Talk:Israel

Israel as an Apartheid Regime

It should probably be addressed in the introduction to this article that Israel has been accused of being an apartheid regime or of committing a cultural genocide of Palestinians by a number of experts including the UNHRC, B'Tselem, Amnesty International, among others. SpaceSandwich (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Israel has been accused of many things and criticism of the occupation is already in article (both in lede and the article's body). However, the nature of its regime has been discussed until exhaustion and the consensus is that it's a democracy, not apartheid. For more information, take a look at the last RfC. As far as "cultural genocide", it's the first time I hear it (I know what an actual genocide means, though, such as what the Chinese Communists are doing to Uyghur Muslims or what Stalin did to the Ukrainians in the 1930s). Perhaps you could provide us a source.--Watchlonly (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Blocked sock

9 July 2020 Michael Sfard, via Yesh Din, "The conclusion of this legal opinion is that the crime against humanity of apartheid is being committed in the West Bank,"

12 January 2021 B'tselem A regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea: This is apartheid

21 January 2021 Nathan Thrall The Separate Regimes Delusion Nathan Thrall on Israel’s apartheid

Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

A criticism is not a fact. A separate article already appears to exist for this particular canard, the somewhat clumsily-titled Israel and the apartheid analogy. Zaathras (talk) 13:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Calling it a canard rather gives the game away. B'tselem has moved on from criticism and now states it as a fact and all the newsorgs are happy to report that. How many messengers are needed to turn criticism into a fact? I suspect it will make no difference. Shooting the messenger is also possible, you could do that. Or you could cite Kontorovich/the usual list of deniers. But the X-files has the last word "The truth is out there".Selfstudier (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

If that page ever gets retitled "Israeli apartheid", then there's a discussion to have. While the topic is still more about those who make the analogy and the reasons behind them, it has no place in the Israel article. Zaathras (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Not to mention we just had an RfC about that! WP:Deadhorse.--Watchlonly (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock

@User:Watchlonly first of all, there is no official consensus that the Ukrainian famine was a genocide (nor the Uyghur situation), not that its relevant at all to this discussion. second, apartheid South Africa was considered to be a "democracy" by westerners such as yourself, so the previous consensus is nonsense. It should at least be addressed in the introduction that Israel has been accused of being an apartheid regime. It also seems that there is a double standard that the same sources that I cited are used to describe human rights abuses in the intros of various articles such as China, Cuba, Russia, Iran, Syria, and Venezuela SpaceSandwich (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Please stop making assumptions about me. I've never considered apartheid South Africa a democracy, since black South Africans could not vote and were not citizens of the country in which they formed the overwhelming majority of the population, and there were different laws for people according to their race, including segregation in buses, bathrooms and hospitals. I thought you were familiar with that since non-voting and political repression is a characteristic feature of Communist countries. After all, USSR was murdering dissidents in Eastern Europe at the same time than the Pretoria government was shooting down protestors. Fortunately both regimes fell almost simultaneously, and democracy won. Even more so, I met South African Jews who told me that the reason why apartheid fell in the end was precisely because the Soviet Union came down first. If not, there would still be apartheid (it lasted a long time, 46 years! You can thank the Cold War for that).--Watchlonly (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Blocked sock

A Stalinist lecturing people on human rights, is this for real? _ ValiumColoredSky [talk] 00:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@User:ValiumColoredSky Stalinism isn't a thing, (Personal attack removed). also, @User:Watchlonly, it appears that you have been sanctioned before for making unconstructive pro-Israel edits to a number of articles, as such, you should refrain from further editing on pages in this topic. Also, I don't care about your South African Jewish friend's (Personal attack removed) opinions. -- User:SpaceSandwich (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion, comrade. But I think I'll keep editing in this topic extensively. I hope it doesn't trigger you.--Watchlonly (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Blocked sock. Selfstudier (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe the analogy article does need retitling: Holmes, Oliver (27 April 2021). "Israel is committing the crime of apartheid, rights watchdog says". the Guardian. Retrieved 27 April 2021."A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution". Human Rights Watch. 27 April 2021. Retrieved 27 April 2021. Selfstudier (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

No, certainly not in the way that the indefinitely banned user suggested. The HRW report is important as such, but not official. It would take a UN declaration that a regime is an apartheid for WP to claim it as a neutral fact in the lede. Jeppiz (talk) 10:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Which indeffed user? It was Zathras who said that any changes to this article would be contingent on a change to the other article. I agree with him and I am thinking that there is now a case to be made for doing just that. The CERD (UN) investigation is well underway, I would think the outcome is a foregone conclusion after Btselem/HRW reports.Selfstudier (talk) 10:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

No offence intended but please take editing a bit more serious, it's not other's job to point out obvious facts. This discussion was started by SpaceSandwich, an indeffed user. Five seconds of checking could have told you that. Jeppiz (talk) 12:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Ooh, aren't we snippy, lol.Selfstudier (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding It was Zathras who said that any changes to this article would be contingent on a change to the other article, I stated that in a manner similar to "monkeys might fly out of my butt". What is the tipping point between "Israel is accused of..." and "Israel is..." ? I, personally, do no know...it is one of those I'll know it when I see it" things. HRW has a long, long history of anti-Israeli bias, so, their call on this amounts to a bit of a nothingburger. Zaathras (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Predictable response. You can repeat that for the UN when their report comes out.Selfstudier (talk) 08:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Not quite as predictable as a gleeful rush to try to rename a contentious article that has been stable for what appears to be a decade (the logs are unclear) based on a biased org's opinion, I'm afraid. Zaathras (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

No rush, situation has changed so something to discuss and we are going to do that. Bias is a pretty standard allegation as far as I can see anybody leveling any criticism at all is instantly classed as biased, including the UN. So I don't think that will form a meaningful part of any discussion.Selfstudier (talk) 09:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

isn't it a double standard for China to have a subsection for its human rights abuses and "accusations" whereas on this page it must be suppressed until "proven"? Eomar2828 (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

In short: yes it is. 2603:8081:7803:E900:2CBE:B439:AB6D:2B9F (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

One only needs to see the number of socks that edit/comment here to realize the situation.Selfstudier (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciaton

Who calls it "Is-re-al" and why? Its just wrong, the letters are a, then e. "Is-ra-el" is the only way to pronounce it in my opinion. Any answers? KhlavKhalash (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a fairly common American pronunciation. Deku link (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

With three syllables? "Is-real", sure, but "Is-re-al"? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah i know its common. I asked, why! It doesnt make sense, cause it is spelled the other way round. Where does it come from. @jpgordon: maybe this is an explanation. Israel hast 3 syllables, but US Americans feel, it should be 2 cause of the similarities between rael and real. Any ethymologists here? KhlavKhalash (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a discussion that's really better suited for the Wikipedia:Reference desk. Zaathras (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we may be conflating different things. In Hebrew, it is pronounced "Yis-rah-el," three syllables. The English spelling may be derived from that, but I've never heard an English speaker (including Israeli's speaking in English) pronounce it with three syllables in English. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I apppologize but in the word יִשְׂרָאֵ֫ל the stress mark ֫ is on the letter א. therefore, it should be pronounced "yis-rah-EL", not "YIS-rah-el"2A02:ED2:F000:C6F8:6596:33E6:F119:7044 (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, lets skip the syllable thing. You could discuss, if the last part is one or two. It acually is two "Ra-El", but in some dialects may sound as one. About the pronunciation, every Israeli I know, calls it "Is-Ra-El". Some of my israeli friends even made fun of the american pronunciation of "Is-Real", calling it wrong. KhlavKhalash (talk) 07:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

USA and Israel

I remember watching videos in school in the 90's in Canada, where they showed the US victory over Syria, with politicians shaking hands on the tarmac and US warplanes parked, after the six day war that lead to the creation of Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.219.208 (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Everything you wrote there is incorrect. First, the US hadn't had a military conflict with Syria prior to or during the 1990s, so you could not have seen footage of warplanes on the tarmac following US conflict with Syria. Second, the US wasn't involved in the Six-Day War, to the point that the US even imposed an arms embargo on all sides, so there would not have been US military aircraft on a tarmac in the Middle East as part of any victory over Syria. Third, the Six-Day War did not lead to the creation of modern State of Israel; Israel was established as a result of the 1947–1949 Palestine war (or "War of Independence" in Israel) in ~1948, nearly two decades prior to the Six-Day War of 1967. As far as I am aware, the Canadian education system is nowhere near bad enough to have committed so many errors, so I do not think you were shown any such video in school. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 June 2021

2001:4DF4:3E3:CD00:E14D:709C:D7BD:D369 (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Add the golan to the map

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 August 2021

There's gramer problems 197.165.134.96 (talk)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The introduction article should address human rights criticism

Similar to how Saudi Arabia article addresses the criticism it received from many human rights organizations, this article should address that Israel has been accused of being an apartheid regime or of committing a cultural genocide of Palestinians by a number of experts including the UNHRC, B'Tselem, Amnesty International, among others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajwadsabano (talk • contribs)

Fringe, antisemitic-tinged criticism should not be in the lead, no. Zaathras (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Israel being castigated for human rights violations is not fringe nor is it antisemitic-tinged, and absolutely belongs in the lead. The lead skips past that bit of the occupation, and I may try to correct that. nableezy - 03:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

No. Alleged occupation is already featured too heavily in the article. It certainy has to be described with due weight, but it is by far not the main defining feature of Israel. It's an article about State of Israel, not "everything we hate about Israel" or "all the awful things Israel did to poor palestinians". “WarKosign” 09:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Think we are about due for another RFC.Selfstudier (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Alleged occupation? Nonsense. Article leads are supposed to include criticism where present. Israel's occupation is something it has been criticized for routinely, and it merits inclusion. I will be adding to it. nableezy - 13:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Any new updates regarding this request?