Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
Article | Israel and the Apartheid Analogy |
Status | closed |
Request date | 08:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC) |
Requesting party | Tempered (talk) |
Mediator(s) | Asinthior (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC) |
The dispute is on the Talk page of Israel and the Apartheid Analogy in relation to the proposed addition of some text to the article, the text to go in at section 10.2 of the article, entitled "Differences in motivations." See the Talk page discussion in the Section 1.2 of the Talk Page, entitled "Version 2: Harrison paragraph."
Please place your signature here to indicate that you are aware of this mediation process and want to participate in it:
Tempered (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
The dispute is about how to formulate the description of a source that is to be cited in the "Israel and the Apartheid Analogy" article, so as to indicate its relevance and contribution to the sub-section 10.2: Differences in motivations. Some description has been accepted by all parties, but they differ in what that would be. The chief debate has been about a proposed formulation written by Tempered. Ryan Paddy and Dailycare do not accept it. The source in question is a book by the British philosopher Bernard Harrison, entitled The Resurgence of Anti-Semitism: Jews, Israel, and Liberal Opinion. In this book, Harrison analyzes left-liberal anti-Israel discourse in Britain, and argues in considerable detail that it is logically and morally incoherent and even self-refuting. He devotes a major portion of a chapter to the issue of the "apartheid analogy," and claims it does not apply to Israel. He also uses this as another of the many examples in his book of the double standards and delegitimizing agenda that animates, he says, the left liberal anti-Israel advocates. His book is chiefly about the motivations behind this sort of partisan discourse. It does not lie in antisemitism per se, he says, but in other motivations which nevertheless resonate with antisemitism and give it renewed legitimacy in mainstream discourse.
The dispute on the Talk page has chiefly been between Ryan Paddy and Tempered. Ryan Paddy thinks that the description of Harrisonis contribution in Tempered's text should not refer to the "left liberal" critics as such, at all: that is "very regrettable." He has also objected to the discussion of motivations in general, although in the course of a long-drawn-out dispute he has come around to granting that there might be some reference to it, but very brief, and he does not say so far what that should be. In his view, the contribution should chiefly describe Harrison's "nuanced" discussion of discrimination against Arab citizens in Israel, and why Harrison thinks that, while it is a problem, it is not equivalent to apartheid as such. That is the chief relevant point in Harrison's book, in Ryan Paddy's opinion. Tempered included brief references to the nuanced view of discrimination in his description, but holds that the whole point of describing Harrison's book in 10.2 "Differences in motivations" is to present Harrison's analysis of motivations behind specifically left liberal anti-Israel "apartheid" discourse. Tempered also believes that Harrison's analysis or refutation of specific "apartheid" claims can be cited in the main article in the sections where those specific claims are made (he has already inserted such a citation in the main article in a paragraph dealing with land ownership), and that extended description of his analysis of specific apartheid issues in 10.2 is inappropriate. It would also, in his opinion, enlarge the description of Harrison's contribution to such a degree that the whole description would transgress "due weight" WP:WEIGHT and would have to be dropped from the article. At present, Tempered's description of Harrison's contribution is at 182 words, already fairly long but considerably condensed and shortened from its first versions. Including analysis of specific apartheid accusations would swell the description beyond that of other cited sources.
I would like to bring this interminable debate to a conclusion, and am seeking neutral third party advice.
The question is whether the proposed contribution to the article text as written by Tempered is acceptable according to Wikipedia criteria and is suitable for inclusion in 10.2: Differences in motivations. Ryan Paddy and Dailycare challenge this. Tempered defends it. We have arrived at stalemate and need some outside advice.
The disagreement is over how to describe the Harrison source (Bernard Harrison, The Resurgence of Anti-Semitism: Jews, Israel, and Liberal Opinion (Philosophy and the Global Context), 2006). Tempered suggested Harrison as a source with the perspective that the "Israeli apartheid" label is part of a campaign to delegitimise Israel. I agreed that the source was reliable and the content relevant to that subject. This was my suggestion:
Philosopher Bernard Harrison describes the apartheid label as "hyperbolic". He states that while there are reasonable grounds to criticize Israel for the establishment of settlements in the West Bank, or for the treatment of Christians and Muslim Arabs in Israel as "second class citizens", the apartheid comparison is a politically-motivated exaggeration of the situation in Israel intended to undermine its moral basis for existence.
Tempered felt that this unduly emphasised Harrison's acceptance of some criticism of Israel. He made a series of suggested texts, ending with this one:
Analytical philosopher Bernard Harrison says that a "deconstruction" of left-liberal anti-Israel accusations shows that they are logically and morally inconsistent. He states that, reflecting a delegitimizing and demonizing agenda, accusers often refuse to accept contextual explanations when they favor Israel. Thus critics exaggerate valid specific criticisms of discrimination in Israel into a sweeping "apartheid" conclusion contradicting the legally institutionalized and practiced non-racial equalities also found in Israel's liberal democracy. Such critics also ignore the context Israel faces of being surrounded by militant enemies with whom the Arab minority in Israel are closely tied by kinship and sympathies.[21a: Harrison, p. 133.] In this context, and compared with similar conflicts in recent history, he says Israel's treatment of its Arab citizens is all things considered "not only a shining but a virtually unique instance of racial and religious tolerance and forgiveness."[21b: Harrison, p. 134] Such unfair criticisms, he says, are not necessarily motivated by anti-Semitism itself, but result from the collapse of left liberal ideology in the last generation into simplistic moral postures, in which "capitalist" liberal democracies per se are dubious and bad, and non-Western "resistance" to them legitimate and good. He says that this generates a necessarily unself-critical "climate of belief" that demonizes the only Western liberal democracy in the Middle East, the Jewish state of Israel, and which accepts or is oblivious to even stridently antisemitic views. This, he argues, gives such attitudes renewed currency in mainstream discourse.
I feel that this proposed text is unduly long, not encyclopedic in tone, and has lost the focus on delegitimisation in order to make a long discursion about the failings of critics of Israel in general. In Tempered's original draft, he had failed to mention delegitimisation at all, giving me the impression that he has lost sight of the point of this exercise. I don't think either of us will agree to each other's text, but there may be a compromise text somewhere between them that would be mutually agreeable. I had given up on trying to find this with Tempered on the talk page because I didn't have any sense of progress, but I'm willing to give it another try with a mediator to play referee. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi! Summarizing my position here, I've on the talkpage of the article in question endorsed Ryan's version of the text and I continue to do so. The reason is that I have a few issues with Tempered's version, namely 1) Undue weight: this text is longer than what's devoted to persons more relevantly connected with the apartheid-and-Israel theme, and 2) NPOV since this text fails to convey that Harrison doesn't merely criticise people who make the analogy but also says that there are grounds to criticise Israel's actions. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)