Because a lot of users want to discuss the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in comments on Politics.SE, I've decided to create this chat room. Remember that the Code of Conduct still applies here. Please keep it friendly!

@JJJ Given the user name, the cited source, and the proposal contained therein, I have a hard time believing that the question that prompted the creation of this chat was asked in good faith. Asking otherwise on-topic questions in bad faith for the purpose of promoting some view or another is indeed a valid, community-specific close reason on Politics.SE

@reirab I don't think the user's intentions are very relevant. Iran is an interesting player in the conflict because it's clearly an enemy of Israel. While I don't agree with Iran, I think it is interesting to anyone studying the conflict how Iran voices its position. Also, I am not sure about your assertion that on-topic questions should be closed based on who asks the question. Our site is about questions and answers, not about who asks or answers them.

While the meta post considers partisan sources, I would say that this is an exception. The question is asking about a partisan view point. In this case, it's on-topic because Iran is politically relevant.

@JJJ I'm not saying it's a matter of who asks it, but rather the purpose of asking it, which is what the close reason itself says, "The primary purpose of this question appears to be to promote or discredit a specific political cause, group, or politician. It does not appear to be a good-faith effort to learn more about governments, policies, and political processes as defined in the help center."

Why would you say, "the primary purpose of this question appears to be to promote or discredit a specific political cause, group, or politician." Why does it appear that way to you?

@reirab I find your argument unconvincing. First there's the user name, that's the person who asks it. Then the cited source and the proposal itself, but those go to the heart of the question. If you want to know about the Iranian proposal (which we agree is a valid political question?), the Iranian supreme leader isn't a weird source.

For reference if others are interested, this is the question in question.

@JJJ The user name/profile in this case just happens to be evidence of the above, especially when combined with the source, the proposal asked for, and the other content in the source. I find it hard to believe that someone who just read a page that promotes its newest article entitled "You will purify the hold land from the contamination of the usurpers" really thinks Khamenei had an actual legitimate democratic plan.

@JJJ Particularly when the same user had another question closed for the same reason on the same subject yesterday.

(sorry, that should say "holy land" in the quote above. Too late for me to fix it.)

Is your argument that two questions from any one user on the same topic shows a "primary purpose ... to be to promote or discredit a specific political cause, group, or politician." Or are you saying, that there is a bias in the question? Or do you think my nickname disqualifies me from participation on this site or a legitimate interest in the topic?

@reirab I don't see why the legitimacy of the plan is relevant. It's politically relevant because Iran is a relevant actor in the region. If we were to close questions because the underlying plans are bad then we'd become arbiters of what is right. What if a student is researching the Iranian position in the conflict, then surely this question would be relevant. The question itself is not written in a pushy way, it doesn't argue in favor of the plan in any way, that would be inappropriate.

@JJJ Fair enough. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. It's not so much any one particular factor as the sum of all of them that leads me to believe that the question was probably asked more to promote anti-Israeli sentiment rather than from actual legitimate curiosity about the substance of their proposal.

Would you feel better if I showed you the conversation that actually inspired the question naturally?

Or the other question which you feel was rightfully closed. Because both of these cases arise from actual conversations that I had after I changed my logo and nickname from mere rational discourse and sometimes with others members on this very network where I had to answer along the lines of "I don't know", and write it up as a question.

In fact, I honestly would like to know why this question is off-topic: politics.stackexchange.com/questions/64144 it had five upvotes. It seems fair to ask on matters of criminal accusation if the person denying the accusation accepts the definition of the accusation. For example, I think most countries would reject the charge "murder" in the case of "civilian casualty" and they can do so by saying their definition of "murder" requires intent. That seems fair.

@IsraelisanApartheidState It seems to suggest that Israel needs an apartheid definition. Given the sensitivity of the topic, that question in itself may be seen as political activism. Regardless of who is right or wrong (again, we are no the arbiters of truth), such questions aren't a good fit for the site.

Fair enough, but does a country that sees it fit to officially reject an allegation not owe the definition to the audience of their rejection?

@IsraelisanApartheidState Perhaps, but this site isn't the venue for that demand.

I would agree. Fully. I'm assuming they've answered that demand somewhere and that I am not the first person to ask them the definition. But I could be incorrect on that.

@IsraelisanApartheidState Why would they have? It takes a powerful force to extract an answer from a question. Deflecting or ignoring the question isn't hard. I don't see what there's to be gained by going down that rabbit hole.

@IsraelisanApartheidState what makes you think they have any other definition than the UN one you quoted? I don't see why a state would require its own definition of a term in order to be able to officially deny that the term applies to them. There are probably cases of countries accused of genocide who deny the accusation and don't have their own, legal definition of genocide.

Presumably, Israel would argue that the definition does not apply just like those who consider Israel an apartheid state would argue that it does apply. But why do you think that they would have a different definition?

So if someone alleges a war crime, and they won't to speak to the USA. They don't just rest on the UN's definition, afaik. They point to actual law. We maintain our definition of a "War Crime."

@IsraelisanApartheidState That seems to be a definition of war crimes, not apartheid.

Right, that's a valid point. I just don't see that as a "unique" thing. The logic should apply there. Why would we want to define "war crime" when we can just reject the claim? I don't have a good answer. I just know we do, and I figured this was common place.

Actually the American definition of "apartheid" sounds like a great question to me too. I would assume we've defined it somewhere or accepted an international definition officially, though I could be wrong.

I think (but do not know, just guessing) that if a country has its own definition, it may use that but will default to whatever "official" definition is in widespread use if not. I doubt most countries would have a legal definition of something as specific as "apartheid"; I know many countries do have a definition of "genocide" but assume many do not.

But I fear asking that question would again rouse someone into thinking it was politically motivated and did not occur naturally.

So I would guess that if one of the latter were accused of genocide, they'd reject the accusation using whatever definition of the term the UN has.

@IsraelisanApartheidState It would help if you asked it with a user name that didn't shout out what your stance on a relevant subject is.

I would agree. It would help make the question itself palatable to people who disagreed with the allegation. But I feel confident enough in the allegation and my own understanding of the term to value those victims of Zionist brutality over the perception of indifference by an audience which includes some of those who I know to enable it.

While I strive to ask impartial questions, my avatar and name have exposure proportional to the amount of work I do, and I'll use that exposure to, as it see it, better humanity on occasion. ;)

Your call. All I'm saying is that as long as you have that name and avatar, there will be a knee-jerk reaction, from both sides, to any question you ask that could possibly have any connection to the Arab-Israeli conflict, Israel, Judaism and anything remotely connected to it. This means that your chances of actually asking a question and have it be perceived as impartial are very small.

So either you change user names, or you avoid asking questions connected to those subjects, or you accept that things you post, even if you have made them as impartial as possible, will be seen as asked in bad faith by at least some people.

"Apartheid" is just a word and means whatever its users mean by it. So if someone advising Israel of it means one thing and someone defending Israel against it means something else, then they're talking past each other, that is, not addressing one another, which is unfortunate. In that case, they'd be well advised to drop their own [continued]

Then I'll have to rely on @JJJ and other reasonable and just moderators to adjudicate such matters. Or they could simply raise their questions and help me refine the question in chat. Let's be clear, even though @JJJ agreed with with the questions impartiality, I was willing to entertain requests by @reirab if he had suggestions on making it more impartial while still asking for the substance I was looking for (namely the source of the Iranian plan).

definitions, albeit temporarily, in favor of the other's. (I mean, one of them should.) Or, if they're unwilling to do that, then to make up a nonce word to mean some agreed-upon concept. Otherwise, there's no point in conversing. [continued]

@msh210 while all words are just word that mean whatever their users mean, people do tend to define Apartheid whether by the ICC/Rome Statue or the UN's definition. The only we can have a conversation on the merits which I explicitly didn't want to have on the site, is to get an official definition that Israel accepts. It's exactly because I do not want to "talk past each other".

But that also means that it doesn't matter what anyone's definition of "apartheid" is. Because his own definition is irrelevant in any conversation.

It certainly matters what your definition of apartheid is. Just at it matters what your definition of rape or murder is. We just have to have a mutual understanding and agreement of the definition. I'm not following there.

@msh210 For what it's worth, I think the question is asking precisely that: "in order to be sure we're understanding each other, what definition of this term are you working with and is it different to the ICC one".

@IsraelisanApartheidState Why does my definition of the word matter, if anyway I drop it to use a common one whenever I speak with you?

@terdon I didn't see the question and was responding only to the contents of this chat room.

Ah yes, I can see how that'd be confusing :)

@msh210 That just skirts the issue. You can't just assume there is a "common one" we agree on. You must tell me what definition you're using. Criminal allegations can't usefully operate under the assumption of a common definition.

@IsraelisanApartheidState You are bringing the law into this though, and that's a false analogy. There is no legal accusation of apartheid as far as I know, therefore any rebuttal, official or not, doesn't need to be based on any legal definition.

I'm sure that if this were in a court of law, there would indeed be a common definition agreed on by both parties or simply defined in the applicable legal framework.

@IsraelisanApartheidState What if Israel isn't using any definition? And they refuse to acknowledge the issue (as they have with the war crimes investigation by the ICC). Why would they then need a definition?

But if I were to accuse Belgium of making crappy chocolate, they could officially deny it without having to give me a document with their definition of chocolate.

What I mean is this: If I accuse Israel of apartheid, there's no point finding out Israel's definition of that word, since Israel's definition can't be used to defend against my accusation if my definition differs.

@terdon Hey, we take chocolate very seriously and we do legislate that.

@JJJ Ha! :)

@terdon That's an equivocation of "legally." I'm using legal definitions to the best of my ability when I make an allegation. Of course, I don't have the power of the state: if that's what you mean by legal. But I'm unsure of why that matters. I don't need a court to use a term like rape, or murder meaningfully. And you wouldn't need a court to address an allegation meaningfully. We can do that ourselves.

In fact, oftentimes in actual courts with actual legal accusations the definitions must be decided in the jury charges or agreed to before the trial.

Exactly. But my point is that in order to reject an accusation that has not been made in a court of law, all you or a state need to say is "I reject this accusation". There is no requirement for formal definitions.

@JJJ They don't. I mean that's a might makes right argument. If they want to play that card sure... But that card can be played with anything political. That argument would undermine the entire pursuit of this site.

It's an easy thing to point out too, if that's what's going on: no one should accept a blanket rejection that uses an undefined term by the party making the rejection.

@IsraelisanApartheidState the pursuit of this site is to ask questions that can be answered. Your question probably can't because the definition you ask about (Israeli definition of apartheid) doesn't exist (okay I'm not 100% sure, but that's my guess). There are plenty of questions that can be answered, for example your other question on Iran's position.

That's also a fair point and I agree with you removing that question. I did not assume the definition did not exist. Perhaps that was foolish. I assumed it did, and that's why I asked. But that will be my argument from now on with Zionists. If it's their position to defend a state which itself rejects allegations of apartheid without defining apartheid, that is not a rejection even worthy of repeating or addressing. It's lazy and without merit. It's as demonstrated, "Might Makes Right".

Has Israel actually issued any sort of official statement rejecting the term apartheid?

I'm sure representatives of the state have been asked in interviews and they rejected it, but has there ever been an official statement from an Israeli government on that specific term?

Yes, I mean their PM has used the term Apartheid and said Israel is dangerously close but rejects the application as of now.

Specifically Ehud Olmert.

I can find interviews and quotes on it. One second.

What? You're saying Olmert, while in office, said that Israel is "dangerously close" to being an Apartheid state?

@IsraelisanApartheidState But in practicality the 'might makes right' argument holds, right? Not to hit too close to home, but the US also rejects ICC jurisdiction.

@terdon He said it in 2003. I believe then he was the Mayor of Jerusalem.

But he may have been a cabinet minister. Anyway, I'm not sure what it matters. He held the highest position of the land and he used the term and made the reference (afaik).

@IsraelisanApartheidState In the video, he said that he had said that in the future, if the two-state solution isn't achieved and there is a struggle for equal voting rights like in south Africa, then Israel is finished.

He also changed from the Likud party to Kadima in 2005, according to Britannica: "Kadima was founded on the basis of a centrist ideology. It supports dialogue with the Palestinians, a two-state solution, and a policy of territorial concession to retain a Jewish majority in Israel."

That isn't in any way an official response from the state of Israel to accusations of apartheid.

Oh wait, we're specifically talking about response to the accusation. Don't know why but they've done that too. One second.

In your question, you claim that Israel has issued an official response to the accusation and that's what I find surprising since responding in any way would only serve to give legitimacy to the accusation.

I would expect most states, and certainly Israel which has often taken this approach, to just ignore such accusations since they are not being leveled by any body that has the power to do anything about them.

@terdon does anyone have the power to do anything about them? The Americans?

@JJJ If they really wanted to, I guess. It would be very, very hard though.

But it does seem to be slowly changing.

@terdon Wouldn't go down well with the voters I think

theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/22/…

That article suggests there may be a shift in the political winds.

But yeah, I don't expect US foreign policy on this subject to change any time soon.

@terdon Yea, but the progressives already vote for Biden (over any Republican opponent). He has to be careful not too alienate the evangelicals.

Yep. But there do seem to be signs (i.e. I have read a few things from my comfortable chair in Europe) that younger voters, including Jews, have a more nuanced stance and don't consider it taboo to criticize the actions of Israel.

nytimes.com/2021/05/19/us/jews-israel-palestine.html

There could be some interesting times ahead.

@terdon Of course, but I'm talking about Christian evangelicals, see for example this interview in Vox

@JJJ Yeah, I don't think there likely to be any change of wind there.

And to be honest, I was thinking the change might be felt in a few decades, not any time soon.

@terdon Yea, but is the US angle still relevant then? How will China have developed its geopolitical influence in the conflict by then?

Fair point. I don't even know what the Chinese position on the Arab-Israeli conflict is. I know they are financially very involved with many middle eastern countries but I don't know where they stand on this. Do you?

@terdon I think they're flirting with Palestine to distract from allegations of how they treat their Uyghur minority. Some reference on Wikipedia

But clearly that's a one-way street. Going by the 'might makes right' thing, I don't think they need that support in a decade (or two). So yeah, not really sure how that will develop.

yes, I was thinking more in terms of what that would do to the US political landscape.

I'm going to head off. But this could be a really interesting room if we manage to keep the discourse both open and respectful. Here's to that!

@terdon I think the US will be less relevant. After Trump, the EU has realized it needs to hold up its own pants. Will America keep policing the world? I'm not so sure, it's expensive, wars are unpopular domestically, etc. I think they'll take a backseat.

@JJJ I think there's no question the US is becoming less relevant by the minute. It was already evident before Trump, it isn't #1 across the board as it used to be, but Trump accelerated the trend.

It is bound to be a major player for a long time still, but I don't think it will ever have quite as much weight to throw around as it did 20 years ago.

The next question, of course, is whether the EU will actually manage to hold up its own pants, as you say.

I hope it will, but given the level of squabbling we've been seeing from the EU these past few years, I don't have very high hopes.

@terdon It's a different beast. It exercises its power as rule-maker, not as military might. You might say the military is less relevant because you can't really use it. It's all about economic power, for example the antitrust inquiries that the EU holds over American companies. You want access to our users, gotta play by our rules. ;)

@JJJ Oh, I don't hope for military power (I do fear it might become necessary though), I hope for any kind of actually wielded power. There are very few things everyone can agree on, so too often the EU makes noises and little else.

As they did with Erdogan last summer, for example, or Belarus, or Putin or, or, or.

The antitrust inquiries are a good example, yes, but I'd like to see a more assertive EU.

@terdon Yea, but do you want them to do about that? Start a war? "once you start interfering in the internal squabbles of other countries, you're on a very slippery slope. Even the Foreign Secretary's grasped that." YPM

That's why you can't resolve external conflicts, that's why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot be resolved externally.

Yeah, that's the rub, absolutely. And no, I certainly don't want them to go to war. I wouldn't mind some more assertive diplomacy though. Perhaps coupled with actual sanctions.

(also, you just quoted Yes Prime Minister to me. That's like 10000000 brownie points :P )

@terdon Sanctions are hard. We can prevent people from doing business with us (damage their economy) but it's much harder to prevent people from doing business with anyone else (then you have to get everyone onboard).

Hard and often ineffective, yes.

I really did expect a stronger EU response when Turkey started pushing its territorial claims on Greece last summer. That was a non-EU country essentially making claims on EU territory. And there was barely an official response and that after a lot of pushing. France came out with a stronger statement, but the EU said something along the lines of "we condemn this" and then did nothing.

And, before you ask, no I don't know what a response that is both strong and doesn't risk a war with Turkey looks like. :/

@terdon Yea I guess that's the point. Still have to do trade with them and you don't want them moving to the other side. Better to have them inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in, so to speak. ;)

I get that. But there has to be a middle road that doesn't leave the EU looking like a giant with clay feet.

Dunno. My general perception is that the EU is largely ineffective internationally and doesn't have the clout it should have or perhaps is too often not willing to bring its clout to bear.

But then, if the EU were much more assertive, I'd probably be complaining about how it's become too aggressive and tries to force its positions on other states.

Stoopid hoomans.

@terdon Well, it's a multilateral organization. So there are still a lot of internal squabbles within the EU. I think if you listen to our PM (the Dutch one) and you keep following him you'd think he's a schizophreniac. Pro-EU in his speeches abroad, anti-EU at home, and he realizes the voters don't know what's going on.

@JJJ Yes, exactly. And he's far from alone in that.

Dammit, I really have to go now. But I'll check back later, this is fun! :)

yea sure, good night :)

I can't find an exact refutation by an Israeli official about the crimes of apartheid. All I can find is numerous claims by Israeli officials that the state will one day be Apartheid. I'm not sure what that gets you though. Fundamentally it's still the same question, why isn't it apartheid now and what exactly must change for it to be apartheid in the future: this conversation can only happen after a definition of apartheid is put forward or accepted by Israel.

As another aside, I think it would also be an excellent question whether or not any Israeli official has ever refuted the crime of apartheid publicly. I would love to ask that question if that would be on topic. It seems likely to exist regardless of my inability to find it.