Talk:Arab citizens of Israel/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


In the context of the complete destruction of an unrecognised Bedouin village a week or two ago, it is a relief to learn in this article just how wonderful life is for them. But maybe we need a little work on those sources!

  • "Many Bedouin citizens hold family ties with Bedouin in Sinai (Egypt), Sudan and Saudi Arabia and most reject calling themselves Palestinians.<ref>[]</ref>"
-- Alas that web page does not use any of the words "Sinai", "Sudan", "Saudi" or "Palestinian" at all, so it can't be used as a source for any of these claims. We shouldn't use an Israeli government source for contentious questions anyway, but only as a source for the Israeli government position on the subject. --Zerotalk 10:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "The Israeli Druze and Bedouin Arabs are the two minorities-within-a-minority whose relations with the State of Israel have historically been warm,<ref>[]</ref><ref>[]</ref>"
-- (Consider just the Bedouin for now.) Alas, neither of these sources suffice for this claim. The first one (the same Israeli government article noted as incorrectly cited above) says the Bedouin "feel an exaggerated sense of deprivation" (sounds warm, doesn't it?) and then argues that the Bedouin are wonderfully well off even if they claim they aren't. The second one mentions that Bedouin often serve in the army, then it says "'The military rule over Israeli Arabs is over, but there are still confiscations of our land, especially the land owned by Bedouin in the Negev,' says Samih al-Kasim, editor of a Nazareth newspaper and one of the Arab world's leading poets. 'And there are still Arab `refugees' inside Israel today -- over 40 of our villages remain unrecognized. The plans to `Judaize the Galilee,' the warnings of a `demographic problem' in the Haifa area -- how can we see this as anything but racism?'". What was that about warm relations? --Zerotalk 10:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The relationship between the Jews and the Bedouin are complicated. Some are very warm, serve in the Israeli army and have full rights and enjoyment. Many have died for protection of the country and are commemorated in a special ceremony etc. Such an example where no difference exists at all between Jews and Bedouin in all aspects of life is the village of Arab el-Aramsheh in the north [1]. Other relations are more tense, for example around Beer Sheva there are allegations of crime, protection money and also the issue of traffic accidents relating to the Beoduin in the region. Some claim the situation is bad and there's a chance of an intifada due to the conditions etc.[2] It's all a process, much with similarities and differences with the Arab population and with Druzes - the Druzes is especially good historically because they have mandatory service and because their perception is that they're loyal to the country they're in and not of external nationality - usually. The plans to Judaize the Galilee and issues of demographics is not racism, it's Zionism. It's a difference you may not wish to understand, but for Jews it's a matter of survival and a necessity. That doesn't mean that the minorities should be discriminated which is what's important. Amoruso 15:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Amoruso, You wrote

The plans to Judaize the Galilee and issues of demographics is not racism, it's Zionism. It's a difference you may not wish to understand, but for Jews it's a matter of survival and a necessity.

Please do explain to us what this difference is... Abu ali 16:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by "us"? You can read the articles on Zionism and Racism. There are no similarities. Amoruso 19:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Zionism is definitely not equivalent to racism, and this is why the plan to "Judaize" the Galilee has been subject to quite a lot of criticism in Israel. Generally speaking, it failed anyway (save some successful projects, like the city of Karmiel). The hilly part of the Galilee is still predominately Arab, and cities like Nazareth Illit eventually became Jewish-Arab mixed cities. Nonetheless, the Galilee is definitely Israeli. The Arabs there have become part of the Israeli society in this way or another. drork 22:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Abu ali, please distinguish between "generally warm" and "100% of all of them love Israel." Do you know how many cases of Jewish Israelis I can find that say how much they hate the government? Thousands. Same with Protestant Americans. The fact is that many Bedouins have complaints, but they are generally warm with Israel. --Shamir1 01:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

From a Bedouin:"Beyond being a democracy, Israel is a bureaucracy. Its good intentions to solve our problems in Israel always overlap with the bureaucratic system, and that increases the frustration of Bedouins. The Bedouins have lots of demands, and there are many problems with the bureaucratic system here.


I always say, and it might be a joke but it’s true, that a shepherd cannot be made into a hi-tech engineer. We are a shepherd society…very traditional and conservative. It will take us a long time to settle down and be a part of modern society.

The Israeli government decided throughout the years that they wanted to help. It’s just the way that Israeli authorities are trying to solve the problems that is wrong. Maybe they’re doing the right thing, but at the wrong time. Bedouins don’t need internet access. We need more schools and medical care. But Bedouins may also need to build dairies for their sheep and for their goats, because it will take them time to abandon being shepherds and to be maybe not hi-tech engineers but educated people who went to university.

The vast majority of Israeli society is very supportive of our demands. But Bedouins don’t have a strong enough lobby to help us, to knock on the doors of authority.

--Shamir1 01:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the line to make it less general. It now says it is the "most warm" within the Arab minority. --Shamir1 02:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that the Bedouin Arabs celebrate Israeli Independence Day. --Shamir1 20:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources

Shamir1 has insisted on including material alleged to be from Freedom House's country report on Israel and PDF summary of world freedom in the article lead. The latter states that Israel is "free" and surrounding Arab countries are all either "partly free" or "not free". On this basis, Shamir states that Arabs in Israel have more rights than those in any Arab country. This is a clear violation of WP:NOR.

Then he uses the former Freedom House document to include material in the article about how well represented Israeli Arabs are in the political sphere. Fair enough, except that the first thing this document says about Israeli Arabs is that "while extended full political rights... Arab citizens of Israel... receive inferior education, housing, and social services relative to the Jewish population." (my elisions). Obviously when a source gives an assessment of a situation that is part-positive, part-negative, it's not very good manners to use it in order to help make an article introduction give the impression that everything is brilliant.

This will not do. Palmiro | Talk 03:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: I see Shamir is now using edit summaries to order me to "NOT make false accusations". I take it that what he's in fact referring to are the allegations being made by the source he was - and as long as he's allowed to interpret what it says, still is - so eager to get into the article.
Also, he's broken 3RR. Care to self-revert, Shamir? Palmiro | Talk 03:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I would say that you can learn a good deal about Zionism by observing the behaviour of its advocates. Abu ali 09:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
What have you learned ? Amoruso 19:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
A fair bit. I will post a summary when I have collected enough material.... Abu ali 20:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Except Abu Ali you were doing exactly the same thing as Shamir and Amoruso are doing with the Freedom House material when you used the Haaretz article about Tartman and Lieberman in what looked rather like an attempt to prove that Israeli politics is evil and racist, ignoring the rather salient material in the article that Lieberman's and Tartman's comments had been strongly condemned by not just Meretz but also Labour and Likud. Can you not see that? Palmiro | Talk 22:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Lieberman does represent the right wing of Israeli politics. But it is the 3rd or 4th largest party as far as I remember so it is not a fringe element. And it is one sided to show an advancement in the position of an arab without showing that this advance has met with opposition in some elements of Israeli politics.Abu ali 15:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we should hold some sort of international conference and send the research there ? maybe in Iran ? ;) Seriosuly, WP:NOT. Amoruso 22:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I would say that Abu ali should do a little research on the Jews historically in Muslim lands, and the Muslims currently in Sudan, and the non-Muslims in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Maybe you could learn a lot instead of talking doodoo and wasting our time here. It seems that you would rather make "Zionists" look bad while ignoring who is really being mistreated. What should I say about your advocates? That you like to hide facts? Of course, how can I forget--O Jenin. --Shamir1 22:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Remember that the worst crimes against the Jews were commited in Christain countries. This of course does not excuse the persecution of Jews (and Arabs) in Arab countries and that does not excuse the persecution of Arabs in Israel. Abu ali 15:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Palmiro, there is nothing to interpret, nothing, it is there, you can read it. I have given you the sources. They indicate the degree of political rights and civil liberties of the citizens in each country. You can read what is needed in order to achieve a "1" on their site, as well as a brief description on Freedom in the World. The Arab citizens of Israel enjoy more political rights and civil liberties in their non-Arab country, than the Arab citizens of any actual Arab country. Their political parties mean more in Israel than they do in Arab countries. It is not brain surgery, please. --Shamir1 22:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It does not say this anywhere in the source. You need a reliable source that states the claim you are making about the Arab citizens of Israel (and that indicates that it is a sufficiently important fact about them to go into the article lead), not a source from which you can extrapolate that this may be the case. Please read Wikipedia:No original research. Palmiro | Talk 22:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Abu ali, by saying that the worst crimes were done by Christians does not make what Muslims did even close to good, or even okay. Even the Jews who escaped Spain to North Africa had their stomachs cut open by Muslim Moors in search of gold. The king of Morocco sent many of them back knowing that they would be burned or forced to convert. Egypt had a great deal of segregation and bad treatment of dhimmi. In Iran, every Jew had to end his last name with the same suffix to make it visible on their birth certificate. Whole communities were forced to convert to Islam. Abu ali, if Arabs are "persecuted" in Israel than three things are going on: 1) you do not know the meaning of persecution, 2) you are not giving justice to the people who have actually endured persecution, and 3) the Arabs of Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia are being persecuted to an extent five to six times more.
Palmiro, the source is reliable, that is not the question. The citizens of Israel, all equal, enjoy the highest degree of political rights and the highest degree of civil liberties in the Middle East. You can see that with the numbers. You can also see what is needed in order to achieve a 1. If the citizens were "second-clas" a 1 could not be achieved. In the explanation it says specifically that Arab citizens enjoy the full extent of rights, and these rights surpass that of their family that is actually in an Arab country. --Shamir1 21:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It is precisely this kind of analysis that is outlawed in WP:NOR. The source simply does not say what you quote it as saying. You say that, because it is your interpretation of the source. But we do not interpret sources. We report what they say. Grace Note 13:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no analysis, stop saying that. You can read it yourself here: Freedom in the World#Middle East & North Africa. Also, again, in the explanation it says that Arab citizens enjoy the fullest extent of political rights, which is a 1. No other Arabs in the Middle East hold that extent of political rights per the source. It is not "my interpretation" it is Freedom House's findings. --Shamir1 02:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Shamir, I agree that that is an entirely reasonable conclusion to draw from the two reports, taken together. However, what you have to bear in mind is just how widely the policy forbidding original research is interpreted. Basically, drawing any sort of conclusion that is not drawn in the original source is not allowed. Of course, you can get away with this in non-controversial areas, but this is not such an area. Furthermore, you have been trying to use a source that says both good and bad things about the treatment of Palestinian citizens of Israel in order to get something purely good into the lead paragraph. That is not really an honest use of the source. And trying to put your own conclusion into the lead while rejecting material that is actually contained as such in the source doesn't look good. The report's own summary statement, that I put into the lead, is a better choice. It seems reasonable to assume that this is more likely to represent what the authors of the original report felt was the principal point. That would suggest that it is more likely to be of sufficient import to be put in the article lead, especially compared with something that - leaving aside the question of "original research" - the authors did not feel was of sufficient import to state explicitly at all.
Personally, for what it's worth, I think the NOR policy should be renamed: the current title has little to do with most of the circumstances in which it is cited, which makes its use very confusing and makes it quite hard for people to understand why it is being quoted at them. Palmiro | Talk 14:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
It is an obvious conclusion that does not take interpretation. Palmiro, please learn what should be in the lead. 1) The report concludes 2 main things about Israeli citizens: 1 in terms of political rights, and 2 in terms of civil liberties (both of which are considered suffice to be free and democratic according to FH. That is the main point that is for the lead, NOT the sentence in the greater explanation of the entire report. That belongs in the current economic situation, where I put it. And please, I noticed how you conveniently left out the factors that are even written there, one might call that a misrepresentation of sources. --Shamir1 20:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Look, four people have pointed out to you why your version constitutes "original research" in the Wikipedia usage. If you can't understand, maybe you could at least ask for explanation somewhere else, e.g. on Wikipedia_talk:No original research. As for what belongs or does not belong in the lead, if you decide that the Freedom House conclusions about Arab citizens of Israel belong in the lead (I'm open-minded about this), then you must in order to accurately represent their conclusions seek to reflect their apparent sense of priority. If their opening sentence about the population in question gives both positive and negative remarks about their situation, then in order to be honest you should do the same. Instead you have decided to give their positive comments, along with positive comments they didn't make but you extrapolated from their publications, in the introduction, while relegating the negative comments to well down inside the body of the article. If you can't see why that is not honest, there's not much hope for us in this discussion. Palmiro | Talk 21:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

freeisraelnow a WP:RS?

In this edit [3]. shamir1 inerts a link to an article in which claims that Palestinian Arab Muslims first class citizens in Israel whereas Israeli Jews are second class citizens. Is a WP:RS. Is the claim made encyclopediac and WP:NPOV? Does the link belong in this article? Abu ali 10:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No of course it doesn't. --Zerotalk 11:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it does not belong here. gidonb 15:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

is a WP:RS? and WP:WTA

Shalom friends. As you know I am quite new to Wikipedia and am trying to understand the polices of this place. My good friend Isarig recently added an edit [4] adding a citition from regarding a "terrorist attack" in 1956. What is Is it a WP:RS and why? And isn't "terrorist" a WP:WTA (e.g. [5]) or does WP:WTA only apply to Irgun and Lehi actions? Abu ali 08:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Abu ali, the Jewish Virtual Library may be as reliable as it gets. Many of their articles come from a long list of sources. Others are directly copied from others, such as news sites or the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. They have a large amount of documents, official documents, pertaining to Jewish history and Israel (old and new), some (like I said) direct from sources like the U.S. State Department. It provides many important documents, transcripts, and discussions. The 1956 attack was probably found on the website of the Israeli Ministry, where they are identified as terrorists. It would be helpful if someone could find what group the terrorists belonged to, if they even did. The Irgun and Lehi also participated in terrorist actions prior to independence. Like most democratic governments, Israel dismantled them and they no longer exist. Israel continues to ban even membership to certain radical groups, something even the U.S. does not do. --Shamir1 07:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree that the Jewish Virtual Library is an RS, though you are correct about WTA. I would assume that the guards were killed by infiltrators from Jordan, probably al-Fatah, though I couldn't find any confirmation for that online. TewfikTalk 17:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I did a google seach for the phrase "Terrorists killed three Druze guards at Ein Ofarim, in the Arava region" entered by Shamir1 and found an exact word for word match on [[6]]. Does WP:NPOV mean that Wikipedia will be filled by copy and paste edits from propogandist sites such as the Dutch branch of the Likud? If so who needs Wikipedia? Why not just redirect Wikipedia's home page to Abu ali 11:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC) is impecibly referenced, a good source for Wikipedia, completely conforming to WP:RS. Elizmr 11:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
It's strange how you call it impecibly referenced when the page used as a source in this example does not have any references at all. In general the Jewish Virtual Library has material from lots of sources, ranging from excellent to atrocious. So it is not possible to classify it either as always reliable or always unreliable. On the Druze guards, one important missing piece of information is who the guards were. If they were soldiers, then this was a military attack. --Zerotalk 11:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe the question was about JVL as a source generally Elizmr 12:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Generally and specifically. I also asked about the use of the words Terrorist. Issarig clearly knows about the WP:WTA policy as you can see in his edit [7]. Should it apply here? I would also like to ask what people think about copy and pasting whole sentences from other web sites. Presumably it is OK if the site is Likud, but copyright violation otherwise. Abu ali 16:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems much more likely that the likud site (among other word-for-word matches) copied it from JVL. Zero raises a valid point that deserves some research, though I have been unsuccessful thus far. TewfikTalk 08:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Do Beduin identify as Palestinians?

The article alleges that "Most Bedouin reject calling themselves Palestinians". However, the source cited, an article in the Jewish Virtual Library [8], does not actually make this claim. Further, since the article itself is sourced by Jewish Virtual Library to the Israeli Foreign Ministry, it is hardly NPOV. I have deleted the reference, and I would like to see a neutral source, which actually makes this alleged assessment. Failing this, I will in a few days delete the whole sentence for lack of evidence. RolandR 18:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Now here we get into the delicate issue of what the term "Palesinian" means. The Bedouin (as well as the Druze) have distinct culture, somewhat different than the culture of other Arabs in the region of Israel/Palestine. Bedouin speak in a distinct Arab dialect, quite different than the one used by Palestinians. They also have different customs and traditions. However, they do write in Standard Arabic, They are Muslims and they keep social and political ties with the Palestinians. Their acceptance of the State of Israel has been much better than that of the Palestinians.
In short, it is not easy to determine whether the Bedouin are Palestinians. The best way is to ask the Bedouin themselves, but I doubt if you get a clear answer from any of them. This issue is so politically-charched these days, that the best answer would be keeping silent. drork 08:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to understand, did you not find a mention of the information in the article in the sources given or did you just not find the sources reliable? If it's the latter, I don't see how it is in the Jewish Virtual Library's interest to distinguish Bedouins from Palestinians (by saying they don't consider themselves Palestinian). The fact is that Bedouins in Israel do not consider themselves to be Palestinian and have several distinguished characteristics that are different from the Palestinians (as drork mentioned, for example, they speak a different dialect from Palestinians). In addition, you can also see how they are separate from the rest of the Palestinian population since a significant portion of the Bedouin population serve in the IDF, definitely when compared to the Israeli Arab population (Palestinians). Yonatan (contribs/talk) 11:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The Israeli authorities do have an interest in distinguishing Bedouin from Palestinian Arabs. It has to do with the tacit fear of irredenta. If the Bedouin are part of the Palestinian people, then the chances of irredenta increase should a Palestinian state be established in the near future. Nonetheless, and as I mentioned above, there are objective reasons to regard the Bedouin in Israel as a culturally distinct group. Their political identification is another story. Politics has to do with culture, but it doesn't end there. As for the army service - there are volanteer Bedouin soldiers in the IDF, many of them take risky jobs in the army, however the rate of enlisted Bedouin out of the entire Israeli Bedouin abled population is almost negligible (some 2-3%, but I take these number out of my memory, I should check). Furthermore, in some Bedouin communities anyone who volanteers to service is banned. drork 07:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I was talking about the Jewish Virtual Library, not the state of Israel. Regarding the percentage of their population that serves in the army, this may be caused by a few reasons:

1. They feel as if they have been wronged by the Israeli government (which in many cases is true) and\or feel like second-class citizens. 2. Their service isn't mandatory and therefore they don't see a reason to serve the army as they'd rather not risk their lives fighting a war that others can fight for them and\or they do not completely connect with the ideas behind the war. 3. They see themselves as Palestinians and therefore do not want to see their brothers.

As you can see, Bedouins seeing themselves as Palestinians is only one of a few reasons why this phenomenon is widespread. However, this isn't saying that the third reason isn't the most prominent (because it may be, I personally don't know). Yonatan (contribs/talk) 14:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The key Israeli policy is divide and rule: Divide the Palestinians of 48 from the Palestinians in the territories, divide Gaza from the West Bank, Divide the West Bank itself into many disconnected cantons, divide Christain from Muslim Druze and Charcasian. The aim is to divide the Arab masses and set us to fight against each other so that the Israeli state can rule over us easier. The title of this article is the Israeli official doublespeak "Arab Citizens of Israel" to try to emphasise a that there is no connection between Palestinians on the other side of the green line. The structure of the article which begins by subdividing Arabs by "ethnic and religious groups" is another feature of official government texts. While entire paragraphs are devoted to listing every time Arabs killed Jews, the article is silent Arab culture, food music and literature. Arab Judges, Knesset Members, Ministers without Portfolio and Ambassadors are listed, but no mention is made of the dominent position Arabs hold in construction and catering. One of the few places the Jews and Arabs actually work alongside each other as equals is in the Health system, but this does not warrent a mention in the article. The only The only photograph shows a (headless) Beduin tracker serving the IDF. Is this really a representative picture of Israeli Arabs? ابو علي 00:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Marhaba Abu Ali. I agree with the points you've raised. The attempt to divide the Palestinians of 48 from their Palestinian and Arab brethren is reflected in the structure of the article. I tried to provide a balancing POV, but have failed. As a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship, I deeply resent the way Israelis try to tell me which national and cultural groups I belong to. Most of the Druze and Bedouins I know here identify as Palestinian too. But in this article, there is a concerted effort to try to make them somehow different from the rest of us. This reflects Israel policy, as you pointed out, but that policy has been relatively unsuccessful with more and more Druze refusing the compulsory army service. Know that despite the presentation of so-called "facts" here, we Palestinians know who we are and where we come from. Citizenship is just a piece of paper that we are required to hold in order to maintain our access and rights to our land. Tiamut 13:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I am Israeli, and I know many Druzes from the army and the University, and I can tell you one thing for sure: they really do not see themselves as Palestinians, and neither as Arabs - but as Druzes with they own distinctive identity. They are in fact the most anti-Arab people I met in my life (with a few Maronite Lebaneses I met in Paris a few years ago). By the way, if you are so unhappy in Israel and wants to live in an Arab country, you are free to leave. I have the feeling you won't, I don't know why... Maybe you prefer living in a free, democratic and rich country than in anything that your "brothers" have created - always a complete failure. Benjil 13:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I think this discussion needs to be calmed down. Tiamut, with all due respect, you cannot appoint yourself to the role of the representatives of the Arabs of Israel, even if you are one of them. Besides, talking about an Israeli "divide and conquer" policy, whether true or not, does not have a place on the talk page of this article IMO. Just like with anything else, some Arab Israelis may be more connected with their brothers from the Palestinian territories and others not as much. Bringing your view into the article, as an Arab Israeli is OR and also unverifiable as is Benjil's claim that the Druzes he's met are the most anti-Arab people he has met. The *fact* is that there is a very large percentage of the Druze population that serves in the IDF just like any Israeli Jew. Many of them serve even beyond the three year mandatory service and go on to achieve high ranks. Even those Druze who have refused serving in the Israeli military have done so in many cases on the basis of not serving a country that treats them as second-class citizens and not on the basis of their so-called "Palestinian heritage". You can put both sides in the article, providing they are both sourced but you will probably have to also mention that refusal to serve in the Druze minority in Israel is not such a widespread phenomenon. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 14:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
If your goal is to calm me down, your approach is rather curious. Nowhere over the many months that I worked on this article have I inserted my POV in such a way as to compromise balance or violate Wikipedia policy. Talk pages are a place to discuss the article (which I was doing with Abu Ali). That I shared some of my background and personal experiences on this page and with Abu Ali in our discussion, does not grant you a license to attack my editorial credibility. I welcome you to review my many posts in the history for this article as proof of my eminently fair and balanced approach. You will also find there that I have previously inserted sources that bely the incredibly one-sided POV regarding Druze identity here, but that they were removed at some point in time during my last hiatus from here. In any case, welcome to this article's talk pages. Look forward to seeing you in the days, weeks and months to come. Tiamut 15:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Tiamut, I'm sorry but you took my comments the wrong way. I was not launching an assault on your editorial credibility and if that is the way you perceived my comments, I apologize. All I am saying is that although this is the talk namespace, you can't state opinions or personal experiences as fact

(just as Benjil cannot and also shouldn't offer you the option of leaving Israel) and if you wish to present a possibly contentious statement, supporting it with a reference (even if on the talk page) would probably be better. I'd just like to note that I saw your last edit of the article in which you removed a POV source that, for lack of a better expression, supported your side, showing that you aren't here just for POV pushing. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 16:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for this kind of discussions so I am sorry that I reacted to Tiamut provocations. But his remarks were unbearable and so offensive it could not stay without answer. By the way, why shouldn't I offer the option of leaving Israel ? I would say the same thing to anybody who is so unhappy with the country he lives in. I am not proposing to expel anybody. I hope you are enough intelligent to understand the difference. Benjil 08:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Shalom Benjil, What exactly are Tiamut's provocations? What exactly is so "unbearable and so offensive" about "his" remarks. That an Israeli Arab has the nerve to relate her experiences on the talk page of the article about Israeli Arabs? That she dares contradict the opinions of the American "experts on Arabs" who dominate this page. That she is putting serious work into trying to change the article from an article on Arabs written by their oppressors to one which actually gives a picture of rich complexity of Arab life. And I did not suggest that you should not tell Arabs on the pages of Wikipedia to leave their homeland. This has been the policy of succesive Israeli governments for years (See the Konig document). And speaking your views so openly and honestly on the pages of Wikipedia will teach the reader much about Zionism and its approach to Arabs. ابو علي 10:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear Abu Ali, I am happy that now everybody can see how you lie and distort facts and reality. Thank you very much. The Arabs have always been the best advocates for Israel. Benjil 12:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Benjil's comment above is both personally offensive to Abu Ali, and arguably racist. It is never acceptable to accuse another editor of lying, and this is certainly a breach of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility. And his implicit support for the expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland is exceptionally offensive. I hope that, on consideration, he will realise this, withdraw the remarks, and adopt a more civil and effective way of arguing for his positions. RolandR 15:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes you are right, accusing me of racism and of supporting the expulsion of Palestinians when I say explicitly the contrary is not personal attack, but stressing obvious lies from someone is. I guess I should refrain from saying what I think about you then. I will not continue this "discussion" with such kind of people. But don't worry, I will continue to be sure that the facts on the articles stay true. Benjil 16:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Marhabten yaTiamut, I admire your coolness and restraint in the face of Benjil inviting you to expel yourself from your homeland. All power to you! To return to RolandR's point above, I would agree that the statement that "Most Bedouin reject calling themselves Palestinians" is contentious to say the least, and not supported by the citation, so should be removed. ابو علي 16:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that if no references are found it should be removed, however if you wish to assert that [some] Bedouins see themselves as Palestinians you would also need to add a reference. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 16:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear Yonathan. Thanks for clarifying your intent, recognizing my impartial editing example, and sorry for jumping to conclusions. I guess my temperature just got raised by Benjil's ethnic cleansing remark. It strikes a little too close to home, especially considering the political climate here lately. Habibi Abu Ali, thanks for the words of support. I guess I have gotten used to that kind of racism living here. In the end, they can say whatever they want and do whatever they want: I know where I am from, who I am, and what my rights are. And I'm not leaving. Ever. I will try to find some resources on the identity issue. From both sides of the issue if possible. There is nothing to fear from the truth. People are smart enough to know what's what when they have the chance to see the information for themselves. Tiamut 16:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Occupied or reunified?

To state that Israel ""reunified" Jerusalem in 1967 is not a neutral statement, but partisan and POV. The very fact that only supporters of Israel's actions use this term, while supporters of the Palestinian case reject it, should be enough to establish that it clearly reflects just one point of view.

The fact is that the city was reunified. It was divided in 1949 and reunified in 1967. If pro-Palestinians don't like facts, which seems to be a pattern, that's just there problem. Writing "Occupied" is also POV.

In any case, as anyone who has lived in Jerusalem will know, it is misleading in the extreme to describe the city as "unified". The division -- social, cultural, economic, and political -- is all too evident. Although there are ongoing efforts to erase the geographical evidence of this division, even this is only partial, as a short walk from West to East Jerusalem will confirm.

Yes and you can say the same about the Haredi parts of the city vs the non-Haredi parts. So I guess also that New York for example is not an unified city, because you can see the division (social, cultural, economic, and political) when you go from Manhattan to the black ghettos, the Haredi quarters, China Town etc... By the way, "East-Jerusalem" means nothing. If you knew Jerusalem as you claim, you would know than there is no such entity - only different Arab quarters (in the North, South, and East, with not even territorial continuity nor any common identity and history as a single city. The historical "East Jerusalem" is in fact the most integrated Arab quarter of the city, the one were all the "divisions" are not so evident.

The term "occupied", on the other hand, is a neutral and objective description of the events of June 1967. I would prefer to describe it as "unilaterally annexed", which is also objectively true; but this might be seen as deliberately provocative by some (just as others see the use of the term "reunified"). Let's try to stick to a neutral and objective term; and let's discuss any changes here before revert-warring in the main article. RolandR 22:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"Occupied" is *highly* POV and much more offensive than "unilaterally annexed". Benjil 05:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not a native English speaker, but I am sure the English language can offer a term, other than "occupied" or "unified", that would be accurate and acceptable. Sometimes a good dictionary could be the solution to our troubles. drork 08:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
how about 'captured'? Abu ali 09:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
On June 4, 1967 Jerusalem was divided between two authorities. On June 12, 1967 it came under full control of one of these authorities. The trigger to that was a war. We choose to leave out the legitimacy issue. I suppose "capture" should do to cover it all. Any objections? drork 21:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Captured seems ok, because that states only the fact and leaves the disputed status of Jerusalem out of the sentence. --Magabund 22:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why Benjil finds the term "occupied" offensive; to me it is a simple, neutral, factual statement of the situation. It is used not only by Palestinians, but by Israeli peace and anti-occupation groups, by the mainstream Israeli media, by the UN and most other governments. But if he thinks that the term "reunified", which is certainly rejected by Palestinians, as well as by neutral observers and many Israelis, is non-POV, then we have a very different understanding of what constitutes a point of view. As I wrote above, the very fact that the term is used by pro-Israel propagandists, but rejected by Palestinians, should be sufficient to establish that it is indeed a contentious, and therefore unacceptable, POV.
But Benjil's statement that if pro-Palestinians don't like it, it's their problem, is certainly offensive, and I urge hoim to withdraw this comment.
Meanwhile, although I don't like the term "captured", it is certainly better than the current "reunified", so I will act on the developing consensus, and amend the article accordingly. RolandR 22:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The term "occupied" to speak about Jerusalem is not used by the mainstream Israeli media, but only by some fringe extremists groups on the far left that represent more or less nothing in Israel. "Occupied" is the *most* offensive term you could use, as you take a clear stand on the status of the city and implicitely negate the link between Israel and its capital. I can understand that "reunified" is perceived as not neutral even if it is just a fact, so let's go with "captured". Benjil 06:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Israel couldn't possibly capture Jerusalem because one part of it was already under Israeli control. Beit Or 13:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems that some of you may have jumped to conclusions. The word has nothing to do with POV. By saying they annexed or whatever East Jerusalem it would infer that they annexed that city. The reason is that they did not, it is not considered separate. They did not annex a separate city. They literally made it one again with its western half. By that it is re' - unified.

In a sense what you just said would seem like saying the Germans re-unified Poland on WWII, once they already had control of certain regions, or even saying they unified France with Alsace Lorraine, once it was already on there control. The political issue of a state gaining control of a certain region probably has little to do with an eventual recognition of these people of the legitmacy of that state. Up untill the present day many Hawaians don't fully recognize USA as a legitemate authority, even after 104 years, but that does not change the fact the authority exists and is on control. The point is, I think it is NPOV to state that Israel "gained control of all of Jerusalem", instead of "unified", "occupied"(highly POV), "captured", "unilaterally annexed" or others.--loulafg 18:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That is your own point of view; I do not share it. It also borders on original research. You have also, without providing any source, removed the {{Fact}} tag from the allegation that Beduin do not consider themselves Palestinian. I have reverted these unjustified POV edits.
(Sorry, forgot to sign yesterday) RolandR 14:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the term "occupied" used to be neutral, but it's not anymore, and the proof is that it is used by political organization as a political statement (the UN is a political organization too). As far as the West Bank is concerned, you could say it is occupied by Israel, since Israel controls the territory using martial law, in a way that is supposed to be in line with the Fourth Geneva Convention (at least in theory). However, the eastern part of Jerusalem is subject to the Israeli law. Whether one regards it as the desired state of affairs or not, it is not occupation in the plain simple sense of the word. drork 07:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
here's a suggestion: "during the 1967 war israel engaged eastern jerusalem, city of david, into it's sovreincy" ... i actually havn't seen the body text, but i figure the word engaged is probably as neutral as it gets in a situation where one side takes control and no one agrees on ownership.. and i really think the name "city of david" is important to the debate to remind everyone that all sources agree that david (daud in Islam) took jerusalem by divine right in the name of the israelites... personal thought: kinda sad though that the PLO renounce the prophet daud like that just because of political reasons. Jaakobou 01:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

We must recognise reality especially when we dislike it in order to change it. Israel annexed East Jerusalem for better or for worse. Either way, there's no need to reinvent the wheel - this 'discussion' was resolved years ago on Jerusalem. TewfikTalk 06:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I preffer engaged... and btw, jerusalem is still occupied by muslims who do not allow jews the enter the temple mount. Jaakobou 12:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


Hello, About the dispute on the word "indigenous". The source[9] clearly uses the word " indigenous/minority groups'" to describe the Palestinian youth. The article is also categorized under "indigenous groups". It's sourced, to an RS. What's the problem?

The problem is that the word indigenous is a POV. (try it with "non-indigenous" and it will become perfectly clear to you.) If a RS makes a POV claim, it needs to be presented as such (i.e- a claim by a partisan, not a fact), with balancing, opposing POVs. What I suggest, is that instead of turning this single sentence into yet another 'he said she said' argument, we leave the word "minority", which is undisputed, and the sentence still makes the same point. Isarig 17:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
"All editors and all sources have biases. A bias is a prejudice...for one particular point of view [POV] or ideology." You can't runaway from bias or POV. Also, the source in question is not "partisan" but published by the American Behavioral Scientist. IF you have an opposing viewpoit then feel free to add it.Bless sins 21:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
If it makes the same point , why are you so desperate to change it? There is ample evidence that Palestinians are indigenous beyond its mention in this particular Israeli academic study. The UN regularly refers to Palestinians as indigneous (See: [10], [11]. They were there before Israel was established, and there are still some of them there now. What's your evidence that they are not? Tiamut 20:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, considering The Future Vision document already mentioned in another context in this article (the full version of the document itself is here:[12]) I am surprised you would at all attempt to object. It begins: "We are the Palestinian Arabs in Israel, the indigenous peoples, the residents of the States of Israel, and an integral part of the Palestinian People and the Arab and Muslim and human Nation.

The war of 1948 resulted in the establishment of the Israeli state on a 78 percent of historical Palestine. We found ourselves, those who have remained in their homeland (approximately 160,000) within the borders of the Jewish state. Such reality has isolated us from the rest of the Palestinian People and the Arab world and we were forced to become citizens of Israel. This has transformed us into a minority living in our historic homeland."

In other words, there is ample proof that Arab citizens of Israel are defining themselves as an "indigenous minority" and identity is largely self-defined. Though it certainly doesn't hurt that the UN, the organization that mediates relations between peoples and nations, concurs, repeatedly describing Palestinians as a people indigenous to historic Palestine, part of which Israel took to establish itself on. And your argument is what again exactly? Tiamut 21:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Then we need to make clear that this is how they define themselves. To accept and promote their claims as neutral is against NPOV. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
But we have a reliable and non-partisan source saying that they are "indigenous". Humus Sapiens, if you have a sourced alternate POV suggesting that the Arabs are not "indigenous" then we have every reason to attribute this. Else, we don't.Bless sins 04:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
We have a reliable source, but not a non-partisan one. But in any case, since this is a disputed fact, it is POV, and has to be presented as such. DO you really want to drag Peters' (and others) claims here? Why not keep the sentence as is, w/o that word. How is the point being made lessened by it? Isarig 04:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
If you've an alternate POV present it. BUt don't such supress the existing ones. BTW, the source is a scientific one, not partisan.Bless sins 04:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Bless sins, you only show that you misunderstand basic NPOV. Please stop this childish edit war and review our policies. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
There is no doubt that the Palestinians see themselves as "indigenous", but so do the Jews. Describing the relationships between Jews and Arabs as between an "indigenous" minority and a (implicitly non indigenous) majority implies that we are in a colonial situation where the Jews are outsiders who took the land from the original owners. I know that is what many uninformed people think, but this is just a POV, and a false one by the way. Benjil 09:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
This is an article about "Arab citizens of Israel", so the issue of whether Jews see themselves as indigenous to Palestine is irrelevant here. The non-partisan scientific source cited describes Palestinians as "indigenous", the statement is not disputed -- or at least, no-one has been so foolish as to try to dispute it here -- and there is absolutely no reason except political bias to insist on its removal. RolandR 13:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
When you write "indigenous minority vs majority" you imply that the majority is not indigenous. If not, you just don't need to write it at all. Why do you want "indigenous" to be there at all if not to say exactly that: the Jews are not the indigenous people ? Benjil 13:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
No one is making any claims to the status of Jews re:their indigineity in the article. The article is about Arab citizens of Israel who are recognized to be indigenous by the UN and in DNA research ([13]

[14]). That Arabs self-identify as indigenous is an important necessary precondition for them to be accorded that status, but it is not proof that the view is POV with no basis in fact (as Humus Sapiens seems to be implying). That some Jews (primarily Sephardic) are also indigenous to Palestine (as indicated by the DNA studies cited), is not really relevant to this article. Tiamut 17:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand the relevance of the DNA study. And from what I know, DNA studies showed that most Jews, ashkenazic, sepharadic or whatever (but Ethiopians) had the same origins and that they were correlated closely to Middle Eastern people, Kurds in particular. [15] Anyway, denies the right of Israeli Arabs to say that they are indigenous, we just say that the article needs to say "they self-identify as " and not "they are". Benjil 18:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Genetic information only tells us that there is a genetic connection; it isn't a commentary on who is indigenous etc. That some people have that view can be (and is) expressed in the text, but it is unfair and nonneutral to present that as an unqualified objective fact. TewfikTalk 17:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, after much reflection on ths issue, I have to say that its unfair and nonneutral to deny that fact and hide this information from readers. The only major opposition I have seen to this term is from Zionists, who have a specific interest in denying that it is true, because they believe that only Jews are entitled to a special connection to the land of Palestine/Israel. Well, too bad. It is true. The people we are talking about were there before Israel was created and they are still there even after a colonizing government force came in and set up shop here. They identify as indigenous. A DNA study cited above specifically does say they are indigenous: "According to historical records part, or perhaps the majority, of the Moslem Arabs in this country descended from local inhabitants, mainly Christians and Jews, who had converted after the Islamic conquest in the seventh century AD (Shaban 1971; Mc Graw Donner 1981). These local inhabitants, in turn, were descendants of the core population that had lived in the area for several centuries,

some even since prehistorical times (Gil 1992)." Note the DNA study cites historians that make the same claim based on historical records. The UN says so. Everyone says so, except for Joan Peters, Daniel Pipes and others of their ilk who deny that Palestinians even exist as a people. Not one source has been provided backing your assertions, outside of the sadly discredited non-scholar, plaigarist Joan Peters. We have provided many. This time, it's not gonna fly. If you want to add a footnote mentioning that a minority made up largely of pro-Israel advocates denies that this is true, I am all for it. But the term should stay exactly where it is. Tiamut 18:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you have a *big* problem understanding the argument here. Nobody says that the Israeli Arabs should not be allowed to say they are indigenous, and nobody even argue that they are not, that's not even the point. The point is to say that's how they view themselves, and not state it the way the sentence is written, implying that the majority is not indigenous. Anyway, thank you for revealing your not-so-hidden agenda. Wikipedia is not a place for propaganda. If you are not able to understand that other opinion exist and that yours is not the absolute truth, we are going to have a problem. Benjil 20:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Wikipedia is not a place for propaganda, and your continued attempts to remove the fact that Palestinians are (not just claim to be) indigenous to Palestine is unacceptable, politically-motivated, POV pushing. It is analogous to the attempts to physically remove those Palestinians still living in Palestine, and cannot be accepted in Wikipedia. The several sources we provide state for a fact that Palestinians are indigenous to Palestine, and you have provided no evidence -- not even a disputed propaganda source -- tto establish anything else. RolandR 21:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Well - exactly the contrary. Nobody even started arguing that the Palestinians are not indigenous. Nobody but you and Tiamut spoke about that. This is not the point. The point is that the simple fact of stressing that they are indigenous is saying that the Jews are not - and that is precisely what Tiamut wants to say here. If not, why do you even stress that they are indigenous ? In an article about the Druze minority in Lebanon, would you write about "the indigenous minority" and the muslim majority ? Of course not. In fact, we should remove completely any reference to this subject as this is totally irrelevant and POV pushing as you say (just read Tiamut before me, this is pretty clear). Benjil 08:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello Benjil. If a contrary opinion, that Arabs are not indigenous, really exists then present it and we'll include it also in the article. That would be in accordance with NPOV "all significant published points of view are to be presented".Bless sins 21:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Benjil's right. We'll simply present it neutrally. <<-armon->> 01:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course "indigenous" is a POV claim that implies that Jews are foreigners and "settlers". In addition, note the repeated attempts to slip in a rallying cry against "majority ruling authorities elsewhere in the world." Don't expect this to stick. ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
If the majority ruling authorities part bothers you, I am not against removing it, but I fail to see how stating that Arabs are indigenous undermines Jewish indigineity. As pointed out above, DNA studies that support Arab indiginiety also support Jewish indiegineity proving those two are not mutually exclusive. I really don't understand the problem here. My last edit included the minority viewpoint that Arabs are not indigenous. Why keep changing it to make it seem that Arab are the only ones who think so, when that is patently false? That's what is called POV pushing. Tiamut 12:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Once again, you fail to see the point. Nobody claimed here that the Arabs are not indigenous, that is not part of the discussion. You are the one who keep bringing that. Stating that Arabs are indigenous is totally irrelevant (this is not an article about immigration) unless you want to say something else - that the Jews are not. That's what transpire from this sentence. That's why we will continue to change it. Benjil 13:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
That's enough Benjil. You changed this formulation: "The relationship of Arab citizens to the State of Israel is often fraught with tension. This tension can be regarded in the context of relations between indigenous/minority populations and state authorities elsewhere in the world [1], though their indigeneity has been challenged by some pro-Israel advocates." to this:

"The relationship of Arab citizens to the State of Israel is often fraught with tension. This tension can be regarded in the context of relations between minority populations and state authorities elsewhere in the world [2]." There are a number of problems here. First of all, the acedemic source cited calls this population "indigenous" , not a minority. Second, I tried tol accomodate the other POVs in my edit and take out the majority ruling reference that Humus found so offensive. You have just totally deleted what I think was a very fair NPOV compromise and removed indigenous despite its being properly source and discussed here. Please self-revert. Failing that, I'm sure someone else will eventually correct your rampant POV pushing. Tiamut 13:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Isarig! What the F man! It is not a POV that Palestinians are indigenous. They are participants in the UN working group on indigenous peoples. [16]. I don't think that people who only think of themselves as indigenous qualify for that. Again, you have provided no sources for your view that Palestinians are not indigenous, outside the discredited Joan Peters book. I think my formulation above therefore fairly represents the evidence we currently have available. I ask you to self-revert. I also ask that you stop reverting other edits unrelated to this dispute in the intermediate version of articles before your revert. Tiamut 16:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The UN is notoriously partial when it comes to anything to do with the Palestinians and Israel. Elizmr 16:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Sorry, saved before I finished. They cannot be considered a gold standard for any such definition. Elizmr 16:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You miss the point Elizmr. "The Arab population in Israel meets most if not all parameters of indigeneity that were set by

Jose Martinez-Cobo, the Special Rapporteur to the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities,4 whose definition of an indigenous people is to date the most accepted and well known. Martinez-Cobo’s main parameters are: priority in time; voluntary perpetuation of their cultural distinctiveness; self-identification as indigenous; and experience of subjugation, marginalization, dispossession, exclusion, and discrimination by the dominant society. Furthermore, an accepted notion in the treatment of indigenous communities is that indigeneity establishes conditionality between the existence of a group of people and their bond to a specific place." [17] Additionally, the criteria to establish indigeneity at Wikipedia is as follows: "an indigenous people may be identified as such, where notable independent reference(s) can be found that the group's indigenous identity is either asserted or recognised as being indigenous, or some other cognate term, by either: some government, regulatory body, law or protocol, which may be either sub-national, national or trans-national; and/or some body, NGO or other organisation, involved with indigenous affairs and recognised as an accredited participant, intermediary or representative in some legal, negotiative, national or international regulatory or rights-based process; and/or some academic and peer-reviewed literature or publication; and/or some representative body of the indigenous society itself, where that representation is made in respect of a claim or issue to a government or governmentally-supported organisation (eg the UN, African Union)." Now, thus far, I have provided a citation to UN woking group on indigenous peoples which included representatives from Palestine. I provided two academic citations that speak directly to indigeneity, I provided the document where Palestinians in Israel declare themselves indigenous, I have provided DNA studies that ocnclude that "Arab-Israelis" are indigenous. And I now provide this: [18], an example of a Palestinian legal group in Israel that held a working table on indigenous land rights. All of this goes far past the criteria necessary to establish indigeneity. Please, for once, couldn't all you Zionists just fairly concede the point. I added the opposite POV, even though it is minority view. Why can't you givv3e a fiathful representation to the majority view. Tiamut 16:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, I find your remark directed towards, "you zionists" inappropriate since I know you consider it to be a huge insult--there is no need for insults here. What you are describing and giving undue weight to is a politically driven attempt to describe Jews as foreigners and colonizers. By the the UN standards you cite here, Jews are indigenous to Israel. Priority in time--3000 years should be enough; voluntary perpetuation of cultural distinctiveness, ok I think Jews have that since we've held onto our culture for 3K years+; self-identification as indigenous--we have considered Jerusalem our homeland since the Babylonian Exhile--please pick up any prayerbook etc from any time in history and read through the am prayers for a quick example, and the experience of subjugation, marginalization, dispossession, exclusion, and discrimination by the dominant society--we have that in spades. Please see for some information about how the Jews who stayed in the Middle East after the original exhiles were treated. Many peoples have a homeland in the middle east--not just Arabs. Elizmr 17:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh, Elizmr. Your sophistry is compelling but not good enough. The criteria for inclusion of a group in the indigenous category is clearly enunciated on that page. I quoted it here above. I found the sources required. You have not to support your claims regarding Jewish indigeneity. If you do, please, by all means add Jews to the indigneous peoples category pages and mention it in the Israel article. But otherwise, your ranting is really rather irrelevant. And Zionist, my friend, is not an insult. Its a descriptive term for your (and others) POVs here. Like leftist, or anarchist or whatever. Tiamut 17:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) Tiamut, I'm not sure why you think that accusing me of lying would make me more receptive to your position, but please keep Wikipedia:Civility in mind. TewfikTalk 17:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You did lie, I'm just being honest. You said I provided no sources to back that claim when I have provided over 7, and it is you that have provided a grand total of 0. You therefore totally mischaracterized your revert. And a total mischaracterization, is a lie. Tiamut 17:29, 26 February 2007 (UT

sophsitry? rant? lie? come on. I'm just encouraging you to stop using Wikipedia as a soapbox to lend legitimacy to politically motivated new definitions. And to characterize a group of editors as "you zionists" is acutally insulting since it implies that our edits are ideologically driven rather than based on the truth. Elizmr 18:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a known problem that academics come up with politically motivated spins, that universities accept them and that books are published to this effect. Notably Holocaust denial has been in the news. The use of faux scholarship has made experts out of folks like Mamoud Abbas, who spent university years in Russia to readjust downward the number of deaths in the Holocaust. As if removing pieces of jewish history and repeating a lie were much more important than actually going to an archive in Germany or Poland where actual research could be conducted. I see nothing different in this space. Clearly both peoples have a claim to the land and that is why there is conflict. The Arab position is filled with unopposed lies, indoctrinaton from the age 3, and state television networks beaming this hatred daily. It is a danger to spread so much hatred among a billion people without a valve for debate. Anyone who disagrees must be disposed of (that means killed) as an apostate. I find this to be the basis here of rejecting the concept that jews are indigenious to the middle east, were treated brutally by muslims for centuries and have had holy places destroyed and replaced with mosques. What about the jews as a mistreated indigenous people in the same region. You can't blame the jews for looking for greener pastures. But you cannot rightly say that they all left (Jerusalem has had a jewish population all along), that they weren't more forcefully dispossesed from countries such as Iran, Yemen, Libya, Syria etc than the Palestinians were at the nakba, when Jordan and Egypt occupied the occupied territories. There is a big rock in the middle of the road and it was put there by Arab leaders, who encouraged then muslim natives of the palestinians to remove to other territories to fight another day, be used as political pawns, never be offered citizenship, jobs or other benefits. That's why Saudia Arabia would rather import foreign workers than give jobs to the Palestinian refugees. To support even logical steps in the betterment of their life would lead to an erosion of the rock in the middle of the road. Similarly the denial of the right to exist of the jews, the history of the jews, the events of the holocaust or the fact that it wasn't the sole reason that Israel was created all slow down the enormous propogandic element in play. If there is not a good sound bite to feed the arab rage, then make one up. For it seems more important to have a cause than a solution.

Review of arguments for the inclusion of Palestinians (both in Israel and in occupied territories) into the Category Indigenous People & therefore, for the inclusion of this information as fact into this article

What follows is the criteria for identifying indigenous peoples per[19] the Wikipedia Category:Indigenous peoples, and after each caveat, I have provided the sources that cite Palestinians as indigenous in this regard.

" indigenous people may be identified as such, where notable independent reference(s) can be found that the group's indigenous identity is either asserted or recognised as being indigenous, or some other cognate term, by either: some government, regulatory body, law or protocol, which may be either sub-national, national or trans-national; (see: [20] and/or some body, NGO or other organisation, involved with indigenous affairs and recognised as an accredited participant, intermediary or representative in some legal, negotiative, national or international regulatory or rights-based process; (see:[21] and/or some academic and peer-reviewed literature or publication; [22][23] [24]) and/or some representative body of the indigenous society itself, where that representation is made in respect of a claim or issue to a government or governmentally-supported organisation (eg the UN, African Union)." (see: [25][26] [27] [28])

On this basis, I submit that Palestinians undeniably qualify for inclusion into the Category:Indigenous peoples, and therefore submit that this information should be included in the article as fact, while representing the opposing minority view held largely among pro-Israeli advocates (as determined by the only source provided by them: From Time Immemorial). Tiamut 19:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a proposal, not any WP policy or guideline, and even it states "Where there is (independent) contention about identifying any particular group as an indigenous people, the contention should be noted in the relevant article". Isarig 00:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
So why resist attributing the contention to its source: Joan Peters From Time Immemorial explicitly? Tiamut 17:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

More on Palestinians as indigenous

The early Zionist writer Ahad Ha'Am famously wrote several articles describing the situation of the Arabs resident in Palestine at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries. The most important of these, "The Truth from Eretz Israel", written after his first visit to Palestine in 1891, is not easily available in English. I've just downloaded it in Hebrew, and will read it carefully over the next few days. While I can state with certaintity that the word "indigenous" does not appear (since he wrote in Hebrew), it is clear that even then, several years before Herzl called the First Zionist Congress, Ahad Ha'Am was aware of the existence of a settled Arab community in Palestine who would not accept being supplanted by European settlers, whatever ideology they professed and however justified they felt their enterprise to be. In The Origins of Zionism (Oxford University Press, 1980), Israeli political scientist David Vital quotes from the essay, presumably in his own translation:

"particularly the town dwellers among them, do see and understand what we are about, but they keep their own counsel and pretend to innocence because they see no future danger to themselves in anything we do; on the contrary, they exploit us, as best they can, try to extract the greatest possible profit from the new guests, and laugh at us behind our backs. The peasants are glad enough to have Jewish settlements set up among them because they are well paid for their labour and, as experience shows, prosper steadily from year to year. The great landlords are equally glad to have us because we pay them prices they had never dreamt of for stony and sandy soil. But if there ever comes a time when we have developed our life in Eretz-Israel to the point where we shall be encroaching upon them in a greater or lesser degree, [then we should not expect them] to yield their place easily". (Vital, pp195-6)

If this is not a description of an indigenous community, with social stratification and a strong attachment to the land, then I don't know what is.

In 2006, the Yale Israel Journal published a paper by Joshua Krug, "Image and Encounter:The Zionists and the Arabs between 1882 and 1908"[29]. Krug, reportedly [30] a leader of the Hillel group at Yale, and from the evidence of the paper a follower of Ahad Ha'Am, clearly sees the indigenous status of Palestinians, at the beginning of the twentieth century, as axiomatic; He writes: "it is necessary to examine those crucial, first encounters between Zionist settlers and indigenous Palestinian Arabs. Between the years of 882 and 1908, how did Jewish newcomers perceive the indigenous population of Palestine and how did the indigenous population perceive the Zionists?". Sub-headings in the paper include "Early Interactions between Zionist Immigrants and Indigenous Arabs" and "Zionist Perceptions of the ndigenous Arabs". In all, the word "indigenous" appears 14 times in the article, in relation to Palestinians in Palestine 100 years ago.

It is absurd to maintain this childish pretence that the Palestinians are somehow not indigenous to Palestine. RolandR 01:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No one is questioning the existance of Arab communities in Palestine in the late 19c or early 20th C. But you are confused (as is, apparently, Mr. Krug) about the meanign of "Indigenous". The Arabs are not "Indigenous" to this region, they conquered it and settled it. They did this many many years ago, but that does not make them "Indigenous". And if we're going to go by what Ehad Ha'am saw back in 1891, surely we could make just as strong a case for Jews being indigenous, unless we are going to selectievly edit out his comments on the Jewish communities of Jerusalem, Zefat and Tiberias. Isarig 02:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
See, Jews are not indigenous to the Land of Israel or anywhere. Everywhere and forever, they are settlers. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree Humus, (happy to see you and friend hanging here). Ethiopian Jews belong to Ethiopia. Russian Jews belong to Russia. They are indigenous to those lands. I have no idea how a human being could not be indigenous to somewhere unless they were mixed like the people in South Africa.Didnt the Jews conquer the land and settle it as well in antiquity? The people of Palestine are gentically the same people of old, see their DNA, they are the "people of the sea" "the red people". these r facts not myths, genes dont lie. European Jews are not gentically the natives of this land. And I bet the Arab Jews and the Muslim Arabs are identical races.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 01:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well you are all wrong. First there is no "race". Then, as already proven and explained here, most Jews share a common origin. Jews and Arabs are related but Sefaradi and Oriental Jews are not Arabs - they just lived in Arab countries - and are genetically closer to Ashkenazi Jews than to Arabs. The Palestinians, of course, are not the descendant of the Sea People and other people living here in the antiquity, but a mix of several Arab people who arrived at different times. Benjil 07:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Who is Paula Abdul? Jew is a religion. You can be Ethiopian and Jew, Russian And Jew. Lemba and Jew. European Jews share a common origin with all the rest of Europe. African Jews have a genetic line, much stronger which goes back to Israel. see Lemba. I dont how many Arabs left Arabia that could have populated so much of the Middle East and North Africa, off course they mixed, everyone is mixed. How are European Jews white people, if they didnt mix God knows how long ago? The term Arab is the issue. Today Arab is a collective term, thus Arab as a race is meaningless. So Palestinian people are today called Arab, but they are the natural people of the land since antiquity, or are you telling me all the original people went to Russia & Germany? NExt the British will reinvade Africa and claim their African gentic right to Africa.i have noticed how fiction becomes facts to justify human want, we would find ways to be legally from Antartica if it suited our interest. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 00:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You are obviously very confused. You mix ethnicity, citizenship, religion etc... Jews are a people - mainly because that is how they define themselves. In fact, that is the *only* definition of a people: a community that sees itself as such. The fact is that Jews share a common ancestry (as genetic studies prove it) but that is not even important. Regarding the actual Palestinians, they are mostly descendants of all kind of people who immigrated in the last centuries. Some families may have older roots to the land. It is of course also of no importance. Benjil 08:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not confused unless who is a jew is confused, or Arab is confused, or the research below is confused. Still what happened to the native people of Israel, did they blow into the sea? Genetic study shows that teh Lemba of Southern Africa have more Jewish genes than any European or Arab Jew, so i think in summing the Palestinian people are natives to that land, have been in that land as long as Biblical times. Its like the White South African telling the Bantu, u r not native to this land, you came from another place. It is critical to the crisis, and it is critical to this article, native people of Palestine are the Palestinian people. European jews are settlers in Israel, just like the settlers in America and South Africa. see reserach below.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 11:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
There are no "Jewish genes". The Lemba have a lot of "Cohen genes" - and this concept is widely criticized. What happened to the native people of Israel ? Well these are the Jews, just read a book about Jewish history. I remind you that the "Palestinian people" is a creation of the last decades. Nobody ever heard of a "Palestinian people" before 1948 (or even before 1967) - in particular because there was no "Palestine" and never has been. Benjil 11:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

People of the sea

Phoenicia was an ancient civilization whose heartland spread along the coastal plains of what is now Lebanon/Palestine. Recent DNA (Y chromosome) studies conducted by the National Geographic Magazine on the bones of ancient Phoenicians and living people from Lebanon, Palestine and elsewhere in the Mediterranean prove that both Muslims and Christians from those areas carry the same ancient Phoenician genetic material. Phoenicians are refered to as Lebanon's epic heritage. this is fact!!--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 00:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


The links section is too long and I've suggested some cuts. They are listed below:

Landmark Survey of Israelis, Israeli-Arabs, & Palestinians: Dead Link

In honor of Eid ul-Fitr: The Chief of Staff Visits Bedouin Representatives: nothing more than an IDF press release

lectures, reports, news, maps, Books, documentaries a site mainly in German, many contributions in English]: It's a good site but it doesn't have much on Israeli-Arabs

Organisation of Israeli Arab workers and unemployed: Links to a site that only has image placeholders

Arabs And Israelis Share Shelters; Arab animosity toward Islamic fascism: links to a weblog that does not mention Arab-Israelis

'Israeli by choice' may be sent back to Palestinian Authority: is not a news story about an Arab citizen of Israel,

Letter from an Israeli Druze: This is a letter that deals with the boycott of Israeli Universities and does not discuss the status of Israel's Palestinian/Arab citizens.

--Oneworld25 01:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


Are you guys serious? We put "Palestinian" on the page of Edward Said even though he's an American citizen. That doesn't mean that Edward is only Palestinian, it means it is one facet of his identity. Here, more than half of Arab citizens identify as Palestinians and you're going deny them the right to be associated with that entire category of people because some of them do not? The reservations are explained in the article. I don't think anyone will be confused by the category being there if the article is well-written regarding the subject (currently it could use some work). But stop trying to remove a totally legitimate category. Or at least, discuss, before removing. Thanks. Tiamut 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no precedent for categorising an entire group according to something true to only part of it. That this article is categorised in "Israel" and "Arab Israelis" is entirely logical since these are inherently true according to the entry's thesis. If "more than half of Arab citizens identify as Palestinians" then we say as much in the text, but we don't then label the other half as also identifying in such a manner. TewfikTalk 18:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I added cat Palestinian people. Whats all the hub bub, bub?? Does everything about the middle east have to end up with agenda fighing? Anyways, carry on boys. --Tom 18:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Threeafterthree,
Unfortunately, your observation about conflict carrying over is often true, though WP generally lets us sort more out than not in the end. As for your compromise, I'm afraid it is has the same problem, since the same Arab Israelis that don't identify as Palestinians, don't identify as Palestinian people. It would be like labelling the population of N. Ireland Catholic or Protestant - neither fits both. That some Arab Israelis identify as Palestinian is represented in the text, but such a disputed description should not be applied across the board as a category (per policy). Cheers, and thanks for your help in any event. TewfikTalk 19:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The policy say: "A category is probably inappropriate if the answer to the following questions is "no": Is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of a category, explaining it? If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article? An article will often be in several categories. Restraint should be used, however — categories become less effective the more there are on a given article." Further, it notes that cetgories are used to help people find articles on subjects they are interested in. Now, placing hte category Palestinians at the bottom of this page, certainly does not imply that all Arab citizens of Israel are Palestinian (this fact is explicitly noted in the text a number of times). However, someone looking for information on Palestinians in Israel, would definitely benefit from having this article listed int the category Palestinians, since it would help them to find it. If you find this suggestion objectionable, perhaps we need a separate article entitled "Palestinians in Israel". Because continuing to disqualify all things Palestinian simply because some Arab citizens don't identify as such, isn't very NPOV, fair or informative. Tiamut 19:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course the category should go in. Pretty much any general work I can think of on modern Palestinian society, culture, etc, (apart from those confining their scope to the Occupied Territories) covers the Arab citizens of Israel. The comparison with the religious affiliation of people in Northern Ireland is bizarre. Palmiro | Talk 19:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Certain Arab citizens of Israel (like Bedouins and Druze) don't identify as Palestinians at all. For others, some do, some don't. When some members of a group actively reject a categorization, it doesn't make sense to add that category to all of them. Some Jews identify as "Palestinians" as well, but we don't stick the "Palestinian" cat on the Jew article. Jayjg (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's interesting. Jayjg writes above "When some members of a group actively reject a categorization, it doesn't make sense to add that category to all of them". Yet he has been among the editors insisting on adding the category "Antisemitism" to the article on Anti-Zionism. Most, if not all, anti-Zionists actively reject this categorisation; why does the same logic not hold there?
I will concede that some anti-Zionists are anrtisemitic; indeed, I have written as much in some articles about them. But, so long as it is understood that the label does not refer to all anti-Zionists, I am prepared to allow the label to remain. Similarly here. No-one is claiming here that all Arab citizens of Israel identify as Palestinians (though some of us may claim politically that objectively, they actually all are indeed such). The intention of including the category is not to advance some such claim in an underhand way. It is simply, as Tiamut suggests above, that this is a helpful -- indeed, encyclopaedic -- indication to people seeking further information.
But if we are to accept Jayjg's logic above, then surely we have to remove the category "Ancient peoples" from the article Jews; after all, we're not all ancient! --RolandR 20:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Do all Israeli Druze identify as Arab citizens of Israel? And by the way, I think you will also find some people in the various "antisemitism" categories who do not self-identify as anti-Semites, by the way. Perhaps you should look into that! I do not think, either, that Jewish self-identification as Palestinian is quite as common as it is among Israeli Arabs, though I have not read widely on this particular subject and am open to correction.
The point, though, is that reliable sources dealing with the Palestinian people generally include coverage of the Arab citizens of Israel as such. For example, such a major work as Kimmerling and Migdal's The Palestinian People: A history includes a full chapter (out of six covering the post-Nakba period) devoted entirely to Arabs in Israel. This being the case, the category regarding the Palestinian people would be incomplete without the inclusion of this article in it. The question of the identification of Arab citizens of Israel as Palestinians, or not, is addressed in the article itself, as it should be. Palmiro | Talk 21:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that there are no explanations attached to categories. If a category is in any way disputed, it should not be there. Beit Or 22:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe that that principle is generally agreed. For example, the Arbitration Committee ruled that it would be appropriate to include the not uncontroversial categories "Geography of Israel" and "Geography of Syria" on the Golan Heights page. I think it is also fairly clear that the category Palestinian people would be rather incomplete if a population widely regarded, and studied, as one of the main elements of the Palestinian people, was left out of it. There's no real need to be concerned about there being no explanations attached to categories, as the category tags are attached to pages and this page, which precedes the category tag, explains the issue in detail. Palmiro | Talk 23:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Any article which contains a substantial amount of material relevent to the topic of Palestinians belongs in the Palestinians category. This page meets the criterion with flying colors. --Zerotalk 23:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

But whether or not Arab Israeli are Palestinian is obviously controversial, since half of them don't even think so. Jayjg (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
It is enough that a large part of this population are Palestinians by their own and most people's reckoning. The portion of the policy quoted above by Tiamut makes it clear, I think. There is plenty of discussion in the article about the issue. --Zerotalk 00:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
No it isn't enough. "Palestinian" is an identity that is not synonymous with being an Arab Israeli. Being an Arab Israeli (to address the point raised above) rests not on identification, but on a legal status. According to the logic that Any article which contains a substantial amount of material relevent [sic] to the topic of Palestinians belongs in the Palestinians, we would put half the Middle East and Israeli related articles in the category, and categorisation would cease to have any function. I'm not sure what the case on "antizionism" is, but if it is indeed as you've described above, then I would be inclined to agree with your position. The Golan Heights example refers to reconciling two competing legal definitions, and thus is not analogous. TewfikTalk 21:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

And Tiamut, I don't know what you are implying with I don't think [Tewfik's] opposition to the inclusion of this category has anything to do with respecting how I or other Arab citizens in Israel feel about our identity,[31] but please respect respect the policies concerning civility and good faith, and keep in mind that I've never made any such comments about you. Lets keep this professional. TewfikTalk 21:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this categorization is way too controversial. What's next: putting Israelis into categories Germans, Russians, Yemenis, and Iraqis? ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm surprised that an attempt has not been made to category Ashkenazi Jews under Germans... in any case, I agree with Tewfik, Jayjg and Humus - I think we need to take the topic as an indivisible whole, and ask ourself whether it can be categorized in Category:Palestinian people. The answer is a clear no; Arab citizens of Israel are not Palestinian people. Some of them might identify as such, but you can't divide the subject of an article for categorization. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 23:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

According to, a reliable source, a “Palestinian” is a “a descendant of the Arabs who inhabited Palestine”. “Palestine” is a “a former British mandate on the east coast of the Mediterranean” or “an ancient country in southwestern Asia on the east coast of the Mediterranean Sea; a place of pilgrimage for Christianity and Islam and Judaism”.

Thus the Israeli Arabs seem to be Palestinians, as they are “descendent[s] of the Arabs who inhabited the former British mandate [of Palestine].”Bless sins 23:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the Compact Oxford Dictionary[32] “Palestinian is a member of the native Arab population of Palestine. This also fits the definition. Although I think we may need a reliable source making an explicit statement.Bless sins 23:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother. You will have to demonstrate an official announcement that Israeli Arabs do identify themselves as Palestinians. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
How about this report [33] from the The National Committee for the Heads of the Arab Local Authorities in Israel (one of two official regional bodies representing the Arab population in Israel) on 12 January 2007 which says:
"We are the Palestinian Arabs in Israel, the indigenous peoples, the residents of the States of Israel, and an integral part of the Palestinian People and the Arab and Muslim and human Nation.
The war of 1948 resulted in the establishment of the Israeli state on a 78 percent of historical Palestine. We found ourselves, those who have remained in their homeland (approximately 160,000) within the borders of the Jewish state. Such reality has isolated us from the rest of the Palestinian People and the Arab world and we were forced to become citizens of Israel. This has transformed us into a minority living in our historic homeland." Look it up. It's in Ha'aretz too. It's spoken of in the article itself. Tiamut 01:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
This is looking increasingly like a reprise of the consistent removal of the "Israeli settlements" category from the articles on East Jerusalem settlements. Ideology first, never mind what would make for a rational system of categories helping users to find content generally viewed as related and relevant. Palmiro | Talk 01:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of examples of Arab citizens of Israel, and their organisations, referring to themselves as Palestinians. For instance, Adalah -- The Legal Centre for Arab Citizens of Israel, which has a whole section on its website entitled " History of the Palestinians in Israel", which starts "Today, Palestinian citizens of Israel comprise close to 20% of the total population of the country, numbering over 1,000,000." Or the Arab Association for Human Rights, which was "founded in 1988 to promote and protect the political, civil, economic, and cultural rights of the Palestinian Arab minority in Israel and to further the domestic implementation of international human rights principles"[34]. Then there's Balad -- The National Democratic Assembly, which notes that "The state of Israel is composed of two national groups; Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jewish. The Palestinian Arab minority is an integral part of the Palestinian people as a whole, numbering around one million people, 20% of the total population of Israel" [35]. Balad is a legal political party in Israel, with two (Palestinian) members of the Knesset. And what about I'lam -- The Media Center for Arab Palestinians in Israel [36]. Or "Harakat Abnaa elBalad (Sons of the Land Movement) ... a Palestinian Progressive Patriotic movement active within the areas that are occupied by Israel since 1948" [37]. Then there's "The Mossawa Center, The Advocacy Center for Arab Citizens in Israel, ... a non-profit, non-governmental organization that works to promote equality for the Arab/Palestinian citizens of Israel" [38]. As noted in the article, the The National Committee for the Heads of the Arab Local Authorities in Israel (possibly the most representative body of Arabs in Israel) recently published its ground-breaking report "The Future Vision of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel" [39]. The fact is that most Arabs in Israel, and certainly the orhganisations which represent them, do indeed identify as Palestinian, and as an integral part of the Palestinian people. Some editors here may not like this, may even deny their right to do so, but they cannot deny the fact that they do indeed so identify.

Thanks for that RolandR. Sometimes when things seem so obvious, it's hard to muster up the effort to put together the evidence. Nice job. Tiamut 02:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Casualty listings (what does and does not belong?)

Hey Isarig. I noticed you keep reinserting this listing:

  • July2005: Five persons were killed and 30 were injured in a suicide bombimg in Netanya. On March 1st, 2007, 3 Israeli citizens, 2 of them Arabs, were convicted of manslaughter in this incident, for helping get the suicide bomber to the site of the bombing by illegally smuggling him in their car from the West Bank into Israel.[3]

I added that info the section above on Intercommunal Relations where the scope and depth of the involvement of Arab citizens of Israel is explored in greater detail. I would like to remove it from the casualty listings because it is aiding and abetting, and not direct carrying out of the attack. Are you suggesting that we expand the definition to include those aiding and abetting in murders of an ideological nature? Wouldn't that make for a very big list? Tiamut 17:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

These people were convected of killing, not of aiding and abetting. there is no difference, in the eyes of the law as well as in terms of moral responsibility, between the person who assembles a bomb, and the person who plants it, and the person who sets the timer. They are all equally guilty, once convicted. I don't think the list of those convicted of killing would be very long. Isarig 20:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
This is the first time people are convicted of manslaughter for illegally transporting Palestinians. It's not even clear that they were ideologically-motivated killings (as per the sub-section heading). In fact, the article clearly states that two of the three convicted could not turn down the "business opportunity". [40]. Are you sure you want to insist on its inclusion in this particular section? Tiamut 21:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
There's a first time for everything, so I don't really see what that objection is all about, but if you feel that strongly about it, I'm ok with you moving it to a different section. Isarig 21:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually the entire set of lists of one kind or another that follows from the heading "Intercommunal relations" really should be deleted as unencyclopaedic. Palmiro | Talk 21:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate you being flexible about this Isarig and in light of Palmiro's suggestion, perhaps we could consider a way to present the information in this section differently. I will try working on a prose version that incorporates links to the articles and events listed. I'll post it here before adding it and if others want to have a go at it as well, that would be good too. Tiamut 21:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here's a draft version for the first part of that section (up to but not including the Examples of Integration subsection):

There are significant tensions between Arab citizens and their Jewish counterparts. A 2006 poll commissioned by the Arab advocacy group, The Center for the Struggle Against Racism, found that: 63% of Jews believe Arabs are a security threat; 68% of Jews would refuse to live in the same building as an Arab; 34% of Jews believe that Arab culture is inferior to Israeli culture. Additionally, support for segregation between Jewish and Arab citizens was found to be higher among Jews of Middle Eastern origin than those of European origin.[4]

Though many point to such attitudes as evidence of racism in Israeli society, other counter that these attitudes are attributable to the security situation, as there have been some cases where Arabs inside Israel have been arrested for aiding terrorists.[citation needed] Several Arab citizens of Israel have been convicted of espionage for Hezbollah.[5] Arab citizens have also played a role in some attacks, assisting Palestinian suicide bombers reach cities in Israel.[6] On March 1st, 2007, for example, 3 Israeli citizens, 2 of them Arabs, were convicted of manslaughter for smuggling the suicide bomber of the July 2005 attack in Netanya that killed five and wounded 30 from the West Bank into Israel.[7] The first and only suicide bombing physically carried out by an Arab citizen of Israel was on September 9 2001, against soldiers and civilians disembarking from a train in the Nahariya station, killing 3 and wounded 90.[8][9] Most earlier examples of Arab violence against Jews resulting in fatalities took place during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, with the exception of one case on 1 January 1952 when seven armed Arab citizens attacked and killed a nineteen year-old girl in her home in Jerusalem.[10]

‘’See also: List of massacres committed in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war’’

Arab citizens have also been subject to violence resulting in fatalities at the hands of their Jewish counterparts. The most notable example outside of attacks that took place during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war was the August 4 2005 The Shfar'am attack, when four Arab citizens were shot dead on a bus by an 18-year old AWOL IDF soldier.

Unlike their fellow Jewish citizens, who are rarely if ever subject to fatal shootings by Israeli police or security forces, Arab citizens have sustained a number of such fatalities. Events in which multiple casualties were sustained at the hands of Isralei police and seucirty forces include the October 1956 Kafr Qasim massacre (48 dead), the March 1976 Land Day demonstrations (6 dead), and the October 2000 events in which 12 Arab citizens and one Palestinian from Gaza were killed.

Arab citizens have also been victims of Palestinian, Arab, or Islamist attacks on Israel and Israelis. For example, on September 12, 1956, three Druze guards were killed in an attack on Ein Ofarim, in the Arabah region.[11] Two Arab citizens were killed in the Ma'alot massacre carried out by the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine on May 15 1974. In March 2002, a resident of the Arab town of Tur'an was killed in an attack on a Haifa restaurant[12] Two months later, a woman from Jaffa was killed in a Hamas suicide bombing in Rishon LeZion[12] On June 18, 2002: A woman from the Arab border town of Barta'a was one of 19 killed by Hamas in the Patt junction massacre in Jerusalem[12] In August 2002, a man from the Arab town of Mghar and woman from the Druze village of Sajur were killed in a suicide bombing at Meron junction[12] On October 21, 2002, an Isfiya man and a Tayibe woman were among 14 killed by Islamic Jihad in the Bus 841 massacre.[12] On March 5, 2003, a 13 year old girl from the Druze town of Daliyat al-Karmel was one of 17 killed in the Haifa bus 37 massacre.[12] In May 2003: A Jisr az-Zarqa man, was killed in an Afula mall suicide bombing.[12] On March 19, 2004, Fatah al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades gunmen killed George Khoury, a Hebrew University student. [13] On December 12, 2004, five Arab Israeli soldiers were killed in an explosion and shooting at the border with Egypt for which the Fatah Hawks claimed responsibility.[14] On October 4, 2003, four Arab Israelis were among the 21 killed by Hanadi Jaradat in the Maxim restaurant suicide bombing. In July 2006, 19 Arab citizens were killed due to Hezbollah rocket fire in the course of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

I am going to add this proposal to the article, seeing as there are no objections, and that there was a reuest to remove the "list" format. Here goes. Tiamut 14:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sikkuy and criticism about Arab Israeli economy influencing culture

This needs a mention: The Sikkuy equality index: [41] [42]. --Zerotalk 14:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite follow the reasoning behind what appears to be censorship on criticism/causes for poverty in the Arab-Israeli society. there's allready been 3 obvious reverts which simply removed info rather than make an attempt to include/edit the material for a more acceptable version. both involved editors should consider the material for what it is, a pro-arab(!), non geovernmental organization (NGO) headed by Mr. Yasser Awad, an Arab Israeli... I'd like to hear a proper reasoning for this censorship but i'd much rather have a normative editing pattern.
sample recent Sikkuy article worth mentioning: - Arab women practically don't work, the men don't earn much. Jaakobou 20:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The idea that we'll cite seemingly random surveys of information from partisan sources hardly seems like a good way to build an encyclopaedia. Can't we do better? TewfikTalk 20:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow why you call this a "partizan survey", if anything, it's a pro-Arab report by a fairly respected organization that uses official statics released by Israel's main statistics bureau. So, I doubt the criticism they apply on Arab society has reason to be censored. Jaakobou 12:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Jaakobou asked me to weigh in here. I do know know Sikkuy and their surveys do not seem particularly partisan. However some editors here (Jaakobou included) seem to be trying to pick individual details from their surveys to suggest. 1) Arabs do not suffer poverty and 2) it is their own fault. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 10:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
User:Abu ali, I don't understand why you need to make a personal attack without checking into the edits. just because you're a declared anti-zionist and we clashed over it a couple times in the past does not mean you have the right to attack me when i give you a change to weigh in on something. last note: I did not at any point try to even remotely suggest that arabs don't suffer poverty. As a matter of fact I usually support that theory. Jaakobou 21:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Sikkuy is a well known pro-Arab group. Nobody says that Israeli Arabs do not suffer from more poverty than the Israeli average or that it is their own fault. But the fact that women almost do not work and that they have more children than average is a strong reason for this poverty exactly as it is for the Haredi Jews (where men do not work, and women have even more children). No need to have a MBA to understand that 2 incomes in a family make you richer than one. Facts are facts, you chose to interpret them as you want. Benjil 13:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Channel one covered it extensively, I remember watching it a few days ago. The "official data examined by Sikui" is certainly mainstream. El_C 12:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Could someone explain what the rationale for removing the one Sikkuy survey showing that Arabs have the highest home ownership, while keeping the surveys discussing their low socio-economic status? TewfikTalk 22:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to make things clear - ownership of a house is definitely a good thing, but it doesn't necessarily mean you are rich. It depends on where your house is located, and what chances you have to sell it in case you need money. Since Israeli Arabs usually own houses in Arab towns and villages, relatively far from commercial centers, and since their potential customers are only other Israeli Arabs (a Jew wouldn't buy or rent a house in an Arab town), then this property doesn't worth much in terms of money. DrorK 23:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
DrorK, i disagree with your statement, many jews would love to buy a house in arab towns - however, an arab who sells his place to a jew would be killed in the center of town (allready happened a number of times). that's why we have the current ridiculous situation in hebron where jews bought a house but the guy who sold it tells the media that he didn't sell it. as for the number of people per room mentioned under this comment, it's only a matter of children per family and customs - an arab person having 8 children might be just as rich as a jewish person who's got 2-3 children, he'll also have more rooms than the jewish guy has since construction is cheeper for arabs. so who is richer? i don't think that the "people per room" is much of an indication. Jaakobou 08:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
In addition, the report notes that the number of people per room is still higher in the Arab community, and that many (most?) Arabs build their own homes, unlike Israeli Jews. So the figures do not necessarily indicate that the quality of housing is higher. RolandR 00:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Those points are certainly interesting, and I don't think anyone contradicted them. That is exactly why it seems best to either use such surveys or not use them. I'm sure you could all agree that it wouldn't be fair to keep just the information that superficially 'doesn't fit' according to one or other [mis]understanding. Cheers, TewfikTalk 08:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
from what i've seen, sikkuy is a valid source regardless of the source POV or editors' POV. Jaakobou 08:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Tewfik's comment above. I think that is the same point that Abu Ali was making earlier about cherry-picking results to fit an agenda. Sikkuy publishes a useful annual Equality Index, which measures the relative positions of Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel. The results in nearly all fields indicate "inequality in favour of Jews", but "the disparity between the communities in the housing field is the lowest among all the fields compared". The report appears moderate and objective, and perhaps we should have a para about the report as a whole. But to include just the data on home ownership (which for many reasons is not a reliable indicator of relative wealth) is misleading. RolandR 13:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Without explaining the nature of property in Israel, which is vastly different from elsewhere, including data on home ownership is simply misleading.

Removal of unuseful information

I tried to revmove this quote: "In 1998, Michael Fanous, an Arab city councilman in Ramle, said that conditions for local Arabs have improved in recent years. Fanous noted some upgrades in Arab neighborhood schools and infrastructure, and more money and attention to Christian and Muslim holiday events." but it was reverted. The quote is not backed up by any evidence and was recorded almost ten years ago but is placed in a section that describes current economic conditions. --Oneworld25 15:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually missed the referenced link and you did not place it here (please add it) - onto the "backed up by evidence" part. I don't know about the materials you've been reading and the people you've been talking with, but it's surveys and statements by arab officials that matter - not a general conception/gut feeling - if you dispute a material which seems to be valid (and ramle is a city that has many resources directed to it), you should bring counter evidence.
here's another link:
that shows arabs being promoted economically in israel, i'll try to see to it later this week or something - unless someone allready adds it. Jaakobou 07:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Remember that this section refers to CURRENT economic conditions and not those 10 years ago. If conditions for Arabs are improving, then find some clear evidence for it and not base it off a random quote here is the referenced quote --Oneworld25 21:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the comment once again. A ten-year-old statement in a California Jewish newspaper by a Likud-supporting councillor is hardly reliable information on "current economic conditions". Even then, it only noted "some upgrades" to conditions in one locality. This is anecdotal, not statistical, and really does not contribute to the article. If we allow this, then I could find scores, if not hundreds, of equally reliable quotes alleging the opposite. RolandR 16:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Lying with statistics

Someone wants to insert this: "Certain perks are available to Arab citizens that are not available to Jews on the same terms. For example, the city of Jerusalem gives Arab residents free professional advice to assist with the house permit process and structural regulations. Jerusalem Houses" That source is quite amazing. Look at the graph that seems to show that in Jerusalem Arab houses were demolished less often than Jewish houses. Since everyone knows that the number of Arab houses demolished is far greater than the number of Jewish houses demolished, see for example the official counts published by B'tselem [43], something smells here. The source of the odor is easily identified. Look at the caption of the graph: "Illegal Structures demolished by the Jerusalem Municipality as a Precent of Demolition Orders Issued, by Sector". According to this measure, 1 house demolished after 1 order is worse than 99 houses demolished after 100 orders! What a crock! Sites displaying such blatant dishonesty are way below the "reliable source" threshold. --Zerotalk 11:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I find myself in the really odd position of agreeing with Zero at least in part the word perks is misplaced.
  • However, the amount of home demolisions in Jerusalem is really low: a total of less than 50 per year. so the big fush people make about it is misplaced as well. On the Jewish side most demolisions are part of a house (someone enlarge his home and the city destroy that part) in the arab side they build w/o permit a complete house . This is why btselem stats are also misleading. Zeq 15:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both "perks" and house demolishion notes by [[User:Zeq]. -- Jaakobou 20:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A new and important source : Ben Dror Yemini on israeli arabs !!!! (translation in Zeq 20:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no one has used this excellent source so far. Zeq 15:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Addition of 1967-Present in History Section

I've added a very incomplete section on history of Palestinian/Arab citizens since the 6 day war. I think there is a lot of info under the poorly organized political development sections that could be transferred to this section, so as to more easily put these political developments in historical perspective. --Oneworld25 17:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut's edits

Tiamut, the intro is very general. Adding such a sentence would allow others to include that a) the allegations are false, b) that Israel's treatment of Arab citizens is remarkable considering Arab identification with Israel's enemies (see Benny Morris), or that c) other issues such as Arab assistance with terrorist acts or Arab hostility/discrimination toward Jewish Israelis.

As for the Druze part, too many points are cherry-picked. According to a Druze Israeli, the man who heads the "Pact of Free Druze" represents the smallest portion of Druze in Israel. Too much minority POV is given and misrepresents the Druze population. So just say it how it is. Are we writing all of Azzam Azzam's comments about Israel? Or Ayoob Kara, both of whom certainly represently a larger part of the Druze community. --Shamir1 22:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The sentence in the intro provides balance to a section pretty much lifted from the Israel article page that leaves the reader with the false impression that things are just peachy keen for Arabs in Israel. They're not. And that forms a significant part of the article and should be represented in the intro per WP:LEAD. One sentence isn't undue weight I don't think.

Further, the quote from the Druze representative isn't long and it presents a first-hand description of Druze identity as being Palestinian and Arab as well, from a elected party member from a major Arab party in Israel Balad. I don't see how it's cherry-picking. Its a significant viewpoint from a Druze political representative. I don't know who Ayoob Kara and I think I have heard the word "traitor" and Azzam Azzam in the same sentence, but otherwise don't really know anything about him either. If you find important quotes from them and you think they are notable sources for the subject, by all means, compose something, source it, put it in, and see what happens. Tiamut 23:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, read NPOV policy. An israeli druze that identify himself as "palestinian" is all but a tiny tiny minority of Druze who live in Israel. We should focus on the norm. Zeq 16:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide me with a reliable source that claims that your opinion of what Druze identity is, is the norm? I placed a fact needed tag on the sentence that claims that Druze do not identify as Arabs months ago, and no one has as yet filled it in. It would be nice for you to provide some sources for your position. I have for mine and the source is reliable (Ha'aretz), the person making the statement is an elected political leader in Israel from the Druze community (certainly notable). So I don't really see how your position is valid. Tiamut 16:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Arab citizens of Israel are an ethnic group?!?

What's up with the ethnicity template? What reliable source states that "Arab citizens of Israel" form an ethnic group? As far as I know, the ethnicity of all Arab citizens is "Arab" and/or "Palestinian" Can someone please explain how this addition is not WP:OR? Tiamut 15:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you there.It seems stupid.Arabs are a single ethnic group,and the ones in Jordan are part of the same group as the ones in Isreal. Simply being part of a different state does not make you a ethnic group.Delete the ethicity template? Raspberrysnapple 00:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Raspberrysnapple. Arabs are a single ethnic group with sub-groups, but those sub-groups are not based on citizenship, but rather on self-identification. There is however, no "Arab citizens of Israel" ethnic sub-group. There is a Palestinian sub-group, Lebanese sub-group, etc. In terms of ethnicity, Arabs in Israel identify as Palestinians and/or as Arabs. In other words, Arab citizens of Israel are largely part of the Palestinian sub-group, which is part of the larger Arab grouping. So if there is going to be an ethnicity template, it should be the Palestinian and/or Arab template. Tiamut 08:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tiamut and Raspberrysnapple, I agree with both of you. We should remove the Arab ethnic group template completely. However the Palestinians template should be replaced by the template for the Arab citizens of Israel. Al Ameer son

Hey Al Ameer. I don't think you understood the discussion. We were talking about an ethnicity template for Arab citizens of Israel which has already been removed (citizenship does not require a separate ethnicity template and so this was replaced with the Arab ethnicity template). IMO, the Palestinians template should not be removed from this page. More than half of the Arabs in Israel identify as Palestinians. And the Arab ethnic group template should also not removed since Arab citizens of Israel are ethnically Arab and most also, Palestinian. Tiamut 19:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ha, i feel stupid now. However I see now that we should keep both the Palestinians and Arab citizens of Israel templates but it is the "Arab" template really necessary? - Al Ameer son

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 17:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of template

removed [44] - since the main feature of this template (a photo from 1910) has nothing to do with the subject of the article (which did not exist under the name "israeli arabs" prior to 1948). Please find a better template or correct the photo in the template. Zeq 12:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Zeq's approach to the Israeli Arab conflict is well known on wikipedia. well known. This particular deletion is not suprising, and neither is him telling us that the history of Arabs in historical Palestine "has nothing to do with" Israeli Arabs today. The Zionists have always tried to erase the histroy of the so called "minorities" within its borders, and remove their ethnic identity. Inside Israel they have many means to carry out this campaign, including the Shabak, their control of the curriculum, funding and staffing of schools etc. But the great thing about Wikipedia is that here they are just editors like everyone else with no additional powers or privilages. So while I welcome Zeq's contributions to this article, I will have to disagree with him in this particular edit. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 17:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a PA. Please applogize and revert. Zeq 20:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Abu ali. There is no relevant policy reason cited for the deletion of this template. The picture is beautiful and exhibits Arab culture. Palestinians in Israel are ethnically Palestinian and Arab. It is rather amazing to me that people feel the need to protest the inclusion of pictures that show Arab culture is a positive light. Tiamut 16:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, try to consider users with a tad more respect than to force revert with some weird commentary, and then use the talk page to state an opinon which does not regard my comment.
this ethnicity template feels like it belonges to the ethnicity atricle, doesn't feel like this is the proper location. regardless that in general a good chunk of arabs don't consider palestinians to be arabs (a debatable issue, i know), this ethnicity tag doesn't feel right for this article, it's not contributing to the article and it even interferes with it. that's my personal point of view on it.
please use the talk page rather than play the revert game. Jaakobou 18:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
You revert, and then order us to use the talk page rather than play the revert game. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 19:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
let's not go there (who did what and when), just state your reasoning and allow us to get on with it. Jaakobou 19:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty much neutral on the usage of the template, but I think that the last revert shows a pattern of vandalism Kalisto892il 10:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The template is relevant. Arabs in Israel are listed as one of the groups on the template itself. The existence of Arabs as an ethnic group pre-dates Israel's establishment in 1948 so it is not unusual for there to be a picture of Arabs from 1910. The attempt to factor out Arab citizens of Israel from the wider Palestinian and Arab people is a longstanding one by a minority group of editors at this page who seem to enjoy historical revisionism. Reality and its faithful representation indicate that the template should stay. Tiamut 13:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
(1) the way editors have been crowding this with reverts shows a serious lack of respect to proper editing, basing the final outcome on their "revert power" rather than proper debate and concensus reaching on the talk page.
(2) Tiamut take it easy, the word Arab is listed in the article a good number of times, the template feels overbearing a room which should be used for an arab-israeli template, with numbers of how many are christion, druze, muslim, the way tehy are distributed on the country etc.... not every editor on wiki is out to "revisionize history" *shrug*. Jaakobou 22:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no ethnicity called "Arab citizens of Israel" and we would be making one up (WP:OR) if we drafted one. Arab citizens of Israel are overwhelmingly "Arab" and/or "Palestinian" as regards their ethnicity. So would you prefer the ethnicity template Palestinians because that's the only other choice that is applicable here. Tiamut 13:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

House demolition

Speaking of working towards consensus rather than using reverts, Jaakobou, you might follow your own advice and cease deleting wikilinks to the house demolition article made by more than one editor. Thanks. Tiamut 08:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

let's adress the issue rather than the "reverts" (you've been just as guilty as I if not more).
the House demolition article, regardless of looking like a sad joke, is basically an article about a warfare tactic used to fight insurgents. the place you insist on linking it too[45] looks a lot like this:

The largest Bedouin locality in Israel is the city of Rahat. The Israeli government encourages Bedouin to settle as permanent residents in these development towns, but some 76,000 continue to live in tens of "unrecognized villages... It is forbidden by the Israeli authorities for the residents of these villages to build permanent structures, though many do, risking fines and home demolition.

needless to say (although i stated it on my reverts)[46],[47],[48], this paragraph has nothing at all to do with warfare tactics. Jaakobou 10:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
As I wrote in my edit summary responding to your deletion of this material, the fact that the house demolition article needs expansion to discuss the non-military use of house demolitions, does not preclude its being connected to this article. House demolition is house demolition. It's an Israeli policy in both the occupied territories and inside Israel. The article we are linking to should explain that, but the solution here is expansion of that article, not deletion of the link to it. Tiamut 13:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
to be honest, this conversation is getting ridiculous (while an outsider wouldn't notice). you are the one who removed the material i inserted about the actual meanning of the term[49] and now you state that the article should be expanded... it would seem that your good faith on this issue is heavily suspect.
to the point, currently the article is clearly (as a simple look at the intro shows) about a warfare tactic and not about demolishion of illeagal construction. Jaakobou 15:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Jaakobou is correct - House demolition is an article describing counter-insurgency tactics. The house demolitions referred to in the section of this article are an administrative meausre to dismantle buildings constructed withut permit. There is no reason to wikilink to an irrelavnt article. Isarig 19:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
In the eyes of many reliable sources, house demolitions citing security pretexts and house demolitions citing lack of permits are two sides of the same coin. The House demolition article needs to be shored up, but the link between this article and that one is valid.--G-Dett 22:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure there are many partisans who think that way, but the article is about a military/counter-insurgency tactic. Please don;t intorduce the above POV into the article. Isarig 22:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
This article, like all Wikipedia articles, is about what reliable sources say, not what Wikipedians wish they said. The RS's in this case are journalists, scholars, and human-rights organizations.--G-Dett 23:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
As you well know, it is a prerequisite that something in an article be attributed to a RS, but that in itself is not sufficient for inclusion. The content must be relevant and NPOV, as well. It is quite clearly a POV that houses built w/o permit are demolished as part of a military tactic to fight terrorism, which is what the House demolition article is about. Isarig
Your general point is appreciated, though you should understand that NPOV applies to presentation of content, not the content itself. But that is neither here nor there in the present case. It isn't one or two sources treating Israeli-demolitions-of-Palestinian-homes-citing-security and Israeli-demolitions-of-Palestinian-homes-citing-lack-of-permit as two sides of the same coin; it's a majority of relevant RS's, especially those with expertise on the issue. That your POV nicely aligns with the official position of the Israeli government (that these are separate practices to separate ends) does not make it a majority POV, and it certainly doesn't make it NPOV.--G-Dett 15:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The presentation of content includes selctio nof content, and balance. Putting in sourced materail on topic A into an article about topic B is implictly saying that A is relavnt to B, which can be a POV, as it is in this case. For example, suppose I add material sourced to a reliable academic source which argues, in a neutral, NPOV way, that militants of a non-government organization are "unlawful combatants" which are not subject to the protections of the 4th geneva convention into an article about Hezbollah. The material would be properly sourced, directly quoted from a neutral source in a NPOV fashion, and yet it would still be objectionable, since it is implictly pushing the POV that Hezbollah are unlawful combatants by making the association nbetween the two topics. I wonder what sources you have for the claim that the POV that these are 'two sides of the same coin' is the majority among RS's. Isarig 16:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I watched 'topic A' and 'topic B' shuffling through your syntax as closely as I could, but I'll confess I can't find the pea. I think I understand the Hezbollah example; what I don't see is its relevance. The hypothetical "reliable academic source" isn't talking about Hezbollah, right? That's the problem you're pointing to, and why it wouldn't be acceptable, no? If so, it's a total red herring. The point about the present case is that the majority of reliable sources who treat Israel's house demolitions in any detail – all of them cited for the House demolition article, for example, including the ones you've added – treat the demolitions collectively, as a single phenomenon. There's no synthesis, no conflation in following their lead in this. On the contrary, when you go against the sources and carve up the subject matter artificially so as to reflect a minority view (even if it's the official view of the Israeli government), that creates POV problems.
If you really want a Hezbollah example for heuristic purposes, I'll give you one. Hezbollah is a guerrilla/militant organization as well as a political party. I can't however appropriately insist that separate articles be created to treat them separately – no matter how self-evidently logical it may seem to me to do so – because the reliable sources don't do this.--G-Dett 21:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Passport for Palestinians

When a Palestinian, who is not an Israeli citizen, travels abroad, what type of passport does he or she carry? What, if any, citizenship do they hold? mdkarazim 22:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a very complicated matter. Israel issues "laissez-passez" documents to non-nationals, so some of them carry an Israeli laissez-passez instead of a national passport. Since 1994, the Palestinian Authority issues passports to Palestinians living in its jurisdiction and reports to Israel (Israeli authorities can sometimes prohibit issuing a Palestinian passport to a certain person). Nonetheless, the Palestinian passports are not recognized in many countries. Palestinians from the West Bank used to have a Jordanian citizenship, but since Jordan broke its ties with the WB in 1988, many of them lost it. If a Palestinian managed to retain his Jordanian citizenship he'd probably travel with a Jordanian passport. DrorK 06:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Link to home demolitions article in case of Beduins

A small number of editors keep trying to link to the home demolitions article in relation to Bedouin house building. However, it does not appear that the article being linked to has anything to do with the issue in question. The Israeli house demolitions article discusses House demolition as a counter-insurgency tactic, not destruction of Bedouin homes that have been built without permits. Linking to that article in this context would be as relevant as linking to it when describing Israeli destruction of illegal Israeli settlements. Jayjg (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The link to House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is relevant. Part of Israel's war against its Arab subjects is systematic denial of building permits to Arabs. But even an Arab needs somewhere to live. So many Arabs are forced to build without the required permits. These houses which account for the majority of homes in the Arab sector are subject to the continual threat of demolition. Jay compares this with the demolition of illegal Israeli settlements. The difference is that most Israeli settlement homes are given legal permission after they have been built, and their demolition is a rare occurance, whereas the demolition of Arab homes is routine, wholesale and a key instrument of Israeli government policy to the Arabs. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Please note that this is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox or an internet discussion group. Your grievances against the real or imagined evils of Zionists do not belong here, and linking to an article which dos not discuss the issues of Bedouin homes that have been built without permits is disruptive to the project. Please stop it. Isarig 00:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The issue of Bedouin houses built in the Negev is quite separate from those of Palestinians built in East Jerusalem. If the House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article ever contains material about demolitions of Bedouin homes, then the link will become relevant. Not every house demolition in Israel is part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Jayjg (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Task Force Link

I don't really understand why the task force on Israeli Arab issues is always removed. I don't understand why the link is considered propaganda. Oneworld25 05:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Because it is non-encyclopaedic, contains no useful or relevant information, and exists purely as a propaganda link. The self-descriptoion on its homepage is:
Diverse broad-based Jewish coalition that transcends political and ideological boundaries
Educate and maximize the impact of the organized Jewish community
Guided by Jewish tradition for a secure, prosperous Israel for all her citizens
Committed to Israel's welfare and support the Jewish and democratic state's right to a peaceful existence
Its membership is entirely North American Jewish organisations; it does not appear to have any Arab or Palestinian input at all. Its main purpose appears to be propaganda in North America for the supposed "democratic, sovereign state of the Jewish people". Without any explanation why this link is indeed relevant in this article, I see no reason at all to keep it. If the person who keeps inserting it can explain its relevance, then maybe we could agree that it should be replaced. RolandR 09:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't add the link but I remember reading about the formation of this task force. The organizations behind it were concerned about the plight of Palestinian Citizens of Israel/Israeli-Arabs as they felt their low socio-economic status was damaging Israel's security. The education being done by the organization is " to increase awareness of economic, educational and social service weaknesses facing Israeli-Arab communities". Therefore the task force is trying to educate the American Jewish community about some of the issues facing Arab citizens of Israel. Among those organizations included in the executive council is the New Israel Fund, an organization that funds Adalah, Btselem, and Breaking the Silence among many other organizations. The link is relevant to the article because I think it is significant that some of the largest Jewish organizations in what may be the largest Jewish community in the world are now taking notice of Israeli-Arab issues. Also the website appears to be in development and may contain more relevant information in the future. Here is a story about its formation: Oneworld25 10:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but this article is about Arab citizens of Israel, not about Jewish communities or North American charitable trusts. Unless someone can show why the link is relevant, and what it adds, to this article, it has no place here. RolandR 10:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________

Last Paragraph of "Demographic Threat" Section

The web site ( ) whose study was cited in footnote 134 is faulty. It is based on a study that concluded that the Population of the West Bank and Gaza was over-counted by One Million (which was also done by the same people) and the study is very speculative, looking at year to year differences of as little as .04% as a declining trend and vice versa. The Website also appears to count the Palestinian citizens of East Jerusalem as already being part of Israel's population. The agenda of this website is to annex parts of the west bank to Israel, but grant the residents Israeli citizenship, and it purpose is to show how that can be done without compromising the Jewish Majority, and it appears to fudge a lot of numbers to do so. The website is largely the work of Bennett Zimmerman, sometimes with one or two assistants listed. I believe using this website as a source is problematic, not only because of credibility, but also because the article fails to put the study's results in context. Basically, this guy says that the population of the West Bank and Gaza is only 2.49 million, which is quite hard to fathom, considering that its well-established that Gaza has at least around 1.2 million people alone.

CIA world factbook says 1,482,405 (July 2007 est.) for Gaza and 2,535,927 in the West Bank

20 July 2007

This study on the contrary is mush more serious than the official numbers and in fact most of its conclusions have been accepted - even some by the Palestinian Statistics Office. This study counts the Arab population of Jerusalem as part of Israel's population because it is counted as part of Israel's population by Israel. The political agenda of the searchers is to be noted but the only point important is if the facts are true or not, and they are. The CIA world factbook is full of errors and mistakes (mysteriously, it gives 6.4 millions habitants for Israel instead of 7.1). It should be noted that the IDF own estimation of the Palestinian population is also much lower than the official one (around 3 millions). This is a serious study that needs to be taken into account. Benjil 08:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Reinsertion of material

Someone reinserted the following under the heading "Participation of Israeli Arabs in terror acts against Israeli citizens":

Since 2001, a growing number [50] of Israeli Arabs have participated in terror acts against Israeli civilians: On September 9, 2001 was the first (and only) Israeli Arab suicide bomber attack, on a group of soldiers and civilians disembarking a train in the Nahariya station, killing 3 people and wounding at least 90. [51]

Over the next few years, Israeli Arabs and residents of East Jerusalem took part in many attacks and assisted Palestinian suicide bombers reach cities in Israel. Several Israeli Arabs have been convicted of espionage for Hezbollah.[52],[53],[54], In 2001, at least 110 Israeli Arabs were detained on suspicion of involvement in terrorist activities – a record high, and about three times the number in the previous year. Despite those events, Israeli security sources said they still consider Israeli Arab involvement with terrorism to be the exception rather than the rule. The rule is that the vast majority of Israeli Arabs, regardless of their political viewpoints, see terrorism as the red line.

On March 9, 2004, an Israeli Arab woman, Lina Jarbuni, 29, of Arrabeh in the Galilee, was sentenced to 17 years in prison by the Haifa district court for helping members of the Islamic Jihad who had been planning to carry out terror attacks inside Israel. Jarbuni helped one of them obtain an Israeli ID card, rented an apartment in Israel, and also opened a bank account on behalf of the man and an accomplice. She was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder, contact with a foreign agent, and helping the enemy at a time of war. [55] [56] [57] [58]

On October 9, 2005, three Israeli Arab men were convicted of plotting to blow up the Azrieli Towers in Tel Aviv, and a plot to plant a bomb on railroad tracks near Netanya. The Tel Aviv District Court also convicted them of attempting to provide assistance to a foreign enemy during time of war. One of the Arabs was convicted of contacting a foreign enemy agent. The three, Dubian Natzirat, 27; Amir Zivati, 20; and Mugahad Dukan, 19; all from Taibe, admitted their guilt and were convicted under a plea bargain arrangement. [59] [60]

On December 12, 2005, Hamas sent a greeting to the "Arabs of 1948" (i.e Israeli Arabs) on their help to Hamas using a video that was translated to English on Hamas web site[61].

On March 13, 2006, Tel Aviv District Court sentenced Lenin Altouri, 24, from the Israeli Arab village of Kassem, to 16 years in prison, after he was convicted of being in contact with a foreign agent with the intention to betray the country. Altouri was convicted of plotting to aid Hamas kidnap soldiers and transfer them to Hebron or Ramallah.[62]

On August 25, 2007 An organization of Israeli Arab accepted reposnsibilty for the killing by knife of an Israeli elderly man near his home in israel [63]

Part of this information is already covered in the section on intercommunal relations. It's placement in the middle of the article under a large heading gives the topic undue weight and is rather repetitive and redundant. If you would like to see certain parts of it reinserted, please enter it in the appropriate section. And keep in mind WP:UNDUE. This is marginal minority phenomenon in Arab society in Israel. Tiamut 14:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a phenomana that has outmost imposrtntce on the relations between Jews and Arabs in israel. As such it is not WP:UNDUE. There are many parts of the article that give imporance to issues that are not as relevant as this one. Zeq 15:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Why is this issue so important ? for one example it is participation in terror by israeli ctizens that lead to the modifications to citizenship laws:

"State lawyers said the law, passed last July, aimed to prevent spouses of Israeli citizens from entering the country to carry out terrorist attacks.


Clearly, if the citizenship law (affectring such a small number of peoople) desrve it's own section - terror events (many of them) desrve their own section as well. Zeq 15:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, have you read the article in its entirety? I ask because this material is already there, is a more succint version in the section entitled "Intercommunal relations". Your view that this is an extremely important issue which requires its own section is unconvincing, particularly since one could argue that the killing of Arab citizens of Israel by Israeli security forces and police, as was the case on Land Day or during the October 2000 events is equally important. Both of these examples of intercommunal violence are listed in the section I have directed you to. I would further stress that only one Arab citizen out of 1.2 million has actually carried out a suicide bombing and only less than 50 have been involved in aiding and abetting in such crimes. It is WP:UNDUE to list every example of such collaboration and devote an entire section to the issue. I am removing your re-addition of this material and ask that you refrain from reinserting it. Please re-read the article and add any information you feel is absolutely necessary to include to the section of Intercommunal relations and keep in mind WP:NPOV and the need for representation of the killing of Arabs by Jews since this is just as common, if not more common. Tiamut 16:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian Discrimination against Israeli Arabs

There is a sentence in the article that states that Arabs have suffered discrimination by Palestinians in the West Bank. However, the source used as a reference describes an isolated incident during the Second Lebanon War. However, the article makes it look like a widespread problem. I deleted the sentence but it has since been reverted. I think the issue should be discussed on the talk page. Oneworld25 05:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


Roland in his revert[65] asked that I show that there is more than one case and there is a trend. here is some mire data:[66] - it needs to be added to the article since there is justification to show the trend. Zeq 16:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Below is a list of more incidents involving Israeli-Arab and terror in israel. While this may represent the POV of one side it is, never the less, a trend infulancing the relation between Jews and Arabs in israel.,7340,L-3353599,00.html

a collection of articles:

section on : " Use of Israeli Arabs in terrorism "

use of Israeli ID cards: '

section on " trends in 2006: Involvement of Israeli Arabs in terrorism - (search for the word "Israeli arabs"  :

"Police Chief Shlomo Aharonishky called for a thorough investigation of the connection between Israeli Arabs and terror. In a controversial deterrent move, Interior Minister Eli Yishai announced that he was revoking the citizenship of two Israeli Arabs accused of aiding terrorists. "

Since Roland is claiming that this is a single case I have moved more of the data presented on talk to the article itself. If needed there is more than can be added to the article - just ask and I will add it. Zeq 05:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

A sI already explained to you above, this material is already covered in the section on intercommunal relations. It does not need restating in other sections; such additions are WP:UNDUE and your formulation remain [[WP:OR]. Tiamut 08:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeq 16:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ Ismael Abu-Saad (Vol. 49, No. 8, 1085-1100 (2006)). "State-Controlled Education and Identity Formation Among the Palestinian Arab Minority in Israel". American Behavioral Scientist.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ Ismael Abu-Saad (Vol. 49, No. 8, 1085-1100 (2006)). "State-Controlled Education and Identity Formation Among the Palestinian Arab Minority in Israel". American Behavioral Scientist.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ 3 Israelis convicted of manslaughter for transporting suicide bomber
  4. ^ Ashkenazi, Eli and Khoury, Jack. Poll: 68% of Jews would refuse to live in same building as an Arab. Haaretz. March 22, 2006. Accessed March 30, 2006.
  5. ^ [67][68][69]
  6. ^ [70]
  7. ^ 3 Israelis convicted of manslaughter for transporting suicide bomber
  8. ^ Johnathan Wilson. "Loyalties".  Text "publisher" ignored (help); Text "Washington Post" ignored (help)
  9. ^ [71]
  10. ^ [72]
  11. ^ [73]
  12. ^ a b c d e f g Vered Levy-Barzilai. "The other victims". Haaretz. 
  13. ^ [74]
  14. ^ [75]