Talk:Antisemitism in the Arab world

Arabs are Hamites not Semites

Please show me the evidence that Arabs are semites....Ishmael the half brother of Isaac's mother was hagar , hagar was an egyptian hamite...Hamite, because she is the progeny of the son of noah named ham...Jews are the prograny of Sarah and Sarah was a Semite....the progeny of Shem , a son of noah........so please let me know what your evidence is that arabs are semites?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.130.56 (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses the word in the same way as the majority of English speakers, and specifically the way that authors writing on linguistics or race do. That definition is different from "people descended from Shem", and includes Arabs. The fact that the word is named after Shem doesn't mean it can't develop in meaning.

Also, it's usual to start new discussions at the bottom of a talk page. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Arabs are not Semites, despite often being credited as such. Though geneologies are largely patrillineal today, originally the ethinicity of the mother determined the child's identity. Ishmael, who Arabs are believed to be descended from, had a Hamite mother. So, technically, he was a Hamite. He also married an Egyptian, making all of his children Hamites. They continued to intermarry as such and by the tenth generation they would have had less than one percent of Semitic blood.

Nowadays, they often claim to be Semites, and people frequently use this to fight the accusations of them being anti-semitic. My dictionary even classifies them under the term of "Semitic." However, regardless being the descendents of Abraham, who was in fact the tenth generation of Shem, Arabs are technically Hamites. --69.128.204.110 (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't give me this religious nonsense.

What determines descendants, is the father. It's in the Y-chromosome, it can only be transferred by a man. Arabs are just as Semites as Jews, DNA testing proves it. But if you don't believe in DNA there isn't much I can do.

Proposed merge from Arab persecution of indigenous Jews

The newly created article at Arab persecution of indigenous Jews appears to have some usable sources but closely duplicates the subject of this article. Are there any objections to a merge? VQuakr (talk) 03:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe also merge: Pogroms carried out by Arabs against Jews Joe407 (talk) 08:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. The persecution is not automatically antisemitic - we need to follow the wording of the sources.Marokwitz (talk) 05:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Support - these are brief articles which could easily be included as part of this one, and I don't think either subject needs a separate article. As for Marokwitz's comment above, surely 'persecution of Jews' is antisemitic by definition? Robofish (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment The page has been deleted as an "attack page". 17:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Mudar Zahran and the hudson institute

there seems to be a question, by some, regarding the use of Mudar Zahran and a question regarding the use of the Hudson Institute. the hudson institute meets all standards for RS including editorial board, etc. (do i need to review all of the points?).

in addition, it is accepted throughout wikipedia, so not sure why it is a question here. three examples of past discussions: [1], and [2], and [3]

in addition, kenneth hanner (former nat'l editor of the washington times), writing for human events says they are pretty good, too. (do you want exact quotes?) see [4] http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42256

and, they themselves say: Hudson Institute is a nonpartisan policy research organization dedicated to innovative research and analysis. Founded in 1961, Hudson is celebrating a half century of forging ideas that promote security, prosperity, and freedom.

any comments as to why they should not be acceptable? thanks. Soosim (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait, you're trying to use a WashTime/Human Events endorsement to say that they are reliable? (Your links don't substantiate your claim that it has been accepted as a source: one is an RSN post with no replies, one is a list of assessed articles which means nothing, and one is a passing mention that actually questions its reliability.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism

There have been some back and forth edits over my initial removal of the following passage from the section on Israeli Arabs:

"In Israel, a country with a Jewish majority, and which defines itself as a Jewish nation-state in its Basic Laws, many Arab citizens of Israel are unwilling to accept it as a Jewish state. Most Israeli-Arabs are exempt from conscription into the Israel Defense Forces, or any other form of national service. A major exception is the Druze Arab community in Israel. Most Druze serve in the Army, and Druze politicians are generally supportive of the Jewish state. Arab-Israeli parliamentarians are often notorious for openly supporting Israel's enemies, harsh criticism of Israeli actions, and de-legitimization of the Jewish state."

First of all, this statement does not cite any sources. Secondly, I would like to point out that Anti-Semitism is not the same thing as Anti-Zionism. Somebody can disagree with a government without advocating racial or religious hatred towards its citizens. For example, I don't recognize the Chinese annexation of Tibet. It doesn't imply hatred of Chinese people. Regardless of wether the political positions in the above text are warranted, they do not belong in an article on anti-Semitism. An article on zionism or anti-zionism would be a more adequate forum for this debate. 85.154.169.140 (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)