Talk:Apartheid/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 27 November 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

US discrimination?[edit]

Should this really be in a series about US discrimination? PFoster 19:52, 30 December 2007 (EST)

I don't see a reason for it. Blue (is useful) 16:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I removed the template, not relevant to the topic, apart from the covert support from Reagan and Thatcher govts, using SA to fight commies in Angola. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 16:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't it raise a whole series of issues to put Coloured and Bantu in inverted commas, but not White and Indian. PatGallacher (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Not really, they dont necessarily mean what you'd expect unless you know something about S.africa. --il'Dictator Mikal 08:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I think I do know something about South Africa, and I'm not sure what I would expect if I didn't. PatGallacher (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


The discussion of Israel on this is extremely biased, and sometimes outright false. John Kerry never labeled the occupation as apartheid, only that it risks becoming apartheid. As well, it does not provide the Israeli side of the argument, such as, there is no reason why Palestinians should be using Israeli roads, as they are in another territory than their own, and that permits to move into Israeli territory is similar to every other country's border policy. Kentuckyball (talk) 10:15, 31 March 2015 (EST)


Your argument is filled with apologetics for Israel that is not credibly asserted by human rights reports and I'm removing it. The assessment of John Kerry's remark is true. However, pointing to the Israeli side of the argument would be akin to using the Serbian government to support its nationalist policies in the 90's or using South Africa's strident anti-communist policies to delegitimize any armed resistance and terrorism committed against it (the Truth and Reconciliation Commission acknowledges that anti-apartheid groups killed more civilians than militants, but nobody seriously labels that acts of terrorism). I will go through your addition one by one.
The Israeli roads are built on PALESTINIAN LAND. The International Court of Justice ruled in July 2004 that the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza are occupied Palestinian Territory. That is the opinion of the highest world court and included judges who were more sympathetic to Israel. On the basis of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49 - part 6, an occupying power cannot transfer its citizens to occupied territory. In addition, a country cannot annex territory it acquired by war under the UN Charter. This is no different than when Iraq illegally annexed Kuwait or when Russia illegally annexed Crimea. These are basic standards of international law. The only reason Israel is being criticized in the international community is because it has been flagrantly violating international law for the better part of 50 years since it occupied the Palestinian Territories. As a result, to say that Palestinians need permits and different roads on THEIR LEGALLY ENTITLED TERRITORY would be similar to the US trying to restrict the movement of Iraqis in its occupation of Iraq or Saddam Hussein arguing that the restriction of Kuwaitis is necessary despite the fact he invaded and occupied it. You have omitted the context of military occupation which is itself a violent act.
The claim that the UN exerts bias against Israel is unfounded and frankly, ridiculous. The UN created Israel through the 1947 Partition Plan at the expense of the Palestinian population and in flagrant violation of their rights by giving 56% of the territory to people who owned only 7% of the land. And even though it is inadmissible to acquire territory by war, the UN allowed Israel to acquire 22% more land in the land of Historic Palestine after 1949. And even after 1967, despite the fact declassified Israeli documents have shown that Nasser did not intend war (Begin's quote: "In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him") and rather that Israeli officials were trying to provoke a conflict (by entering in DMZ's in Syria), the UN still gave away and allowed Israel the pretext of arguing self-defense. Only when Israel started building settlements did it incur the wrath of the international community.
In addition, the UN has actually gave Israel far more leeway than it affords under countries. Has Israel been sanctioned for its annexation of the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem in contravention of UN Resolutions? No, but Iraq under Saddam Hussein and Russia have incurred sanctions. Has Israel had sanctions placed upon it for possessing nuclear weapons in violation of the NPT? No, but Iran is being sanctioned for even trying to develop nuclear energy. Has Israel had its officials placed at war crimes tribunals? No, but the likes of Milosevic and African dictators have. Has Israel been forced to withdraw from territories it occupied? No, but Indonesia has from its occupation of East Timor. The only reason that more resolutions are dedicated to the Israel-Palestine question is because the UN has failed to resolve the dilemma of the Palestinian refugees for a better part of 66 years and has not achieved a sovereign Palestinian state. We're talking about a conflict, since the Balfour Declaration, that has lasted for nearly a 100 years and a military occupation that is the longest current one in the world (48 years). Again, don't you think it's more than a little appropriate to dedicate resolutions to a conflict that has lasted an ungodly amount of time? This is what makes the Israel-Palestine question a little different from say Sudan.
As far as whether there is a security justification, it's worth noting what the record says. The suicide bombings in the Second Intifada only occurred after the IDF blatantly overreacted to demonstrations by killing Palestinians through a 20:1 death ratio. And in actually, the suicide bombings were provoked by assassinations policies conducted by Israel which makes their security arguments all the less credible. Consider what military analyst Alex Fishman wrote in Ynet in November 2001: "Whoever gave a green light to this act of liquidation knew full well that he is thereby shattering in one blow the gentleman’s agreement between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. [. . .] Under that agreement, Hamas was to avoid in the near future suicide bombings inside the Green Line."
What do the human rights reports have to say about the legitimacy of the security argument? Amnesty International, in its 2003 report Surviving under Siege, mentions that "attacks intensified as restrictions on the movements of Palestinians increased, calling into question the effectiveness of indiscriminate restrictions that treat every Palestinian as a security threat and punish entire communities for the crimes committed by a few people.” And the outcomes of the security policies enacted on Palestinians emphasizes its deliberately discriminatory nature that undermines its self-defense arguments. Amnesty writes on the issue of mass arrests, "They are imposed on the Palestinian population alone, and not on Israeli settlers, and are often imposed on Palestinians for the benefit of Israeli settlers. Even on occasions when Israeli settlers have initiated confrontations, attacking Palestinians or destroying their property, the Israeli army invariably imposed closures, curfews or other restrictions on the Palestinians, including by declaring a closed military area and excluding them from it."
Amnesty also notes, "Most of the restrictions on movement placed on Palestinians . . . are imposed to prevent the Palestinian popu- lation from coming into contact with the Israeli settlers. [. . .] The sweeping restrictions on the movement of Palestinians are disproportionate and discrimina- tory—they are imposed on all Palestinians because they are Palestini- ans, and not on Israeli settlers who live illegally in the Occupied Ter- ritories. . . . They have a severe negative impact on the lives of millions of Palestinians who have not committed any offence." If Israel truly was concerned about security needs, it would stop building settlements and occupying another person's land while affording the benefit of its law to the illegal settlers while denying this right to the majority population it brutalizes and controls.
And the apartheid analogy has been made by a number of respected commentators, including: president Jimmy Carter, former Israeli Attorney General Michael Ben-Yair; former Israeli ministers of education Shulamit Aloni and Yossi Sarid; former deputy mayor of Jerusalem Meron Benvenisti; former Israeli Ambassador to South Africa Alon Liel; veteran Israeli journalist Danny Rubinstein; South African Archbishop and Nobel Laureate for Peace Desmond Tutu; “father” of human rights law in South Africa John Dugard; B’Tselem; The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI); and the Haaretz editorial board. Even Ariel Sharon, the former prime minister of Israel, himself said that the "the Bantustan model was the most appropriate solution to the conflict."
The excuse that it cannot be racial segregation because it's done on nationality grounds is a pathetic argument and wouldn't even pass the test of international law. Race is not a biological aspect, it is a social contract that is determined by people's observations. As John Dugard notes, "The idea of race itself has long been shown as social construct rather than scientific reality, with a process of ‘racialization’ entailing the social utilization of the concept of race as a biological category in order to organize and distort perceptions of the world’s various populations".
If race cannot be determined biologically, what classifies as racial discrimination and what does Article 1(1) of the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination have to say? What they say amounts to discrimination is this: "the term ‘racial discrimination’ shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. " In other words, yes, discriminating against someone on national origin can be classified as racial discrimination.
And for those who seriously study the practice of apartheid, you would know that the South African government used the Bantustan excuse for claiming that it was not entitled to respected the rights of the indigenous blacks was because they lived in their "separate nations" like KwaZulu and Transkei. They used the excuse that the Bantustans were different countries and as such, were not responsible for blacks. In the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority functions in a similar way by doing the dirty work of Israel's occupation despite the facade of "Self-rule". Consider what former Israeli minister Natan Shransky had to say: “The idea of Oslo was to find a strong dictator to . . . keep the Palestinians under control.” Former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami also had this to say, "One of the meanings of Oslo was that the PLO was . . . Israel’s collaborator in the task of stifl ing the [fi rst] inti- fada and cutt ing short what was clearly an authentically dem- ocratic struggle for Palestinian independence". So again, to assert that the Palestinians are not being discriminated against in the occupied territories under the ideal of them having self-rule in enclaves is frankly misleading. — Unsigned, by: ChrisAmiss / talk / contribs
Bear in mind that there are other articles on the wiki that are better suited for a prolonged analysis of Israel/Palestine. The focus of this article should be overwhelmingly on south Africa. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The proper thing would have been to sign the rather unnnecessary essay above, although the author's skill with pen and sense of reason makes it obvious who she is. Sign, it's the polite to do. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
So now ChrisAmiss is a Mona sockpuppet too? The paranoia is strong in this one. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:37, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
I was just linked to this talk page and I completely forgot about this page. Considering the lateness, should I bother writing a response? I am willing to.Kentuckyball (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

Let's remove the inherently edit war-prone section on Israel and whether or not it is similar to Apartheid and link to Wikipedia instead. That way we avoid edit wars and all will be happy to engage in more productive editing elsewehere. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

No. It's on mission, and the ANC itself hosts conferences opposing "Israeli Aprtheid." Desmond Tutu calls what is going in Israel apartheid. And,in due time I will have edits to add. (But right now I'm busy working on the Zionism draft.) Removing significant, on-point information because you detest it and would cause edit wars is not acceptable.---Mona- (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
You are adding unsourced, tendentious shit in your ongoing tantrums to spread propganda in every article touching on Israel. You've pissed many people off, been put on autopatrol, had your stupid al Quds Day article deleted (which you only manufactured as a workaround b/c your sysop status has been removed and therefore you couldn't edit the page you really wanted that Al Quds crap in). Stop it. If you continue I'll simply undo it all tonite and you may find yourself vandal binned, as was proposed by someone yesterday.---Mona- (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I have to disagree, Avenger. That section is only edit war-prone because you happen to edit at this wiki; nothing inherent about it. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:52, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
The topic of Israel is controversial on Wikipedia as well. Even though they have a NPOV policy over there that does not exist here... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

How is an actual discussion of how Apartheid and Israel are different a "red herring"?[edit]

The user that looks like a BoN and isn't reverted my discussion of ways in which Israel is unlike Apartheid South Africa with the "reason" that it constituted a "red herring". Now I have to ask you: How is presenting the other side in a controversial discussion a "red herring"? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

You Avenger are severely wasting other people's valuable time. You are not an asset to RW. I'm not going to substantively engage your antics very often, and I'm not doing it here. It's wasted enough of my time on many, many pages!---Mona- (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
(EC) It's possible that you didn't intend it as a red herring and are just being intensely clueless, but your little paragraph happens to be blatantly detractory and completely misrepresents the actual issues with the Israeli regime. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:56, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Are Israeli Arabs treated any worse thaen e.g. Muslim Americans? Or any given minority in any given Western country? I won't even draw the comparison with the treatment of Jews in Arab countries... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
And now you further weaken your point by going into whataboutery. Wow, impressive. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:07, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
The paragraph that was removed - details how the treatment of Israeli Arabs differs markedly from the treatment any non-whites received in Apartheid South Africa. Instead of calling me names, you could actually discuss the issue on its merits. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The entire section is whataboutery. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Uh-huh. And the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank? Do they vote in Israeli elections? After all, Israel occupies and controls them, and has taken their land and shunted them off to where they live now. That is, Israel practices apartheid. Also in its unequal justice system. (A former Shin Bet director just wrote a scathing indictment of that system in the Tablet.---Mona- (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Bantustans, you say? Alec Sanderson (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Bantustans. I just added three references on that point in the article.---Mona- (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The comparison of Gaza to Bantustan is ridiculous. Hamas is no friend nor vassal of Israel in any sense of the word. The PA can be a argued to be, but Hamas functions as a state that is at war with Israel as opposed to a vassal. Unless the government of Bantustan regularly fired rockets into South Africa, I don't think that comparison is accurate.
As well, a comparison of the Palestinian Authority to Bantustan is fair, but the label "apartheid" cannot be taken from such an aspect. I would say it is more of a South African version of Godwin's Law, comparing someone to the Nazis because of a single similarity, if even (General Government in Poland served a similar purpose). Kentuckyball (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Definition of BANTUSTAN

Bantustan noun Ban·tu·stan \ˌban-tü-ˈstan, ˌbän-tü-ˈstän, ˈban-tü-ˌ, ˈbän-tü-ˌ, -tə-\ Definition of BANTUSTAN

any of several all-black enclaves formerly in the Republic of South Africa that had a limited degree of self-government Merriam-Webster ---Mona- (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Riddle me this[edit]

(ec) Why is there a discussion about Israel in an article about Apartheid? Israel related matters should be discussed in an article called, say, Israel. The entire section should be removed. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Given that there was a a similar discussion a few months ago with a similar result I second that. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Of course! Let's delete every mention of Israel except for in the Israel article! What a brilliant suggestion! While we're at it, why don't we remove every user's comment on talkpages that aren't their user talkpage?! 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:11, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
That's easily the dumbest thing I've read this week. I didn't say discuss in the Israel article exclusively. But there seems to be a movement by a few arrogant fanatics trying to press Palestine into everything. That includes you and the self described, shrill stylist above. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
It's true that Avenger brings up Palestine and goes into full Israel-whitewashing mode at the drop of a beat. Is he a shrill stylist though? I dunno. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:28, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Getting dumber. I was referring to your girlfriend as should have been obvious. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Lol, please. Like I didn't know. So how is your boyfriend treating you by the way? I hope you're enjoying a beautiful, loving relationship. Best wishes! 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:38, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Israel and the apartheid analogyWikipedia is why. It isn't some obscure thing to compare the two.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
(ec)::How is that a legitimation, Paravant? To the number dimwit: My boyfriend and I are separated by quite some distance, alas. But since Mona and the BoN (not Avenger, obviously) are most likely one and the same, that's where we have a loving relationship. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Man oh man, this new user's arrogance is priceless. Oh and yay, more sockpuppet paranoia. Thanks for the entertainment. :) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:51, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Something being "notable" according to English Wikipedia is not sufficient grounds for us to cover it. After all, we don't currently cover the vast majority of the topics currently covered over at WP Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Christ youre an idiot if that's what you got out of that. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I think insinuating that Mona and the fake-BoN are in a relationship is a bit mean. Though notably not meaner thaen some of the other things that tend to happen around here Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems mostly just incredibly silly. No harm done. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:42, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
142․124․55․236, what it is is a complete waste of energy and time. I have some pretty extensive experience of Zionist antics around the Internet and what's happening here is not unusual. They want to waste people's time with: diversion, misdirection, whataboutery, calling names to put one on the defensive -- ANYTHING but seeing unpleasant facts about Israel documented. I'm not falling into this energy sink and respectfully suggest that you not do so either.---Mona- (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
It's not so much "unpleasant facts" but smearjob dishonest false propaganda that is 90% opinion that can be found on pages like electronic intifada [sic!] Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Sheesh, do you really have to derail every tangent to serve your Israeli propagandist agenda? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:13, 22 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Again, I do think it quite possible that some of these hardcore Zionists are hasbara-ists. RW is prominent enough to be targeted for that. They even have a handbook that includes specific instructions on how to handle left-of-center people. Israel doesn't advertise this much, but also doesn't hide it. The general facts are all publicly available. (Which is to say, I am not arguing for a "conspiracy theory.") ---Mona- (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah so just accuse your opponents of being paid shills. Because it is impossible that people would have an opinion that isn't yours. Kentuckyball (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Trust me, if you'd seen Avenger's antics it wouldn't seem like such a far-out possibility to you anymore. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:44, 22 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
(Also, from what I hear, hasbarists are not so much paid shills but rather sincere supporters as well as average Internet trolls who're given some pointers by the Israeli PR department.) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:13, 22 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Let's not go into old stories as of who threatened to "expose" the evils of RW's "Zionist bias" on their twitter, shall we? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

"sincere supporters as well as average Internet trolls who're given some pointers by the Israeli PR department" Yes, I'm not sure that ANY of them are paid. If you follow my links they don't seem to be. But it has been known for at least a decade that Zionists, and the Israeli gotv, organize to do this both online and on college campuses.---Mona- (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

How about this for a solution[edit]

Lets make the bottom part of the article its own page, we can call it something like Comparisons to Apartheid. Reason being this page should be about Apartheid (meaning the racist crap that happened in South Africa) not about similar things happening elsewhere. We can link to the new page here in the See Also section and it will have the added benefit of moving the Israel arguing away from this page. Does anyone have an objection to that? SolPyre (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I think this could be a workable solution for this article, though I have to yet be convinced how the comparison between Israel and Apartheid relates to our mission statement... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
No. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Why? And please indent your scribblings. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Because its a solution to a non issue except to idiots who cannot see how "other countries pulling off apartheid" is missional. Though Avenger is well known for not understanding what is missional.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
And by a strange coincidence Israel is always picked as an example of whatever goes wrong in the world. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
If you would like to discuss other instances of Apartheid and Aparyheid0like actions in the world, go ahead and include them. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Paravant: No.---Mona- (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that its off mission I'm saying its off topic for this article and should have its own page. SolPyre (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Other instances of apartheid (and-or, the claims of it) are not off-topic in the article about Apartheid. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
But Apartheid is/was a system specific to South Africa other instances of Racism/Segregation/Oppression are not Apartheid they are similar to Apartheid unless Israel was looking at South Africa and purposely copying its system then the Israel thing isn't Apartheid its another instance of Racism/Segregation/Oppression. We have a separate page for the Jim Crow Laws. Maybe a comment about the comparison being made is appropriate but not a whole section on the comparison, it should be its own page. SolPyre (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Even if Israel-Palestine has its place here, it's way out of proportion to the rest of the article. If people have so much to say, then a new article is the answer, not a single example which nearly overwhelms the article's subject. And somehow, it's always Israel, not only here. There is a group here pressing their opinions and guarding each other's back, not to mention the very real possibilty of sock-puppetry. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
So write more about South Africas apartheid. You just don't want it to be in a relevant place, but shunted off on its own so you can ignore it better. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
(EC) There's currently not enough content to split it off into its own article. And moving sections to other places to "save" particular articles from being argued over is silly and fails to solve any actual issue. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:58, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
I feel like you missed the main thing I was saying, I'll concede the that moving things to save an article being argued over isn't a valid reason but thats not the main reason to make changes that I gave and the part about not enough content seems unimportant given the amount of content Mona is able to produce on short notice. In any case I give up on this, I was an idiot to think that ether side would be willing to be reasonable about things. Let the endless Israel/Palestine arguing continue. SolPyre (talk) 02:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I think your argument is reasonable, as the topic of Apartheid (a specific term for a specific form of racial segregation in a specific time and place, just like Jim Crow is) is quite distinct from any (dis)similarities there might be (or not be) between it and Israel. After all, Wikipedia has also split the two topics. But I fear that there is no room for compromise here. Whether the discussion of the (dis)similarities between any policy of the state of Israel and Apartheid is on mission would of course be a question for another time, but sadly I think one that cannot be debated divorced from the opinions several people may have on the subject Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I didn't outright reject your suggestion of having it in a separate article, I'm actually very much open to it, but the fact is that there's currently not enough content to split it off. And as for "not enough content seems unimportant given the amount of content Mona is able to produce on short notice", that's rather blatantly putting the cart before the horse. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:10, 22 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
If they want this article to be titled South African Apartheid, with another titled Israeli Apartheid, that'd be fine down the road. As long as the titles are those. But as of now the one umbrella serves well, especially given that the nexus of the ANC being a huge opponent of Israeli apartheid, hosting conferences on the issue & etc. The article isn't that long as is.---Mona- (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
We should only have articles about things that exist or have ever existed. There is no such thing as Israeli Apartheid. For one hardly anybody in Israel speaks Afrikaans. And also "races" are not violently and legally separated by a brutal dictatorship of a small minority over the vast majority. Ask black South Africans how often they voted in any election prior to 1994. And thaen ask the same question of Arab citizens of Israel. And if you are going to drag Hamastan into this, ask citizens of Gaza how often they voted for anything since the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. And don't come throwing the word "Bantustan" around. Gaza is governed by the equivalent of the AWB (a racist white terrorist organization during and after Apartheid) and Robert Mugabe all rolled into one. Whereas the Bantustans were ruled by the Uncle Tom's of the Apartheid regime. Now whatever you can say against Hamas, Uncle Toms I have not heard them called. In short: There are no similarities between anything Israel does and Apartheid as perpetrated by the National Party and their henchmen (it was mostly men) in South Africa. But please, say all you want to say Mona... Say it to an Arab Israeli soldier of the IDF - I dare you. I double dare you. Say to the enemies of Hamas that their struggle matters not. Say to the victims of Hamas that they shall be forgotten. I dare you. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
And again you go on a tangent to attack and strawman Mona while denying Israel's crimes... 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:30, 22 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Why is the fact that Arab citizens of Israel can vote in Israeli elections a tangent? And why am I not allowed to attack Hamas for their constant crimes against the people of Gaza? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's not what the subject was and it's a deflection from where the apartheid actually occurs, between the settlers and Palestinians under military occupation. The apartheid analogy is used by people to refer to the settlements and the occupation, not inside Israel. Mentioning what Israel does in its legal borders is a red herring. Israel's apartheid policies in the territories it occupies is very much similar to South Africa's apartheid policies in its occupation of Namibia as the ICJ ruled in the 70's. You have a small Jewish settler minority dominating a larger population in the West Bank in both access to land and resources. That's why the apartheid analogy is used because the settlers and Palestinians live in the same area of land, yet are treated under two separate systems of law. When Jimmy Carter referred to apartheid in the context of Israel and Palestine, he was referring to the settlement enterprise and policies that Israel develop in the territories it occupies, NOT within Israel itself. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
South Africans did actually vote in some of the bantustans, of course this meant little since they were nothing more than puppets much like the PA is despite the holding of elections. I have a book on apartheid about it, but I don't have the exact citation at the moment. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Israel did not withdraw from Gaza. It still occupies the territory as asserted by the Red Cross, international community, and human rights organizations. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Shove this legal fiction (if it is even that and not rather just some more or less VIP people releasing hot air from several orifices). How the fuck can you occupy an area without even being there??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 03:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Good post! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't need to have boots in your country to be occupying it, the everpresent and overwhelming threat of invasion, alongside attempting to dictate to the world who can go talk to you, is as much an occupation as actually having troops shooting people in the streets. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It's the fucking Red Cross. Do you want me to cite from the Hamas Foreign Affairs page? Get over yourself and stop trying to deny reality. They occupy it by "effective control" which is considered an occupation under international law. Read up on the law. ChrisAmiss (talk) 03:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Goods shipped into Gaza[edit]

While the article does mention that the construction material needed to rebuild Gaza hasn't largely made it there, is anyone going to mention the fact that the material that has been delivered, enough for 83 000 people as of June 2nd, 2015, has been in large part used to rebuild tunnels rather than homes. People forget that in Gaza, you are not dealing with a legitimate, functional government with their people in their best interest, Gaza is under control of a terrorist organization. Kentuckyball (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Same's like Saddam's Iraq. If he didn't pocket the aid, there'd be no big humanitarian problems in Iraq. If the Hamas didn't pocket the construction material to build tunnels, the Palestinians'd be rebuilding houses damaged/destroyed in the fighting.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Kentucky, do you have a credible source for your claims?---Mona- (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Found this on CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/02/middleeast/gaza-reconstruction/

Here is an article from the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/11515603/Iran-is-intensifying-efforts-to-support-Hamas-in-Gaza.html al-Monitor: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/en/originals/2015/03/hamas-gaza-strip-tunnel-infrastructure-rebuilding.html# and Business Insider: http://www.businessinsider.com/hamas-rebuilding-attack-tunnels-into-israel-2015-9?IR=T They also use children to build these tunnels: http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/At-least-160-children-died-digging-tunnels-for-Hamas-369138 Kentuckyball (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hamas was elected democratically so it is the legitimate government. As far as reconstruction of Gaza goes, I would consider linking to Sara Roy's recent article on the Gaza Strip, in which she emphasizes that Israeli officials have told the UN of their attitude towards Gaza, "no development, no prosperity, no humanitarian crisis" source: http://www.thenation.com/article/gaza-treading-shards/. What Israel allows in doesn't even meet daily demand, which is to say that Gaza more or less has to deal with bare minimums with the tunnel system that employs people and keeps them surviving. Also, your numbers are fudged. The IPS and Gisha confirmed that only 9 children died digging the tunnels. The 160 people mostly refers to adults. In addition, because of the blockade and wars that followed, Gaza will said to be uninhabitable in 5 years source: http://time.com/4019509/gaza-uninhabitable-unctad/. Lastly, your sources referring to Hamas confiscating materials only comes from what an IDF official says, not an impartial source. TL;DR apologetics needinng to be debunked again. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Hamas was elected democratically so it is the legitimate government.- ChrisAmiss Were they elected as the absolute and perpetual rulers of the Gaza Strip?! Cause since about 9 years, there was not one election again --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 03:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Your first link says nothing about this issue. The second says some people have smuggled in tunnel material, not that Hamas is appropriating other materials meant for home construction. The only thing in IBT source was a report that Israeli officials accuse Hamas of doing this, with no evidence. Israeli officials are not a credible source.---Mona- (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Mona, I'd recommend linking to Amnesty, HRW, PCHR, Gisha, and the UN for effects the blockade has had. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Chris, in the article, I do. Specifically to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.---Mona- (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Being elected does not indicate legitimacy, especially when there are no elections afterwards, and dissenters are executed for opposing the ruling regime (See: Nazi Germany). It is interesting that you talk about what Israel let's in, ignoring that Gaza also borders Egypt, but there is no discussion on this matter. Surely, if Israel is showing their hatred towards Arabs, the Egyptians would be keen to send aid through. However, that is not the case, and Egypt has been flooding tunnels instead. Egypt and Israel, Hamas' neighbours, both understand the real threat to stability and peace that Hamas presents, and that is why they prevent them from receiving such aid, because Hamas pockets this. Why would these countries allow in foreign aid if they know for a fact that it is not going to who it is for? Even the Guardian admits that Hamas is getting their hands on the building supplies through the black market. It makes as much sense as giving money to a homeless guy who you just saw buying cocaine. Thank you for informing me that it is only 9 children who died constructing tunnels, I am very pleased to hear that it is not that bad because Hams is responsible for murdering only nine children through forced labour. If Hamas really cared about their people, they would step down from power so that Israel can lift the blockade. The blockade does not exist just to kill Gaza's, any such claim is comparable to the Jewish Bolshevik Genocide conspiracy. The blockade exists to prevent Hamas from getting weapons, to which there have been numerous attempts to get them weapons. If you want to discuss impartial sources, how about we clean up this article of Electronic Intifada. Nevertheless, my article from The Guardian details the corruption, and I would not call The Guardian an Israel-apologetic source. Kentuckyball (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The tunnels that involved 160 deaths were actually under private use and not operated by Hamas, so Hamas isn't "murdering" the 9 children. There's a release on the IPS Facebook page last year clarifying this. Sorry, democracy is an all or nothing option like free speech. You either support it or you don't. For elections, please refer to the Hamas talk page for why it's difficult to hold elections on account of Israel's restrictions. For dissenters, that is a human rights abuse and they should be put on trial, I don't argue with this. However, you omit that Fatah launched a coup backed by the US and Israel against Hamas in 2007 which Hamas preempted. The Egypt destruction of the tunnels is a red herring since Egypt only controls the Rafah border rather than 5 of the other 6 crossings, and you seem to be engaging in whataboutery so I will assume you conceded some of my arguments. Your argument about the blockade being equivalent to kill Gazans is a strawman and a non-sequitur. Wikileaks had a cable release a couple of years ago, quoting, "As part of their overall embargo plan against Gaza, Israeli officials have confirmed to (U.S. embassy economic officers) on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the Gazan economy on the brink of collapse without quite pushing it over the edge" source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/05/us-palestinians-israel-wikileaks-idUSTRE7041GH20110105. I wasn't arguing that it was a genocide, so your claim is fabricated and of your own imagination. Also, consider your source and what it says. I'm quoting, "less material was entering the coastal strip in November than before the war". But wait, I thought Israel intended to send in as much aid as possible? Why the contradiction? Also, if the mechanisms was designed to involve inspection and monitoring so that Hamas didn't divert it, why is it that this mechanism is still vulnerable to corruption without Hamas involvement? You can't blame Hamas here because the mechanism purposely avoids them. Consider the quote from an economist: "The new reconstruction mechanism has reproduced the Israeli siege of Gaza, only this time it is the UN that is regulating it. The UN is trading stability for cement – and not very much of it. And most of the cement that is coming in is being sold on the black market. Israel knows it. Serry knows it. The mechanism was a licence for corruption. It is a licence to prolong the siege. It is a licence for big salaries for the UN officials running it". Once again, your sources state the opposite of what you mean in terms of where the corruption lies and the purpose of the mechanism (to preserve the Israeli siege), which tells me you are dishonest and not interested in speaking truth, but rather rehashing old apologetics through misuse of source material. ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
As far as whether Hamas is credible in terms of its handling of weapons an construction of tunnels, the ITIC itself has confirmed that the Hamas has suppressed rocket fire through police squads, which seems a bit odd for a group that you're arguing intends to be a destabilizing faction not committed to peace. If anything, the tunnel constructions would consequently seem to provide a lifeline to Gaza to counter against the blockade rather than the other way around. ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Electronic Intifada enjoys a reputation as being factually accurate. Indeed, Ali Abunimah is anal on that discipline. He is well aware that Zionists monitor it heavily trying to find reason to call him sloppy. There are pro-Palestinian sites I do not trust and avoid -- EI is not one them, not even sort of. Moreover, when used for a particular purpose, I haven't objected when Zionists link to the grossly biased UKMediaWatch (tho I would in certain contexts). Anyway, you haven't demonstrated your claim that Hamas is taking the housing materials let thru to use them for tunnels. The Israeli officials offered no factual support for their claims.---Mona- (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
And about this: "the Egyptians would be keen to send aid through. However, that is not the case, and Egypt has been flooding tunnels instead." You are either dishonest or monumentally ignorant. Egyptian General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi is the current president of Egypt, a title "won" in a military coup against the democratically elected Mohamed Morsi. Gazans and Hamas are ideologically aligned with the Morsi faction and so OF COURSE Sisi detests them.---Mona- (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I linked to an article from The Guardian that details the corruption. The fact that the tunnels are being rebuilt at all when there are still homeless people in Gaza shows that there is corruption. Hamas even admitted to rebuilding tunnels. Assuming they were not made of the building materials sent in aid, where are they getting the materials for these tunnels, and why are these materials not being used to help rebuild Gaza due to the drastic shortage of building materials? You also ignored the rest of what I said about Hamas' "election". Abdel Fatah el-Sisi may have ideological opposition, but that doesn't mean he would have no interest in helping the people of Gaza as opposed to the government. However, he knows that the government of Gaza is corrupt and the aid will not go to the people. If Egypt was really interested in seeing dead Gaza's, they would have supported the continuation of the war, but instead, they attempted to negotiate an agreement between the two sides. Kentuckyball (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
There are strong rebuttals to all you just spewed. But the fact remains you cannot demonstrate that the tiny amount of construction materials going into Gaza have been appropriated by Hamas for tunnels. I am not engaging you on any of your other tangential points that are irrelevant to your initial claim. Now, I am truly done here, at least with you. ---Mona- (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Can you tell me where the materials for the tunnels are coming from, and if not, we can assume they are not from international aid and now ask why they are not being used to rebuild Gaza? Kentuckyball (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Read my above comment at 18:15---Mona- (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

What's with all the arguments from authority?[edit]

Saying that some ANC leaders say something about something does not a good way of arguing make. Or does it? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Not everything you dislike is a fallacy, as much as you try to make them one. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Well quoting some South Africans on politics in a place thousands of kilometers away and poisoning the well for the one dissenting voice quoted here, does sound a lot like argument from authority if not argument from assertion Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Not every use of an authority to back up your statements is a fallacy, otherwise entire fields of discourse are going to have to be thrown out, as is any concept of law.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I think Tutu and Jimmy Carter and ex-Israeli attorney general are credible people, hence why I included them. The ANC is pretty corrupt, but for members of the ANC who underwent apartheid and described the situation in the occupied territories as similar, then we should include it. ChrisAmiss (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
RW is not and should not be a law blog. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
What's that got to do with the price of fish?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
otherwise entire fields of discourse are going to have to be thrown out, as is any concept of law- Paravant I don't know, you tell me. Also, "Apartheid" is a legal term in international law... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
You appear to have missed my point. That is not surprising. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I think fields were one is tempted to argument from authority are emphatically not part of our mission. Or if they are, it's the deflating of authoritative bullshit we should be about... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The law argues by reasoning. There's no reason we should exclude legal arguments from credible sources.ChrisAmiss (talk) 03:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Your argument about the UNHRC is tendentious and irrelevant to the head of that entity, unless you show otherwise.---Mona- (talk) 03:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Criticisms of the UNHRC should be directed towards the UN page. ChrisAmiss (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't by that standard all criticisms of Israel be directed to the Israel page? Your logic is inconsistent, mate Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
If you want to mention what the UNHRC has to say on the topic, it is very relevant that the council doesn't stand up for human rights anyways and that it has a large bias. Kentuckyball (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I actually didn't include the UNHRC (which is a head of the UNHRC, not the institution itself as you claim). I included Tutu, Carter, and others. ChrisAmiss (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Removal of UNHRC criticism[edit]

Quite convenient that the moment one of the critics of Israeli apartheid is subject to scrutiny, his name gets removed all together. Kentuckyball (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You thought, that the Hamas-apologists Chris and Mona would do anything else??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 03:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
His name (Richard Falk) wasn't even included in the first place. And fuck you Arisboch. I'm no Hamas apologist. I've included links to their human rights record on my talk page from HRW, but you're too dick-headed to see to that. ChrisAmiss (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
A link on you user page vs all the other shit you spout on talk pages all over RW, who wins?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 03:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah but you are crying a Jordan if Israel dares to hit back when Hamas kills innocent Israeli civilians with their rockets. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Reality is biased sometimes if the facts speak one direction. And Avenger, I recommend you consult the sources I've mentioned. I focus on cause and effect, and cite Israel's own intelligence officials who mention that Hamas fires rockets following an Israeli attack, which makes Israel's alleged right to self-defense even more insidious. If Israel wants the rockets to stop, it should stop provoking a conflict. Facts are unpleasant sometimes, but someone has to expose them. ChrisAmiss (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
it should stop provoking a conflict- ChrisAmiss ... by ceasing to exist.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 03:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Israel's alleged right to self-defense even more insidious- ChrisAmiss If I didn't know better, I would say this choice of words is indistinguishable from a run of the mill Antisemite. But You aren't an Antisemite, are you? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Seriously? What part of that is antisemitic? It's a criticism of a country's proclamations that it's defending itself if the facts don't support its claims. ChrisAmiss (talk) 03:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Calling the universal right and fundamental of all countries and all people to self-defense an "alleged right" and thaen using the term "insidious" with regards to Israel. Could be lifted straight from NPD material, if you ask me... "The scheming evil insidious Jews dare to self-defend!" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
But you are not defending yourself if you are occupying a territory, building colonies on that land, and provoking conflicts when that same group tries to maintain a ceasefire. That's aggression, not self-defense. I agree that Israel like all countries has a right to defend itself, but not if it's the aggressor. ChrisAmiss (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I support Israel's right to exist on the 67 borders. ChrisAmiss (talk) 03:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
And then go and bang the drum for an organization, who wants to destroy Israel and make it judenfrei. Yay.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 03:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I may be perceived as doing that, but it's not necessarily true when analyzing political situations. A person who criticisms Islamism may be perceived as banging the drums for neoconservatism, even if this isn't true. ChrisAmiss (talk) 03:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You vandalz[edit]

Why you revert correction of you're articel? Israel is no apart. Allahu akbar! = Mahmut — Unsigned, by: 84.181.227.209 / talk / contribs

It is when it comes to the Palestinian territories. And did you seriously expect not to be reverted when you were removing a big chunk of content without any explanation? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:45, 31 December 42015 AQD (UTC)

It no belonging her — Unsigned, by: 84.181.227.209 / talk / contribs

Others disagree, while you've so far failed to make a convincing case for your position. If you read the section in question it does well at explaining why it belongs here. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:15, 31 December 42015 AQD (UTC)
I must say "Mahmut," you are remarkably familiar with American politics, what with editing the Bernie Sanders page. Or, are you a recent immigrant to our shores and a naturalized citizen? Anyhoo you even made a grammatical edit to the Sanders page! Your facility with English does seem to wax and wane.---Mona- (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss the Mona-cruft[edit]

Should the Mona cruft about Israel being worse than South Africa be removed? It is disgusting and insulting towards the brave men and women fighting against Hamas and Hezbollah and insulting against every single black South African and even more every single mixed South African who fought with live and blood against the horrible crime that is Apartheid. Mona-cruft is belittling real suffering to make an antisemitic point. Enough! Mona has left! Let's get rid of her BS! 107.178.104.29 (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This was already discussed a long time ago and you're clearly not here to argue in good faith. Go outside and do something useful with your time please. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:00, 30 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
Just because someone leaves doesn't mean you (107.178.104.29) can go around evaporating all of said person's work. That you know who Mona is but are blithely ignoring the past discussion on this article shows your disingenuity. Mona may have been wrong about some things but she certainly wasn't wrong about everything. Bongolian (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the recent attempts at deletion...[edit]

Now I am no Apartheid or Middle East expert, but apparently something or somebody wants to tell us that an entire paragraph are - and I quote - "Lies straight from the pit of hell!". What should we say to that and how should we respond to that accusation? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Which paragraph and do you have a reputable source disproving it (or proof that the source 'proving' it is disreputable)? StickySock (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I am refering to an edit that removed the entire point four and all its sub-points and was quickly reverted. I protected the page for a day to enable civil discussion instead of edit wars. Apparently someone does not like that whole part of the article and I wanted to know why and whether we should change anything in this article as a response to that. Because even people who insult us may have a point... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about it. The I/P conflict has long been a hot-button topic here and it's led to more drama than the entire writing career of William Shakespeare. If they had countersources, they'd drop it here in the Talk page (or paste it in the justification, or write some long screed in the page itself, as drive-by vandals who think they have half a point have a larger tendency to do) rather than just blanking it. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Should Rhodesia be mentioned here?[edit]

I recently heard about Rhodesia where the white minority actually declared independence because their "colonial overlords" were too tolerant of the natives for their liking.... another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems like it deserves a mention.--JorisEnter (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)