occupied territories constituted "systemic discrimination based on, inter alia, race, religion or ethnic origin"" Selfstudier (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, we have another Haaretz but this time written by expert Aeyal Gross and this is rather different:

""While it held that Israel's actions amount to systematic discrimination, and violate the United Nations' Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination [CERD] prohibition on "segregation and apartheid," the ICJ stopped short of determining whether the situation constitutes "only" segregation or, in fact, amounts to "apartheid." Presumably this ambiguity was deliberate, allowing as many judges as possible to join the majority – regardless of their view on this point." Selfstudier (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Amnesty goes with ""The International Court of Justice has issued its opinion and the conclusion is loud and clear: Israel’s occupation and annexation of the Palestinian territories are unlawful, and its discriminatory laws and policies against Palestinians violate the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid."" which ties in with Gross but then the rest just assumes apartheid, unsurprisingly, given their earlier report on the subject. Selfstudier (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

HRW "In a historic ruling the International Court of Justice has found multiple and serious international law violations by Israel towards Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including, for the first time, finding Israel responsible for apartheid."(Tirana Hassan, Human Rights Watch Executive Director) Selfstudier (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The Intercept "The court also notably declared Israel’s mistreatment of Palestinians to be a form of segregation and apartheid." Selfstudier (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

(FT) "The court said these policies were in breach of an international agreement against racial segregation and apartheid, called the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination." Selfstudier (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

aljazeera only mentions: "discriminatory policies"

aeyal gross also said on his twitter: "It won’t surprise me if this ambiguity is a compromise. We can see differences of opinion on it between some of the judges." Rainsage (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Much of this threas sounds as if editors are transcribing play by play piecemeal. It is highly confusing who said what and what is fact, ICJ finding or editor opinio . Please delete or rephrase and summarize with clarity. SPECIFICO talk 15:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear to me, everything Israel is doing in the OPT is illegal. How's that for a summary? The opinion is linked right there, read it yourself, or just wait for the RS. Selfstudier (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

An RS: The Guardian. "In a historic, albeit non-binding, opinion, the court found multiple breaches of international law by Israel including activities that amounted to apartheid." --Pinchme123 (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the RS are starting to analyze it a bit now. Might take a day or two for it all to come through in RS. Selfstudier (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

That is more constructive, thanks. What seemed clear to you up top apparently did not lead to much discussion. SPECIFICO talk 23:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 20 July 2024

Israel and apartheid → Israel's apartheid against Palestinians – This move should have been implemented years ago, when the world's most prominent human rights organization were in consensus that Israel's practices and policies in the OPT and within Israel constitute systemic discrimination against the Palestinian people, aka apartheid. The ICJ ruling yesterday by the world's highest court that this occupation constitutes apartheid was the cherry on the top. This move is long overdue, it is time to call a spade a spade.

• Human Rights Watch: World Court Finds Israel Responsible for Apartheid
• Amnesty International: "The occupation is a key pillar of the system of apartheid that Israel uses to dominate and oppress Palestinians, and which has caused suffering on a mass scale."
• Oxfam: "The Court confirmed that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which is one of the most serious international crimes."
• The Intercept: "The court also notably declared Israel’s mistreatment of Palestinians to be a form of segregation and apartheid.
• The Guardian: In a historic, albeit non-binding, opinion, the court found multiple breaches of international law by Israel including activities that amounted to apartheid.
• Financial Times: The court said these policies were in breach of an international agreement against racial segregation and apartheid, called the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination."

. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

We are getting ahead of ourselves here. I just added my !vote to the Israel RFC on including apartheid in the lead, as follows:

• Option C "including the implementation of policies that violate the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid." Because, on 19 July 2024, the ICJ case on Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories findings include
• (BBC) "Among its other far-reaching conclusions, the court said Israeli restrictions on Palestinians in the occupied territories constituted "systemic discrimination based on, inter alia, race, religion or ethnic origin"" This refers to "Accordingly, the Court is of the view that the régime of comprehensive restrictions imposed by Israel on Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory constitutes systemic discrimination based on, inter alia, race, religion or ethnic origin, in violation of Articles 2, paragraph 1, and 26 of the ICCPR, Article 2, paragraph 2, of the ICESCR, and Article 2 of CERD."
• (Amnesty) ""The International Court of Justice has issued its opinion and the conclusion is loud and clear: Israel’s occupation and annexation of the Palestinian territories are unlawful, and its discriminatory laws and policies against Palestinians violate the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid."" This refers to Article 3 of CERD as linked above "The Court observes that Israel’s legislation and measures impose and serve to maintain a near-complete separation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem between the settler and Palestinian communities. For this reason, the Court considers that Israel’s legislation and measures constitute a breach of Article 3 of CERD."
• (Haaretz, Aeyal Gross) ""While it held that Israel's actions amount to systematic discrimination, and violate the United Nations' Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) prohibition on "segregation and apartheid," the ICJ stopped short of determining whether the situation constitutes "only" segregation or, in fact, amounts to "apartheid." Presumably this ambiguity was deliberate, allowing as many judges as possible to join the majority – regardless of their view on this point."
• Finally again according to the legal analysis "the bottom line of the Court’s approach seems clear – at best Israel’s actions amount ‘only’ to racial segregation, but they could also be apartheid. And the reason for this ambiguity is again the need to maintain consensus within the Court; the Court thus did not call Israel an ‘apartheid state’, but it did find a violation of an article in which apartheid is one of the two available options."

Selfstudier (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Now if after some time has passed, the consensus of reliable sources is that it is nevertheless, unequivocally apartheid, then we can do this but I don't see that atm, per above. Selfstudier (talk) 09:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

We only have Haaretz with this view; the Guardian, Financial Times, HRW, and the Intercept - all RS without a conflict of interest in contrast to Haaretz - report that the court had indeed found Israel to be committing apartheid. Either way, this is long overdue as the ICJ is not the only entity to make this claim, but the latest one. I would have supported the move long before this ruling, which is only the cherry on top. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Not just Haaretz, Amnesty as well (see quote) and EJIL. The BBC didn't even mention article 3 only article 2. I am almost certain that there are going to be more like this once the RS figure out how to report it, anyway we shouldn't jump because of WP:RECENT. Selfstudier (talk) 10:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think Amnesty disagrees in the quote you provided: "...against Palestinians violate the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid." Also, Amnesty's other quote is explicit: "The occupation is a key pillar of the system of apartheid that Israel uses to dominate and oppress Palestinians, and which has caused suffering on a mass scale." Makeandtoss (talk) 10:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The BBC has faced a staff revolt over its pro-Israel bias. That they won’t even acknowledge the judges did broach this subject in their ruling only goes to show its unreliability in covering issues that are damaging to Israel's image. (Comment made under anonymous IP). Rafe87 (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I think they probably will address it in due course. Wait for a bit, it was only yesterday. Selfstudier (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

There's basically been no coverage of the ICJ ruling the day after. Hihghly likely there's a conspiracy of silence between western governments and media to soften the blow on Israel and their own policies. Rafe87 (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

It's also been the weekend. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I really don't think coverage of the ICJ will increase four days after the ruling as opposed to the day after, no. We need to work with the coverage that has already been done, and much of it already acknowledges Israel is in violation of the racial segregation and apartheid convention. Rafe87 (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Give it time, the analysis will come, it is not just about apartheid, there is a lot of heavy duty stuff in that opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

We're on Monday, it's night in Britain, but there are no signs of a new interest in the ICJ ruling on the BBC's website. They've had a grand total of one story abou the ICJ ruling, the very incomplete one they published on the day of the ruling. It's very probable there's an order in place not to give subjects that are unflattering to Israel too much air, as has been repeatedly denounced by the BBC's own staffers. We must work with the coverage that has already been made, which is fine as a link between the ICJ ruling the subject of this entry has already been acknowledged in several reliable sources. Rafe87 (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, there is absolutely no rush. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not run a news ticker service. Besides which, there are already edits in relation to this subject at various pages and those will continue, but care is needed that we properly represent the sourcing that there is, even if limited. Selfstudier (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I've just checked the BBC website btw -- and, again, there's nothing new on the ICJ ruling. Our work editing political or geopolitical entries is anchored in what reliable sources say, and here a reliable source is practically synonymous with news outlet. But news outlets don't tend to publish analyzes of an event a month or a year after it happened. So there is nothing to "wait for". And even if there was and the BBC dared days later to touch on this subject, though its own employees think the BBC is avoiding it to stay aligned with Israel and the west's propaganda needs, we can simply add the new material into the entry. That's what the edit button is for, so that incomplete information can be provided with new content etc. We don't have to "wait" for anything. Rafe87 (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

There are already several new sources, we don't need the BBC, they are being listed/discussed at the case article. There will be more, I'm sure. If you want to edit the article, I can't stop you. Selfstudier (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

violate the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid I don't have a problem with this, that's what the court said, they just didn't say whether it was one or the other or both.

Actually, declaring the occupation as illegal is really the big deal with the opinion, that is going to have a lot of impact. In a sense, the apartheid issue is secondary, a consequence of that. Selfstudier (talk) 10:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

"violate the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid" => 'and' means both.. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I think it is both but the court didn't say and the RS are picking up on that, it remains to be seen what view the RS will come to, I would drop the RM for a week or so, see what happens. Selfstudier (talk) 10:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

If the court said Israel's violated the convention against segregation and apartheid without specifying which, then the most intuitive interpretation is that Israel's in violation of both. Rafe87 (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

We need RS to make that interpretation, not editors. Selfstudier (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Several reliable sources have already made that interpretation. If the ICJ explicitly rules that Israel is in violation of its convention against racial segregation and apartheid, the most intuitive explanation is that it's committed both and not just racial segregation. Rafe87 (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• I think Apartheid in Israel against Palestinians might be better Kowal2701 (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I thought an informal discussion about this was merited and I wish that had been started rather than jumping straight into an RM – it never hurts to mull some options over before taking the RFC plunge. But here we are. The ICJ ruling has some import, in that it confirms the presence of systematic discrimination and racial segregation – affirming the findings of the numerous human rights bodies. However, given the last RM was in July 2022, of somewhat greater import is the scholarly literature that has been produced since: the reams on Israel and apartheid in general, works calling it "Israel's apartheid", and works discussing "Israeli apartheid". All appear plentiful, and that is a matter worthy of discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• What should we do about other options for titles? This move discussion will probably be a mess; a separate discussion with multiple options to choose from might be better? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think the move discussion here is useful even if a mess altho I don't see a move arising from it, at least not in the short term. Selfstudier (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

!votes

• Unconvinced for syntax reasons: apartheid against somebody doesn't sound like good English to me (but no native speaker here). Apartheid describes a system, not an act. So, Israeli apartheid or Apartheid in Israel would work better IMO. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  It is a shortcut for a system of racial segregation, i.e. apartheid, being used against someone, used by RS: Amnesty International ISRAEL’S APARTHEID AGAINST PALESTINIANS. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  As I pointed out already, we have some RS saying that racial segregation is not the same as apartheid, although what exactly the difference might be I am none too clear. Selfstudier (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, and we don't say segregation "against" somebody. The Amnesty link is unconvincing, the text is full of mistakes (e.g, contrary to their writing, apartheid doesn't have to involve race, not even mentioning that most of the world [except for the US] no longer uses the outdated concept of race to describe a person's ethnic background or heritage; or the way they describe human rights, it's very imprecise). I wouldn't be comfortable following it, and Google doesn't show many other examples of the phrase apartheid against. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Kashmiri: It has also been used by HRW and AP, both reliable sources. I think this is the most concise way to describe it without going into details of whether this is in Israel or the OPT. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  The only thing that has changed since the last go round on the title is the ICJ opinion, right? The ICJ opinion was only asked to consider Israeli policies and practices in the OPT (and not Israel). The relevant paras in the judgement are 224 to 229 (the only places where the word "apartheid" is mentioned afaics):

  At 229, it says "The Court observes that Israel’s legislation and measures impose and serve to maintain a near-complete separation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem between the settler and Palestinian communities. For this reason, the Court considers that Israel’s legislation and measures constitute a breach of Article 3 of CERD." and

  At 225 "This provision [Art 3] refers to two particularly severe forms of racial discrimination: racial segregation and apartheid" (two different things?).

  Atm I am not really seeing the basis for a title change unless we are now saying that the balance of all sources favors calling it apartheid, which might be possible for the OPT but not elsewhere? Selfstudier (talk) 10:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  As mentioned before, the ICJ opinion is only the cherry on top. This move could have been proposed months ago and moved forward successfully as relevant RS (int. human rights org.) are unanimous in saying this is apartheid, with some saying it extends to Palestinians citizens of Israel. Thus, the proposed title is "Apartheid against Palestinians" without going into details. We can treat the apartheid within OPT as a fact per ICJ, which would be the main scope and focus of the article; and the apartheid against Palestinian citizens of Israel as a side note that was endorsed by some RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  Apartheid can be used both for an Apartheid System and for the Crime of Apartheid, which is what ICJ judges on. A crime is an action, so "Apartheid against" is a correct application of the term. Conspiracy Raven (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm really not sure there's a distinction to be made there. You can't have an apartheid system without committing the crime of apartheid against someone. The latter is just the legal description of the former. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Wait WP:RECENT. More RS needed to clarify matters.Selfstudier (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• I don't think the title needs changing (at least not yet), but the lede needs rewriting so that the ICJ judgment is in the first paragraph.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Sure but the body needs writing up first, right? Probably the CERD section. Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely convinced with the formatting of the suggested title, but would think Apartheid in Israel or Apartheid in Israel and Palestine would be great titles. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  The most logical arrangement is probably just "Israeli apartheid", for consistency with South African Apartheid, and since it's not "in Israel", as it were, so the first of the above doesn't work. Meanwhile, phrasing it adjectivally in terms of the maintainer of the regime instead of the geography in which it is applies smoothes over the varying opinions on the geographical specificity. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. It's consistent with the South African article and doesn't leave ambiguities to which party is accused of being an apartheid state. Cortador (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not convinced about the adjectival form. We don't say "American discrimination" but Discrimination in the United States; not "French communism", but Communism in France; etc. If apartheid is to be used as a common noun, then we need only to specify geographic area, and not propose variations. Also, "Israeli apartheid" would fail COMMONNAME. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  I rarely, if ever, invoke a claim of common name, for fear of instant backlash, and I have not done so here. All of these proposed titles are descriptive. But "Israeli apartheid" is very much rooted in scholarly usage. The geographical specificity to which I refer is the issue presented by the fact that depending on the source, the Israeli practice of racial segregation and discrimination is sometimes only deemed to amount to the crime of apartheid in the West Bank or occupied territories, and at other times to both Israel and OPT. Given that there are these competing assessments, it is problematic and possibly inappropriate to assign a definitive geographical identifier in the title. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  "Apartheid in Israel" would be extremely misleading; as this more generally refers to the occupied territories, which are not a part of Israel in any way. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  I believe it applies to both, and includes the systemic discrimination faced in Israel by its Arab citzens[10] (e.g., home ownership issue in East Jerusalem [11]). — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  I believe so as well that it applies to both, although to a greater degree of course in the occupied territories, of which East Jerusalem is part of. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• The end setup could be as follows:

• Apartheid (disambiguation) – as is
• Apartheid – main article, discussing the phenomenon, applicable legislation, etc. (i.e., move from current Crime of apartheid)
• Apartheid in South Africa – discussing the South African model (i.e., move from current Apartheid)
• Apartheid in Israel and Palestine – discussing the PI iteration (i.e., move from this article)

This setup would allow consistent use of Apartheid in X for future articles.

— kashmīrī ^TALK 13:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Apartheid should still redirect to Apartheid in South Africa as it’s the primary topic due to an abundance of RSs Kowal2701 (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Disagree; a quick Google Scholar search for "apartheid" shows piles and piles of papers using "apartheid" outside of the South African context.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Certainly not the case for me Kowal2701 (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Really? While about half the papers I get are discussing South Africa, there are plenty of ones even on the front page that aren't.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It’s about 80/90% South Africa for me Kowal2701 (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The 30 year anniversary skews it a bit, use the Google thingy and select a time period excluding 2024. Selfstudier (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It's still 70% SA, 20% other, 10% I&P for me Kowal2701 (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The trend is more the thing, maybe, not very scientific but

apartheid drops off sharply late 90s/2000 and

Israeli apartheid rockets after that. Selfstudier (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

While there have been attempts to contract Israeli Apartheid with other apartheid regimes, South Africa remains both the most prominent example and also reference point for Israeli apartheid. Apartheid should still redirect to Apartheid in South Africa and can include a hat note if necessary.

I do like Apartheid in X for the other reason, that we avoid ambiguity over the adjective form. Israel apartheid and Israeli apartheid are both grammatically correct. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

ICJ and apartheid

The issue of what the ICJ opinion really means regarding racial segregation versus apartheid is unclear from the opinion itself and this is why so-called RSs can't agree on it. However, the matter is discussed at length in the separate opinions. See in particular the opinions of Brant, Iwasawa, Nolte, Salam and Tladi. I read somewhere the suggestion that the lack of elucidation on this point in the official opinion was so that more judges would sign up to it. None of the judges argued against the ruling that Israel is in violation of Para 3 of CERD, but they did not agree on exactly what that means regarding apartheid. Hopefully we will soon get learned articles in law journals that we can cite. Zero^talk 03:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)