Talk:Israeli apartheid

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Recent lede edit

The whole paragraph should be trimmed: "The International Court of Justice in its 2024 advisory opinion found that Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories constitutes systemic discrimination and is in breach of Article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which prohibits racial segregation and apartheid. The opinion itself was silent as to whether the discrimination amounted to apartheid while individual judges were split on the issue" Makeandtoss (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the former trim would be fine; with the latter it seems important to somehow clarify how the opinion relates to the topic of apartheid. We could trim while individual judges were split on the issue though which is a non-essential detail. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Fyi @AlsoWukai: since you just copy edited the latter sentence. Waiting for other opinions as well. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Fwiw, I think the "systemic discrimination" element is due, because it is that finding that led to the Article 3 finding. Selfstudier (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Racism and Zionism in lede

Hi @Allthemilescombined1,

I tried to make your recent edit work in the lede, but I ultimately removed it as out of place and WP:UNDUE. Since the lede is a summary of the overall topic, it doesn't need to go into that level of detail about a matter which is tangential to the topic of apartheid. I think you'll need to get consensus here first before reinstating. Lewisguile (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your removal and would have removed it myself, it is irrelevant to the article in general not just the lede which is about the israeli apartheid, not whether zionism is racist or not. Stephan rostie (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

It makes more sense in context, but it's still tangential. If you go to "American views", it's there currently:

In 1975, former US Ambassador to the United Nations Daniel Patrick Moynihan voiced the United States' strong disagreement with the General Assembly's resolution that "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination", saying that unlike apartheid, Zionism is not a racist ideology. He said that racist ideologies such as apartheid favor discrimination on the grounds of alleged biological differences, yet few people are as biologically heterogeneous as the Jews. Moynihan called the UN resolution "a great evil", adding, "the abomination of anti-Semitism has been given the appearance of international sanction by the UN". Vernon Jordan, executive director of the National Urban League, said the resolution smeared the 'racist' label on Zionism, adding that Black people could “easily smell out the fact that ‘anti-Zionism’ in this context is a code word for anti-Semitism”. The General Assembly's resolution equating Zionism with racism was revoked in 1991.

Neither Moynihan nor his argument is important enough to go into the lede and it takes up far too much time to explain its relevance to the topic anyway. Hence, WP:UNDUE. And, TBH, the statement is still probably overly long where it is, even now. Lewisguile (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Israeli civil law

@Makeandtoss: In the sentence that conveys who in the West Bank is subject to Israeli civil law, I changed "Jewish settlers" to "Israeli settlers" because it is precisely the Israelis there who are subject to Israeli civil law. The previous wording, by the principle of relevance, misled the reader into wrongly thinking that the legal determination of which law to apply is governed by religion, rather than citizenship.

Your edits (which you claim to be a "middle ground") return the article to that false implication. The article you mention in your edit message ("A Threshold Crossed") does indeed use the phrase "Jewish Israelis", but does not claim that some other laws apply to non-Jewish Israelis in the West Bank. If you wish to convey that non-Jewish Israeli residents of the West Bank are not subject to Israeli civil law, please first find a reliable source that supports such a claim. Or do you have some other motivation? Dotyoyo (talk) 14:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

WP reflects RS, as I clearly linked HRW in my edit summary. Jewish Israelis and Palestinians are the primary groups involved in this analysis about apartheid: HRW: "Two primary groups live today in Israel and the OPT: Jewish Israelis and Palestinians. One primary sovereign, the Israeli government, rules over them." Further details are footnotes to this primary framing by RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I suggest adding a note to the effect that the vast majority of Israeli settlers are of Jewish nationality as it says in first sentence of the lead at Israeli settlement. "They are populated by Israeli citizens, almost exclusively of Jewish identity or ethnicity,

The situation is more complex than this implies. First, it isn't just a matter of where someone lives but also where they are when they commit an "offence". Second, the rules are somewhat flexible, and in some cases should be called policies rather than rules; this allows the fate of individuals to be decided on a case by case basis. This makes it difficult to find a definitive description. Generally speaking, a Palestinian who is an Israeli citizen will be tried in a civil court, but this needs a search for sources and there are probably exceptions. However, Jews who are not Israeli citizens are always, or almost always, tried in civil courts. Since 1984 this has been explicit policy; the order includes "persons entitled to citizenship under the Law of Return" (i.e. Jews) in the same category as citizens. Many military orders have the same clause. Sorry no citations for now, too busy. Zero^talk 01:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Another complicating factor is which courts handle West Bank cases involving tourists. But, for the sentence being edited, the question at hand is (IMO) whether all cases involving Israeli defendants are handled by Israeli civil law, or whether some are handled differently. Dotyoyo (talk) 05:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The HRW report (ie dealing with the apartheid issue) "Israeli authorities also maintain parallel criminal justice systems for settlers and Palestinians in the West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem. Israeli authorities try Palestinians charged with crimes in military courts, where they face a conviction rate of nearly 100 percent.[248] By contrast, authorities have passed regulations that extend Israeli criminal law on a personal basis to settlers, and grant Israeli courts jurisdiction over them, while authorities have followed a longstanding policy not to prosecute Jewish settlers in military courts.[249] The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) found in a 2014 report that “since the 1980s, all Israeli citizens brought to trial before the military courts were Arab citizens and residents of Israel."

This imo is the main point for the lead, two systems, one territory, technicalities and sundry irrelevant details can be dealt with in the article body. Selfstudier (talk) 11:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Good find. Links to the 2014 ACRI report can be found at the bottom of this page. The HRW report cites p. 37 of the ACRI report, but it's worth reading all of section B (pp. 36-39), including footnotes. Dotyoyo (talk) 12:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

That is good support for "Jewish Israelis" rather than just "Israelis". We can always add clarity via a quote in the reference. Lewisguile (talk) 09:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Request for Sources and Balanced Representation

WP:ECR. M.Bitton (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I noticed that the article has recently shifted its language to refer to Israel as an "apartheid state" and the stance now being solidified due to the ongoing war. Its language refers to Israel as an "apartheid state" in a way that seems more definitive. Given that this term is highly contested and there are valid arguments on both sides, I believe it's important to ensure that we present the full spectrum of perspectives. Could we include more references to sources that provide an opposing viewpoint, particularly those that challenge the use of the term "apartheid" in relation to Israel? This would help maintain neutrality and offer readers a broader understanding of the issue. 72.179.16.52 (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) No. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 March 2025

"change"

In 1979, the Palestinian sociologist Elia Zureik said that while not de jure an apartheid state, Israeli society was characterized by a latent form of apartheid.[45] The concept emerged with some frequency in both academic and activist writings in the 1980s–90s,[46] when Uri Davis, Meron Benvenisti, Richard Locke, and Anthony Stewart used the term apartheid to describe Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.

to

In 1979, the Palestinian sociologist Elia Zureik said that while not de jure an apartheid state, Israeli society was characterized by a latent form of apartheid.[45] Then in 1983 Canadian Anthropologist Richard Borshay Lee outlined the similarities between management of ethnic differences in the Israel and South African colonial settler states.[46] By the late 1980s, the concept of Israeli apartheid was emerging with some frequency in both academic and activist writings,[46] when Uri Davis, Meron Benvenisti, Richard Locke, and Anthony Stewart used the term apartheid to describe Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.

46. Lee, R. Ethnicity, militarism and human rights: Israel and South Africa. Dialect Anthropol 8, 121–128 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00249046 AnthonyMenk (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done Hi AnthonyMenk . When investigating this request, I see that Lee does have a WP page, and this article does exist. However, when I google "Ethnicity, militarism and human rights: Israel and South Africa", the only results I get lead to Lee's article - not to any other articles or newspapers in which his article is discussed. Therefore, Lee's article is not notable enough to get a place on "Israeli apartheid". So I will close your request. If you think that I am wrong, please state your arguments and change the request back to "answered=no". Friendly, Lova Falk (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)