Talk:Israel–South Africa relations/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merge tag

There is another article, Israeli support for South African Aparteid that covers much of the same ground as this article, so I am proposing a merge. --FreeKresge 06:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• If a merge does occur, I believe Israel-South Africa relations should be the name of the article. Apartheid has been politically dead for over 10 years now and I am sure notable events have happened since 1994.--Thomas.macmillan 06:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• A merger can be done although the information presented and cited in Israeli support for South African Aparteid is pretty biased and politcally charged. The closeness of their relationship is covered in this article.--Rabrams20 02:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Source #43

Source number 43 refers to a passage reading "Jewish and Israeli." Before my edit today, it was "Zionist and Israeli" though the article clearly says "Jewish." Exchanging the word "Zionist" for Jewish, is under the EU definition, anti-Semitic, as it equates Jews and Israel. I have fixed it, but please keep on eye on it in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Throwawaygull (talk • contribs) 13:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Coat of arms of South Africa.svg

The image File:Coat of arms of South Africa.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --15:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous article, with overreliance on a single polemic article from 'the Guardian'.

This article is trying to muddy the waters of reality by using all sorts of tidbits and out-of-context quotes to show Israel and Apartheid South Africa as two sides of the same coin. There seems to be a flight from reality and a desire to avoid confronting the most basic facts. For over 2 decades, Israel had invested immensely in relations with African countries, providing those nations with much-needed aid and expertise and infrastructure (as indeed they are doing today).

In 1973, under economic pressure from the Arab world and the notorious oil embargo, all of Africa broke off relations with Israel - all except South Africa and Kenya. Israel's increased ties and alliances with BOTH countries at the time, one white-ruled and one black, should be seen in the context of that reality - that virtually the entire African continent went to the side of the Arabs overnight.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree with you. This article is disgusting and must be edited.Tallicfan20 (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

subjects of "relations with apartheid South Africa" and "post-apartheid"

I have a problem with the attempt to single out Israel amongst other nations that had good relations with South Africa, like US, UK, France, etc. by dividing the article into "Relations with apartheid South Africa" and "post-apartheid," even tho this isn't how the US, Australia, Canada, Germany articles on SA relations are divided, even tho they were generally on good terms with apartheid-era South Africa, nor is this how other pages are divided with countries that didn't have good relations with apartheid South Africa. I have simply tried to make the article fair. The US is widely seen to even have propped up the regime or helped give it some legitimacy which is the factor that even allowed for good Israel-SA relations in the first place. France and the UK are also known to have helped armed it militarily, yet there are no articles dedicated to that. There is also an overeliance on ALLEGATIONS WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN that Israel offered SA nukes. I would have no problem if the page were divided into a "History" section as are the other SA bilateral relations pages. But of course singling out Israel is acceptable to some. Not to me, or the integrity of Wikipedia sorry.Tallicfan20 (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

edit war

i repeat what i already wrote on the edit warring page: the history of relations between these two countries wasn't divided by me as one can see via the edit history, but this division makes sense as south africas foreign policy changed with the end of apartheid and in regard to israel this change was drastic! if "tallicfan20" interpretes that as a "discrimination" of israel he is free to change the articles about SA-USA relations and so forth! it's not acceptable to delete and conceal anything what could cast a negative light on israel. beit hallahmis assessment on the relations of israel with apartheid south africa does not need to be attributed to him but i did it as a concession (with the known result..). we can also quote benjamin joseph and others who came to the same conclusion. it's not acceptable to source something like cohens claim/opinion by a blog as tallicfan did. if it was from a newspaper article he has to source it properly.--Severino (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

another yielding source for the topic: [1] --Severino (talk) 09:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It might make sense to you, but it looks like you are pushing a POV. The section you labeled as "relations with apartheid" only goes to 1988. Tie Oh Cruise (talk) 00:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It is common for sources to write about Israel's relations with apartheid South Africa. Severino is correct.--TM 00:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It's fine to write about Israel's relations with apartheid South Africa. It is not proper to subdivide the sections that way - that's pushing a point of view. See Canada – South Africa relations, South Africa – United Kingdom relations or the dozen or so other similar articles. Tie Oh Cruise (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Canada is a stub and the UK article is poorly written and formatted. I wouldn't use it as a base for any article. Moreover, 1988 is a random year to end with. I've changed it to 1994, coinciding with the end of the apartheid system. It is a common division for South Africa-related articles. If you have a problem with the other articles, go edit those. As for this one, the title is most common.--TM 02:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

For example in this Foreign Policy article, this book, this article, and down a bit in this Guardian article. It is very common to talk of Israel's relationship with Apartheid South Africa, not just relations from 1949-1988, 1994 or any other year. It is POV to label it anything else.--TM 02:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Source #31

I find it biased in that the only source of information regarding Nelson Mandela is a minor remark he allegedly made about Israel not directly oppressing South Africans.

According to the arguably biased source this information was taken from (dated 1999) he is critical of Israel regarding the Israel Palestine occupation.

I would love to know why i keep reading such skewed articles on Wikipedia regarding issues around Israel. I thought Wikipedia was about unbiased facts and information. In September 1998, Mandela was appointed Secretary-General of the Non-Aligned Movement, who held their annual conference in Durban. He used the event to criticise the "narrow, chauvinistic interests" of the Israeli government in stalling negotiations to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict .

Also Shouldn't the article be formatted differently, i find this whole layout strange and disconnected!

References

Deletion of content, POV pushing

concerning the edit war of 2 (?) users from israel: not liking the message is no reason to delete it. and discussing such edits is the proper step rather than warring. making one's point rather than bringing reinforcement in the absence of arguments and legitimacy. this could become a case for ANI, given also the record of blocks of one of the involved users.

the text in question is a letter of nelson mandela, former president of south africa, to a notable journalist (who has an article which is longer than this one, i assume), proper sourced. it's his opinion and it is relevant for the article's subject. we could try to find out the context of this letter; what was mandela refering to, what did friedman write beforehand?

--Severino (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

in all my naivety, i took it for granted that the recent pov pushing is restricted to the deletion of of recently added material. in the meantime, the whole article was whitewashed...unacceptable.--Severino (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

photo, emphasis

even before the recent whitewashing, the article was biased. israel had intensive relations with south africa in the apartheid era, not least concerning military and nuclear collaboration, but also israeli help for the "independent" homelands. after de klerk started with his "pretoriastroika", almost nothing of it remained. the section about the apartheid era relations is unreasonably short, the section about the post 1994 relations could well use opinions/assessments of notable south africans about israel, the territories it rules or the close relations it had with the apartheid regime. and, it would be more appropriate to bring a picture which shows, for example, vorster at his 1976 visit with rabin, begin,...when the relations flourished.--Severino (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I think this article needs some information about the role of the USSR, USA, and perhaps China in affecting Israel-South Africa relations during the Cold War, and after the collapse of the USSR. I don't know enough to write it myself, but the Soviet Union played a big role in isolating Israel via military support for various countries, especially newly independent countries emerging from colonialism. Isolation was an important factor in Israel's continuing ties with South Africa. Initially the USA was not allied with Israel, but after the Six Day War increased American aid allowed Israel more choice in relations with other countries. China was not as important, but its rivalry with the USSR was part of the jockying for allies with the US and NATO.

Also, perhaps this is too subtle a point, but when the two countries first recognized each other, Apartheid had only just got started. Nobody could have known how much farther it would go. At the time it was pretty much in line with how all the European colonial powers operated. Rwielgosz (talk) 01:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Mandela and Israel

I strongly suspect that elements of this article are factually inaccurate, to say the least, based on an alleged letter to Thomas Friedman,a letter allegedly written by Mandela, but which was discovered to be a hoax: DEPRICATED SOURCE

It would be journalistically dishonest to leave it as is.

174.89.240.146 (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

objection accepted. apparently, it was not the intention of the author to make believe mandela had written the letter. i change the section and add details of the visit of 1999.--Severino (talk) 09:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

De Klerk's visit

I have addressed some of his concerns and made applicable changes, but others require an explanation here:

• The Jewish Telegraphic Agency, just like the Christian Science Monitor, is a reliable source. The editor's assumption that it is "biased" is based on no truth.
• Stating that Israel was against apartheid is important and relevant. As is the response by Israeli officials to the South African transition to democracy.
• The editor insists that the article include "It was announced that no new arms deals would be on the agenda." This is an encyclopedia, not a news service. What happened to be on that agenda during that visit--or more correctly, what happened to not be on the agenda--is of little relevance. There is no reference to what future or permanent implications that announcement had. If the announcement was that there will never be an arms deal between the countries again, that would be more pertinent. But simply stating that his visit in November did not include new arms deals? No.
• There is no reason to put "normalize relations" in quotation marks. This is common terminology of foreign relations; it is not POV. Putting it in quotations could break the rules of style and grammar. This is the same with the word "punitive." Indeed, none of these terms are even in quotation marks in the source.

Best. --Precision123 (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Claiming that "Israel was against apartheid" is wishful thinking. This statement contradicts other sources, contradicts the content of the article. A source doesn't justify any claim. Read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, esp. Due and undue weight. Also, this claim, like other parts of "Precision123"'s edit, is copied from the source as i've noted already. I will add a Copypaste Template if the section won't be changed. BTW, It was not the transition from apartheid to democracy to which israeli politicians responded sympathetically but De Klerk's allegation that a black majority could abuse it's power. It was his initial demand in the negotiations that "minority rights" would prevent "majority rule".
• judgmental phrases taken from a source should be put in quotation marks, all the more when the context of their use is outdated. "Normalize" relations meant what? Make them as intensive as they were under apartheid? Or modify them for the post apartheid era? The title of the section is "End of the apartheid and severing of ties". So we have to put in context the diplomatic phrase of "normalizing" from 1991.
• Apartheid South Africa and Israel collaborated for decades in the military field, and this cooperation ended actually in the phase of De Klerk's presidency. Also in this account of the visit, which i will integrate, this issue was brought up. The phasing out of the military cooperation obviously was an issue in the covering of De Klerk's visit and there is no reason to conceal that.
• Change the title of this talk section. Otherwise I go to ANI. You don't need to pillory me or give the impression that it were my edits which were problematic.

--Severino (talk) 10:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• I am not sure what "wishful thinking" you are talking about. My guess is that you are confusing good relations with the apartheid government to support for the practice of apartheid. As to the allegation that the edit is copied, that is not true, the words have been changed, are different enough, or if not, are small enough in number. As to the Israeli response to de Klerk's declaration, that is great that you interpret it that way. The only thing included in the article is the Israeli response to the declaration, which is important--not anything else.
• Normalizing relations is not a "judgmental phrase." Not even the newspaper puts it in quotes.
• Yes, this is absolutely true. But saying that it was not on the agenda during that visit does not equal the gradual phaseout. A gradual phaseout has permanent and future implications. What may or may not have been on that agenda during that visit does not.
• I will change the title of this section, but I hope you tone done this aggressive demeanor and assume good faith. I dispute the impression that your edits were not problematic; it appeared that you started off on the wrong foot when you incorrectly claimed that JTA was unreliable. --Precision123 (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

So we have no consensus on 3 points. You addressed my concerns about your edits just partially.--Severino (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I have addressed your points, while you, on the other hand take the approach of a one-sentence response and reverting, which is inappropriate editing. Can you be specific as to your problem with reliable sources? --Precision123 (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't confuse the things. We had a discussion and before there was consensus (about your changes, BTW) you reverted. I gave the reasons for my edits here or in the edit comment. And, that discussion was almost half a year ago. Now you insinuate that i had a problem with reliable sources. Are you referring to your recent edits? Do you have a problem with citing what is actually in the source? Read WP:NPOV, especially the section about Due and Undue (having a source for something, doesn't mean to take that 1:1 and delete other information). And when you read about neutrality, maybe you see that trying to place multiple times the claim that "Israel always condemned apartheid" and other bias (or whitewashing) is not in line with wikipedia rules. And while I write this I notice that you already started an edit war...--Severino (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, a sockpuppet investigation should be conducted against you...--Severino (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Go for it. Conduct an "investigation."

You continue to cite rules (NPOV, undue weight) and revert, but you fail to say exactly what sentence implicates them. If you feel a certain way, discuss it.

You have a warped conception of "bias" and "NPOV." You changed "publicly condemned apartheid" to "felt a need to distance themselves from South Africa." Do you realize that reports public condemnations are well sourced, and in fact, appear several times in the book that you cite most?

1. Again, explain clearly what you believe is "unsourced." Explain it please. The fact that you continue to revert does not mean that your POV edits are the consensus nor do they mean they are accurate. I am trying to work with you here. I am continuing discussion on talk and adding quotes in footnotes to show what it says.

2. Explain clearly what was given undue weight. Considering your edit here, you appear to be more on the inclusive side anyway. I have given a lot of respect to due weight and the edit reflects that. I have written about the minimal ties in the 50s and 60s, the strengthening of ties post-1973, a comprehensive description of the change in Israeli policy in the 1980s (e.g., cutting ties, keeping secret military treaties), and others that reflect the sources they come from. --Precision123 (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Try to go on with your game. You're an one-topic-editor and you always do it the same hypocritical way. Playing with the rules. Trying to make believe that winep is "regarded as the preeminent think tank with a regional focus which made major contributions to the search for a peaceful resolution to the..." for example. I won't play your game.--Severino (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Great, thank you. If you have any specific issues with sources on an unrelated article you may bring it up there. It does not appear you understand what the talk page of each article is for. Try bringing up specific points that raise an issue to you. --Precision123 (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Israel–South Africa relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303194929/http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/rsa.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/rsa.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303174327/http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/rsa1.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/rsa1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120619090733/http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/rsa2.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/rsa2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140805141424/http://astronautix.com/lvs/rsa4.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/rsa4.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Gaza

South Africa seems to cut ties with Israel. [2] 108.162.179.236 (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

This is my first contribution to Wikipedia, and I welcome guidance as to the correct protocol. I would have been happy to receive a suggestion as to how to present the information, rather than have my contribution summarily removed.

My aim is to convey the current position of the South African government regarding South Africa-Israeli relations. I have used a statement from the Department of International Relations and Cooperation to achieve this. (http://www.dirco.gov.za/docs/2018/isra0514.htm/)

I acknowledge that the opening sentences could be phrased differently, and backed up by sources.

I propose that the following is added:

• The date of the statement by the Department of International Relations and Cooperation to withdraw their ambassador indefinitely. • The reason given for the withdrawal.

       •	Reference to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Gaza_border_protests  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexrunt (talk • contribs) 08:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC) 

• A quotation from the statement which demonstrates the reason. • A quotation from the statement which reflects South Africa’s current position - one that has not yet been reflected on this page.

Regarding the 30/500 protection: This page is not listed under 30/500 protection. Furthermore 30/500 protection:

“is applied to combat any form of disruption where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective. It should not be applied as a protection level of first resort.”

My contribution was made in good faith, and is not intended to disrupt or antagonise. I expect to be given some guidance as to how to edit the content so that it is acceptable to the community, not have it removed and be threatened with protection laws that do not apply.

Rexrunt (talk) 07:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

On 14 May 2018 South Africa withdrew its Ambassador to Israel indefinitely following Israel’s attack against the Gaza border protests.The South African Department of International relations and cooperation said in an official statement "As we have stated on previous occasions, South Africa reiterates its view that the Israeli Defence Force must withdraw from the Gaza Strip and bring to an end the violent and destructive incursions into Palestinian territories." <ref>..... BTW, also calling a content "garbage" in an edit comment is unnecessary

--Severino (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Severino. I was viewing the mobile version which does not display active restrictions on the talk page, and I could not find the article in the list with 30/500 restrictions. Having viewed the desktop version, I can now see that I am restricted from contributing. I would urge somebody with access to update the article as per the suggestion above. Thanks Rexrunt (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Rexrunt (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)