Talk:Racism in the State of Palestine

Move this article

The article should be titled Racism in the Palestinian territories. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Disagree.RS101 (talk) 09:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Issues

This "article" takes a large collection of unreliable sources, such as wnd, and biased sources such as the various editorials and reports what they say as fact. The tone of this "article" is one in which a user is attempting to prove that Palestinians are really truly more racist than Israelis. That may be true, I cant say I really care whether or not it is, but this article is put together as an essay that belongs on a blog and not an encyclopedia. nableezy - 19:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, any racism in a country can be defined as a blog, Palestinians don't deserve to be exempt, in fact since '174.112.83.21' has mentionied that it exist a page of racism in israel, so is this. the same "blog" argument can be done for tnat page as well.Colourfully (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Your first sentence is completely meaningless, it almost isnt even English. Except that article doesnt cite such garbage sources as this one. Dont remove the tags until the problems are resolved. nableezy - 14:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I second what Nableezy said. This is an extremely poor article. It is obvious that the author had no intention of making a policy compliant article. This is pure POV-pushing. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

There is an existing article Antisemitism_in_the_Arab_world#Palestinian_Authority that is already intended to hold most of the content in this article. --Noleander (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this one is broader and it covers more issues and not just about arab vs jew.Colourfully (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Should we also delete Racism in Israel since it's covered as a subsection in another article? 174.112.83.21 (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe so.Colourfully (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. There's nothing to merge so just delete it. --Frederico1234 (talk) 06:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

To delete Racism in Israel?Colourfully (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread what IP wrote. I meant that we should delete this article we're discussing. Whether or not some other article should also be deleted is a question which does not belong to the scope of this talk page. --Frederico1234 (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with editors above who say this article doesn't rely on the best sources, which is what we should do on wikipedia. Whether it should be deleted is another matter and turns on whether there are enough good sources to put together a proper article. If there aren't enough good sources, then the topic fails WP:Notable and the article should be deleted. Maybe we should start an AfD with the premise that unless those good sources are forthcoming, this will go? --Dailycare (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

What a nonesense to porefer one normal R.S. over another just beacuse one doesn't like the message, so one converts the RS into a non reliable, Don't shoot the messenger. Nothing wrong with the State Department, recognized / cited historians, and othersColourfully (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Racism towards blacks

There is a great deal of material that ought to be added about Palestinian Arab recism towards blacks.AMuseo (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Note to the Rescue Squad

If the Palestinian territories were free of racism, they would be unique on this planet. To my knowledge, the most salient forms of racism among Palestinians are anti-black and anti-Jewish. The article as it stands is poorly sourced and poorly written.AMuseo (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your work AMuseo, It would be wrong to say that one nation (this one or another...) is freee of racism, it's almost racist to say that Arab Palestinians can't be racists.Colourfully (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Racism toward Christians?

Perhaps we should include this? from Islam and Dhimmitude:where civilizations collide by Bat Ye'or, Miriam Kochan page 237 "Profanation of churches, attacks on nuns, the assassination of Arab Palestinian Christians and foreign pilgrims, as well as the violation of graves and anti-Christian graffiti continued alongside the burning down of Christian centers and restaurants by Hamas in Ramallah (16 March 1992), and terrorist operations by masked Palestinians. ..... anti-Christian terror worsened in the territories intended to become an exclusive secular Muslim-Christian Palestinian state cleansed of Jews....In 1991, for example, out of 245 Palestinians killed by other Palestinians for collaboration with Israel or vendettas, more than half of them were Christians." KantElope (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No. We should not include that. Bat Ye'or is an unreliable source. Just read the Reception section in his Wikipedia entry. The article has enough of poor sources. We need high-quality sources, not yet another partisan source. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia defines Ye'Or as "an Egyptian-born British scholar, who writes about the history of non-Muslims in the Middle East." She is a scholar and a secondary and appropriate source. Do you have some evidence that she has somehow been disqualified for use in Wikipedia for unreliability? The Palestinians' known hostility against Christians is already documented a little bit in the article on Palestinian Christians. KantElope (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments like these raised doubts about her credibility:

"In a review of The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude the American historian Robert Brenton Betts commented that the book dealt with Judaism at least as much as with Christianity, that the title was misleading and the central premise flawed. He said: "The general tone of the book is strident and anti-Muslim. This is coupled with selective scholarship designed to pick out the worst examples of anti-Christian behavior by Muslim governments, usually in time of war and threats to their own destruction (as in the case of the deplorable Armenian genocide of 1915). Add to this the attempt to demonize the so-called Islamic threat to Western civilization and the end-product is generally unedifying and frequently irritating.""

"According to journalist Adi Schwartz from Haaretz, the fact that she is not an academic and has never taught at any university, but has worked as an independent researcher, has, along with her opinions, made her a controversial figure.""

" Craig R. Smith in a New York Times article referred to her as one of the "most extreme voices on the new Jewish right.""

I say no thank you. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if your opinion is sufficient. What does the greater Wikipedia community say? Is Bat Ye'or considered a RS?KantElope (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at this book: Christian attitudes toward the State of Israel by Paul Charles Merkley [1]

The author claims that:

"In a booklet of fifty-six pages, the Palestinian human rights organization called LAW/The Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment, an affiliate of the International Federation for Human Rights and of the International Commission of Jurists reports that it found "no evidence of persecution of Christians as a part of a policy on the part of the Palestinian Authority, although some degree of tension between the Christian and Moslem communities does exist." 68 LA....Nevertheless, "incidents exist," the report concedes. There is occasional vandalism of Christian properties, including churches and cemeteries, and there have been anti-Christian demonstrations and even riots. The report also concedes that sever Arab Palestinians who converted from Islam have been consigned to Palestinian prisons for long periods, although the stated charges have never included conversion but rather insulting clergy and selling land to Jews (which is punishable by death, under a law passed in 1997) or selling to Christians (who, according to a fatwa, or binding theological declaration from Sheik Sabri, are equally included int he terms of the bill). 70 The authors of the report ask us to keep in mind at all times that conversion to Christianity has ruinous effects on Palestinian solidarity." pg 87

It might be a reliable source. Difficult to say. Apparently, the author writes reports for a christian zionist pro-Israeli propaganda organisation: [2]. That may not disqualify him as a reliable source per se, but it is a reason for caution. --Frederico1234 (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

er...this is not how Wikipedia determines reliability is it? It would rule out many many who write for Muslim anti-Zionist pro-Palestinian propaganda organizations as well, ruling out many many more. The author, by the way, is quoting and footnoting from Palestinian sources. Your POV is showing. Surely you are not going to try to make the point that Christian Palestinians do not suffer discrimination in the Palestinian territories? KantElope (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

What I assessed was the reliability of your source, nothing else.

What this article badly needs is high-quality sources; articles and books written by experts in the topic. Biased sources, including anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian sources, should be avoided. --Frederico1234 (talk) 06:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

According to Ray Hanania, son of Palestinian parents and past president of the Palestinian American Congress there is anti-Christian "racism" in Palestine. KantElope (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"Christians appear to be targets of prejudice among more fundamentalist Muslim Palestinians. Some U. S. observers believe there has been a marked increase in threats and violence against Christians in territories under PA control. A Member of the U.S. Congress has reported threats against and imprisonment of Muslim converts to Christianity, harassment of clergymen from evangelical Christian denominations, desecration of churches and cemeteries, and violence against individual Christians, sometimes by Palestinian police. 38 The State Department acknowledges "credible allegations" of social and informal discrimination against Muslim converts to Christianity and sometimes harassment by PA officials, but states that the PA investigates reports of such behavior. The situation of Palestinian Christians could be come more difficult if the Muslim fundamentalist organizations Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad should increase their influence in the West Bank and Gaza. " The Middle East in turmoil, Volume 1 - By John V. Canfield pg 154 [3] Looks like someone ought to be writing this up. KantElope (talk) 23:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There's lots of info on Palestinian Arab Christians suffering discriminations and bigotry from the Muslim majority (including those forced to "denounce" Israel against their will, and constant fear for uttering a word of support for Israel, beleaguered Palestinian Christians are afraid to speak out. [4]) ever since Arafat's Islamization of Bethlehem...[5] It grew especially under Hamas regime, like the closing of YMCA, cases of forced conversions, intimdatons, etc. Here's a bit, from the US congress. Congressional Record. [6] Palestinian Christians live in constant fear [7] More here [8] Colourfully (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between racism and discrimination on non racial grounds. Unless there are reliable sources saying this is racism, OR the article is renamed, it doesn't belong in the current article. Marokwitz (talk) 06:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I could accept a name change, but it (anti-Christian sentiment) deserves to be in any article about prejudice/discrimination in the the Palestinian territories. KantElope (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Disputed text on "racist ethnic cleansing" and "Judenrein"

I've removed twice, with explanation, the following text:

racist ethnic cleansing

The plans to deny Jews from Palestine has been called "Judenrein Palestine" attached to Mufti's ethnic cleansing dream Prohibition for Jews to reside as opposed to Arabs' right in certain areas have been labled as such. The Zionist Organization of America has called it racist.

The text is POV and inflammatory. It asserts "plans to deny [remove??] Jews from Palestine" without a RS, uses not one but two analogies to violence as pure rhetorical devices (Judenrein and ethnic cleasing). The second sentence is both ungrammatical and unclear. Moreover, all of the issues addressed in these sentences are dealt with in slightly clearer and more grammatical prose below, with a slightly less inflammatory tone. Please explain why we should keep this text.--Carwil (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. However, think the author means to suggest that the Palestinians' desire to remove all Jews from what they have defined as Palestinian territory is racist. The Jews have Palestinians within their state, and ask why it is necessary for Palestinians to remove all Jews from what they feel should be their state? Perhaps we can reword (removing "Judenrein" and "ethnic cleansing" terms) it rather than delete it entirely? KantElope (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

How about inserting a sentence in the next section that says: "[Description of authors with this opinion, followed by citations] that the Palestinians' efforts to remove all Jews from what they have defined as Palestinian territory is racist." NPOV will require discussion of other explanations, particularly the belief/argument that Jewish settlements are being used for a land grab, that changes to the disposition of occupied territories are forbidden under international law, and that restrictions on foreign ownership are common. (Which is not to say you have to insert all those things to make the change).--Carwil (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

References

Texts with no relation to the Palestinian territories

The Palestinian territories came into existence in 1967. Both the 1914 and 1920s sections in the History section should therefor be removed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

lol what kind of logic is that... should we delete all the history sections of any country article since it happened before the date of independence? 174.112.83.21 (talk) 03:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead defines " the Palestinian territories refers to intolerance harboured by the Palestinian leadership, various Palestinian groups and factions, the Palestinian media and the wider Palestinian population". Under that definition it is fine to keep it. Are you disputing the existence of the Palestinian people as a distinct group before 1967? Marokwitz (talk) 07:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hitler's pal, the Palestinian leader: the Mufti was not on Palestine land? man...RolesRoice (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for having material on racism in Mandate Palestine (and if it's sourceable, in Ottoman Palestine) in Wikipedia. It would seem that Mandate Palestine is the previous territory of both Israel and the Palestinian territories, so eventually it should be: a) summarized in both Ethnic discrimination in Israel and Racism in the Palestinian territories and elaborated on its own page; or b) laid out here in a section and referenced per WP:SUMMARY in Ethnic discrimination in Israel. Meanwhile, develop away, per policy. See also the history section in Racism in the United States.--Carwil (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"based on chief Islamic authority in the PA's Fatwa."

Who or what is the "chief Islamic Authority in the PA"?

This text is supported by three citations, two of which are in print rather than online. The first, Army of Shadows, Palestinian Collaboration with Zionism, 1917–1948 seems unlikely to discuss the chief Islamic Authority in the PA (founded in the 1990s). Care to provide the relevant text? Likewise, what does the second source say about a fatwa? The third, which I am removing, mentions no fatwa, but does describe a "perception on the streets":

Specifically, Palestinian Christian leaders cite land laws that prescribe the death penalty for selling land to Jews. This law is often interpreted by Palestinians in the street as preventing Muslims from selling to any non-Muslims, including Christians. This misinterpretation has gained currency because of the preachings of radical Muslim sheikhs who refer to all non-Muslims as infidels.

Which would be useful for describing popular discrimination against Christians (in the mid 1990s).--Carwil (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

PA court: Death to man who sold land to Jews

Khaled Abu Toameh 04/29/2009 23:54

First of kind death sentence by PA's chief Islamic judge to deter real-estate deals with 'the enemy.' In the first case of its kind, a Palestinian Authority "military court" on Tuesday sentenced a Palestinian man to death by hanging after finding him guilty of selling land to Jews. The verdict came shortly after the PA's chief Islamic judge, Sheikh Tayseer Tamimi, issued yet another fatwa (religious decree) banning Muslims from selling land or houses to Jews. The death sentence is seen as an attempt by the PA leadership in Ramallah to deter Palestinians from conducting real estate transactions with Jews. [9]

RolesRoice (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. But note the article also says:

The three-judge panel found the defendant guilty of violating PA laws that bar Palestinians from selling property to "the enemy." In its ruling, the court, which convened in Hebron, said that Brigith had acted in violation of a Palestinian "military law" dating back to 1979, which states that it is forbidden for a Palestinian to sell land to Jews. The accused was also found guilty of violating a law dating back to 1958 that calls for a boycott against Israel, as well as another law from 1953 that bans trade with Israelis.

It does seem appropriate to state that the PA's chief Islamic judge, Sheikh Tayseer Tamimi, issued a religious decree... But it's clear from the article that the PA court did not act on the fatwa.--Carwil (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is an article from today which speaks to this issue. Apparently today a secular? court has upheld killing any Palestinian who sells land to " a foreign country." [10]. Looks like what was once a religious fatwa now has developed some legal rationale. KantElope (talk) 04:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

nonsense material

Shuki re-added a large amount of material that is either poorly sourced or complete nonsense. To begin with, Christians are not a race, anti-Christian activity is not "racism". Next, sources such as wnd are not reliable and should not be used. Other sources are primary such as alandershowitz.com and cannot be used the way they have been in this article. Finally, sources need to actually discuss the topic of the article, namely racism in the Palestinian territories. MEMRI translations cannot be used to say that X is racist, the source needs to actually say it is racist. You cannot use your own interpretations of primary sources to claim something is racist. Some of this material also has BLP implications as Wikipedia is saying that quotation made by a living person is "racist" without a quality secondary source doing so. Shuki, please dont return such garbage and poorly sourced nonsense to an encyclopedia article. nableezy - 23:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I would advise you to refrain from massive edits to this article at this time and changing its scope to deflect onto Israel instead. --Shuki (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I would advise you not to return BLP violations to articles. nableezy - 00:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I would advise you of being extra careful of slandering settlers and attempting to paint them as racists, thereby violating BLP. --Shuki (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The source said exactly what I wrote in the article. Also, please explain why you returned wnd.com and other unreliable sources to the article. nableezy - 00:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I related to your OR settler section below. Please show where each was declared nonRS. NGOs can be quoted if they are attributed to them, not in first-person WP language, you know that. --Shuki (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

WND is not an NGO, neither is Alan Dershowitz. I dont plan on doing your homework for you, you reinserted those sources, you should verify they are reliable. nableezy - 00:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all the page talks about (any) intolerance, your POV to discredit Pr. Dershowitz is like discrediting any writer, on any publication, or worse. Yet, again, it wouldn't be the first time you try to dispute RS.RolesRoice (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you understand what "reliability" means on Wikipedia? Have you read WP:RS? nableezy - 19:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Settlers

Please discuss here the legitimacy of adding information about settlers being part of racism in Palestinian Territories. BTW Nableezy, Rafael Eitan was not a settler if that little fact is important to you at all. --Shuki (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not say he was a settler, I wrote he was a general who instigated racism among settlers in the Palestinian territories. Just as a source published by a university press said. You have a long history of attempting to defend extremist elements in the settler movement, such as calling Baruch Goldstein a "murder victim", let's try to not make this the latest in that series. Please explain why you removed material about "racism in the Palestinian territories" sourced to a book published by a university press in an article about "racism in the Palestinian territories". nableezy - 00:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

C'mon, do I look as stupid as you think we all are? Your new section started with an OR sentence, and then continued with WP:SYNTH and an unrelated quote. --Shuki (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Really, have you read the source? That single source supported both sentences, it is not OR and to say it is OR is either an act of ignorance or a display of willful dishonesty. nableezy - 00:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the lead defines this article as referring to "intolerance harboured by the Palestinian leadership, various Palestinian groups and factions, the Palestinian media and the wider Palestinian population". Marokwitz (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the article, not the other way around. This article is part of the , which takes all racism and divides it up geographically, not by perpetrator. Its very title is Racism in the Palestinian territories: if settlers are in the West Bank and Gaza, and their actions or attitudes are allegedly racist, that discussion belongs here. To not allow such material is a POV fork. This of course does not relieve any text of the obligation to be NPOV or to not be OR.--Carwil (talk) 10:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I restored the original lead. I don't know why it was replaced with the views of an editor. This article is not about settlers or Israeli soldiers, it is about racism/discrimination in the Palestinian territories by the Palestinian leadership and/or the Palestinian people. There is no "historic" or state-sanctioned racist discrimination of Palestinians within the settlements or universities such as ariel. Palestinians are discriminated against, and inequalities exist or else a "peace-process" wouldn't be going on. But claims that the settlements are inspired by racism and hatred of the Arab people is an entirely different issue and not mainstream enough to justify a mention in the lead. This isn't electronic intifada. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That material was sourced to a a book published by a university press, not electronic intifida. Please explain why your views, ie "the views of an editor", are being used in place of what a reliable source says. nableezy - 13:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Shall we compare? Racism in the Palestinian territories' refers to racist attitudes and actions in the Palestinian territories, both by Palestinian people and Israeli settlers and soldiers. These attitudes and actions have been directed at Jews and Blacks by Palestinians and towards Palestinians by Israeli settlers.. No source to support the obvious OR, and dubiously equates the historic and long-documented racism that has existed among Arabs in Palestine, and the rest of the Arab world, with the Jewish residents in the West Bank, who haven't been successfully described as "racist" by mainstream sources. For example, the Jewish villages cooperated with the Arab residents in Palestine, and it was the Arabs that founded the anti-Jewish organizations only to be shut down by the British. Whatever racism exists in Israel it is not unique in the same away racism is institutionalized in the Arab media and schools. And for starters, any allegations that Israel as a people are racist belongs in the pertinent article, not here. Jewish settlers are not legally considered to be citizens or residents of the Palestinian territories. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the article. The lead has no sources supporting it now. The source published by a university press did say that the settlers have committed racist acts against the native population. This article is about the Palestinian territories, the settlers' racism in the Palestinian territories belongs here. The source I added was from SIU Press. It is a RS and explicitly linked settlers with racism. You not liking that fact is not relevant. nableezy - 13:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The scope of this article is determined by the title. This article is about "racism in the Palestinian territories", not "racism by Palestinians". Racist actions by Israeli settlers in the Palestinian territories is within the scope of the article and removing it is a blatant NPOV violation. Racist actions by the Israeli state directed against Palestinians in the Palestinian territories is within the scope of the article and removing it is a blatant NPOV violation. Can somebody please explain why high quality sources documenting racism in the Palestinian territories are being removed from an article on racism in the Palestinian territories? nableezy - 14:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What you sem to be suggesting is that the article turn into a trinity of: Racism of the Palestinian National Authority vis a vis its residents (including Jews, Christians, Blacks, gays and others), (your wish to expand to:) alledged settler racism against Palestinians. But you do understand though that if you insist on this, the next part of the threesome is creating and expanding a section on racism that Palestinians and Palestinian organizations carry out on settlers. I do not think that this article should include the last two, as this is developed in other places. The settlers do not live in the Palestinian Authority or are affected by the PNA. Or, should we move the tile to Racism of the Palestinian National Authority? --Shuki (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Add whatever you want. That does not explain why you removed what a reliable source explicitly linked to the topic of this article. The topic is "racism in the Palestinian territories", the settlers who live in the Palestinian territories, ie all settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and their racism is within the scope of this article. Ill be going the NPOV/N shortly. nableezy - 15:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

See here. nableezy - 15:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This isn't really unclear at all, folks. I'm mostly here as a visiting editor from a lot of work on Racism in the United States. That article includes racism by whites, blacks, Hawaiians, etc. Racism in Israel (or whatever it's called now) includes racism by Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs. As far as this article, the Palestinian territories are described as comprising the Gaza Strip and the West Bank in the WP article on the subject. The settlers are in the Palestinian territories. IDF soldiers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are in the Palestinian territories. The UNRWA has operations in Palestinian territories. If any or all of these entities, as well as the PA, Hamas, etc., engage in racism, discussion of it belongs here in this article. Please avoid moving the title to fulfill your own desires vis a vis WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This kind of geographical division has been well established in articles on Racism by country. If this article gets too long, however, we can break out sections per WP:SUMMARY.--Carwil (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi, this edit is nonsense. Arab villages are not "racially structured institutions". Also, Israelis being forbidden from entering areas under the PA's full control is a product of the policy of the Israeli government. Please revert that edit. nableezy - 18:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Settlements or rather disputed territories do not belong here, I don't know of any Jews that enter PA areas, after the infamous Ramallah Lynch in 2000, where the Palestinian masses with official PA police were described by British journalist/eyewitness "they were like animals."RolesRoice (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats nice, do you have any policy based reason as to why material about racism in the Palestinian territories does not belong in an article on racism in the Palestinian territories? And why you deleted well-sourced text and reinserted OR and poor sources as well as BLP violations? nableezy - 19:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What is nice? the fear of Jews to enter Palestine areas? Tracking back the page history it was first "founded" about Palestinian regime/groups.

Even in current format, areas in disputes are just that, "dispute."RolesRoice (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

We are not debating the standard definition of Palestinian territories here. Read the article on the issue, defining P.t. as the West Bank and Gaza. It also mentions the presence of settlers. Using standard territorial divisions across Wikipedia ensures that articles from Anarchism in country A to Zebras in country Z have comprehensive coverage in Wikipedia. --Carwil (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What OR are you talking about?RolesRoice (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

There is obviously a POV bias to sugar-coat the racism by Palestinian leaders with an exaggerated emphasis on Jewish residents of the WB. Jews live INDEPENDENTLY of Arabs, Jews can't even enter Palestinian cities without the tacit approval of the PA (including the IDF). whatever racism it exists it is purely abstract or philosophical (i.e, Jewish settlers want to turn the WB into a greater Israel and expel Arabs), but there is no history, none whatsoever, of a documented racism against Arabs. Abuse, human rights violations, or killings is always a human rights issue but not always a racial issue. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Cross posting here. In 1981 the Attorney General of Israel formed a commission of inquiry which confirmed reports that crimes committed by Israeli settlers against persons of Palestinian nationality in the "administered territories" were routinely closed without a proper investigation. The Israeli GPO report was reprinted and is available as "The Karp Report: An Israeli Government inquiry into settler violence against Palestinians on the West Bank", Institute for Palestinian Studies, ISBN 0-88728-141-9. The UN Fact Finding Mission gathered testimony and conducted inquiries which revealed that the same problem still exists in the West Bank today. See paragraphs 1384-1440 starting on page 294 in A/HRC/12/48, 25 September 2009.

The contracting state parties to the ICERD agree to accept the competence of the CERD, an elected panel of legal experts, who monitor the implementation of the treaty. The CERD panel of experts stated that the establishment of Jewish-only settlements in the occupied territories violated the prohibition against apartheid and similar forms of racial segregation contained in article 3 of the ICERD:

"The status of the settlements was clearly inconsistent with Article 3 of the Convention which, as noted in the Committee's General Recommendation XIX, prohibited all forms of racial segregation in all countries. There was a consensus among publicists that the prohibition of racial discrimination, irrespective of territories, was an imperative norm of international law. See CERD/C/SR.1250, 9 March 1998 [11]

The CERD has repeated similar observations and concerns in its periodic reviews:

Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, in particular the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are not only illegal under international law but are an obstacle to the enjoyment of human rights by the whole population, without distinction as to national or ethnic origin. Actions that change the demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territories are also of concern as violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. CERD/C/ISR/CO/13 [12]

The Israeli Settlers 'Price Tag' Campaign [13] and "The King's Torah" produced and studied by the settlers of the Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva have been reported as examples of racism or incitement to racism by many sources. [14] [15]; [16]; [17] harlan (talk) 13:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Cross-posted here: Huh? You obviously have not read 'King's Torah' or know what it is really about so your just harming your credibility with wild claims. The book has nothing to do with racism, let me add a - 'duh' to that. It is merely a study on a particular facet of Judaism from sources in the Torah, the Talmud, and other rabbis. Anyway, a state's handling of citzens of other nationalities is not racism. When you get to an airport and there are separate lines for US passport holders and 'others', this is not racism. And FWIW, Arab (self-described Palestinians) citizens can vote, are members of parliament, and ministers in the government and there are several 'affirmative action' programs to increase Arab participation in the Israeli civil service. It would be racism iff, Judea and Samaria were annexed and those citzens discriminated against with 2nd rate rights. Since this is not the case, these issues go to the human rights page or the settler violence page or NN. You are free to talk about the racism here, not other issues. --Shuki (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The police arrested the author on suspicion of incitement, so it isn't a case of me being misinformed about the contents of the book. [18] Israel ratified the ICERD convention. It contains the agreed-upon definition of racial discrimination. Start using it, before your editorials get deleted. harlan (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why this discussion is limited to settlers. There are thousands of sources that claim the Israeli government's treatment of Palestinians in the territories is racist. They certainly aren't less reliable than the sources given here claiming racism by Palestinians. If this disgusting article was not to be deleted as it should have been, the least that can be done it to make it balanced in its ugliness. Zero^talk 09:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Back to the original page 'Arab palestine, regime, groups, population'

Carwil/federico/nableezy, etc. It is about Arab Palestinian regime, groups, population! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racism_in_Palestine_(Arab_Palestinian_regime,_groups,_population)&redirect=no -- No settlers here.RS101 (talk) 09:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I've discussed this in the lively discussion at the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Racism in the Palestinian territories. The article is of relevance to the broader Racism by Country series, and to Wikiproject:Discrimination. Maybe we can try to reach consensus there.--Carwil (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I have also discussed there, please don't insert new things before reaching a consensus.RS101 (talk) 04:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Care to respond there?--Carwil (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Arab Nazi Party

From: Armies of the young: child soldiers in war and terrorism By David M. Rosen, page 106

...The shrill calls to take up extremist politics invoked a symbolism that glorified youth, violence, and death. By 1936 Al Difaa, the paper of the Istiqlal movement and the most widely read paper in the Arab community, proclaimed, in clearly fascist tones, that "youth must go out to the field of battle as soldiers of the Fatherland." ...the "Land is in need of a youth, healthy in body and soul like Nazi youth in Germany and the fascist youth in Italy which stands ready for the orders of its leaders and ready to sacrifice its life for the honor of its people and freedom of its fatherland."

...Nationalist rhetoric accompanied major efforts to build fascist-style youth organizations by recruiting young men to serve as the strike force of the nationalist movement. Throughout the 1930s the children of wealthy Palestinians returned home from European universities having witnessed the emergence of fascist paramilitary forces. Palestinian students educated in Germany returned to Palestine determined to found the Arab Nazi Party. The Husseinis used the Palestinian Arab Party to establish the al-Futuwwa youth corps, which was named after an association of Arab Nazi Scouts. By 1936 the Palestinian Arab Party was sponsoring the developments of storm troops patterned on the German model. These storm troops, all children and youth, were to be outfitted in black trousers and red shirts... The young recruits took the following oath: "Life -- my right; independence -- my aspiration; Arabism -- my country, and there is no room in it for any but Arabs. In this I believe and Allah is my witness." .. The al-Futuwwa youth groups connected Palestinian youth to fascist youth movements elsewhere in the Middle East.

[19]

RolesRoice (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Please point out where it states that Husseini had a party called "Arab Nazi Party". --Frederico1234 (talk) 05:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I searched the book for "Arab Nazi Party". The book does not support the claim made in your edit. I will revert your edit. --Frederico1234 (talk) 10:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Rolesroyce is right, I looked at the link it says so, and the article doesn't say that the Mufti was leading an Arab Nazi Party, but that the HUSSEINISTS and Arab Palestinian students did. http://books.google.com/books?id=zQYQ0tho6mAC&pg=PA106 I don't know what you have searched, but Googl;e doesn't always show if it's in the book, check the above link please! There's also no point at all in de-initializing ZOA or JCPA.Marthas1989 (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The quote by RolesRoice do not support the claim that a "Arab Nazi Party" was founded as it only says that "Palestinian students [...] returned to Palestine determined to found the 'Arab Nazi Party". It doesn't say that a party was actually founded. --Frederico1234 (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Note to editors

This article is not the place to dig up as much dirt as possible on the Palestinians. This article is supposed to be an unbiased article about racism in the Palestinian territories. Please respect that. --Frederico1234 (talk) 05:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

POV subject matter tag

I've added the tag called "POV-title" but referring to either the title or the subject matter. This is for reasons clearly stated above and on NPOV/N, to which there has not been a substantive response for 10 days. To reiterate: Racism in the Palestinian territories implies by its clear definition, and should include to be consistent with other Racism by country articles all racism that occurs within the territories. To emphasize only racism by Palestinian Arabs and not that by Israeli settler and Israeli soldiers present in the territories creates a biased article, inconsistent with similar articles under such titles. Discuss.--Carwil (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Racism in the United States includes all racism within its borders, regardless of originating group. Likewise, Racism in Israel article includes all racism within the state of Israel: Arab directed at Jew; Jew directed at Arab; etc. It makes sense that this article follow that convention. --Noleander (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the duplicate POV tag. There are many issues here that should be dealt with, including keeping on the topic of racism. FWIW, there is an issue here about what the Palestinian Territories include because Israelis do not live in the 'Palestinian Territories'. --Shuki (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Reverted. Those are two different tags addressing two different kind of issues (the content of the article vs. the subject the article should cover). --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Your personal opinion on what the "Palestinian territories" are is not consistent with the sources or reality. The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip are the Palestinian territories. You have repeatedly made this argument without once providing a source. Kindly stop pushing this right-wing propaganda on encyclopedia pages. nableezy - 19:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The Palestinians claim that these are their territories (as well as Israel fwiw), but reality shows that Israel controls and administers this area and has given the Palestinians limited autonomy in some areas - Area A and B, which you might call PA territories. --Shuki (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Reality, if you want to come back to it someday, actually shows that there are countless sources that directly contradict your warped imagination and not a single one that backs it up. The Palestinian territories, as defined by reliable sources, are the territories within the British Mandate that Israel occupied in 1967, ie the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. Your own opinion on this subject is worthless and I have provided numerous sources that show how incorrect you are. You have yet to provide one single source that backs your fantastical claim. nableezy - 19:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating tenacity you have to continue your single-purpose non-collaborative editing. --Shuki (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I would rather fascinate you for my ability to actually read sources and reflect them in articles instead of mirror your nationalistic POV-push that is not founded in even the most extremist of partisan rags you euphemistically refer to as "sources". nableezy - 19:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The subject of the article need to change. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, so which of the following do you think should be covered in this article?: Area A, Area B, Area C, Area H1, Area H2. How might we then sort out the Palestinians discussed here, as to whether or not they live inside that definition of Palestinian territories, which contrasts with the simpler one described in the article Palestinian territories? In any case, you surely admit that Israeli soldiers operate within Area B, and some times (like in 2002) within Area A (I'm not remarking either way on whether any of those operations are racist for the moment). And, the settlers living with tens of thousands of Palestinians in H1 have been accused of racism, including carrying out an action that a former Israeli PM called a "pogrom" in H2 (please don't get sidetracked into to whether that constitutes racism, just stick to the geographic issue so we can settle on the scope).--Carwil (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Further attempt to seek mutual agreement: I want to ask those on the other side to carefully consider a couple things. First, is racism by rural Palestinians in the West Bank (Area C) in the present relevant to this article? If so, the narrower versions of "Palestinian territories might be self-limiting. Second, is racism in the West Bank and Gaza from 1967 to 1994 relevant to the article? If so, an emphasis on the Palestinian Authority's area of control might be counterproductive.--Carwil (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey! I'd like to actually resolve this. Why does being uncivil seem to be the only way to get an extended response?--Carwil (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you could re-state the issue under discussion; list the 2 or 3 solutions; and identify which solution you are proposing. If no editors respond within 4 or 5 days, that may be a good indication that they agree with your solution, and are just too busy to reply. --Noleander (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed resolutions

Here we go: Attempts to add material covering racist behavior by Israeli settlers and soldiers towards Palestinians--notably housing segregation and restricting freedom of movement in places such as Area C and Hebron (Area H1 and H2), has been blanked by other editors on the grounds that settlers and soldiers are "not in the Palestinian territories." In response, I have argued that including this material is consistent with the racial division in Racism by country articles, and that excluding this material turns the article into a violation of WP:SOAPBOX and/or the restriction on POV forks. To summarize the proposed resolutions:

• Option 1: Treat Palestinian territories as defined in their article: the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Include material on racism by settlers and soldiers under subhead here; likewise include significant racism by any international actors in the Palestinian territories
• Option 2: Treat Palestinian territories as those areas controlled nearly exclusively or partially by the Palestinian Authority (nearly exclusively = Area A and Area H2; or partially = Areas A, B, H2) Include or exclude all material based on this geographic criterion.
• Option 3: Recognize the "intent" of the page and exclusively consider racism "by Arabs"

This is not a set-up for a vote, since the key question here is which of these options violates WP:POLICY. I've brought up this issue a number of times, and discussions have either not taken place, or been sidetracked by personal attacks. Accordingly, I will be re-factoring personal attacks (WP:PRUNE) on all sides (and it's mostly been people who agree with me who have provoked needless side discussions about who's stupid) in the course of the discussion. Stay on track! Please.

Now, if you could please comment on which of these options is consistent with policy and why. Once we have a sense of what's desired and what's within Wikipedia's bounds, then we can poll away. Also, please state whether I missed any important options. My opinions will follow this set-up in a separate edit.--Carwil (talk) 01:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI: this issue was also discussed above under Settlers and at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_17#Racism_in_the_Palestinian_territories. I will be posting a note on the NPOV Noticeboard that the discussion has resumed.--Carwil (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Option 1 is consistent with policy and a natural extension of Racism by country. Option 2 would be technically consistent with policy, if and only if, it were re-named Racism within Palestian Authority control. However, Racism in the Palestinian territories would still be a perfectly acceptable, different article that should summarize the broader issues, including both setters and non-PA-ruled Palestinians. Going with Option 2, would mean excluding all pre-1994 material, and carefully assessing where each example of racism took place. It would still include any alleged racism by soldiers and settlers within the named territories. Option 3 blatantly violates NPOV by way of soapboxing and POV-pushing.--Carwil (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Option 1 seems most consistent with the growing series of "racism in ..." articles that are per-country. I think the intent is to divide the world in to distinct geographic regions. Within each article, the racism topics go in all directions: they are not limited to "majority discriminating against minority", but also include "minority discriminating against majority". If settlers etc were excluded from this article I suppose an entirely new article could be created on "Racism in settlements in Palest. Territories". But excluding settlers from this article would confuse readers (do we really expect readers to have a detailed knowledge of settlement boundaries?), and also would deprive readers of the "it goes both ways" balance that is seen in most "racism in ..." articles. --Noleander (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Option 1 Wikipedia policy requires that POV forks be avoided and that the content of articles that discuss the same subjects be harmonized using Template:Sync. The majority viewpoint is that Israeli settlers and settlements are located in the Palestinian territories and that they have been there in violation of article 49 of the Geneva Conventions since 1967, e.g. See the State Department policy documents [20] and [21] Israel is a contracting party to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). A review of Israel's country report conducted by the experts of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) stated that the establishment of Jewish-only settlements was a prohibited form of racial segregation: "The status of the settlements was clearly inconsistent with Article 3 of the Convention, which, as noted in the Committee's General Recommendation XIX, prohibited all forms of racial segregation in all countries. There is a consensus among publicists that the prohibition of racial discrimination, irrespective of territories, is an imperative norm of international law." See CERD/C/SR.1250, 9 March 1998, paragraph 82 [22] harlan (talk) 04:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• Option 2: Palestinian Territories are undoubtedly those defined by areas controlled by the PNA and Hamas. Final status has not been decided and WP is not a crystal ball to decide if the Jewish areas are/will be included in this 'area'. I would expect a dab or one line to a separate article or separate section in another article (Israeli settlement) about racism by settlers if that exists. --Shuki (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You have continued to assert this blatant falsehood without one source backing you. The Palestinian territories, defined by countless reliable sources, are the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. nableezy - 15:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Not that I'm proposing this for now, but... Shuki, would it deal with your concerns about WP:NOT:CRYSTAL if we titled the page Racism in the West Bank and Gaza Strip? Also, which are the Palestinian territories: Area A, or Areas A, B, and H2? Do you think it's feasible to sort out each Palestinian racist act as to whether it occurred in these areas? How would we manage our block of racism articles: R in Palestinian territories; R in Israeli-controlled West Bank; R in Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip? Would there be one super-article over them all? And what would that article be called?--Carwil (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with WP:NOTCRYSTAL. The English-speaking world already considers Israeli settlements to be illegal, e.g. [23]

Shuki mentions the final status negotiations, but those do not alter the current status of Jerusalem. In 1995 the State Department published a Memorandum of Conversation between William Crawford Jr. and Mr. Shaul Bar-Haim from the Israeli Embassy (February 7, 1963) regarding the US position that Jerusalem is part of Palestine. Crawford explained that the practice is consistent with the fact that, in a de jure sense, Jerusalem was part of Palestine and has not since become part of any other sovereignty. See Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961-1963, Vol. Xviii, Near East, United States. Dept. of State, G.P.O., 1995, ISBN 0160451590, page 341.

In July of 1969, Ambassador Yost said that resolution 242 treated the entire Middle East situation, including Jerusalem, as a package. He said that Israel was bound by international law and that the US government had consistently refused to recognize the measures taken by Israel in that part of Jerusalem that came under the control of Israel in the June war. See John Norton Moore (ed.), The Arab-Israeli Conflict, NJ: Princeton University Press, Princeton, Volume III, Documents [1974], pp. 993-994 and paras 93-98 of S/PV.1483 [24]

In many cases it is also illegal to represent that the West Bank settlements are located in Israel. In 1997, the US Government advised that it considers the West Bank and Gaza Strip to be one area for political, economic, legal and other purposes, and that goods produced there cannot be marked "made in Israel". [25] The same goes for Great Britain and the EU. [26] [27]. harlan (talk) 07:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, thanks for keeping me honest. Although I would really like to rush this debate and get busy editing. Shuki, can you still answer my first hypothetical question? And the other questions which aren't hypothetical at all.--Carwil (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Option 1 - without question is the only one that complies with non-negotiable policies of this website. There is no dispute, except for in the minds of a few Wikipedia editors, what the term "Palestinian territories" means. This definition is determined by the sources, not by the expansionist POV of settlers and their supporters. nableezy - 15:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• Option 1 - Everybody knows that "Palestinian territories" means the West Bank and Gaza. Zero^talk 23:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• Option 1 - This seems to best represent the position of the weight of the sources. un☯mi 14:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The recent edit by Federalostt about the actions of Iraqi, Yugoslav, and other Arab partisans in places like Ketamon (inside the Green line, in Jerusalem) is a sign of just how confusing historical boundaries can get in this article. The nice thing about simpler solutions, like option 1, is that they make these questions just a little bit easier. Right now, this article has a historical section on racism in Mandate Palestine, and could under option 1 cover everything in the West Bank and Gaza since 1948. Now "racism in Mandate Palestine" could some day graduate from being a one-sided list to being an actual article, and become a summarized section in both Racism in the Palestinian territories and Racism and ethnic discrimination in Israel. Doing otherwise means having a nightmare with a map each time a particular issue is brought up.--Carwil (talk) 12:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Closure: It's clear that a rough consensus exists around this issue. Policy concerns raised in support of Option 1 have not been contested, and policy concerns about Option 1 have been responded to, with no reply from their one proponent for two weeks. Option 1 is the only one receiving overall support. To repeat:

Option 1: Treat Palestinian territories as defined in their article: the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Include material on racism by settlers and soldiers under subhead here; likewise include significant racism by any international actors in the Palestinian territories

The pov-title tag which I placed on the article (and was removed by others) is no longer relevant. Please avoid editwarring over the inclusion of racism by settlers and soldiers, since an extremely open process to discuss it was created and lasted several weeks.--Carwil (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated settlers line/tag

"Israeli settlers" do not belong here, when territories will be defined as "Palestinian" and agreed upon we can start talking about it. Secodn the attempts to insert anything about Settlers is an anti-Israel POV push to make it larger than the racism by Palestinians.RolesRoice (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you please spell out which territories you think should be defined as "Palestinian territories" for the purpose of this article? And could you specify if you are endorsing Option 2 (restricted set of territories), or Option 3 (ignore any racism by non-Arabs)? See West Bank#Administration and Administrative divisions of the Oslo Accords for descriptions of the areas and who lives there.--Carwil (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it in the territories? And the settlers aren't in Israel so what's the problem? Sol (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

If you mean the settlements, well I and the international community think they are in the territories. And I've advanced the idea that "racism in the Palestinian territories" can only refer to racism by anyone is said territories. RolesRoice seems unwilling to respond to the POV-neutral geographic options listed above. Roles? Do I have to say something insulting or uncivil to get you to answer straightforward questions?

Re: "an anti-Israel POV push to make it larger than the racism by Palestinians." Only reliable sources can tell us whose racism is "larger" or "smaller", and most RSs will simply focus on describing that racism. If settler's racism is in the Palestinian territories, what possible basis is there for excluding it from this article?--Carwil (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Sol, if you could phrase your rhetorical question in the form of a response in the section above, that would be helpful to getting a variety of editor's assesments of what is consistent with policy.--Carwil (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

SYNTH and sources

A large part of this disgusting article is a gross violation of WP:SYNTH. Bits and pieces are brought together from disparate sources (many of questionable reliability) in order to build up a case. That is exactly what WP:SYNTH prohibits. Zero^talk 12:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources which are associated with the Israeli government or political organizations should be clearly identified as such or not used. For example Joel Leyden: "Leyden ... serves as a media consultant to the Israel Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Trade, Tourism and Defense." http://www.israelnewsagency.com/joelleyden.html (WHOA, that site is banned at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist, no wonder there are no links. It is gone!) Sources which are known for their unreliability, like Arutz Sheva should be avoided altogether. Zero^talk 12:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Racism is disgusting no matter where, but it exists everywhere including Israel too. Of course I don't like it, but it should be documented. a 'Racism in ...' article should not be an attack piece, and certainly a NPOV article can be written about any country. The best way to do this is for people 'on the inside' to accept that it exists, explain it clearly, and not simply cover it up.--Shuki (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

religious persecution

Religious persecution, even of the most severe kind, is not racism unless it has a racial basis. Large sections of this article referring to alleged treatment of Arab Christians by Arab Muslims simply do not belong here. Zero^talk 09:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Opposition to Zionism or Israel, or the opposite

Almost any opposition to Zionism or Israel in the past 100 years was described as racist by some "reliable source". That doesn't mean it is ok to list all such descriptions here. Editors who think it is fine might well remember that almost all significant actions of Zionism and a great many actions of Israel have also been described as racist by some "reliable source". That's why this article is unlikely to ever be more than a WP:COATRACK. Zero^talk 10:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

"Simple" solution. Write a NPOV section about alleged racism of opposition to Zionism and Israel and another about alleged racism of Zionism and occupation to discuss these accusations about these issues per se. Fortunately, we already have Zionism and Racism and New antisemitism to summarize, and localize to the context of the Palestinian territories (the meaning of which we hopefully can agree on soon).--Carwil (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately it then just becomes a sort of competition over who can get the most dirt to stay in the article. Like we are seeing now. Zero^talk 10:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Facts not allowed on this page

Curious to see whether the allegations being made on this blog http://wikibias.com/2010/10/casting-aspersions/ are true, I made a single edit. Citing well-known British journalist Peter Hitchens who recently visited the Palestinian territories and wrote about the "racial foulness" of the graffiti. There. It was immediately removed by Carwil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andycarr78 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Read more carefully. The source says there was "an obscene caricature of an Israeli soldier with a dead child slung from his bayonet." and that the caricature is "racialist". Nowhere in the source is the word anti-semitism to be found much less an accusation of "intense anti-Semitism". It appears as though this blog has brought another person who has no interest in faithfully representing what the sources say. nableezy - 16:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Andy. Here's the original quote from the source you mentioned:

On a wall in a street in central Gaza, a mural – clearly displayed with official approval – shows an obscene caricature of an Israeli soldier with a dead child slung from his bayonet.

Next to it is written in Arabic 'Child Hunter'. Other propaganda, in English, is nearby. My guide is embarrassed by this racialist foulness. I wonder how so many other Western visitors have somehow failed to mention it in their accounts.

Here's what you wrote:

British journalist Peter Hitchens writes of the intense anti-Semitism of the "obscene caricature"s of Israelis that cover walls in the Palestinian territories with "racial foulness." (http://www.jidaily.com/vc8S/e)

Now, facts are welcome here. What you managed to do was transform the relevant facts described (the "caricature of an Israeli soldier with a dead child slung from his bayonet" and the caption "Child Hunter"; the common existence of racialist propaganda), into an unverifiable (how do we confirm the presence or absence of "foulness"?), POV sentence which does not have the tone of an encyclopedia, but of a diatribe. To tell you that was the problem, I tagged my edit: Gratuitously insulting, needs formal WP:TONE & verifiable claims. Now, if that didn't make sense to you or if all you saw was the revert and not the explanation, I'm sorry. And usually, I go to the source and rewrite unencyclopedic content, but instead I reverted with an explanation. I hope the reason is now clear. (Also, please cite the original source of mainstream press pieces, so it's clear they aren't blog posts. Thanks!)--Carwil (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Carwill, Please stop etit war w/o reasoning, what is the legitimacy for removing such large amount 7k out of 30k from the article. What is the "pov" here besides the illogical attempt of trying to add settlers that are irrelevant to Palestine?Federalostt (talk) 10:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you don't seem to understand what Wikipedia is about. You should stop editing and go to read core policy and guideline articles like WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:COATRACK and WP:ATTACK. You are in serious violation of all of them. Meanwhile, student papers don't meet WP:RS, nor does PalWatch or afsi.org, Europe is not in the Palestinian territories, Husseini was not the leader of the Handschar and never visited Aushwitz, religious intolerance is not racism, and the settlers live in the Palestinian territories. A large amount of what you reinserted is rubbish and you can easily find the reason for its deletion on this talk page or the edit summaries. Zero^talk 11:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I am only recovering data omitted w/o reasoning and adding valuable information, such:

1. 1) Hamas' propaganda found in antisemitic Ilan Halimi incident.
2. 2) Ex- Nazi Bonian soldiers came to Palestine (as qtd from B. Morris).
3. 3) Author Showal.
4. 4) Noted author about Hamas' mickey-mouse resebling Nazi Racial hatred.
5. 5) YNet about 'apartheid palestine.'
6. 6) Hamas racism as charged by the Kurds.
7. 7) Peter Hitchens of the Daily Mial on racist graffiti in the territories. (added by another user)

Please don't edit war!Federalostt (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You are the edit warrior here. So far you have not tried to justify a single one of your insertions. Start with the explicit reasons I gave in my comment just about yours. Zero^talk 12:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Federoalostt, Are you reading what I wrote? Or my edits on the page itself? For example, you re-inserted this:

British journalist Peter Hitchens writes of the intense anti-Semitism of the "obscene caricatures" of Israelis that cover walls in the Palestinian territories with "racial foulness."

My reasons for removing it are above. More recently, I even edited it to be NPOV-ish, leaving this:

Graffiti in Gaza includes "an obscene caricature of an Israeli soldier with a dead child slung from his bayonet" labeled "child hunter" and other propaganda that British journalist Peter Hitchens describes as "racialist foulness."

Mega-edits are tempting, but they confuse the editing process and sweep away changes made in the interim. For instance, I'm restoring your tiny edit on the authors who dispute that nazi analogies are racist. But try to use different edits for different things. And justify them here on talk, if they are repeated changes.--Carwil (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Large scale edit-warring sweeping out intermediate improvements

This edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racism_in_the_Palestinian_territories&diff=390855437&oldid=390818531 is just the latest example. It's totally inappropriate to restore versions from even a week ago when so many of us are doing small scale edits to improve the article. Long sections I contributed on slavery and racism, and racism in Mandate Palestine were wiped in this edit, along with numerous minor changes to bring the article to POV. Please edit surgically, and explain what you edit. I would just revert, but we are already in deep editwar territory.--Carwil (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but you made smaller edits soon after that massive revert so it is hard to fix. Zero^talk 11:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should add that your additions to the article (like the Mandate Palestine paragraph) are excellent. Zero^talk 12:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Carwill/Zero0000, can you explain why you remove the edits (one at a time)? See expalanation below:

1. 1) Pre Mandate Palestine, with noted William Bernard Ziff, Sr. on racism by Bedouins against Fellaheen.
2. 2) Hamas' propaganda found in the notorious antisemitic incident of Ilan Halimi.
3. 3) Ex- Nazi Bonian soldiers came to Palestine (as qtd from B. Morris).
4. 4) Author David Solway on judenrein / Jew-free in Palestine.
5. 5) Noted author (Paul Kuttner) about Hamas' mickey-mouse resembling Nazi Racial hatred.
6. 6) YNet about 'apartheid palestine.'
7. 7) Hamas racism as charged by the Kurds.
8. 8) Peter Hitchens of the Daily Mail on racist graffiti in the territories. (added by another user)
9. 9) Muslim attack on Jews under the Ottomans, by T. Parfitt that it is related to "Muslims xenophia in Palestine."
10. 10) JCPA on Amin al-Husaini that he "mixed the old traditional and the new racial hatred of Jews."
11. 11) One can disagree with the article in WSJ about the roots of the conflict in Mufti (and the like) Judephobia, but it doesn't make it 'invalid.
12. 12) On the racism of terrorists' ideology such as that of Hamas, about "monkey children." as written by noted professor: Martin Edmonds and by Oldřich Cerný who is the Executive Director of the Forum 2000 Foundation, and Director of the Prague Security Studies Institute. Federalostt (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You are just doing a massive trawling exercise, finding every bit of anti-Arab dirt you can locate regardless of its quality and you think it is fine to just dump it all in this crappy article. You don't seem to have the slightest knowledge of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT or other policies. The unsuitability of many of your edits has been explained above or in edit summaries but you pretend to not notice. This is not your private article. Zero^talk 12:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Federalostt, either you don't understand the technical system for editing and reverting or you are being deliberately obtuse. First, since your previous, I haven't removed anything. I have only added and improved material since your last edit. However, both that edit and your current edit combined two things: a massive reversion that deleted numerous improvements to the article and some new additions (in both cases some of those additions were questionable). Zero clearly couldn't be bothered with sorting out the difference and reverted the material, thereby restoring the work that I and others have done. This time, you reverted substantial improvements by both myself and Marokwitz to the article. Again, with no explanation.

So, please:

• Read the policies Zero mentioned
• Make small edits to individual sections
• Do not revert over large stretches of edits unless you are claiming (and justifying) that ALL of those edits are illegitimate
• Never combine a large revert and a new addition; it's extremely annoying to address your new text

Points #4 and 8 are addressed above on talk. Point 11 was presented as an over-generalization that is best addressed by the hundreds of sources on the roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and not by an opinion piece in a newspaper. In my memory (which is limited), other editors have recently described their reasons for removing #3 and #7 in their edit summaries. Why don't you check the history?

Even more bizarrely, you added the Fellaheen material (the translation of fellaheen is peasant, so this material might be inappropriate here, even by the very broad definition of racism used on this page) THIS TIME, so no one has removed it yet.

In my opinion, you need a break from editing here during which you learn how not be disruptive. Zero has mentioned bringing this to the Administrator's Noticeboard on Incidents, which I support unless you can agree to be constructive and stop steamrollering over our work.--Carwil (talk) 13:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone please revert Federalostt's changes. --Frederico1234 (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. The user is a sock of a banned user. All of their edits may be reverted. nableezy - 21:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Good work. --Frederico1234 (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of tags

I am content with all of these tags being removed if Federalostt's unreasonable material is removed. Otherwise, they stay.

• NPOV—A large fraction of the article content consists of accusations made by one side of a major dispute about the other side for the purpose of promoting one side versus the other, but no recognition of this quality is present and only one direction of this propaganda war is presented.
• FACT—Due to the use of very poor sources, even including student term papers, this article contains serious errors of fact, such as the ridiculous claim that Amin al-Husseini visited Auschwitz (a charge not even levied by the propagandists Pearlman or Schechtman in their books about him).
• SYNTHESIS—Material is collected from random places (anything sufficiently anti-Arab will do) and presented together in a transparent attempt to produce an overall impression of Arab racism.
• COATRACK—Although supposedly about racism in the Palestinian territories, this article presents distinct phenomena such as religious intolerance, and describes events that allegedly happened in Europe. The only common theme is Arab-bashing. Zero^talk 13:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of your comments, and already taken some action to remove some of the worst material. Marokwitz (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not do make any changes while Federalostt's disruptive edits are still in the article. Federalostt's changes consisted of a careless mass revert of other peoples changes. A total revert of that mass revert is the only proper response. Unfortunately, I do not know how to do that. --Frederico1234 (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Rename

• Hi, I renamed the article for the following reasons:
  • For consistency with other articles such as Racism and ethnic discrimination in Israel
  • Some of the material in this article documents discrimination on ethnic and non racist grounds, the new names encompasses the article contents more accurately.

Marokwitz (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, now that this has been reverted, I want to point out that Racism by country articles often include a variety of related forms of discrimination (see Racism in the United States). Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're making this article consistent with the exception (the article on Israel). This isn't a very strong feeling, but I don't see the harm in the shorter title, and at least its concise. In general, Israel/Palestine articles are the subject of editwarring, leading to awkward work-arounds ("Palestine" itself has pretty much been vetoed from article titles). The fewer of these we have the better.--Carwil (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is wrong to include non racial ethnic discrimination in an article with the current article, yet these do belong in the article. Not changing the name would undoubtedly result in removal of relevant information. Having the longer title would reduce edit warring and make the name consistent with the title. Including non racial discrimination in an article called "Racism" implies that they are racism. It is a non-neutral title. For now, I'm tagging. Marokwitz (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

What "ethnic discrimination" is not covered by "racism"? nableezy - 21:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

For example, many would disagree that religious discrimination and persecution of Christians is a type of "racism". It is very controversial. It is certainly "ethnic discrimination" but not universally accepted as a form of "racism". People can convert their religion, yet "race" is an immutable property. Some may say that it is "racism" but it is not universally accepted and therefore not neutral to call this "racism". Marokwitz (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Discrimination against Christians is also not "ethnic discrimination" as there is no "Christian ethnicity". It is "religious persecution", but it would not belong in either title. Islam and Christianity are just religions, there is not an equivalent of "racial antisemitism" for Islam or Christianity. nableezy - 21:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Christian Arabs are an Ethnicity. "Arab" is considered by sociologists to be a panethnicity containing many seperate ethnicities. From an encyclopedic utilitarian approach, there is no fundamental difference between antisemitism and the persecution of Christians, so it is beneficial for the article reader to get information about both. Marokwitz (talk) 06:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Friends, please cite sources. This is going to get tedious soon. But at least we should have some factual grounding.

It's not at all clear to me that sectarianism = ethnic discrimination. The Arab panethnicity usually refers to its inclusion of different national groupings, of which Palestinians are one and not two or three. In other contexts (say, Iraq), religious affiliation (I'm thinking Sunna/Shi'a here) is not generally considered to be ethnic, in part based on the extremely high level of intermarriage.

The confusing thing for the Israel/Palestine context is that Jewishness has become a nationality (or a kind of panethnicity itself), so that Palestinian Jews and Arab Jews in general are suddenly "not Arabs" at all. For some, this was obviously always true, while for others (like Ella Shohat) this is a theft of a national heritage and the right to self-determination. It seems overwhelmingly likely that the former is the majority view for Arab Jews, but we need strong, internal sources to claim a separate ethnicity Palestinian Christians.

Finally, maintaining an historical distinction between religious antisemitism and Racial antisemitism is a conventional distinction for scholars in the field, and should provide a historical limit on discussing past antisemitism here. This is not the place for exploring the destruction of the temples etc. On those grounds alone, separating out sectarianism into its own article seems strongly preferrable. It might seem at first to you, Marokwitz, that "It is 'religious persecution', but it would not belong in either title, but this would open up a Pandora's box of Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount/Wailing Wall controversies (and attendant debate about whether these are in Palestinian territories), which facilities close on Friday/Saturday/Sunday in the PA, as well as Cave of the Patriarch issues, etc etc etc. Dumping that issue in the separate space it belongs--Sectarianism in the Palestinian territories, Sectarianism in Mandate Palestine and Sectarianism in Ottoman Palestine, in my opinion--with a "see also" here would make our edting task much easier here, without separating anything that must be considered here. Note that haredim/secular/halakhic law issues are not coming up at racial and ethnic discrimination in Israel either.--Carwil (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not advocating adding religious discrimination, only discrimination based on ethnic group (the Palestinian Christians are a distinct ethnic group in the Palestinian society, not like the haredim/secular in the Israeli society which are of mixed ethnicities). I think that adding an article about sectarianism could make sense if there is sufficient material to create a meaningful article. Otherwise, widening the scope of this article would be helpful in order to avoid losing meaningful content. Marokwitz (talk) 11:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of Palestine by Philip Mattar draws a distinction between Christians and Christian ethnic minorities (who are Ethiopian, Armenian, Russian, Copt, and Syrian Orthodox) on pp. 421-3. It also states on p. 396, "the major statistical division among Palestinians is religious," referring to Christians. I found a less authoritative source in chapter 10 of Studies of Israeli society, Volume 10 By Ernest Krausz, David Glanz, Aaron Antonovsky, that treats Christian and Muslim Palestinians as two separate ethnic groups. So, again, I would suggest that we need strong backing of RSs to claim that ethnicity is the WP:Majority view.

What is currently in the article, however, is discussion of how an Islamist movement has increased pressure on Christians for their religious activities (such as attacks on a Christian bookseller), so how is that not "religious discrimination"? Are there any RSs saying this is based on ethnicity (RSs saying Christian Palestinians are an ethnicity don't answer the question)?

Wikipedia is not paper, and I'm all for a Religious discrimination in Palestine or Discrimination against Christian in Palestine to hold the current material.--Carwil (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

ref removal

i removed this ref in this edit when i found no mention of the content it was supporting. i realized afterwards that the book uses a different variation of one of the many spellings of the subjects name. i was going to readd the ref, but was unable to determine exactly what content was being supported by it before. if anyone can elaborate, feel free to reinsert the source. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The section New Anti-semitism

This section does not belong. The text contains an authors thoughts about so-called "new-antisemitism" but he does not directly link it to the Palestinian territories. This article is not about "new-antisemitism", it's about racism in the Palestinian territories. Please explain why it belongs. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

the article is about many things, and the #1 item addressed is anti-semitism. (see #1) 'new-anti-semitism' is not 'so-called', it is what it is, based on an article by that name and dozens of RS. so, new (or old) anti-semitism is a major part of this article. as for it not directly linking to the palestinian territories, well, he talks mostly about the palestinians. the palestinian territories are made up of mostly palestinians (the largest community of palestinians in the world, by far, live in the palestinian territories). it is directly linked since that is the main subject of the piece. not sure why you would make the comments you did: 'this article is not about new-anti-semitism' - i am sure we all know that it is not about that; 'author's thoughts' - most of the article itself is comprised of "author's thoughts'; etc. Soosim (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

What part covers the Palestinian territories? A direct quote, please. --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the column about racism in the Palestinian territories, you know, the subject of this encyclopedia article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

it is written by a Palestinian, about Palestinian anti-semitism issues. it includes Palestinians who live in the territories. if you read the wiki article itself, you will see that more than half of the material there doesn't mention the territories specifically, but rather, talks about Palestinians and anti-semitism and racism in general. not sure why you (malik, frederico, et al) are so against this? the author is a well respected, credentialed individual whose thoughts are important on this matter. Soosim (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a quote from the article explicitly dealing with anti-semitism in the Palestinian territories. Thank you. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It's time to remove the neutrality tag

It's been up there for the better part of a year. I am making an appeal to common sense that a rough consensus has been reached on the name of the article[28], as well as the general scope and content. I support this claim by noting the talk page and edit history have been relatively quiet, and the article has been fairly stable for the past six months. It is my intent to remove it some time this weekend. Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The tag will stay forever if the article remains in its present disgusting state. Actually I might add some more tags. Zero^talk 15:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not mean to imply the article could not use improvement. May I suggest changing the tag to say "This article has multiple issues" such as Racism_in_Russia or Racism in China? Liberal Classic (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to block your proposal on the repeatedly put out concern that settlers and soldiers are in the Palestinian territories and exhibit racism against Palestinian Arabs, both overtly and through systems of segregation and exclusion. I've sought consensus on talk to include this and haven't reached it. But neither have opponents gained a consensus that it doesn't belong here. Despite some merits for both ways of working, WP divides racism in X articles by geography, but this page is an anomaly to that convention: racism by Jewish Israelis is categorically excluded and that's a problem for NPOV. If you'd care to help mediate a conversation on this, that would be appreciated.--Carwil (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I have timidly added a tag calling for clean-up. POV tag retained per conversation on the talk page. In my opinion, this article and Racism_in_the_Arab_world are both pretty bad. They could probably be merged. The problem as I see it is that there are attitudes of intolerance for ethnic groups as well as for religious groups. There are some places where they overlap, and some places where they don't. The main problem I have with this article is it is as much about religious intolerance as it is about racial intolerance. Its strays from its scope. Liberal Classic (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Strike this section. I am going to boldly revert my own tag change. Liberal Classic (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree this article should be merged with other similar articles and renamed to something like "Antisemitism in the Arab World" - there should be an article for that, but the title of this article is misleading, and its hard to believe that its creator was not aware that this would be a troll article. I fully support cleaning it up. It is disgusting and offensive in its present state. Seraphimsystem (talk) 06:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Propose this article be merged into Racism_in_the_Arab_world

Before this becomes another dramalanche, let me say that I think that if you remove sections on Holocaust-denial, anti-Zionism, and anti-Christian violence you don't really have much of an article left. The section on racism towards Africans is appropriate, but that could easily be merged into Racism_in_the_Arab_world. The rest should go to Antisemitism_in_the_Arab_world. For what it's worth, I agree with the description of this article being a coatrack. The individual facts are sourced reliably. No one objects to reporting that the Hamas charter refers to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and no one disagrees that Palestinian Christians face persecution. However, in my opinion these are examples of religious intolerance not racial bigotry. Generally speaking, I'm a bit of a deletionist. I propose this article be merged. Liberal Classic (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable suggestion. I don't think there's anything unique about antisemitism or racism in the Occupied Territories. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this. Seraphimsystem (talk) 06:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletions

Notes on two deletions I made from this appalling article. (1) Section "Killing Jews for being Jews" - Title is offensive, text consisted mostly of a diatribe by lawyer activist Dershowitz who is famous for his intemperate outbursts, and a claim by the Israeli military. Fails WP:RS, Dershowitz is not a reliable source. Fails WP:NPOV, there was not even one syllable of any other opinion present. (2) Story of a Palestinian allegedly murdered for engaging in Christian missionary work. This has nothing to do with the subject of the page, religious intolerance is not racism by any definition of the word. Also fails WP:WEIGHT. Zero^talk 23:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Zero, I would generally agree these are incidents of religious intolerance, not incidents of racial or ethnic intolerance. Do you have an opinion on folding well-sourced and notable facts from this article into Racism_in_the_Arab_world and Antisemitism_in_the_Arab_world? Malik above agrees that there is nothing unique about racism or antisemitism in the West Bank and Gaza that justifies its own article here. Note that this is not an endorsement of Racism_in_the_Arab_world as it could really use improvement, too. This article is so much about anti-semitism that it could be renamed "Antisemitism in the Palestinian territories. However, Malik's point still stands that there is nothing unique about intolerance towards Jews in the Palestinian territories that differentiates itself from antisemitism in other parts of the Arab world. So, why is this article here except to link negative articles about the Palestinians? That's the definition of a coatrack, is it not? Liberal Classic (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

History??

I thought Palestinian territories didn't exist before 1949?

Racism in historic Palestine could have happened in Haifa or Ramallah (often the sources aren't specific). So should it be included here or in Racism in Israel?

Furthermore, if there is racism in "Palestine" during the time of the Israelites (say against Caanites or Midianites), should that be included here or in Racism in Israel?

Let's keep this to racism in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem only.Wheatsing (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

One clear example is this: the article says "Black slaves were owned by Bedouin in the Negev..."

Since when is the Negev part of the Palestinian territories? Again, lets keep this limited to the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem only.Wheatsing (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian territories didn't exist pre-Mandate when Ottomans ruled. Palestinians territories didn't exist pre-Israel when British ruled. Palestinian territories didn't exist in 1949 when State of Israel was established. Palestinian territories didn't exist in 1949-1967 when Jordanians and Egyptians ruled. Palestinian territories didn't exist in 1964 when PLO was founded. Palestinian territories was created in 1988.85.99.240.253 (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

RE: Racism during times of slavery

this entire section is ridiculous and should be removed.

what happened during the rule of the Ottomans and the British, and what Nomadic Bedouin did in the Negev and the Sinai has nothing to do with modern Palestinians, their leadership or their culture, and it is absurd and intellectually dishonest to claim or imply otherwise.

--Savakk (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)Savakk

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Marriage in the Palestinian territories which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

could this article please state its scope? Is it about the Palestinian territories specifically, or does it include the history of the Ottoman Empire and the British mandate of Palestine? Is there any monograph that would establish this as a bona fide encyclopedic topic (as opposed to agenda-driven WP:SYNTH)? Establishing what the article is about, and establishing that the proposed scope is identifiable in secondary sources would be the very first step before starting to write the article even in cases not as blatantly pov-prone as this.

be honest, was "Racism in the Palestinian territories" the result of a competiton "come up with the worst humanly possible drama-magnet title for a Wikipedia page"? --dab (𒁳) 11:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 5 June 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved DrStrauss talk 20:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Racism in the Palestinian territories → Antisemitism in the Palestinian territories – This article is largely about antisemitsm in the Palestinian territories, with the exception of one cartoon about Condoleeza Rice, which can be merged into another article, such as Racism in the Arab world. All of our articles on this subject are named "Antisemitism in X" Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. —Guanaco 23:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed title could be problematic (or just plain wrong by some estimations) since Palestinians and all other Arabs are Semites. Ribbet32 (talk) 08:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I had a longer comment, but reviewing the page content makes this simple — reviewing the sources the article currently uses "Antisemitism" is supported. Most of the article is already under the subheading "Antisemitism in Palestine" —In fact the sources are, on the whole, exclusively about anti-semitism. The majority of sources used in the article use the term "antisemitism" not "racism" and the title should follow from that. Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The current sources are explicitly about anti-semitism because this page has major WP:NPOV issues. Thus the NPOV tag. If the scope of the article is to be racism in the "territories" (State of Palestine is the naming convention at the moment anyway) then it is currently giving WP:UNDUE weight to antisemitism and needs far more on the anti-Arab racist violence of settlers, as well as the limited examples ethnic/sectarian violence between Muslim and Christian Palestinians, and that directed against Palestinians of African descent, especially the minority community in the old city of Jerusalem, for example. The current reputable academic sources are a broad swathe that talk about the Mufti of Jerusalem and the Nazis, and then there's a whole swathe of news articles that are basically quoting the allegations of Israeli politicians, that should be used to flesh out encyclopedic content, not act as the main sources.TrickyH (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support renaming. To the first objection, I would point out that the word antisemitism has one meaning: Jew-hatred. (You can look it up if you don't believe me.) Anybody who tells you it has something to do with Semites is either confused or lying. With respect to the second, in a perfect world, an NPOV article about racism in Palestine or the Palestinian territories could be written that would include racist acts committed by Israeli citizens who have been settled in the Palestinian territories. In this world, it hasn't happened in the seven years since this article's creation and it ain't gonna happen. (For an interesting historical tidbit that, in my opinion, indicates why this article's title is intentionally deceptive, look at its first incarnation, which like today's version was about antisemitism with a fine sprinkling of antiblack racism to give it cover. It was created by an SPA who edited for one week, almost exclusively at Racism in Israel, which she/he tried to gut by deleting instances of racism by Jews and the government and giving prominence to an opinion poll that found that Israelis hold anti-Arab feelings, and this article about Palestinian antisemitism.) Let's call it what it is: Antisemitism in Palestine, and put it in the Category:Antisemitism by country category in which it belongs. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Are we living in different worlds? There are around 750,000 Israeli citizens settled in the West Bank and groups of them routinely graffiti "death to Arabs' or firebomb Arab houses and murder entire families. Of course, their violence is partially politically motivated, but you can say the same thing about any current examples of "antisemitism" or violence or bigotry against Jewish people that occurs in Palestine.TrickyH (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

We live on opposite sides of the world, TrickyH, but trust me, we both live in the same world. I'm very well aware of the racism practiced by individual Israeli colonists and by Israeli institutions in the Palestinian territories. I support moving this article because it's not what it purports to be: it's an article about antisemitism that's called an article about racism. If somebody would like to step up to fix this article or write a new one that documents racism in the Palestinian territories, with the balance and proportion required by NPOV, I would give her or him a barnstar. Until then, there's no reason for "Racism in the Palestinian territories" to be a blue link. It should be a red link, because there is no such article on Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I've lived on many sides of the world in my time, including the West Bank. But that's by the by. I'm certainly interested in being part of an effort to turn this WP:attack page into something that meets WP:NPOV, although given it's such a heated topic, I doubt that is going to be a smooth or quick process... TrickyH (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose move: the current title is comprehensive, and works fine. There is no need to make it over-precise and potentially a controversial title. 182.188.224.155 (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose a better solution is more discussion of racism against non-Jews in Palestine, especially against blacks and possibly if there are sources, the Nawars in Jerusalem. In general there is not enough discussion on racism not on the Jewish/Arab axis in either Israel or Palestine. --Yalens (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Here are some sources that could jumpstart further expansion on discussion of racism against black and African-descended residents of the Palestinian territories : [[29]][[30]][[31]]--Yalens (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• The preferred option would be to delete this WP:attack page, but since that wouldn't be successful, opposing the name change is the next best option. The main problem with the article is the almost total absence of racism against Arabs, which is a fundamental principle of the occupation. Zero^talk 01:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Zero, please see my reply to TrickyH above. "Racism in the Palestinian territories" should be a red link until Wikipedia has an article about the subject. I think you agree we don't have one at present, and I believe that's an argument for moving the article to a name that's more descriptive of its contents. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Since when is "Antisemitism in X" an "overly precise article title" — if it's overly precise why do we have so many articles with that title? We have Anti-semitism in the United States yet there is racism against blacks and other minorities in America too— Another option I see from reviewing our existing articles would be to normalize this page by keeping it as a broad overview and creating more specific articles, like "Anti-Palestinian sentiment" — following the example from our other "Racism in..." articles, while Anti-semitism in better represented in terms of country specific articles then racism against other nationalities, this is something that can be improved, in general — though it is unusual that no "Antisemitism in Palestine" page exists. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Is it not possible to also have an "Antisemitism in Palestine" page while also not moving and likely deleting the info of racism against other groups in the area? That topic is also notable and just because it is often lacking across Wikipedia (in general there is inadequate coverage of systematic sentiments against Roma and African-descended populations across areas of the Middle East and Europe) doesn't mean what info we have hear, and what info it could be expanded with, should be cut away by essentially deleting the page about the local racisms that don't target Jews. I.e. we could leave this page as including a summarized version of the anti-Semitic racism with a link to a new main page, a hopefully expanded section on racism against blacks, and the stuff about settlers.--Yalens (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Definitely, it is possible. In fact, I checked other "Racism in X" articles for examples, and they are mostly broad overviews, and do link to more specific articles. If this article is able to be developed (which will not be easy), some of the content from this article could be merged to "Antisemitism in Palestine" if such an article is created in the future. As it is, it is disturbing that this is the only kind of racism discussed in a longstanding article that should be an overview. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

In that case I would agree to support a split, not move. By the way, here's an article on the situation of the marginalized Nawari people in Palestine : [[32]] --Yalens (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - as content can be added to the article regarding other acts of bigotry - for instance the persecution of Christians - [33] [34] [35].Icewhiz (talk) 07:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Why would the persecution of Christians belong in an article about racism? Are the Christians a different race? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

You have a point (though I will note, to a certain extent, that some Christian communities in the holy land do have an associated racial/ethnic component (be it Greek Orthodox, Maronite, Armenian, etc.)) - it should be a separate article as their persecution is typically not on racial grounds.Icewhiz (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 3 August 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. It might be worthwhile to open a new RM for Racism in Palestine, which would be more concise and sidestep the discussion about accuracy here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

---

Racism in the Palestinian territories → Racism in the State of Palestine – In line with the commonname State of Palestine and consequent to previous cases such as talk:Economy of the State of Palestine#Requested_move_14_February_2016 GreyShark (dibra) 08:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. The Duke of Nonsense^{What is necessary for thee?} 18:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. The common name is actually simply "Palestine". I support move to Racism in Palestine. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - the move of things in Palestinian territories to in the State of Palestine across a range of articles is in my view mistaken. The State of Palestine is currently a legal entity, it is not a place. The Palestinian territories is what the legal entity Palestine claims as its sovereign territory. But I am as of yet still unaware of any source referring to such a state as a place. I would support a move back to Palestinian territories for a whole range of articles. But this article is dealing with racism in a defined place, the territories of Mandate Palestine that Israel has occupied since 1967. That is not a place that sources say is in a state called Palestine. nableezy - 19:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes you are really surprising me with your statements. You are saying that you are unaware of any source referring to such a state as place? Why don't you take a look at those:

The status of environment in the state of Palestine (ResearchGate 2015)

Finding a way to school in the State of Palestine (UNICEF 2018)

What the World Food Programme is doing in the State of Palestine (World Food Program 2018)

"There are currently 60 UN Volunteers in the State of Palestine, 26 are women." (UN Volunteers 2017)

"Minister for Women’s Affairs of the State of Palestine, introducing the report, said that in the State of Palestine, the rights of women were affirmed in the Palestinian Independence Declaration and reflected in laws, policies and the gender equality strategy." (UN Human Rights 2018)

Risk factors for vitamin A and D deficiencies among children under-five in the state of Palestine (Conflict and Health 2018)

Thanks.GreyShark (dibra) 05:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Duke of Nonsense^{What is necessary for thee?} 18:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Having implemented Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_July_9#Palestinian_territories and some similar sets before it, I believe there is currently sufficient consensus to use the name "State of Palestine" within the hierarchies of topics by country, unless the content is all pre–2013. – Fayenatic London 21:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - for more opinions, I would like to ask for participants of previous related discussions @Qualitatis, 70.51.46.39, AusLondonder, and Oncenawhile: (Economy of the State of Palestine) and @Marcocapelle, Fayenatic london, Carlossuarez46, Place Clichy, Laurel Lodged, Peterkingiron, and Black Falcon: (Palestinian territories categories) to comment.GreyShark (dibra) 12:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• With a small change in the structure of the article (by simply removing the section title "Background" in the beginning) the article covers the Mandatory Palestine period, the Palestinian Territories period and the State of Palestine period. In that respect an article title containing "in Palestina (region)" or even "by the Palestinian people" may be appropriate. More urgent in my opinion is the fact that the article does not cover racism in general but instead it mainly focuses on anti-Jewish sentiment with very little attention to other types of racism. The best article title I can think of for this article is Anti-Jewish sentiment by the Palestinian people. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose -- The article refers to the whole of what was Mandate Palestine (i.e. the present Israel + State of Palestine), going back to 1930s. The CFD discussion accepted the use of "State of Palestine" only for the period since 1913. The appropriate name would be Racial conflict in Palestine. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Commons practice on Wikipedia for articles covering a topic on an area that has changed name over time (which happens to be the case for each and every tract of land on this planet) is to use the current name of the country or tract of land. E.g. History of Germany is a valid name for an article covering all periods of the history of Germany long before its unification in 1871, while the user of any previous historical name (e.g. Holy Roman Empire or Germania) would restrict the scope of the article to a certain period and be anachronistic for a period-less article. "State of Palestine" is the current name, recognised by most international institutions, for "the territories of Mandate Palestine that Israel has occupied since 1967", as put by a previous user, and has been so since approx. 2013. For those who doubt it, think for a second that no other country is stating a claim on this land, not even Israel, except for East Jerusalem which is a rather small part of it. Therefore, using Palestinian territories is anachronistic, while State of Palestine is not, and does not break neutrality either. Place Clichy (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nom and Fayenatic. This seems to be the accepted nomenclature now.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose So-called "State of Palestine" was declared in 1988, while racism in the Palestinian territories existed before.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

There were no Palestinian territories until 1999 in UN designation. In the 1980s those were Israeli Civil Administration areas.GreyShark (dibra) 07:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Unacceptable edits by Yallayallaletsgo

I am reverting a lot of stuff added by Yallayallaletsgo since it is difficult to find anything of use in it. Among gems (this is just a sample):

• "slavery was outlawed with the establishment of Israel in 1948", sourced to a blog on an advocacy web site. Actually slavery was outlawed in the late Ottoman Empire (the last known slave in Jerusalem was owned by a Jewish family). Under the British, of course, slavery was 100% illegal. That doesn't mean slavery didn't exist; by some definitions it exists in Israel today too. The other source given doesn't mention Palestine.
• an image of a "Nazi salute" copied from that well-known source of truth WikiIslam which of course gives no source at all. To see how Palestinian Security Forces actually salute, see here and it isn't hard to find more examples.
• Characterisation of vandalism as anti-semitism, ignoring the political aspect. Despite two references to Settler News being provided, neither calls the actions anti-semitic.
• "restricted freedom of movement of all people" = an unsourced lie

Zero^talk 01:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Flagrant vandalism by Zero0000

User: Zero0000 removed over 5000 characters of information with other a dozen references and citations and numerous relevant images and news sources. Everything I posted is of use. I reverted your vandalism as it was abhorrent and not in the interest of readers. Everything I added was sourced, much of it was referenced by non-Israeli sources including GulfNews, Reuters and others.

Regarding your questions:

• Source is not a blog or advocacy website, it is a legitimate website which foscusss on research, historical matters, etc. I can find several other references to back this up as well. Slavery continued in The Ottoman Empire long after you described, and in some areas it continued long after the Ottoman Empire collapsed, including in the Palestinian Territories. As someone who has extensively studied the region, most especially Jerusalem, I have never heard of any Jewish families owning slaves there or in Israel or pre-state Israel, I do not believe that is true. If you can provide a reputable reference for that then you can add that to the relevant article.

• It is an image of a Nazi Salute, the image is used by other less-controversial sources too. However as you can see they are Palestinian Security Forces soldiers and this photo captures the Nazi Salute that they performed in the photo. I did not claim that it is the Salute they always perform, but they clearly have done it on occasion and the photo deserves to be in the article as this deals with antisemitism and other forms of racism in the Palestinian Territories.

• If it was vandalism of a secular Israeli building, it may not be antisemitism. However, when Jewish religious and ancient archeological sites are vandalized and destroyed, and they are destroyed solely because they are/were Jewish, then of course it is anrisemitism and this is irrefutable. I will add more references for it if you’d like.

• It was unsourced, however I will add a reference for that immediately. Jewish people/Israeli’s are not allowed to enter the vast majority of Hebron, nor are they allowed to enter 40% of the West Bank, nor Gaza. This freedom of movement of all people is restricted, just as it is for Palestinians in the Jewish area of Hebron.

Please do not removed heavily referenced information from an article in the future, it is not in the interests of Wikipedia nor the public. If you do not agree with the referenced content of the article and would like to add different relevant references or information, then you are welcome to. Yallayallaletsgo (talk) 10:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Your additions are appalling and cannot stand. This is not the Bash Arabs page, you have to make that one on your own server. And learn something about source quality for heaven's sake. Zero^talk 14:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

From an earlier version of the page:

==Slavery in Ottoman Palestine==

Chattel slavery in the Ottoman Palestine included both black Africans and people of other ethnicities, many of whom circulated through the Arab slave trade. Nineteenth-century travelers accounts tell of being served by black eunuch slaves. The trade was suppressed in the Ottoman Empire beginning in the mid-19th century, and slavery was legally abolished in 1887 or 1888. Late 19th-century slaves in Palestine included enslaved Africans and the sold daughters of poor Palestinian peasants. Both Arabs and Jews owned slaves. British mandate officials reported no chattel slavery in mandate Palestine as of 1924.

References

Again, you did not answer my questions. However, I have answered yours even though I am under no obligation to do so. There is no way to verify the information you mentioned regarding slavery, as someone would have to go and purchase the books aforementioned, and arrive to the cited page and make a determination as to whether these books truly say that. Regardless the section in question was removed for a reason. I am not bashing Arabs, I have not said anything derogatory towards Arabs. I am sorry that racism exists in the Palestinian Territories, and I am sorry that 93% of people in the West Bank and Gaza are antisemitic and I am sorry that many Afro-Palestinians are discriminated against and are victims of police brutality and institutionalized racism due to structures of power in the Palestinian government which appear to be biased against minorities and people of color.

My edits are not appalling, they have greatly expanded upon this article, and I have contributed several dozen reputable, relevant, reliable references from such sources as NPR, Reuters, Haaretz, Yale University, Al Jazeera, Gulf News, The Jerusalem Post, The Times of Israel, etc. I understand you have a different, and likely pro-Palestinian POV. I have a neutral POV, I am just adding the truth, which I have references for everything I added. I added more references than I have for any article I’ve ever done before, including the many notable articles I’ve created. I have never had anyone vandalize a page in such a way before. If you think what I Added is false, then you can try to disprove the many citations I added. If you would like to add something new or different, that’s ok. By deleting the majority of the page and vandalizing it is abhorrent and I believe this constitutes vandalism.

Also you have not been able to refute any of the points I’ve made and that is because they are true and I have proven it with the wealth of references i have provided. Yallayallaletsgo (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

This is nonsense, and is eerily familiar to some older accounts. Just to start with, the Palestinian territories did not exist in the 1940s, making that image totally irrelevant here. Reverted, again. nableezy - 16:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

"someone would have to go and purchase the books aforementioned" — read WP:SOURCEACCESS. If you aren't willing to put in the effort needed to gain access to the sources needed for good editing, then don't edit. Incidentally th e first source seems a poor match to the claim. It is a late 19-th century retelling of a story about Jazzar Pasha. Zero^talk 05:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

from the start

1. Zero already noted that slavery was not outlawed with the establishment of Israel, but regardless Zionism-Israel.com is not a reliable source
2. JCPA does not once contain any variant of the word Palestine, hell it does not even contain "pale".
3. Palestinian vandalism of ancient synagogues and Jewish archeological sites is sourced almost entirely to Arutz Sheva, an unreliable source
4. The antisemitic hate symbol of the swastika, has been used in the Palestinian territories since 1941 uh the Palestinian territories did not exist in 1941.
5. Red Crescent material is OR, taking accusations that the Israeli government has made, and the Red Crescent has denied, as fact and saying such things asThus it appears the Palestinian Red Crescent violated Red Cross protocol by refusing to treat patients because they were Jews. The sourcing does not in any way support that
6. Antisemitism in the Palestinian Red Crescent - none of the sources support that section or relate the material to racism in the Palestinian territories

There are also several subtle changes of the text, such as changing In Hebron, the Israeli Army has responded to violence between Israeli settlers and Palestinians by restricting the latter's freedom of movement in the central city. to In Hebron, the Israeli Army has responded to both violence against Jews by the Palestinians (in the wake of the 1929 Hebron massacre as well as many other attacks in the First and Second Intifadas), as well as the Hebron shooting incident, and has restricted freedom of movement of all people in the second holiest city to the Jews. That is blatantly dishonest. This reminds me of the Toothie3 socks at Pan-Arabism a while back actually. nableezy - 16:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I have references for the Slavery point which discuss it in Palestine specifically. JCPA mentions the Arab World, it does not say the Palestinians did not have slaves. Slavery in Palestine is well documented, and is the main reason why there are Afro-Palestinians and is why most of their neighborhoods are called al-Abeed and Habs al-Abeed. Also I have included Gulf News, Reuters and other sources that mention Palestinian Slavery.

How is it Arutz Sheba unreliable exactly? Regardless these articles I have sourced from them have photographic evidence, and Jews are forbidden access to these sites except for times when they are escorted by IDF and PA soldiers, and several on the Palestinian vandals were caught and the graffiti was in Arabic so there is no doubt that this was the result of Palestinian vandals. You are rasping st straws.

I should have put, and will change it to, the area of the territories.

The source is not blacklisted, just because you say that is unreliable does not mean it is. Regardless I have included many, many more reliable sources than the few you have questioned. This article is not worthy of deleting the vast majority of it for no reason when there is no issue with the vast majority of it.

The Red Crescent is not OR, I have numerous sources for it and two of the victims themselves (the only living son of the murdered Rabbi, and the rabbis wife), claimed that is what happened. I did not see anything disproving it from the government or some outside observer, and you have not proved anything on that level.

Yes the sourcing does support what I said, the victim himself said the ambulance turned away because they were Jews.

Yes the sources do support that section, I directly quoted the martyr line from the press release from the Red Crescent themselves.

That was the only subtle change I made, but it is true because Jewish people/Israelis are not allowed to enter the majority of Hebron nor Area A or B. Hebron is set up that way as there was a lot of violence against the Jews there such as the Hebron massacre, the intifada, also the Hebron shooting. While on the Palestinian side there was the Cave of the Patriachs massacre, etc. It is not false to point out the truth, which is that both Israelis and Palestinians are forbidden from entering certain places. A Palestinian can get a permit to visit Jerusalem or Tel Aviv, but an Israeli is forbidden from entering Ramallah or most of Hebron. Yallayallaletsgo (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

You are required to use reliable secondary sources that directly support the material you insert. You may not try to prove a case, or worse present it as proven, based on what you think the evidence is. Beyond that, there are several straight up distortions in your edits. Continuing to do that will be reported. If you would like to edit productively in this topic area then you should start with reading WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:OR. If you however wish to repeat edits like this you will I think find your time limited here. nableezy - 18:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Rebuttal

I do not appreciate what you are implying. This is my only account, I have not edited this article before yesterday. I have never read the article pan-Arabism, and I have no interest in that subject. he article deals with the history of racism in the Palestinian Territories, as there is a section where racism in the days of the British mandate is discussed. If you feel the image is irrelevant, then remove the image but do not delete at this point 30,000 characters of information with over 50 sources that are reputable and relevant to the article. Yallayallaletsgo (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I deleted a number of poorly sourced or not sourced at all edits, as well as edits that blatantly distorted the source and completely flipped the text without changing any source at all. The line on all people are restricted in Hebron is a special type of silly, for the record. nableezy - 16:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn’t even make one edit where that was the case, everything was according to each source and everything very closely followed the source material. Stop disrupting the facts and deleting sourced information for no reason other than it does not suit your POV. Yallayallaletsgo (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, so you did not create a section where you write the Palestinian Red Crescent has organized several events at their headquarters for the BDS movement, which has been declared to be an antisemitic organization by many international organizations, including the ADL, as well as by the governments of Germany and at least 27 U.S. states. sourced to nothing at all, and then added material on a cancelled event sourced to this which never once use the words anti semite or semitism. Or you did not, while claiming to fix typo, clean up, change In Hebron, the Israeli Army has responded to violence between Israeli settlers and Palestinians by restricting the latter's freedom of movement in the central city. to In Hebron, the Israeli Army has responded to both violence against Jews by the Palestinians (in the wake of the 1929 Hebron massacre as well as many other attacks in the First and Second Intifadas), as well as the Hebron shooting incident, and has restricted freedom of movement of all people in the second holiest city to the Jews.? Where was the typo you fixed there exactly? nableezy - 18:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The version repeatedly (again on Sept.28th) recreated by Yallayallaletsgo is questionable from an NPOV standpoint, particularly given the language and allegations in the referenced sites. There is no consensus for these changes from what I can observe. I will further note that this picture

File:PalestinianAuthorityNaziSalute.jpg

Palestinian National Security Forces (a division of the Palestinian Authority) soldiers performing the Nazi salute as part of their training exercises.

Yallayallaletsgo has been reintroducing is especially problematic.GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The intentional implication that Palestinian forces are Nazis is absolutely unacceptable. Zero^talk 02:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

YYLG seems incapable of accurate editing. Consider this edit that claims "according to several independent international studies" but both sources refer to the same study commissioned by the ADL. Zero^talk 03:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

And the next edit changed "There is a broad international consensus" to "There is a consensus among many members" without a source for such a weak version. Actually the truth is "overwhelming international consensus" so "broad" is already an unnecessary compromise and the source states it plainly: "Settlement building in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under international law - although Israel disputes this." Zero^talk 03:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The next edit introduces a large amount of material without any source at all or sources that don't mention the subject, such as this amazing example which is entirely about Arab Americans. Zero^talk 04:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racism_in_the_Palestinian_territories&diff=next&oldid=918443629 Original research, source doesn't mention Hebron, anyway this is purely gratuitous. Zero^talk 10:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

[36] YYLG thinks "focussed on Palestinian human rights" is an insult. Zero^talk 10:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racism_in_the_Palestinian_territories&diff=next&oldid=918444601 Here expands "The United States has long accused the United Nations of anti-Israel bias" from the source into "The United Nations has been accused of having an anti-Israel, or antisemitic bias against Israel by numerous political officials, non-governmental organizations, religious officials, and governments including by the United States". Zero^talk 10:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Everything I Added has reputable references. Find a reference for that image that proves it is not Palestinian soldiers performing a Nazi Salute. I did not say the Palestinians are Nazis, but it is obviously a Bazi Salute. I did not add this image to Wikipedia, it has been on here for years and has been omitted from this article because of a clear pro-Palestinian bias by many editors of this article. If I am to be unjustly and falsely accused of not being of a neutral point of view, then how are we not talking about the fact that Nableezy, who has continuously deleted tens of thousands of characters from this page without any justification, has stated on their page they they “support the right of armed groups to violently resist occupation”, clearly referring to (Redacted). How is this tolerated, but I am attacked for no clear reason?

Also, I will provide further references concerning my claim the U.N. has been accused of an anti-Israel bias by NGO’s, other countries than the US, etc. But anyone with background information if this will surely know that groups from all the categories I mentioned have claimed an anti-Israel bias in the U.N. Yallayallaletsgo (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Reverting again, the problems laid out above still show that Yallayallaletsgo is distorting several sources and using several other unreliable ones. The claim that several independent studies show something, sourced to one ADL report, the claim that the international community's view on the settlements is "POV", the addition of entirely unsourced paragraphs, and the addition of several harvard citations with no corresponding reference to verify it all show that these edits have degraded the quality of the article. nableezy - 15:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing By SharabSalam

There appears to be an edit war here. My edits keep getting reverted without proper justification by individuals who appear to be offended by the content of the article, and remove the reliably sourced information I and others have added without even discussing it beforehand. The user SharabSalam reverted my constructive edits which have greatly enhanced the quality of the page for no reason, and have an explanation as being because they could see no consensus on the talk page.

To SharabSalam, it appears you misunderstood what I said when I referenced consensus in my edit summary. I understand English may not be your first langauge, so this may explain the discrepancy. When I was referring to consensus in my revert edit summary, I was referring to the fact that there had not been a consensus for the revert that the user Nableezy performed. I did not claim that there was consensus for my revert, rather I was claiming that there was not a consensus for a revert to be done in the first place (I reverted the page back to what the user RodW, and also Zero0000 had last edited, because it had reverted by the aforementioned user. Due to the 1RR rule I am unable to revert the article back to the state it was in after edits by several editors, including myself. After the 24 hour period is up, I intend on reverting the article. If other editors would like the article to be improved, referenced more, more content added, etc, I would be happy to oblige and I would like this article to be edited constructively as I and others have done here.

In my opinion, it appears the article was disruptively edited by SharabSalam, I understand that perhaps this was not your intention but it was very disappointing and will make it more difficult to provide the most detailed, factual information to users of Wikipedia for this particular article. Yallayallaletsgo (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

You repeatedly attempt to add material, much of it in violation of key policies, against at least four editors who are not convinced by it. That is not an edit war, but one editor (you) acting against consensus. Promising to keep reverting, as you just did, makes it worse. What you should do in the face of overwhelming opposition is to present suggested text a little at a time on this talk page, along with the sources you plan to use. Then you can insert into the article whatever text gains a consensus here. Your biggest problems are WP:NPOV (every single thing you have tried to add is anti-Arab; where is the reply to the charges from the Palestinian side?) and WP:NOR (the rules don't care if you think something is racist; only what is in reliable sources counts). You also have a problem with WP:WEIGHT, for example a few words in an obscure magazine decades ago don't have a good case for inclusion. Zero^talk 00:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

You already violated the 1RR, and if you revert again absent a consensus you will be reported. Please read and internalize WP:ONUS, particularly the quote The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content.. Thank you for your cooperation. nableezy - 15:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

To Zero, I would greatly appreciate it if you could point out what obscure magazine from decades ago I cited? I do not recall using any references of that sort. Almost all my references are from sources listed as reliable sources on Wikipedia. A few are not listed, but they are still from various news websites, etc such as Gulf News, the Jerusalem Post, etc. but I have mostly quoted Reuters, AP, and also Pew Research Center, etc. I have added the smallest amount of text possible, this is less than one tenth of my initial revision. I have not seen at least for editors who are against it. There is only Nableezy and you, even though you edited the revision I made and did not revert it. SharabSalam I assume may be against it, but this is not clear because they said I need to seek consensus. Of course there will not be a consensus for pointing out the racism in the Palestinian Territories, if the editors in question are biased, which several f them appear to be. I am not saying you are biased, but there are others who appear to be. That is not my point however. I have little time to post the whole revision I made, (over 40,000 additional characters from the OG one. I added dozens of references, it is not feasible to list each one here. I would be happy to work with you guys on this, however I think the easiest thing to do due to the nature of the situation would be to revert and then whatever you/or others find objectionable or think needs work, tag it and then we can discuss it or remove it or improve it, etc. The vast majority of the content I have added it non-controversial and it should be in this article. As per your request I will add smaller amounts of it to the article over time, we can discuss it and come to a consensus. The first section I will add will be the section regarding the two studies done on the prevalence of antisemitism in the Palestinian Territories, one is by Pew Research Center, and the other is by the ADL. I hope you will find this to be acceptable.

Also, every single thing I have tried to add is not anti-Arab. Unfortunate racism exists in the Palestinian Territories, which is what this article deals with. The vast majority of Palestinians and also the residents of the Palestinian Territories, are Arabs. So unfortunately this article has/will/does mainly deal with racism among the Arab Palestinians towards Jews and Afro-Palestinians, among others. I apologize for any offense it may have caused you or others. Furthermore, is it anti-White for the page Racism in the United States to point out racism by White people against African Americans? Is it antisemitic for the page Racism in Israel to talk about racism by Israelis against Arabs? As far as I am aware, the actions of racist Palestinian individuals and organizations are allowed to be documented on Wikipedia with proper references? I was also not aware of the reply to the charges by the Palestinian side? Is this required for pages dealing with racism, for the racist party to respond to the charges by their victims m? If that is the case, then should we also allow the Nazis to respond to their victims charges of antisemitism? Should we allow supporters of apartheid respond to their victims charges of racism? Thank you for informing me of this policy! Yallayallaletsgo (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, please read and internalize WP:ONUS. I have kept the one usable thing in your edit, the ToI link to a 2014 ADL survey. The Pew report does not make the explicit point you are intent on making. And in any event, anti-Jewish feelings by those occupied by the self-declared Jewish state may or may have nothing to do with racism. nableezy - 20:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I apologize for my mistake. The Pew report does state that it is the country with the second-most least favorable views of Jewish people in the Middle East, according to the survey if you look at the survey data. The ADL study does say the Palestinian Territories is the most antisemitic area of the world, according to their research. I will not revert it, but with your permission I would like to re-add the Pew citation and rephrase their findings to your liking. Yallayallaletsgo (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, the anti-Jewish feelings are relevant to the article, because having an anti-Jewish, or anti-Black outlook can be considered a form of antisemitism/racism.Yallayallaletsgo (talk)|

Also the ADL survey is about antisemitism, I will get the link to the survey data itself. It is not just about anti-Jewish feelings. The respondents were asked questions regarding belief in the Holocaust, and anrisemitic canards such as do Jews control the world? Etc. Also it shouldn’t be with the PA section it should be in its own section.

Aligning This Article with Fellow Articles About Racism

If you look at other similar articles concerning racism, such as Racism in Israel, or Racism in the United States, you can see that they have a very different, and also better and note appealing format to their article structure. I think it would be beneficial for this article to bring it in line with these articles in some ways, such as the opening statement, the names of the different sections (for example simply the section names and also have a section called: Incidents, etc), and the structure of the article overall. Yallayallaletsgo (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Neither Israel nor the United States are occupied. Racism in both concerns minorities, guaranteed equal rights by their sovereign nations, who are nonetheless subject to discrimination or prejudice. Palestinians constitute a majority whose rights, property and liberties are under constant attack by an intrusive ethnic minority with no sovereign rights to the land they are occupying manu militari. The analogy is stupid.Nishidani (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Occupation does not have a bearing on the subject, I believe. Are the Afro-Palestinians an intrusive ethnic minority with no sovereign rights to the land? I don’t believe so. If you are referring to Jews, well this article is not about what the final status of the area of the West Bank or Judea and Samaria will be. This article is about racism in the Palestinian Territories, this is not about the abuses the Palestinians feel they face, there are dozens of articles about that and that is not the topic of discussion.

Actually I did not even mean for this be controversial, I just think it would be better to change the formatting, section titles, etc, to be in line with other racism articles. The analogy is not stupid. The Gaza Strip, and the majority of the West Bank have independent, autonomous governments (especially Gaza), that frequently espouse racist views and have enacted racist policies, as this article clearly states. The only difference in my view, between racism in the United States and Israel, and racism in the Palestinian Territories is that there is also state-sponsored institutional racism by Hamas and the PA (I am not aware of racist incitement as the United States or Israeli government policy), and according to studies (Pew Research Center, 2010), (ADL, 2014), racism appears to be much more widespread among the Palestinian populace, than among the populace of the United States or Israel. Therefore, I would say these circumstances make the aligbekebt with the other articles even more necessary. Yallayallaletsgo (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

This article is about getting into Wikipedia the insinuation that Palestinian resistance to the usurpation of their lands by people of Jewish extraction is ipso facto anti-Semitic, and that the only way to not be anti-Semitic in this context is to embrace with open arms or nice smiles the thieves that enter your house, not only because they are armed to the teeth. The use of the word 'Afro-Palestinians' is evidence enough you have a racist agenda.Nishidani (talk) 07:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Someone with a clear bias against the victims of the racism described by this article, should not be editing this page. This is not about Palestinian terrorism, there are plenty of articles about that. This is not about all the murders committed by Palestinians against unarmed Jewish children (which happen on an almost weekly basis, see examples such as as Murder of Rina Shnerb and Murder of Dvir Sorek, for examples that have happened within the last few weeks), however the article is not about that either. But I will say, were these children armed to the teeth?

How dare you disgrace their memory, and the memory of all those other innocent children and other civilians murdered by Palestinians because of racism and antisemitism. You are dehumanizing Jews as thieves armed to the teeth, instead of as real people who have their own lives, loves, families, friends, businesses, etc, that are killed in almost always unprovoked attacks by rogue Palestinian racist murderers. The dehumanization of Jewish people, is a tactic that was used by the Nazis in order to make it more acceptable to commit mass murder against them. You and other users here (Nableezy) have said or have insinuated very clearly, support for violent resistance against occupation. How can anyone support that? And someone that supports that should not be editing Wikipedia, especially an article like this which needs a more unbiased, neutral orientation.

This is absurd and disgusting behavior.

Furthermore, this article is about the racism that is prevalent in the Palestinian Territories, that is promoted and espoused by the Palestinian leadership, majority of the populace, via media, social media, educational curriculum, etc. This article is not about the myth of Palestinian victimhood, nor is it about the history of violence and terrorism present in the area against Jews, Israelis, Americans, Europeans and other foreigners. This article exists to document racism in the Palestinian Territories. Do you think Holocaust denial is acceptable? Do you think it is acceptable for a government to incite it’s own citizens to kill Jewish people and command them to do so in some cases? Of course that is Antisemitism in its most dangerous form. Furthermore, how do I have a racial agenda by using the term Afro-Palestinians. Are you calling me racist because I used that term, and because I have attempted to point out the racism against Afro-Palestinians by the White Arab Palestinians? That is a personal attack and I will not tolerate that. And furthermore, I am even more offended by your statement, as a Black Jew. How dare you say such things.Yallayallaletsgo (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

No, this article is about racism in the Palestinian territories, including racism directed against Palestinians by Israeli soldiers and settlers. You have already been warned against making personal attacks, kindly cease. Read and internalize WP:NPA, most importantly the directive to comment on content not on the contributor. Your edits here have been outrageous on a number of levels, and I should have just reported this outright lie of an edit earlier. Ill wait for the next one though. nableezy - 19:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

all the murders committed by Palestinians against unarmed Jewish children (which happen on an almost weekly basis,

• September 29 2000-September 2019 (1040 weeks)

(a)Israeli children killed by Palestinians =134

(b)Palestinian children killed by Israelis =2,167

I Israeli child has been killed on average over the last two decades every 8 weeks

2 Palestinian children have been killed on average every week for the past two decades.

To feel outrage at (a) and talk your way silently over (b) signifies a bias. The ethnicity of who is killed is what counts, not the numbers. That bias, in the face of reality, is strongly suggestive of a racist prejudice. This is all I have to say in response to your ranting.Nishidani (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh the math is just furthering the myth of Palestinian victimhood and dehumanizing Jews like the Nazis did. Duh. nableezy - 20:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Gaza

please change ((Gaza)) to ((Gaza Strip|Gaza))

Done. Thanks for spotting that.Nishidani (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Protocols

I am removing "In 2005, it was reported that the Palestinian Authority was referring to the Protocols in a textbook for 10th grade students. After media exposure, the PA issued a revised edition of the textbook that does not include references to the Protocols." sourced to "Analysis and Evaluation of the New Palestinian Curriculum; Reviewing Palestinian Textbooks and Tolerance Education Program Grades 5 & 10 by Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information (IPCRI) Submitted to: The Public Affairs Office US Consulate General Jerusalem, July 2006".
Reason: The complete mention of the Protocols in the source is this (p17): "NOTE: The Belgian Consulate affirms that the text about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion has been removed from the textbooks." This suggests that there is a story here, but what is it? There is no mention of media exposure in the source. As far as I can tell, the previous two ICPRI reports on the Palestinian Curriculum (2003 and 2004) don't mention the Protocols at all. Besides that, there is nothing inherently antisemitic about mentioning the Protocols (for sure Israeli textbooks also mention them); we can't just assume the mention was a promotion of the Protocols without a reliable source. Personally I would need a quote from an independent source.
In addition to this cherry-picked problem, if we were to present this source in a balanced fashion we would quote from the executive summary that "there are no references that call for acts of terrorism against Israel or incite hatred towards Jews or Judaism." We would also quote some of the sources about anti-Arab stereotypes in Israeli textbooks. Zero^talk 02:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

No mention of Arthur Ruppin?

I am surprised that Arthur Ruppin isn't mentioned: Ruppin considered assimilation as the worst threat to the existence of Jews as people, and argued for a concentration of Jews in a common area, to be realized by the colonisation of Palestine(...)Ruppin accepted the idea of a division of humankind into three important races of humans, the "white", "yellow" and "black", and considered Jews to be part of the "white" race (page 213/214), and within this "race", which Ruppin divides in "Xantrochroe" (light colored) and "Melanochroe" (dark colored), to be part of the latter, actually mixture from the Arab and North African peoples and other West and South Asian peoples.

Ruppin believed that realization of Zionism required "racial purity" of Jews, and was inspired by works of anti-semitic thinkers,including some Nazis.[2] Ruppin personally met Hans F. K. Günther, one of the most influention racist thinkers who greatly influenced Nazism[3]

Ruppin believed in numerous "Jewish types," performed skull measurements, and believed Ashkenazi Jews were made of various racial subclasses, according to nasal structure[4]. He distinguished between "Racial Jews" and "Jewish types", and believed Ashkenazi Jews to be superior to Yemeni Jews. His concepts included dividing Jews into "white, black and yellow" metaracial categories[5]

Ruppin wrote that Jewish race should be "purified", he also stated that "only the racially pure come to the land.” Afer becoming head of the Palestine Office of the Zionist Executive (later the Jewish Agency for Israel), he aruged against immigration of Ethiopian Jews due to their lack of "blood connection" and arguing that Yemenite Jews should be limited for menial labor[6] Due to events of Holocaust, historiography in Israel usually played down or ignored altogether this aspect of Ruppin's life[7]'' It seems to me that he is important enough to be mentioned in the background. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

"in" the Palestinian Territories

The Mufti's "kill the jews.." statement was made in a radio address broadcast in Arabic from Berlin, does that count as being racism IN the Palestinian territories? My initial thought is that it strictly does not.Selfstudier (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Quite right. I think it was deleted once before on those grounds too. Actually it isn't clear tha anything Husseini did in Europe is relevant. Zero^talk 12:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, not quite. Those broadcasts were directed at the Middle East, and, given Husayni's whilom status, could be construed as incitement for Palestinians. On the other hand, the topic is Palestinian territories, a post-1967 geopolitical reality post-dating statements of this kind by some decades, so the link is tenuous. Borderline, unless one can come up with some post 67 citation by a PT figure using it, which is not perhaps to be ruled out. So before re-introducing it, that qualification would be required.Nishidani (talk) 12:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Bullshist

This’s the most bullshit article I’ve ever read in Wikipedia. Moudinho1996 (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Bias

A review of Israel's country report conducted by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination stated "The status of the settlements was clearly inconsistent with Article 3 of the Convention, which, as noted in the Committee's General Recommendation XIX, prohibited all forms of racial segregation in all countries. There is a consensus among publicists that the prohibition of racial discrimination, irrespective of territories, is an imperative norm of international law."[48]

This has been largely disputed, namely by the ADL, as Israel says these are two different countries. Its also worth noting the Palestinian Authority will explicitly refuse Jews the ability to buy land in the state of Palestine (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/1997/05/selling-land-to-jews.html)

https://www.adl.org