Talk:Israeli apartheid

Lede

@GhostOfNoMan: Can you explain your edits and its relation to your edit summary? [1] Makeandtoss (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies – I realise now you were introducing the change and the diff in that discussion was your self-rv. I thought I was reinstating the agreed-upon wording; I should've read more carefully. I've undone my edit. GhostOfNoMan 12:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@GhostOfNoMan: Thanks. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Tags

@ABHammad: Kindly explain the added tags (and why there are several for apparently the same thing)? Selfstudier (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I reverted @ABHammad's changes here as the phrasing is backed by RS and has long-standing consensus. Ideally they should discuss this change here before applying that label. Smallangryplanet (talk) 08:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I reverted the tags, I agree there is a major problem with the current wording. This article is written like apartheid is a fact in Israel but this is obviously contested. Why is Wikipedia the only mainstream source in the west that says this like a fact? OdNahlawi (talk) 10:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Apartheid is fact per every international human rights organization including the world's foremost court, the ICJ. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Using human rights watch interpretation of the ICJ does not mean that "the world's foremost court" have decided such if they didn't say it clearly. And any way there's much to the world beside the ICJ. Give me one Western liberal country that adopted this usage? thanks OdNahlawi (talk) 10:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Why are "Western liberal" countries the authority? It's the consensus of human rights organizations. Bitspectator ⛩️ 11:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Human rights organizations have their own (deep) biases. It is not only there isn't consensus among western liberal democracies and main media sources, I don't think any of them has ever endorsed this claim. I think it shows that the usage of apartheid in regards to Israel is primarily a talking point of activists, politicians, and progressive groups, and except those, the allegations are viewed as extremely fringe. OdNahlawi (talk) 11:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Governments are not reliable sources. Human Rights Watch is a reliable source per WP. There is no equivalency. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

An article wide tag is not necessary if the complaint is adequately addressed by inline tags so I removed that.

The opinion of any Western liberal country, in other words, politicians, are noted but not relevant.

The ICJ has concluded that Israel is in breach of article 3 of the convention and "Article 3 obligates governments to prevent, prohibit, and eradicate all racial segregation and apartheid".

Subsequently the UNGA has passed a resolution (this is not yet in the article afaics) stating "Calls upon all States to comply with their obligations under international law, inter alia, as reflected in the advisory opinion.." and "systemic discrimination based on, inter alia, race, religion or ethnic origin in violation of the relevant rules of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention,3 the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 4 the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights5 and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination6 and customary international law".

If there is anything left to decide, it is how exactly to summarize the cumulative opinions of NGOs such as Amnesty, the ICJ/UNGA view, and potentially, the ICC view "Salam’s discussion of the crime should be studied by relevant criminal justice authorities, including the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor, as it outlines the legal framework needed to investigate the crime of apartheid." Selfstudier (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Framing the current situation as apartheid in WP:VOICE, solely based on the views of human rights groups whose worldviews increasingly diverge from Western mainstream perspectives, is problematic and has no real impact on the ground. There is a clear reason why the Western world, the only part of the world that actually cares for human rights, including not just governments but also major news outlets, has not endorsed these apartheid allegations—and that is what truly matters in reality. The only countries that endorsed the claims of apartheid (and genocide, and ethnic cleansing, and all the other terms commonly used in recent propaganda) are, ironically, countries like Iran and Syria, which are not very known for their human rights record. ABHammad (talk) 12:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

You completely ignored the point we just discussed about governments not being reliable sources. Bitspectator ⛩️ 12:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

You completely ignored the point that the entire western world rejects the claims, rendering the views of (politicized/radicalized) human rights organizations irrelevant for many. If we want to comply with WP:NPOV, as we're supposed, we cannot use WP:VOICE to make claims that are rejected by all the vast majority of those who actually care for human rights. ABHammad (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm ignoring your personal feelings that this article should reflect the opinion of [specific] countries, and not RS because those RS are in your opinion "radicalized"? Yes. That's my duty as a Wikipedia editor. Bitspectator ⛩️ 12:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree mostly wtih ABHammad and Oddnahlawi above. The most correct and encyclopedic presentation of the issue should be something like: Several human rights organizations and some countries, such as Iran and Turkey, have claimed that Israel's policies in the Palestinian territories amount to apartheid. However, most Western governments reject this allegation, typically framing Israel's actions as linked to security concerns rather than an institutionalized system of racial segregation." Galamore (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I think this would be the perfect opening paragraph to an article titled Governments' views on Israel and apartheid. We should ensure the inclusion of South Africa and Jordan along with Iran and Turkey.

Plus, this is illogical: "framing Israel's actions as linked to security concerns rather than an institutionalized system of racial segregation." Israel's actions being justified by "security concerns" has nothing to do with the nature of these actions. I can construct a wall based on security considerations, but that doesn't change the fact that a wall exists. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The usage of 'apartheid' is, similarly to genocide, closely related to the aims of a policy, apartheid is conducted for reasons of racial segragation. Walls can be built for various reasons, not all of them related to apartheid. Does anyone claim that the Berlin Wall was apartheid? this claim is empty. Galamore (talk) 12:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

No, the usage of apartheid has been documented by an increasing number of detailed reports over the past decade. The usage of genocide is new and no conclusive reports nor an ICJ ruling have been issued. So, again, there is no equivalency. I was not trying to compare walls with apartheid; I was refuting the idea that a justification negates the existence of reality. As another example, you can steal a car and market it as "logistical considerations"; nevertheless, a theft still occurred. Justifications are a marketing strategy and do not negate reality. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

First of all, the world does not revolve around the western world, and the western world does not revolve around western governments. That being said, the ICJ is based in the Netherlands; the UN is based in the US; HRW is based in the US; Amnesty International is based in the UK. These are western institutions, so the argument that "the entire western world rejects the claims" does not hold up to any scrutiny, and is irrelevant anyway. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The composition of the ICJ and the political process by which judges are selected is much more relevant than its physical location. But anyway, it's not accurate to say that the ICJ agreed with the apartheid characterization.

HRW's misleading summary dances around the fact that the opinion itself never made such a statement, only alluding to it with the court’s language is a compromise. They then mention that two of the less-neutral, non-Western judges, Salam (Lebanon) and Tladi (South Africa), did clearly take that position.

Everyone seems to agree that there was no such court finding. The unofficial summary says without qualifying it as apartheid. Judge Nolte wrote that the court [left] open the question [of] whether it considers Israel’s policies and practices to be a form of racial segregation or apartheid.

If anything, this is weak evidence that asserting this in wikivoice is inappropriate. (Weak in the sense that the court didn't reject the claim either, though some individual experts do, such as Alan Dershowitz and Eugene Kontorovich.) — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see either Dershowitz (who I recall advocated using torture in criminal investigations) or Kontorovitch (who I'd never heard of but who appears to be an Israeli lawyer who disapproves of sanctions against Israel) as a human rights expert. What makes you think they are more reliable on this subject than an international human rights organisation? John (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

There may be better sources, those are just a couple I'm aware of. Dershowitz's position on torture isn't extreme though - it mimics Israel's Supreme Court decision which banned torture except in ticking time-bomb scenarios.

Human rights organizations have political agendas, and at best are only as reliable as the individuals behind them. For example the HRW content being discussed was written by Clive Baldwin, who has some relevant education but doesn't appear to be a LLM/PhD holder or a practicing lawyer. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted that Wikipedia's article on Ticking time bomb scenario does list Alan Dershowitz as a source for the pro-torture side, while providing WP:BALANCE by pointing out that multiple "human rights organizations, professional and academic experts, and military and intelligence leaders" are anti-torture. Governments or individuals making statements, as notable non-expert biased observers, should of course be mentioned, but more weight should be given to human rights organizations and experts. And that's exactly why the pro-torture section of that article is shorter than the anti-torture section. This article should follow the same standard. JasonMacker (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Clearer here: I would like to suggest the next option which I think is much more balanced and encyclopedic than recent changes: Several human rights organizations and some countries, such as Iran and Turkey, have said that Israel's policies in the Palestinian territories amount to apartheid. However, most Western governments reject this allegation, typically framing Israel's actions as linked to security concerns rather than an institutionalized system of racial segregation." Galamore (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The recent UNGA vote on the ICJ opinion can be seen here so it is just not true to say that the Western world is "against", only 14 countries (Argentina, Czech Republic,Fiji, Hungary, Israel, Malawi, Micronesia Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Tonga, Tuvalu, United States) voted against the resolution. Selfstudier (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

How this or that politician chooses to talk about it is completely irrelevant. As per above, their countries are now bound by UNGA resolution. They may choose to ignore it but that has consequences too (UK/Chagos Islands refers). Selfstudier (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Having said that, I'm not that keen on the Easter egg in Line 1 tho. Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Here is the official publication. Zero^talk 13:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: "a system of institutionalized segregation and discrimination" seems to be a quote from Amnesty report? I don't think we want wording tied only to one source? Selfstudier (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

That's the textbook definition of apartheid, that was adopted from the Apartheid Convention: "a system of institutionalised racial segregation." So it's a basic definition that cannot be rephrased much. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

It's also not in the body so we might want to have a think about that. Selfstudier (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

If we want a recent RS, there is DAWN mentioning both ICJ and UNGA in one place, and referring to the situation as apartheid, will see if I can find some more. Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Lede is a summary so it doesn’t have to be in the body verbatim. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

So what is it a summary of? Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

UN experts here, says "racial discrimination and segregation or apartheid" and expounds at length on third states responsibilities. Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Amnesty "its discriminatory laws and policies against Palestinians violate the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid."

I think this (the article 3 breach) is the most relevant wording that we need to be using. Selfstudier (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I would think human rights organizations are the best qualified regarding human rights issues, instead of countries with a clear political agenda. On one hand you have the ICJ, UNGA, HRW, Amnesty, etc, and on the other hand you have a bunch of countries asserting otherwise. Those countries are actually a minority as Self noted, not "the entire Western world" - and even if that wasn't the case, human rights organizations are clearly the authority here. We do not add POVs from unqualified parties regarding what does and doesn't constitute a war crime (we wouldn't cite a, idk, architect giving his opinion), but are supposed to give equal weight to political institutions? - Ïvana (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Countries voting to endorse the ICJ decision did not vote on whether there's apartheid or not, that's a wrong reading of the vote. I haven't seen a single government in the West that officially recognizes the situation in Israel-Palestine as apartheid. You are welcome to prove otherwise. Anyway, the current use of voice to describe the situation is clearly biased and adopts one view over that of countless other sources and governments that do not use this term for Israel-Palestine, because they reject it. ABHammad (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

In the document Zero shared:

Affirming in accordance with the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, that:

(e) Israel’s legislation and measures impose and serve to maintain a near- complete separation in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, between the settler and Palestinian communities and constitute a breach of article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which refers to two particularly severe forms of racial discrimination and stipulates that “States Parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction” Bitspectator ⛩️ 15:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Bitspectator already covered part of your argument. And borrowing from what they have said before, governments are not reliable sources. Nor do they have the same weight that human rights organizations do, when talking about human rights violations. You want to dismiss their conclusions because, in your opinion, they are "politicized" - are we supposed to believe that governments are not? They are not objective institutions, on the contrary, they all have political agendas that influence their assessments. - Ïvana (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Thing to do here is get into all the detail in the article body and what individual judges did and didn't say and what is apartheid/Convention or apartheid/Rome Statute compared to what all the judges signed off on, the article 3 breach. Keane is likely the top rated source for all the details as of right now. To be clear, we do not have a proper conclusion as yet on apartheid. So I don't agree with Line 1 of the lead as is currently, this situation is a bit like the Genocide article just because the title says a thing, that doesn't mean that that it is an incontrovertible fact, even though the case here is much stronger than in the genocide case. We do know that there is an article 3 breach but ICERD does not specifically define apartheid so... Selfstudier (talk) 11:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

More here Selfstudier (talk) 11:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Reminder this article is about Israeli apartheid, not the ICJ decision; as stated previously, the ICJ ruling is the cherry on top, and not the decisive source. We already have numerous major RS such as HRW and AI. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Both of whom have updated their positions to reflect the ICJ ruling? Selfstudier (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

HRW in its most recent report said the language was a compromise, but that the finding was apartheid; not that there was no finding of which of the two (apartheid or segregation). Makeandtoss (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Agree with Ïvana that international human rights organisations are likely to be better and fairer judges of matters to do with human rights than governments are. John (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
• Even non-authoritarian governments are not necessarily reliable sources. For example, the Japanese government reguarly downplays war crimes it committed against the historical consensus. The Israel-Palestine conflict is so partisan on the global stage that we really shouldn't rely on what governments say on the issue (this goes for both for both pro and anti-Israel states), but instead what non partisan courts, human rights organisations and NGOs have said have about the topic. The consensus among non-partisan sources does indeed seem to be that Israel is committing crimes either of or equivalent to apartheid, and Wikipedia should reflect that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  Part of the issue is, that the human right sources are not always non-partisan. Specifically in the case of Israel, Amnesty has been long accused for harboring anti-Israel biases. A major staffer once stated that Israel was similar to the Islamic State, the secertary general falsely said on Twitter that Shimon Perres admitted Arafat was murdered, and Amnesty International USA Director stating that "We are opposed to the idea ... that Israel should be preserved as a state for the Jewish people." That's one reason why many people don't see Amnesty a non-partisan source.
  The question here, anyway, was whether the status in Israel and the West Bank can be described in Wiki voice as apartheid (the status in the last months here) or not. The fact that the West did not endorse this framing in major sources is, I think, an answer. Galamore (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  These arguments have already been addressed by multiple users in this thread. I have removed the tags. Bitspectator ⛩️ 14:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Bitspectator the tags should be removed when consensus is reached, and it's clear we're not there yet. I don't want admins to get involved but if weren't going be to constructive here we may need to do it, especially since this is the second time an involved party removed the tags in the middle of an ongoing discussion. Kindly restore the tags. Thank you. ABHammad (talk) 07:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'll revert, but you have to address the points we're making. Making an argument that's already been responded to (multiple times, by multiple users) isn't constructive and doesn't justify the tags. Bitspectator ⛩️ 11:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  The tags are justified as long as we haven't reached consensus Galamore (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  It's your responsibility to justify the tags. I self-reverted solely to encourage you to do that. Consensus is not uninamity and if WP:IDONTLIKEIT justified a tag, every word of every CT article would have a tag. Bitspectator ⛩️ 14:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  You seem to have understood what consensus is. Read WP:CONSENSUS: "When editors have a particularly difficult time reaching a consensus, several processes are available for consensus-building (third opinions, dispute resolution noticeboard, requests for comment), and even more extreme processes that will take authoritative steps to end the dispute (administrator intervention, arbitration). " Your edit summaries, "consensus against the tags formed", and "allow opportunity to justify tags", goes against good faith, I am afraid. Since you are part of this discussion, it is not for you alone to decide what the consensus is. There are many editors here who do not agree with the current framing. If we cannot reach a compromise, we should try other ways, not just decide to remove tags on your own in the middle of the discussion. That is disruptive. Let's try to work together and reach a compromise for Wikipedia's good. ABHammad (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Most people here are actually working on the problem and not arguing about tags so if you had something useful to contribute to that effort, have at it. Selfstudier (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Please do not defend the disruptive removal of tags, done again and again in the middle of discussion. Someone experienced like you should understand the importance of good faith discussion. ABHammad (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Non responsive. Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  I self-revert at your request and you accuse me of bad faith. Bitspectator ⛩️ 17:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  IMO, you were right to remove the tags. I have re-removed them. This discussion has gone on for ages, and you're right to point out that arguments against these tags are extensive. Not having them is backed by RS and long-standing consensus. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that there's a bit of a balance issue here. WP:NPOV would suggest that we need to cover a minority POV that questions whether apartheid is the appropriate term to describe this. For example, the book by Benjamin Pogrund, Pogrund, Benjamin (2014). Drawing fire: investigating the accusations of apartheid in Israel. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-1-4422-7575-1., isn't cited, even though his 2023 Haaretz editorial is cited. That evolution might be worth going into, even though he changed his perspective more recently. Another book that might be useful and isn't cited AFAICT is Ariely, Gal (2021). Israel's Regime Untangled: Between Democracy and Apartheid. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108951371. ISBN 978-1-108-84525-0., which describes Israel as a "disputed regime." From the blurb, Some regard the country as an apartheid regime that can only be challenged through boycotts and sanctions. Others believe it is a stable liberal democracy, created under extreme conditions Andre🚐 15:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  Detailed hundreds of pages report published by the world's most prominent rights organizations such as HRW, Amnesty International, and the ICJ have obviously more weight than a sentence sourced to Israeli authors Gal Ariely and Benajmin Pogrund. Given these two groups of sources equal weight would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, HRW and Amnesty should be attributed as advocacy groups, per WP:RSP (in controversial cases editors may wish to consider attribution for opinion for the latter, I don't see a listing for the former but should be easy to see why), and ICJ is a primary source that hasn't ruled yet, whereas the books I just offered are reliable sources. While they may have some bias, WP:RSBIASED tells us that this just means we need to balance and attribute them, not exclude them. And in fact as I said, we already cite Pogrund, just his editorial in Haaretz, not his book. That makes no sense. Andre🚐 21:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  That is incorrect, HRW is not considered an "advocacy group" on WP:RSP. Also, this is not a controversial case because this viewpoint is the majority viewpoint supported by HRW, AI, and ICJ; and contradicted seemingly only by two unknown Israeli authors. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  HRW is definitely an advocacy group similar to and should be treated the same as Amnesty, and it's been discussed many times in the RSN archives, though I do not know what the consensus is because I haven't checked if there was a recent RFC on its reliability or bias; but I definitely disagree that this is not controversial. It's obviously very controversial and I'm sure there are quite a few other sources that argue these points. It's almost farcical to claim this is settled and not a controversy. Anyway, those authors aren't unknown at all. As mentioned, we already cite one, and the other is Professor in the Department of Politics and Government at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev where his research focuses on democracy and national identity. Andre🚐 21:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  I totally agree, and I want to add that some editors here saying governments are just politicians and therefore should not be considered is completely wrong. Governments are much more complex than individual politicians. If, right now, most Western nations—those who actually care for human rights—do not endorse HRW's and Amnesty's claims of apartheid, it says much more about these advocacy groups than it does about the governments, who more or less agree that the situation, bad as it is, is not apartheid. This should be made clear in the lead, that the Western world has not endorsed these allegations. The current use of Wikipedia's voice to present claims not widely accepted in the West but supported by failed states and totalitarian countries, is bad. ABHammad (talk) 08:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Countries are not reliable sources. The idea that this article should not only reflect the view of countries, but of a select minority of countries (124 vs. 14) has no merit. Bitspectator ⛩️ 11:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t understand where the number 124 comes from, as I don’t think there is a list of 124 countries that have endorsed the claim of Israel-Palestine being a case of apartheid. Also, the Western world has different standards for defining human rights, so the views of the EU carry more weight compared to countries like North Korea and Iran, which, let's admit it, may support these claims for political reasons, rather than out of genuine concern for human rights. ABHammad (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  That was already discuss3ed above, by voting for the resolution, the 124 countries endorsed this part of the resolution:

  Israel’s legislation and measures impose and serve to maintain a near-complete separation in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, between the settler and Palestinian communities and constitute a breach of article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which refers to two particularly severe forms of racial discrimination and stipulates that “States Parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction

  and we have plenty sources for that as discussed below.

  Countries that abstained in effect took no position and 14 objected, including the US and Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  As on many CT pages, our readers would be better served with description and detail, not controversial labels which tend to evoke emotion and over-generalize the facts. SPECIFICO talk 17:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  If we removed every part of this article that could cause an emotional reaction in someone, there would be no article at all. Bitspectator ⛩️ 17:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  While I agree that readers should be provided with description and detail, I don't think editors should concern themselves with the emotions evoked in readers by any of the 10 billion Wikipedia page views per year or whatever the number is nowadays. It's not relevant to content decisions. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  "emotional" in the sense of knee-jerk reactions to labels as substitutes for factual detail. SPECIFICO talk 02:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The security concerns part should be stated in the context of what critics have called "a pretext"[2] for racism. HRW points out that "denying building permits and demolishing homes that lack them, have no security justification" and "blanket denial of long-term legal status to Palestinians from the occupied territory married to Israeli citizens and residents, use security as a pretext to further demographic goals." VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support removing the tags. This discussion was over a while ago and no new arguments are being made. All points have been thoroughly answered. Tags in themselves do not improve an article. Many of the arguments seem to be late comments on the RM discussion from a couple of years ago. John (talk) 10:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Interpretation

@XDanielx: If I understood your recent edit correctly, you removed content sourced to the Guardian (an RS per WP) claiming it is not reliable, and replaced it with content sourced to "ejiltalk.org" and an Israeli organization? Makeandtoss (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

It looks like he is still using the source in a new paragraph below. He just added ejiltalk.org to replace the guardian in that second paragraph… what is ejiltalk? apparently the blog of the european journal of international law? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Seems European Journal of International Law is a 1.2 impact factor journal from oxford. Not necessarily bad, articles can be used from there, but blog seems more like a mix of a blog and a editted online magazine? [3] Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Blog belonging to a journal is not the journal itself. Either way, this is a minority viewpoint contradicted by the majority of RS, including HRW and the Guardian (both RS per WP). Makeandtoss (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually it seems to be clearly by a recognized expert, so it takes on the reliability of the expert. Dr David Keane is Assistant Professor in Law at Dublin City University, Ireland. He has published a number of works on the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), including the authored book Caste-based Discrimination in International Human Rights Law, and the co-edited book 50 Years of ICERD That is actually quite reliable, and I think the last statement is one of the big misunderstandings on these articles. If the minority viewpoint is reliable and non-FRINGE, it needs to be represented here per WP:NPOV. The other source is by Dr. Eran Shamir-Borer, Director of the Center for National Security and Democracy, presumably a think-tank, I'd say probably has a bias so attribution could be merited for anything other than simple facts. Just being Israeli is not in any way disqualifying of a reliable source. Andre🚐 21:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Eran Shamir-Borer is another Israeli author, so this is clearly a fringe viewpoint by individuals that is being given false equivalency with international institutions with worldwide authority, including the world's top court, the ICJ. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Should all Israeli authors views be treated as and per WP:FRINGE? SPECIFICO talk 10:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

All individual authors in the minority whose few opinions contradict the viewpoint of major institutions and RS should be treated as fringe, yes. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but could you confirm specifically that when you said the author was Israeli so their view is "clearly fringe" -- does that mean we should treat all Israeli sources for this subject as fringe? Just trying to drill down on the verification and weight relating to this discussion. Is that your proposal? SPECIFICO talk 12:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The focus of the sentence is on the individuality of the author not their nationality. Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem also concluded that Israel implements an apartheid regime. I would prefer institutional rights groups and courts rather than individual ones, particularly when these individual sources contradict the majority institutional opinion. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, the focus of your initial proposal clearly referred to nationality, which was puzzling. Bear in mind that minority views are not necessarily wiki-fringe. SPECIFICO talk 15:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Minority views are not fringe views, true. Representing the minority view as the only view is misleading; representing the minority view as an equal view to the majority view is false balance; and representing the fringe view as anything is misleading. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

OK. So which of those do you find occurring in this article and what does it have to do with the nationality of the source? SPECIFICO talk 16:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The Guardian article was written by Haroon Siddique, who holds an undergraduate law degree. I would argue that it's inaccurate, but for our purposes I would just point out that it's a brief, shallow summary of the decision which doesn't get into the nuances of international law. It's still a reliable source as you said, but certainly not the WP:BESTSOURCE, since there are several law professors and other experts who have analyzed the ICJ opinion which much greater depth and precision.

EJIL: Talk! is a blog with limited review, but it's well-known in the field and most of its content easily passes WP:EXPERTSPS. If there are concerns about the particular sources I added though, there are several other expert analyses we could consider, all with a more nuanced explanation of the ICJ's position. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

the guardian is a news source with editorial standards. a blog by itself is not. we cannot discount an article from the guardian unless there is direct reliable evidence that it is significantly factually wrong Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

EJIL Talk isn't devoid of editorial standards. They have guidelines and rules for contributing. GhostOfNoMan 16:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@XDanielxI have reverted your changes since you're suggesting that a single blog post belonging to a journal can overturn contrary reporting by numerous WP:RS. It may well be the case, but such an extraordinary claim requires consensus.

Can you also explain why Legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory including East Jerusalem was unlinked? It isn't linked anywhere else in the article.

Please also note WP:HOWEVER. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@CoolAndUniqueUsername: I was just following MOS:LINKONCE; we have two links to ICJ case on Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories in the same section.

The Guardian is a RS, but so are experts regardless of publication, under WP:EXPERTSPS. When we have multiple RSs to pick from, we pick the WP:BESTSOURCE, i.e. the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources. Surely that isn't a brief news article which no practicing lawyers or legal scholars participated in, when several deep analyses of the opinion from legal scholars are available.

This is not an extraordinary claim at all; consider

• The opinion itself says apartheid three times, never as part of a statement like that.
• The court's own summary of the opinion says without qualifying it as apartheid.
• Judge Nolte wrote that the court [left] open the question [of] whether it considers Israel’s policies and practices to be a form of racial segregation or apartheid.
• Law professor David Keane writes that the breach of Article 3 could refer to racial segregation, apartheid, or both.
• Solon Solomon, another law professor, wrote that by stating generally in paragraph 229 that Israel’s policies breach Article 3, the court opens the possibility for both views to be upheld regarding the question of whether Israel should be deemed guilty for the crime of apartheid or for the crime of racial segregation.
• Eran Shamir-Borer (another law professor) and Mirit Lavi said the court did not specify which elements of [Article 3] Israel violated.

We can adjust the sources if you like, but legal experts seem to agree that the court found Israel guilty of apartheid and/or racial segregation, without taking a position on apartheid specifically. Non-experts' attempts to casually summarize the court's opinion don't seem very relevant in light of this expert consensus. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I think Daniel's edit is fine and reflects my reading of the sources, but Legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory including East Jerusalem should be linked in the subsection. I would replace "Some individual judges expressed various views on the apartheid claim in separate opinions" with names of judges who specifically found Israel guilty of apartheid and those that specifically didn't.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

"The court's own summary of the opinion says without qualifying it as apartheid." and "Judge Nolte wrote that" seems like your personal opinion and interpretation of the summary and the ruling is being prioritized (aided by viewpoints of few individuals), over the interpretation of RS such as HRW and the Guardian of the majority viewpoint supported by the world's most prominent authorities and institutions.

The major problem is that this minority viewpoint was not added as a secondary viewpoint that gave false equivalency; more troubling, it was added as the main viewpoint (with an editorial "however" or "but"), which is completely misleading and does not represent RS.

HRW, an RS, is explicit: "Though the court’s language is a compromise, limited to separation, the finding means that Israel is responsible for apartheid." A compromise wording supporting a certain conclusion is different from a non-conclusion.

Makeandtoss (talk) 10:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

HRW 19 Sep

"The court found Israel’s measures in the West Bank that impose and maintain separation between Palestinians and Israeli settlers are a breach of Article 3 of the UN treaty prohibiting racial discrimination. Article 3 obligates governments to prevent, prohibit, and eradicate all racial segregation and apartheid." and

Amnesty 19 19 July

“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." and

UN experts

"The Court added that Israel's legislation and measures violate the international prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid."

Why this formulation is a problem for stipulating apartheid as a fact is explained in Keane.

It is perfectly clear from the sources what the situation is, the simplest way to say it is something like:

"Israeli apartheid is the violation by Israel of its obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), specifically the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid."

Then this all needs to be explained in the body. Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Did the Court state or did its opinion define that Palestinian and Israeli are "races"? This would need explanation, as you say. SPECIFICO talk 15:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Just to make sure I'm following, it sounds like you're agreeing that, as Keane puts it, the court's finding could refer to racial segregation, apartheid, or both? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

People have said different things about that but we can't go wrong with just using the phrase as many sources do. Details can be left for the body. Selfstudier (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I strongly oppose centering this topic on a violation of a law. This topic exists regardless of any law. Theft is an autonomous action with its own abstract definition even if it occurs in a country that doesn’t have a law criminalizing theft, or on Mars where no laws exist. HRW and AI reports have existed long before there was an ICJ ruling so this does not reflect RS, and they made their independent conclusions based on the evidence they reviewed. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Then you need, as was done at the genocide article, a plethora of sources from scholars, academics, lawyers and so on asserting apartheid as a fact, good luck with that. Selfstudier (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think they are analogous. Genocide is a recent occurrence with no major documentation, unlike apartheid, a decades-old occurrence with at least two decades of extensive documentation from numerous RS, even agreed upon by multiple prominent Israeli figures such as former Mossad head Tamir and former prime minister Olmert. We already have that plethora of sources for apartheid, even before the ICJ ruling. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Genocide is a recent occurrence with no major documentation, unlike apartheid Where do you get this from? Selfstudier (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

See List of genocides. Selfstudier (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Our discussion here is within the context of IP conflict. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m referring to the Gaza genocide, which started 370 days ago. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

See Palestinian genocide accusation Selfstudier (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: the HRW source you restored was explicitly corrected by law professor Marko Milanovic, who wrote This led to some commentary that the Court had reached a finding of apartheid, with Human Rights Watch quickly headlining that the “World Court Finds Israel Responsible for Apartheid”.

I really struggle to see how you could think that HRW is the WP:BESTSOURCE here, considering that

• It's a brief, casual summary for a lay audience, which doesn't get into the nuances of the court's opinion at all.
• It was corrected by several experts, one explicitly mentioning HRW, and there was no followup where anyone tried to defend the interpretation being corrected.
• It was written by a non-expert (Clive Baldwin, who has some limited legal education, not comparable to the aforementioned experts).

In case there was any doubt on what the expert consensus is, here's one more analysis by law professor Marko Milanovic: So, the Court finds a violation of Article 3 CERD, but it does not use the term apartheid or conduct any analysis of what the constitutive elements of apartheid are. This question is canvassed extensively in some of the separate opinions, but 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. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The subsequent HRW source I gave above is correct, not the original HRW which was just a press release. Selfstudier (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

As per above, interpretations of what the phrase might mean are best left for the article body (along with where the ball is now, next steps, etcetera.Selfstudier (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

First of all, I disagree that the ICJ ruling is the decisive source here. There are enough sources before the ICJ ruling, confirming that there is apartheid. ICJ ruling is only the cherry on the top, and the interpretations of that ruling are made by Human Rights Watch, a RS per Wikipedia. An article written on a blog that disagrees, not “corrects,” does not change that. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

HRW uses the phrasing I gave. As do most of the RS and that we can stipulate as fact with no argument. The interpretations are a different issue, 2 judges say apartheid, 2 others say not, blah blah. Selfstudier (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I thought we were only discussing the section on the ICJ opinion. Why would sources about separate claims of apartheid, predating the opinion, be relevant?

There's a consensus among international law experts that the court's finding could refer to racial segregation, apartheid, or both, as seen in the analyses of law professors Keane, Solomon, Shamir-Borer, and Milanovic. If you disagree, can you identify any experts who have substantively analyzed this and arrived at a different conclusion? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

There's that but there are other interpretations and details besides just that. You are doing the same as MaT, picking up what is arguable, instead of what is a fact. Selfstudier (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

What other interpretations do you mean? I haven't seen any international law experts express a different view on this particular point. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Judges are law experts, right? The ICJ chief justice, same information, says it's apartheid. Selfstudier (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

To be pedantic, Judge Salam says it's tantamount to apartheid. But more importantly, his separate declaration doesn't say anything about a court finding of apartheid; rather it argues his personal views on the matter. Here I think we're just discussing how to summarize the court finding, not the broader issue of how to frame claims of apartheid. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

And all the other views are also personal views. Iirc, it was you who wanted to make a meal out the previous chief justice (Donohue) personal opinion re "plausible" genocide? This does not really matter because none of this should be in the lead anyway. Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's keep this discussion scoped to interpretation of the ICJ opinion, rather than getting into other questions of how to frame apartheid or genocide in general. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I am addressing the tag in the lead, or one of them. The body hasn't been done properly as yet so there is nothing to discuss about that. Selfstudier (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Worth mentioning is 10. Article 3: Segregation and Apartheid for the difference between the two things:

"...segregation has essentially been regarded as a concentrated form of discrimination through exclusion and the implicit or explicit ranking of populations. Apartheid represents a further concentration of the segregation phenomenon, possessing additional characteristics in terms of domination, imposition of hierarchy, assignment of racial identity by fiat, all holistically integrated into a determinate public policy. While segregation is the broader concept, neither it nor apartheid is defined in the Convention." Selfstudier (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: given this consensus among at least five international law experts, are you willing to self-revert here? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Not yet, I will need time to evaluate the sources you provided, and check for other sources online. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The sources we've discovered so far indicate that the text you restored is problematic. If you suspect that other sources might be discovered later which could change things, it would be good form to hold off on reverting (or self-revert now that it's done) until then. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

If there is no problem with the sentence I proposed for the lead, I am willing to add that in as a replacement Line 1. Selfstudier (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I see your point. I agree we should adhere to WP:EXPERTSPS to pick the WP:BESTSOURCE. The logical best source here will be the ICJ judges themselves who have provided individual statements due to the nuanced nature of the case.

Here's a suggested draft:

In its advisory opinion of 19 July 2024, the ICJ found that Israel was in breach of Article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), including "racial segregation and apartheid". The advisory opinion is not directly binding on UN member states, but is seen as an authoritative statement of law that the UN and its agencies will follow. The opinion also identifies possible obligations for third states in regard to certain identified violations.

CERD defines neither apartheid nor racial segregation and the ICJ judges looked at two international instruments - the Apartheid Convention and the Rome Statute for guidance, both of which Israel has refused to ratify. Some legal experts have opined that the court did not specify whether the breach pertained to racial segregation, apartheid, or both. 5 out of the 16 ICJ judges have addressed the claim of apartheid in their separate opinions. Judge Tladi has been the most direct saying "I interpret this finding to be an acceptance that the policies and practices of Israel constitute a breach of the prohibition of apartheid, which itself is a peremptory norm of international law.".

CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

That would be a WP:PRIMARY source. Andre🚐 01:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

And? CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The best source would be a WP:SECONDARY source. We shouldn't cite the primary source directly. Andre🚐 02:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

You're right that WP:SECONDARY sources are preferred. WP:PRIMARY makes it clear when a primary source can be used. Namely, we can use high-quality primary sources that have been reputably published, to make straightforward statements of facts. I have quoted Judge Tladi verbatim, so it is a statement of fact. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 02:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It would have to be attributed to him directly, and it can't be used for interpretation or analysis. And it's not a statement of fact for the content of his quote, but merely that he said the quote. Andre🚐 02:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Do you think the version I offered falls short of any of those requirements? CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 03:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The one attributed to ICJ? Attribution to ICJ isn't the same as to a specific judge unless he is writing for the Court Andre🚐 03:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it might be permissible, but it doesn't seem ideal to use primary sources when very good secondary ones are available, with at least four analyses by law professors explaining the aspects of the opinion that are most relevant to this article. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Setting aside any concerns about primary sources, there seem to be some neutrality issues with Israel has refused to ratify and with the emphasis on Tladi's declaration in particular (which she frames as a personal interpretation of sorts, not a clarification of a collective court opinion).

I think some of the detail also doesn't seem important, IMO we should just briefly summarize the court's opinion as it relates to apartheid claims. That was what the older text aimed to do, and my edit kept that focus, just with small revisions to accurately match the authoritative sources. Can you explain what the concern is with my version? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

What is the neutrality issue with Israel has refused to ratify? WP:SPADE applies. Here's a statement from Israel saying it refuses to ratify the Apartheid Convention instrument because "the UN is not the right place to be making these laws".

I offered the first draft with Tladi's declaration because it was the most direct. I am happy to summarize the position of the other judges as well. From memory, Xue indirectly agrees with Israel committing apartheid by quoting Desmond Tutu on Israel. One of the other judges says "Israel is definitely committing racial segregation and it's an open question of whether it has crossed over into apartheid". The other judges go into the mechanics of the various laws. Tladi's declaration is important because of the direct call out of the peremptory norm of International law.

I think the summary you provided loses nuance. Keane mentions both Judge Tladi and Judge Nolte, but editorializes Tladi's statement and leaves out the peremptory norm argument. He gives a lot of space to Nolte's argument, indeed almost rehashing it. Is this truly an exhaustive summary of WP:SECONDARY sources? WP:BALANCE requires when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• As a way to move forward, is there a way to rejig the wording of the first sentence to something like Israeli apartheid is a term used by some commentators to refer to the system of institutionalized segregation and discrimination in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories and to a lesser extent in Israel. The only doubt within the ICJ judgment is whether Israel's violation of Article 3 constitutes apartheid or a lesser crime.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

MOS:WEASEL likely rules that particular "some commentators" solution out. This is an issue that editors have struggled with for over a decade. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure that "doubt" is the right way to say this, there is not any doubt that the ICJ found a breach of Article 3. After that we are in opinion territory. I dislike having an expression like "some commentators" as the lead in when there is a finding of fact available. It is not as if the ICJ could find one way or the other if neither is defined by ICERD.

Para 229 says "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." Selfstudier (talk) 08:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

MOS:WEASEL is absolutely not an issue here as it says [phrases of this type] may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution.. Weasel words are very often the best option in cases of disputed interpretations.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I still maintain that we do not have to deal with different interpretations at this point, the ball is now back in CERD's court, the case (Palestine v Israel) has already gone on for 6 years and now, following the failed attempt to conciliate, need to decide what to do next. In the meantime, we do have a finding of fact and imo we should be leading with that. Selfstudier (talk) 09:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Although the sources have concentrated on the Article 3 breach, that is not all of it, the Court, in relation to whether Israeli practices are "discriminatory", also determined that "the regime of comprehensive restrictions imposed by Israel on Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory" – including on residency rights, freedom of movement and demolition of property – "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" and then on to Article 3. Selfstudier (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Ok, so how about Israeli apartheid is a contested term used to refer to the system of institutionalized segregation and discrimination in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories and to a lesser extent in Israel. The existence of the system of institutionalised segregation and discrimination is a legal fact, the definition of this as apartheid doesn't yet seem to be.Boynamedsue (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think one of the problems here is that, take Amnesty for example, it is perfectly OK for Amnesty to hold the view that there is apartheid (including in Israel) and the ICJ opinion's reference to an article 3 breach allows that, at least for the OPT (it says nothing about Israel because they weren't asked for an opinion about Israel). Ditto HRW, etc. But the AO also allows others to hold the view that it is "only" segregation (it's really just a question of degree) or neither of them (eg Nolte).

  So if in the lead we are going to try and juggle both the preexisting opinions and the AO/interpretations at the same time, then we need to consider what weight to give to the respective opinions and/or AO interpretations. MaT would (I think) like to stipulate that the weight of the former completely outweighs the latter. I would say that the preponderance of opinion is that there is apartheid but that there is a not insignificant minority view that there is not.

  Perhaps tackle it this way rather than getting tangled up only in interpretations arising by virtue of the AO, it's not just about segregation versus apartheid, in other words. Selfstudier (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  Stepping back from the wording, would you agree that neither viewpoint should be stated in wikivoice? Since not insignificant minority view that there is not would mean we're in opinion territory, as well as meeting the standard for viewpoints that NPOV tells us to represent. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  xDanielX, you are edit warring a POV (and restoring wrong information at the same time). 1R is not an allowance. Selfstudier (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  It doesn't seem like anyone is continuing to defend the old inaccurate wording, which was based on non-expert summaries of the opinion and contradicted by at least five expert analyses. Makeandtoss who reverted appears to be undecided now, pending more research. I thought this was more or less settled. Are you defending the old summary? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  Why are you calling ICERD CERD? I explained that in edit summary, did you even bother to read it? And no, it is not "settled". Selfstudier (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  I made the CERD -> ICERD correction. If you don't think it's settled, I invite you to reply to my comments above showing a clear expert consensus that this is the correct interpretation. (Well you sort of did reply, but your replies seemed to be about mostly-unrelated lede issues rather than how to properly summarize the ICJ opinion.) — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  @XDanielx: My comment in no way suggested I have dropped my objections to the disputed content which you have just reinserted for the second time despite an ongoing discussion. Please immediately self-revert and stop edit warring. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well, I'm awaiting a reply to my comments above showing a clear expert consensus (based on analyses from four law professors and a judge) that my edit reflects the proper interpretation of the ICJ opinion. If that didn't resolve your objections, please explain why in that thread above. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  This thread is called "Interpretation" while the other is called "Tags" so if it's all the same to you, I will continue to deal with the questions around interpretation (and some other related matters) in this thread. Selfstudier (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  It seems that You merely picking out from sourcing that which matches your POV (which I assume is something along the lines of "It might not be apartheid"). This is a very simplistic way of looking at the matter, I already gave above a more nuanced version of affairs, for example here are interpretations of the interpretations and more relevant stuff here as well. And there is more, never mind, we will get there in due course. Selfstudier (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  I wasn't cherrypicking based on a POV at all, please assume good faith. It's just the reality that all expert analyses agree on this point: the ruling implies racial segregation and/or apartheid, not apartheid specifically.

  Bastaki's analysis focuses on whether Israel is guilty is apartheid, not whether the ICJ finding implies that. She acknowledges that [judges] disagreed on whether the mens rea requirement [for apartheid] was fulfilled, which roughly supports my edit although it's not the most clear and direct source for it.

  Jeßberger and Mehta are more clear: the Advisory Opinion itself is silent on whether discriminatory policies satisfy the constitutive elements of apartheid. Not sure how you could read this as anything other that corroboration of my revision. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  That is correct, the AO is silent on the matter and judges gave individual views. Btw, the material you edited was already in the article in another section above, anyway I have fixed things up now to properly reflect the full findings and current situation. Selfstudier (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with xDanielx that his version was an improvement. Andre🚐 18:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  Good to know, not really a surprise tho. Selfstudier (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

So, I think maybe the problem here is that we need to make clear that it is now accepted in law that a system of racial oppression exists, but although I think it is pretty self-evident that Israel is an apartheid state, this is not yet fully acknowledged. So we could try this Israeli apartheid is a contested term used to refer to the system of institutionalized segregation and discrimination which exists in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories and to a lesser extent in Israel.Boynamedsue (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not a contested term among the most relevant qualified expert organizations and scholars that have rendered their judgment on the matter: The world's leading human rights organizations, including Israel's, who have done so in detailed reports: HRW, Amnesty, B'Tselem, and many, many more. Then there are the countless subject-area legal experts, also listed on that page, and it's the consensus view among Middle-East scholars.

So I agree with @CoolAndUniqueUsername, @Makeandtoss, @Bluethricecreamman that consensus among high quality RS and topic-relevant experts warrant the lede to remain as is.

There will always be some dissent on highly contentious topics, but when there is strong consensus on the matter from every leading human rights organization, it is frankly absurd to pretend like dissent from that is a serious view that has to be given equal space. We wouldn't consider doing that in any other context, and we shouldn't do it here either. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you please clarify who is contesting the term? There are 3 stances - yes, we don't know, and no. From the comments so far, it's clear that there are human rights organizations and lawyers (notably Judge Tladi of the ICJ Advisory Opinion) who have said "yes".

The examples shared by xDanielx seem to be firmly in the "we don't know" category. They focus on the legal technicalities. Daniel's example of professor Milanovic's essay is particularly revealing:

As always, there was a price for obtaining that consensus: ambiguities and silences in the Court’s analysis on some important points (for example, on whether Israel’s practices in the OPT amount to apartheid, or whether Palestine has already achieved statehood).

Is there an RS that firmly says "no"?

If a secondary RS says there is ambiguity and silence by design, it doesn't mean the term is contested. We cannot use the term contested unless there are strong RS' that say "no". CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 02:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Here are some sources that clearly and explicitly endorse the ruling, designating it as apartheid:

• OHCR - The Court added that Israel's legislation and measures violate the international prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid, and 35 human rights experts said “Laws and policies that penalise opposition to or impede advocacy against Israel’s occupation and apartheid must be rescinded,”
• Jacobin - Munir Nuseibah, a human rights lawyer, said the ICJ examination led to a finding that Israel is indeed violating its duty to avoid racial segregation and apartheid. The advisory opinion concluded that Israel practices racial segregation and apartheid
• The Intercept - Jessica Peake, an international law professor at UCLA Law, said the ruling [...] basically made a finding that Israel is creating a situation of apartheid against Palestinians within Israel
• AJ - Mai El-Sadany, a human rights lawyer, said the ICJ describes the situation as racial segregation and apartheid and that “The majority of countries across the world agree with the ICJ’s advisory opinion”
• AI - Erika Guevara Rosas, a human rights lawyer and senior director at AI, said 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 [...] The occupation is a key pillar of the system of apartheid that Israel uses to dominate and oppress Palestinians
• HWR - Clive Baldwin, Senior Legal Advisor at HRW said the [court's] finding means that Israel is responsible for apartheid
• ICJ - (International Commission of Jurists) Echoing many Palestinian, Israeli and international human rights organizations, the ICJ draws the Council’s attention to the fact that Israel has perpetrated the crime of apartheid
• Research Society of International Law - the Court, while reproducing Article 3 of the CERD, added emphasis only on the word “apartheid”. This assertion is also confirmed by Judge Tladi, who asserted that the “Court was correct to find that the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory are in breach of the prohibition of racial segregation and apartheid” in Article 3 of the CERD

Some other sources preceding the ruling:

• ToI - Tamir Pardo, former head of the Mossad, said “There is an apartheid state here [...] In a territory where two people are judged under two legal systems, that is an apartheid state.”
• HRW - the former Northern Commander of the Israeli army described the situation in the West Bank as one of “total apartheid.”, former United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and former UN Human Rights Commissioner Mary Robinson [...] highlighted the “ever growing evidence” they found that “the situation meets the international legal definition of apartheid”
• B'Tselem - (human rights organization) the bar for labeling the Israeli regime as apartheid has been met
• AlHaq - (human rights organization) we [...] urge the UN General Assembly to take urgent and effective actions to [...] end Israel’s occupation, [...] its regime of apartheid over the Palestinian people as a whole
• AI - Amnesty International has analysed Israel’s intent to create and maintain a system of oppression and domination over Palestinians and [...] It has concluded that this system amounts to apartheid
• UN - Ban Ki-moon, the former Secretary-General of the United Nations, wrote in 2021 that the intent of Israel to maintain “structural domination and oppression of the Palestinian people through indefinite occupation … arguably constitutes apartheid”. Nobel Laureate Desmond Tutu stated in 2014: “I know firsthand that Israel has created an apartheid reality within its borders and through its occupation.” The Minister for Foreign Affairs of South Africa, Naledi Pandor, spoke in 2022 about her country’s “significant dismay at the continued apartheid practices of Israel against the long-suffering people of Palestine”. Michael Ben-Yair, a former Attorney General of Israel, said in 2022 that Israel had become “an apartheid regime … a one state reality, with two different peoples living with unequal rights”. Ami Ayalon, the former Director of Shin Bet, wrote in his memoir: “We’ve already created an apartheid situation in Judea and Samaria, where we control the Palestinians by force, denying them self-determination.” Furthermore, two former Israeli ambassadors to South Africa – Ilan Baruch and Alon Liel – stated in 2021 that the systematic discrimination of Israel “on the basis of nationality and ethnicity” now constituted apartheid etc etc
• Yesh Din - Michael Sfard, Israeli lawyer and political activist specializing in international human rights law, said the Israeli regime in its entirety is an apartheid regime
• Research Society of International Law - Michael Lynk, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 [...] concluded that Israel’s policies in Palestinian territory amount to apartheid

Also this list compiled by CJPME includes a list of notable figures and organizations supporting the apartheid denomination (pre and post ruling). I'll echo CoolAndUniqueUsername question. Do we have a similar compilation of organizations/experts stating the opposite? - Ïvana (talk) 04:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be conflating racial segregation and apartheid with just apartheid. Nobody disagrees that the court found a breach of the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid, implying one or the other (or possibly both). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The court did not imply anything, they found systemic discrimination and then in view of that, a breach of article 3 and left it to individual judges to comment beyond that.

The point of these refs is to address whether the lead is correct, which is not solely about the AO. Selfstudier (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: the topic of the article is Israeli apartheid. Why are you removing the content that clarifies how the ICJ opinion relates to apartheid, and expanding the section to focus on less-relevant aspects of the opinion? It was left to judges in their individual opinions also seems like odd wording - the court simply didn't address it, it's not as if they requested that judges personally opine on it (and most did not). My wording was closer to that of the expert analyses mentioned above. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Why are you removing the content that clarifies how the ICJ opinion relates to apartheid The AO doesn't discuss apartheid, it is silent on the matter. Most of the available RS (again I can add it in specifically if you wish) specify that the reason the material re apartheid was not addressed in the AO was in order to get a maximal consensus in the AO eg "nor did it explicitly specify whether it considered Israel’s policy to be apartheid or racial segregation or both – presumably an outcome of the collective nature of the decision-making process of the Court." Your editing as well left out all the precursor material about the finding of systemic discrimination, for example, hardly surprising, as I already indicated that you appeared more interested in those parts of sources supporting a rather simplistic non-explanation of the actual AO findings, instead concentrating on lawyerly navel gazing about what exactly Article 3 means (not a new debate either). Selfstudier (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

In fact since it seems to me that the section "2024 ICJ advisory opinion" which was and is now again, duplicated at "The legal standard" section, does not really belong there exactly because the AO is silent on the matter of applicability and so I have deleted it and moved the first sentence up to the properly relevant section. Selfstudier (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's likely that the opinion's silence on apartheid was intentional, in the interest of consensus. We can mention that if you like. The issue with your edits is that they focus on court findings which sound similar to apartheid to a casual reader, while obfuscating the fact that the opinion contained no finding on the matter of apartheid. My edit didn't give undue attention to systemic discrimination because that's not the topic of the article, and not the primary focus of the ICJ opinion either. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Systemic discrimination is the precursor to the article 3 finding, one leads to the other:

"As part of this step [Occupation/annexation], the Court then turns to assessing whether Israel's "legislation and measures" related to its "policies and practices" in the OPT are "discriminatory" (Opinion, paras. 180-184). For this, it necessarily turns to IHRL, without abandoning the overall context of the jus in bello within which that law must be interpreted given Israel remains an occupying Power in the territory. Applying this framework, the Court determines that "the regime of comprehensive restrictions imposed by Israel on Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory" – including on residency rights, freedom of movement and demolition of property – "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 [I]CERD" (Opinion, paras. 192-223). Not losing sight of the foundational problem of the settlements, 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", leading it to conclude "that Israel’s legislation and measures constitute a breach of Article 3 of [I]CERD" by which States parties – including Israel – "particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction (Opinion, paras. 224-229)" [My bolding]

We can per the above quote, try to make the connections clearer if you like. The thing with this part (in fact the entire AO) is that it is all of a piece, with each part linked to every other part, directly or indirectly:

"The Court emphasizes that its reply to the questions put to it by the General Assembly rests on the totality of the legal grounds set forth by the Court above, each of which is to be read in the light of the others, taking into account the framing by the Court of the material, territorial and temporal scope of the questions (paragraphs 72 to 83)" [74 discusses the discrimination issue].

Selfstudier (talk) 10:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

ICJ sources

@Black Kite: regarding your revert, this was discussed above. We have at least five secondary analyses by law professors (I hadn't included [4] per overcite), as well as a judge, confirming the clarification I made.

The source you restored is an article by Haroon Siddique, who holds an undergraduate law degree. It's also written for a lay audience and lacks depth, particular in relation to apartheid claims. Surely this isn't the WP:BESTSOURCE given the available alternatives.

Also while EJIL: Talk! calls itself a blog, it has a team of 14 editors and a review process. Their review process carries much more weight here than that of the The Guardian, whose editors generally have no relevant credentials. But even if these were self-published, all five analyses would easily pass WP:EXPERTSPS. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Andre🚐 22:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the sources (except the one part authored and "served for over 20 years in various positions in the International Law Department of the Military Advocate General's Corps in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), including as the head of the department, and retired at the rank of Colonel), I have more accurately summarized the article body and balanced the one sided source selection. Selfstudier (talk) 11:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

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)