Talk:Israeli apartheid

Opening paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

ICJ verdict

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here: [2] — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

And a summary: [3] — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

aljazeera only mentions: "discriminatory policies"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move 20 July 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. After many argument, there is a clear consensus to move this article to Israeli apartheid. (closed by non-admin page mover) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

---

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

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

. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Syntax discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Apartheid can be used both for an Apartheid System and for the Crime of Apartheid, which is what ICJ judges on. A crime is an action, so "Apartheid against" is a correct application of the term. Conspiracy Raven (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC) striking per WP:ARBECR Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

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

  It would have to be "Apartheid in the Palestinian Territories" or something like that. Some say there's apartheid in Israel proper too, but the ICJ and most groups say its in/is more prevalent in the West Bank and Gaza. Personisinsterest (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Afaik, Palestinians are not practicing apartheid on anyone. If it was Apartheid in Israel, at least that could be Israeli on Palestinian citizens of Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe a descriptor would be better, like "Israeli apartheid in the Palestinian Territories" or something. Personisinsterest (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  I believe it applies to both, and includes the systemic discrimination faced in Israel by its Arab citzens[4] (e.g., home ownership issue in East Jerusalem [5]). — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

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

• The end setup could be as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

apartheid drops off sharply late 90s/2000 and

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

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

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

• if the title is changed, it should be "Israeli apartheid" per wp:common name. (t · c) buidhe 06:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  +1 – per my reasoning above, "Israeli apartheid" is the most natural, precise, recognisable, consistent and concise option. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm happy with Israeli apartheid too. As a title, that is. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  +3. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  Even though I would rather "Israeli apartheid against Palestinians" as a more descriptive term and one that is used in RS, I would be also supporting this as the bare minimum. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

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

ICJ and apartheid

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

Germany’s Reaction to the International Court of Justice’s Palestine Advisory Opinion: 'The Opinion Confirms Our Positioning in Many Points' On the particular point:- "The International Court of Justice has established that certain human rights obligations apply to Israel, including in relation to the occupied territories. It has established a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which prohibits racial segregation and apartheid. However, … the ICJ has not decided on one of the two options." Selfstudier (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

'Racial Segregation and Apartheid' in the ICJ Palestine Advisory Opinion We now have some more detailed legal analysis. Confirms "a breach of Article 3 [of CERD] could refer to racial segregation, apartheid, or both. This is seen in the Separate Opinions, some of which considered the finding of a breach of Article 3 as a finding of apartheid; others believing the Court had not made such a finding." Also, as regards the still ongoing CERD proceedings "CERD has yet to reach a final decision in this case. With a strong finding of a breach of Article 3 from the ICJ and several judicial opinions interpreting this as a finding of apartheid, this may well create a platform for CERD to determine the issue." & "The questions put by UNGA to the Court ‘concern[ed] Israel’s "discriminatory legislation and measures" under international human rights law and not apartheid as an international crime." "the Opinion considered that the Apartheid Convention and Rome Statute 'can inform the interpretation of Article 3 of CERD'". Selfstudier (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences of Israel's Policies and Practices in the "Occupied Palestinian Territory" "For example, regarding whether Israel’s policies and practices amount to apartheid, the Court stated that Israel violates the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid set in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), but did not specify which elements of the article Israel violated. In separate declarations they published, some of the majority Judges explicitly state that Israel is implementing an apartheid policy, while others assert that the Court did not make such a determination or that there is no basis for such a claim. Selfstudier (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I would personally deprioritize German and Israeli sources. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

These aren't direct government sources, but legal professors, thinks tanks – the usual commentators. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The German source above is an official statement by the German spokesperson for the Federal Foreign Office, while the other Israeli source is the Israel Democracy Institute which has every interest in downplaying the ICJ ruling. Just as I wouldn't trust a South African think tank or US government in the 1980s to comment on apartheid in SA. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it's reporting and commentary on it by a professor. Check it. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Though specifically quoting the German government on page obviously wouldn't be particularly useful. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying they are good sources, and there are certainly caveats that would be worth discussing in their use, but your initial statement was cavalier. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

True, but since these two examples hold fringe opinions they should not be taken as seriously as the rest of the sources. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The "best" one (in the sense of having the deeper analysis, not just the opinion but how it relates to the ongoing CERD case) is the second one but the others are not "bad". What we are seeing is a slow but steady accumulation of material explaining the advisory opinion as it relates to this particular article. There are two salient points I would say, the first being that only certain of the ICJ judges have said that the breach of Article 3 constitutes apartheid and that what the various judges have said may well have some impact on the ongoing CERD case and the outcome there.

At any rate it is quite clear that some commentators jumped the gun, notably HRW, altho it was only a press release. Selfstudier (talk) 09:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

What may turn out to be more important as time goes on, is the attitude of third states to the advisory opinion and whether they consider themselves bound to act on it. Opinion formers such as Archbishop of Canterbury urges nations to respect ICJ opinion on Israeli occupation have a role to play there, see as well UK should stop arming Israel after ICJ advisory ruling, top lawyer says. Also see Implications of the ICJ Advisory Opinion for the EU-Israel Association Agreement. Selfstudier (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Diakonia summary gives quotes from some of the judges on the subject. Selfstudier (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The ad hoc conciliation commission has produced its report/appendices, available Report, App 1 and App 2. We will have to wait for secondary reporting filtering it all but the recommendations look a lot like giving up and passing the buck to CERD/UNSC, that's just my opinion tho. Selfstudier (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Report seems to also say that Israel is in breach of article 3 of the convention in both its apartheid and racial segregation aspects: "44. The commission, having considered the serious allegations raised by the State of Palestine under article 3 of the Convention regarding discriminatory practices and policies of racial discrimination and apartheid committed by Israeli authorities, recalls that in recommendations addressed to Israel, the Committee has urged the State party to take immediate measures to prohibit and eradicate such policies or practices which severely and disproportionately affect the Palestinian population in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and which violate the provisions of article 3 of the Convention." Makeandtoss (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I did notice that slightly ambiguous wording, I think CERD itself, (rather than the conciliation commission, whose job really was to get the sides to reconcile), needs to step up here and clarify the state of play having regard to ICJ AO. We'll see. Selfstudier (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

new article

A new article which focusses on the Israel-South Africa comparison is here. Zero^talk 03:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Interesting article, if not the time or feeling lazy, the last two sections mostly cover it. Also casts SA, IP and NI in the "settler colonial" paradigm along the way. Selfstudier (talk) 11:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Move

So how does this work now? Can I have the honor of moving the page? @SafariScribe: Makeandtoss (talk) 09:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Needs admin to move it, requested. Selfstudier (talk) 09:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss, Selfstudier has answered you. Also, you can't move the page because you are WP:INVOLVED, hence it must require another editor in a good standing (also not involved) to move the article. The move was delayed because it is a contentious topic that will only require an admin to move the article. Cheers! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Social stratification

Do we have any content on the social stratification; the hierarchal rights of Palestinians of GZ, EJ, WB, Israel, and the diaspora? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Try the Amnesty report Section 5 p61 et seq. Selfstudier (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Old moves template

I noticed that the most recent move is noted in its own banner at the top of this Talk, separated from the list of other moves several banners above it. Would someone be willing to rectify this? (Or is this intentional? for some reason I'm not grasping?) I would do it myself but I don't quite understand how the {{old moves}} template works. It also looks like the discussion links all need to be updated. --Pinchme123 (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

 Half done. Thanks. There is still work to do regarding the links. Template:Article history should be used. —Alalch E. 09:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)