Talk:ICJ case on Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories

Merge?

This article with Legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine? Selfstudier (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: a rich article that can be expanded and built upon. Sakiv (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

It was just a thought, the title is very long winded and the article is about whether Israel's occupation is legal, which is exactly what the other article is about. Selfstudier (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I see your point. However, I don't think that all this article's text will fit in the Legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Since the draft has been adopted, this should . be reflected in the title, and in order to shorten it because it is too long. A map should also be added. Sakiv (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The decision to request this opinion was included within the text of an annually recurring resolution, Clause 18 of (the Israeli practices/OPT one). Selfstudier (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Not yet. Can the ICJ choose to refuse cases referred to it by the GA? I forget. Anyway, if the ICJ takes the case it becomes a bigger story and we should keep the article renamed to the name of the case. If the ICJ doesn't take the case, the story becomes a dead end that can be merged with no more than an EL for the voting register. Meanwhile I think we should wait. Zero^talk 00:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

John Dugard first suggested an ICJ referral in 2007:

"At the same time elements of the occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, which are contrary to international law. What are the legal consequences of a regime of prolonged occupation with features of colonialism and apartheid for the occupied people, the occupying Power and third States? It is suggested that this question might appropriately be put to the International Court of Justice for a further advisory opinion." (further to the wall opinion)Selfstudier (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I can't see that the case would not be taken up. I suppose they could say that they have not jurisdiction but Israel tried that argument in the wall case and it didn't fly. It's only advisory after all, it's up to the UN itself what they do with any opinion afterwards...in the case of the wall...sfa. Selfstudier (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Now that the ICJ has taken the case, shouldn't the article be moved?

The case itself seems like it should be the main focus here, not the UN motion asking for it. Eldomtom2 (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Selfstudier (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Name change

The new name is used by RS: [1], [2], [3] Makeandtoss (talk) 11:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Move?

Should this be renamed Advisory opinion on Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories? See e.g. Advisory opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence, Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. Kaihsu (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The 2004 AO re the wall is titled Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and says in Line 1 "(commonly known as the Israeli Wall advisory opinion)".

I prefer Legal consequences of Israel's policies in the Occupied Palestinian Territory following that precedent, don't like anything that begins "Advisory opinion...". Selfstudier (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This is specifically about the ICJ decision rather than the general issue. DeCausa (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Seems odd both for this article and the others not to have ICJ in the title. "Advisory opinion..." seems to fail Precision. "ICJ opinion on..." works better. DeCausa (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

ICJ opinion on Israel's occupation would seem to be the most concise and precise way of condensing the output: BBC, Reuters , The Economist. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Advisory opinion is a legal term of art. Kaihsu (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Expansion

Article needs urgent expansion before 19 July.. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

There's not really that much else to add atm, obviously the article Legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine is relevant, although the court may comment on other matters that were raised during the proceedings.

Personally, I'd be inclined to wait and see what they say. Selfstudier (talk) 11:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

There is quite a good number of information that could be added, including for example the bits that I have just inserted into the lede. More elaborations needed in body on ICJ's 2004 case; settlements expansion; apartheid analogy; and more. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm aware, just that I think these things will be better elucidated/added in a week's time. Selfstudier (talk) 11:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Fronting the outcome as usual. Selfstudier (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Can't access the article from log in nor from WP library, any other possible options? Makeandtoss (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Lede

I agree with the move to the current title, but the lede is certainly problematic, much as the title itself, it should not be in italics, when the title was the same as the name of the case (and in italics) it indicated that this article was about a case with that name and not about the legal consequences themselves. Moreover, the way the lede is structured is a bit clunky: "The ICJ case [...] is a proceeding in the International Court of Justice (ICJ)". In my opinion, the lede should either use the name of the case in question as it was before the move (but keeping the current title) or rework it to not include either, something along the lines of: "An advisory opinion on Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories was requested to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) through a resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in December 2022." Cheers, Shrek 5 the divorce (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I've fixed up the itaslics in the lead but don't know how to fix them for the article.Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The italics in the title was an automatic result of the template {{Infobox court case}}; I disabled it with |italic title=no. I changed the court case name itself in the lead to italics. Boud (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks (also for the explanation).Nishidani (talk) 03:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I am fine with the proposed opening sentence. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:REFERSTO

I can’t change it, but this is a horrible case of REFERSTO, as it says “The ICJ case on Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories refers to a case”. Obviously the case doesn’t refer to a case, instead the case just IS a case. 86.31.178.164 (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Done. Selfstudier (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 July 2024

I want to change existing '...is a proceeding bedore the International Court of Justice' to before the International Court of Justice.

It is just a typo. 2A00:23C5:E01D:F201:1CDB:C602:662D:D8BD (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

 Already done Left guide (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 July 2024 (2)

For the two vote tables in the article, I think it would be helpful to include a world map color coding each country's vote. I've made maps for the two vote tables.

• 
  UN's Special Political and Decolonization Committee vote

    Approve

    Against

    Abstain

    Absent
• 
  General Assembly vote

    Approve

    Against

    Abstain

    Absent

I think the maps could be put alongside the tables in their respective sections, but I'm not sure if the tables are too wide for that. SheepTester (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that in the map on the right Turkey is grey - should be green I believe. DeCausa (talk) 09:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Whoops, thanks for catching that. It's fixed now. SheepTester (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 July 2024 (3)

The first sentence in the section “Political responses in Israel” contains a link to Weaponization of antisemitism. That link should not be there per WP:NPOV Amisom (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Afaics, you are able to edit the article yourself if you wish to. For myself "The exploitation of accusations of antisemitism for political purposes, especially to counter anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel" (what it says at the Wikilink) appears to be an accurate description of the situation, Israeli politicians calling the court, its judges, the opinion and even just the request for an opinion, antisemitic (among other things). Selfstudier (talk) 09:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m not able to edit the article myself. And your personal opinion does not override Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy. Amisom (talk) 10:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m not able to edit the article myself Why not? Was your EC status reset?

And your personal opinion does not override Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy. Neither does yours. Selfstudier (talk) 10:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I think I’ll wait for someone with a better grasp of Wikipedia policy to help with this thanks. Amisom (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems you are not EC, so there is nothing further to discuss. Nor do I have any interest in your opinion as to my grasp of WP policies. Selfstudier (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 July 2024

Please change "International Court of Justice has been "hijacked by islamicists."" into "International Court of Justice has been "hijacked by Islamists."" — 🧀The Cheesedealer ^squeak!⚟ 09:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Done. Selfstudier (talk) 09:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Lede2

Regarding this: "Israel countered the opinion by stating that a political settlement can only be attained through diplomatic negotiations"; this was actually addressed by the ICJ which explicitly said that Palestinian rights are not subject to the whim's of the occupying power; so why was this added? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps change the verb from "countered", which it didn't if the point was already addressed, to "re-stated"? Or just "said". Either way, "countered" is editorializing. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Jumped in there and just did it. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Can't access the article neither through log in nor WP library for some reason but it might address this point or a point very closely related: [4]. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The US said pretty much the same thing, the judgement is not within the "established framework". To which one possible response is -- change the framework. Selfstudier (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Apartheid

@Selfstudier: I still don't understand this part: "amount to a form of segregation in the occupied territories, although it did not decide whether the segregation was in fact apartheid." We have plenty of RS including HRW and AI saying that they had indeed said it amounted to apartheid. So why are we giving fringe Haaretz, which has a conflict of interest, more due weight? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not Haaretz, it's Aeyal Gross, who is well qualified to opine on the matter (and if you read the actual ICJ opinion which I wrote out at Israel and apartheid article, he is not really wrong is he?) Also Amnesty and HRW will want to, naturally enough, look for endorsement of reports that they have given earlier, right?

Otoh, the ICJ was not really focused on the specific issue of apartheid (where the judges are likely to disagree, see their individual opinions) and was taking a more broad overview of all of the Israeli practices, and all of them taken together not just one by one was a point they also made. As I said before and I think the RS is picking that up, the sum total of the whole opinion (the US was complaining about its "breadth"), the illegality (whatever words you use to describe that) of virtually everything Israel is doing in its occupation, that is the thing that is going to hit home the hardest. My 2 cents. Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, this other Haaretz article disagrees and says it was both segregation and apartheid.[5]

The court said the occupation is de facto annexation, answering the core question it was asked to address. It added that the occupation consists of "systematic discrimination, segregation and" – here comes the dreaded a-word – "apartheid."

Yea, I don't know where they got that from, it's in quotes but I can't find it anywhere and attributed to a couple Haaretz authors plus AP plus Reuters so I wouldn't pay too much attention to that.Selfstudier (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Self is correct. I read the 87 page verdict when it came out, and the way the two mentions of it at 223-224, p.65 are phrased clearly show the court heard, but decided not to enter into the merits of this claim. Yes, secondary sources, newspapers, occasionally got this wrong, and it is to be expected that, in this case, 'pro-Palestinian' editorialists or partisans might begin to trust those instead of the original and those who like Gross competently gloss it. Since the court made no such deliberation, we simply ignore the misprision as it crops up.Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: @Nishidani: The court did indeed deliberate on article 3 of CERD relating to segregation and apartheid, and was explicit in its advisory opinion:

224. A number of participants have argued that Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory amount to segregation or apartheid, in breach of Article 3 of CERD.

225. Article 3 of CERD provides as follows: “States Parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction.” This provision refers to two particularly severe forms of racial discrimination: racial segregation and apartheid.

229. 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.

Makeandtoss (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Yep, so the argument runs that apartheid and segregation are two separate things (225) and that it is a breach of Article 3 either way (229) but we (the court) are not going to explicitly say which it is (which is a pain in the neck but if you look at the individual judges opinions, I think they would not have been able to collectively say that it is apartheid but that they could agree that it is (at least) segregation).

I would reiterate that there is a lot more to this opinion than just apartheid, in some respects it is much more damning than a "mere" apartheid finding. Selfstudier (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This is legal language, therefore every word, comma etc., must be carefully weighed. The core point is the or in 'segregation or apartheid.' 'Or' has two functions: (a) to flag an alternative ('either . .or') (b) to gloss parenthetically ('or in other words').

Since the language of CERD Article 3 explicitly distinguishes, in writing (art.225) 'of two particularly severe forms,' two distinct if related forms of discrimination, 'racial segregation' and 'apartheid', in a strictly legal perspective they cannot be conflated as interchangeable. There is elbow room for any legal scholar to argue (a dodge, perhaps,. but correct until clarified in later cases) that 'racial segregation' exists in a reality where, however, apartheid is not realized.

The court's determination that CERD was breached, but refrained from fingering explicitly which of the two forms covered by CERN were practiced. Israeli lawyers would argue that there is ample wriggle room here to deny that the official policy of hafrada 'separation' is coterminous with the full implications of apartheid.

That is why a close reading of the text will not conclude that the court recognized (the obvious) apartheid nature of the 'separation'. A majority of judges were not ready to make this highly specific determination, which would have almost immediately led to a formal indictment of Israel for a 'crime against humanity', and the emission of appropriate mandates.Nishidani (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's where we are. On the the emission of appropriate mandates, I think this is what we ought to pay more attention to, the ICC warrants that have been requested notably do not include potential charges over the settlement issue but now, after this opinion (I prefer to think of it as an authoritative statement of the law), that low hanging fruit is there for the picking, I will be very interested to see whether the ICC goes for it. Selfstudier (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

That ball would go back to the ICC, which has the juridical competence to act. Nishidani (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Other interesting things apart from the illegality of occupation, status of East Jerusalem (and the attendant WB annex), Gaza was/still is occupied, there is a lot in there. Selfstudier (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: @Nishidani: Okay, now I see how this was open to interpretation and understand your point of view. I think this is a valid interpretation that is nevertheless conservative.

First, there is no difference between segregation and apartheid; as apartheid just means apartness, i.e. segregation. It could be argued that segregation would be a physical aspect and apartheid is a more institutionalized and legislative aspect, but the court explicitly indicted the state of Israel on both aspects. Eventually, physical segregation and legislative discrimination aspects would have to be termed, and that is where the court explicitly says this is indeed at least segregation but not explicitly also apartheid (even though there is no difference and the CERD 3rd article says "and" not "or"). But it does indeed say implicitly that this is the case by saying it violated article 3.

Either way these are all personal interpretations, and we are left to RS, which almost unanimously agree that the ruling said it had amounted to apartheid, except for one Haaretz article that was contradicted by another on the following day.

Even in case the disagreement among us continues, this would be only a matter of semantics; Israel was still explicitly indicted on operating an institutionalized system of discrimination. Thus, Israel and apartheid can still be turned into Israel's apartheid against Palestinians, as this would be the common name of this institutionalized system of discrimination. And we can still mention this institutionalized system of discrimination and segregation in the lede here, without saying the court disagreed on the apartheid analogy. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Yep, but the issue is not the reality there, or our personal views, but what a source can be said to state. Some sources did not read it correctly for its intrinsic ambiguity, and, nota bene, in arriving at a broad consensus judgment in these venues, every word reflects a mediation, every paragraph a compromise, so that the cited passages must be read in terms of the latter. Nishidani (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

without saying the court disagreed on the apartheid analogy The court en toto didn't disagree on the apartheid analogy. We discussed what the court said above.

Haaretz, the Gross article was after the other one not before.

RS, which almost unanimously agree that the ruling said it had amounted to apartheid I saw one, the Guardian, what others?

I also said and still say we should wait a bit for the dust to settle and the analysis to appear. There really is no rush. Selfstudier (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Nishidani: @Selfstudier: Six RS (seven if you count Haaretz's other article; or consider Haaretz an independent RS) have said the court characterized this as apartheid, including The Guardian, The Intercept, Financial Times and HRW (all four RS per WP) as well as Oxfam and Amnesty International (RS reputation). As far as I am aware, it was Haaretz's other article that is the only source to dispute this. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The FT says "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." That is correct and does not say that the situation is apartheid. Selfstudier (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The Intercept says "The court also notably declared Israel’s mistreatment of Palestinians to be a form of segregation and apartheid" OK, it is RS but I don't agree that's what the court said. Selfstudier (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Amnesty says "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 is correct. Selfstudier (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

HRW says "including, for the first time, finding Israel responsible for apartheid" HRW is reliable, like Amnesty for its reports, I am not convinced by this press release tho. And I think it is actually wrong. Selfstudier (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Oxfam says ""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." Again, press release not convincing, again I think it is wrong. Selfstudier (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

So, looking at it what we have is FT and Amnesty are in line with Gross and then we have the Guardian, Intercept, HRW and Oxfam saying it is apartheid.

Now, if with a bit of time, this proportion continues like that, then we will have a situation of conflicting sources but it is noteworthy (atm) the absence of some big name RS, Beeb, WAPO, NYT etcetera. Selfstudier (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

We're all familiar with the vice of news reportsd. loazy and partisan meme repetition. Yes, mainly on israel's behaòlf but here, arguably, also functioning re the Palestinian side. So rather than play the balancing memes battle, we should wait for authoritative legally informed specialist opinion.Nishidani (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

We have one lawyer at EJIL (legal blog) where I expect quite a few will weigh in with time. He says

"As always, there was a price for obtaining that consensus: ambiguities and silences in the Court’s analysis on some important points (for example, on whether Israel’s practices in the OPT amount to apartheid, or whether Palestine has already achieved statehood)." Selfstudier (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be justified to add a subsection Segregration versus apartheid within the #Analyses section. E.g. something along the lines of "The ICJ stated ..." (i.e. it decided to avoid specifically saying "the situation is apartheid"); HRW interpreted this with the statement, "...", Gross/Haaretz (sorry, I've only browsed the discussion, I haven't actually checked) interpeted this ... In other words, if notable experts consider the ICJ to have effectively stated that the situation is apartheid while avoiding it in legal terms, or think that the ICJ chose this wording in order to achieve consensus among the judges, then we can report that as part of the debate in interpreting the ruling. But this is separate from the ICJ's chosen wording in its ruling. If a notable expert sees essentially no difference between segregation and apartheid, then that can be quoted or summarised. After all, whether all forms of racism are "a single thing" or are distinct by nuances or are hugely and fundamentally different from one another is one of the key issues of the whole I/P conflict. Boud (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

We'll probably in duke horse get to something like that. I just think it dangerous to give any impression that wiki text is written on the wing to get polemical/political traction (depending of editorial POVs). I believe there are good reasons to suspect that the sources for the separation = apartheid are reading into that cautiously phrased text something that is not 'explicitly' stated. And since it is a matter of technical legal interpretation we should wait for several area experts with that qualification to clarify.Nishidani (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Middle ground

@Nishidani: @Boud: @Selfstudier: I think the most appropriate middle ground solution -for now- would be to say it the way RS like the Intercept and the Guardian framed it: "also found Israel to be violating an international agreement against racial segregation and apartheid;" without elaborating whether it did label Israel as apartheid. Would you support such a compromise? Makeandtoss (talk) 08:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I still think we need to wait a bit on the segregation/apartheid thing, for this article we should first concentrate on those parts of the judgement where there is a clear consensus in sources on what the opinion said and get that down pat, before struggling with the unclear bits. Selfstudier (talk) 09:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Look, there is agreement about a conflict in sources. We differ in evaluation. We're writing an encyclopedia and one aim is to gradually ensure that fly-by-day/night instantaneous newspaper responses to breaking news sources be replaced by solid retrospective RS that wear some authority, reflecting expertise. It makes little sense to rush into covering a minor highly contentious point that arose within a day or two of a historic judgement that even today is barely 4 days old. Give it at least two weeks to see how specialists address the issue. We should write to have enduring, stable text, and exercise patience to that end. I say that as someone who has no problem is thinking that Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands deserves the label apartheid even if, as Chomsky and many others have stated, the WB situation is far worse than the classic example of apartheid (South Africa).Nishidani (talk) 09:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a conflict of phrasing:

(1) There are a number of RS stating that the court ruled the situation amounted to apartheid [The Intercept, The Guardian, HRW, Oxfam and a Haaretz article].

(2) There is a number of RS stating that the court ruled Israel to be in violation of the third article of CERD on segregation and apartheid [Amnesty International, Financial Times, ].

(3) There is one minor Haaretz source stating the court did not rule explicitly about apartheid but only about segregation.

So why are we prioritizing (3) a fringe phrasing by an non-independent, conflicting and unspecialized source at the expense of (1) and (2)? If RS change so can the phrasing, no need to wait for two weeks when this issue is off the public spotlight. I am still of the opinion that (2) is an excellent middle ground solution to these three options and is supported by RS rather than by our personal interpretations. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

We are not prioritizing 3, we are saying to wait for authoritative sourcing (3 is written by a qualified lawyer and and you did not mention the other legal view, EJIL that agrees with 3). Essentially you are saying we should ignore lawyerly interpretations of an opinion about legal issues in favor of sourcing from the press with only superficial analysis. Selfstudier (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

One more compromise that should settle this issue; mentioning both (2) and (3) per WP:CONFLICTING. A proposal: "The court found that Israel practices systemic discrimination and segregation against Palestinians and that this in violation of an international treaty on segregation and apartheid, but sources differ on whether apartheid was meant." Would you support that? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Here is Law4Palestine which is a site I quite like, obviously tends to the Palestinian perspective, they say "An extensive summary of the advisory opinion along with an analysis of its main pillars will be released soon by Law for Palestine." and meanwhile, on the issue at hand here, they only say:

"The Court concluded that Israel’s policies and practices violate Article 3 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, specifically the prohibition against segregation and apartheid." (ie like 2).

And I will say it once more, we are not going to settle this issue overnight, we should wait for a bit.

If you insist on doing something right now, then I agree with Boud, the issue needs to be addressed comprehensively in the article body as a first step rather than debating what precise language we should use in the lead.

If you think we have prioritized 3, then cut the lead sentence to read only "The court also ruled that Israeli policies violate the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination" and just leave it at that for the time being. Selfstudier (talk) 10:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The problem is it is just the media (rather than considered RS) highlighting this but it can't be ignored because of that. Wouldn't it best to just report closely only what we know, which is:

• Art. 229 states that there's a breach of Article 3 CERD because of the separation policy - so let's have a WP:PRIMARY quote of that. + an explanation of what Art. 3 says.
• Most media reports (possibly erroneously) say that amounts to apartheid and a couple don't. So a simple sentence saying: "Most but not all media reports have interpreted this breach as amounting to instituting apartheid". (thereby making it clear that this is journos rather than legal secondary RS
• Then add a footnote listing the media who have said that and Haaretz and the other one that says otherwise.

No? DeCausa (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Since we will have an expert opinion shortly (soon), which will cover both the decision from a legal perspective and, in all probability, the confusion in secondary newspaper accounts published immediately after the decision was made known, it's fair to presume that we will have a first RS which handles this for us, without our patching up (at the risk of WP:OR) an account that tries to sort out such incongruencies. Patience is a virtue except when it is played to kill time.Nishidani (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned before, if RS change so can the phrasing; WP is a constantly changing medium of information according to how RS change, so we are not trying to settle this overnight; we are simply reflecting what RS says in real-time. I will take this suggestion as a temporary solution and still think we should at the very least mention (2) -supported by RS- in any possible way. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Can you please implement your proposed sentence as I am unable to do so? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Given there is no controversy over the racial segregation and discrimination part, would you support: "The court also ruled that Israeli policies and legistlation maintain a system of systemic discrimination and segregation against Palestinians, violating the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination."? Makeandtoss (talk) 13:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I would rather quote the opinion directly (in the article body), not sure if there is a secondary that does so rather than using the primary, I will have another look. Selfstudier (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Middle East Eye isn't that bad, overall. Selfstudier (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Not bad in what way? Makeandtoss (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I was looking for a source that quoted the opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)