Talk:Racism in the Palestinian territories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Discrimination  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject Palestine (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic :Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Move this article[edit]

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

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


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

I disagree, any racism in a country can be defined as a blog, Palestinians don't deserve to be exempt, in fact since '' has mentionied that it exist a page of racism in israel, so is this. the same "blog" argument can be done for tnat page as well.Colourfully (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Your first sentence is completely meaningless, it almost isnt even English. Except that article doesnt cite such garbage sources as this one. Dont remove the tags until the problems are resolved. nableezy - 14:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I second what Nableezy said. This is an extremely poor article. It is obvious that the author had no intention of making a policy compliant article. This is pure POV-pushing. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
There is an existing article Antisemitism_in_the_Arab_world#Palestinian_Authority that is already intended to hold most of the content in this article. --Noleander (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, this one is broader and it covers more issues and not just about arab vs jew.Colourfully (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Should we also delete Racism in Israel since it's covered as a subsection in another article? (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe so.Colourfully (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes. There's nothing to merge so just delete it. --Frederico1234 (talk) 06:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
To delete Racism in Israel?Colourfully (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread what IP wrote. I meant that we should delete this article we're discussing. Whether or not some other article should also be deleted is a question which does not belong to the scope of this talk page. --Frederico1234 (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with editors above who say this article doesn't rely on the best sources, which is what we should do on wikipedia. Whether it should be deleted is another matter and turns on whether there are enough good sources to put together a proper article. If there aren't enough good sources, then the topic fails WP:Notable and the article should be deleted. Maybe we should start an AfD with the premise that unless those good sources are forthcoming, this will go? --Dailycare (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Racism towards blacks[edit]

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

Note to the Rescue Squad[edit]

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

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

Racism toward Christians?[edit]

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

No. We should not include that. Bat Ye'or is an unreliable source. Just read the Reception section in his Wikipedia entry. The article has enough of poor sources. We need high-quality sources, not yet another partisan source. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia defines Ye'Or as "an Egyptian-born British scholar, who writes about the history of non-Muslims in the Middle East." She is a scholar and a secondary and appropriate source. Do you have some evidence that she has somehow been disqualified for use in Wikipedia for unreliability? The Palestinians' known hostility against Christians is already documented a little bit in the article on Palestinian Christians. KantElope (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Comments like these raised doubts about her credibility:

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

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

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

I say no thank you. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't know if your opinion is sufficient. What does the greater Wikipedia community say? Is Bat Ye'or considered a RS?KantElope (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

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

The author claims that:

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

It might be a reliable source. Difficult to say. Apparently, the author writes reports for a christian zionist pro-Israeli propaganda organisation: [2]. That may not disqualify him as a reliable source per se, but it is a reason for caution. --Frederico1234 (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
er...this is not how Wikipedia determines reliability is it? It would rule out many many who write for Muslim anti-Zionist pro-Palestinian propaganda organizations as well, ruling out many many more. The author, by the way, is quoting and footnoting from Palestinian sources. Your POV is showing. Surely you are not going to try to make the point that Christian Palestinians do not suffer discrimination in the Palestinian territories? KantElope (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
What I assessed was the reliability of your source, nothing else.
What this article badly needs is high-quality sources; articles and books written by experts in the topic. Biased sources, including anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian sources, should be avoided. --Frederico1234 (talk) 06:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

There is a difference between racism and discrimination on non racial grounds. Unless there are reliable sources saying this is racism, OR the article is renamed, it doesn't belong in the current article. Marokwitz (talk) 06:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I could accept a name change, but it (anti-Christian sentiment) deserves to be in any article about prejudice/discrimination in the the Palestinian territories. KantElope (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Disputed text on "racist ethnic cleansing" and "Judenrein"[edit]

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

racist ethnic cleansing
The plans to deny Jews from Palestine has been called "Judenrein Palestine" attached to Mufti's ethnic cleansing dream[1] Prohibition for Jews to reside as opposed to Arabs' right in certain areas have been labled as such. The Zionist Organization of America has called it racist. [2]

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

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

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


  1. ^ Strangers in the land: Blacks, Jews, post-Holocaust America, p. 604, Eric J. Sundquist, 2005
  2. ^

Texts with no relation to the Palestinian territories[edit]

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

lol what kind of logic is that... should we delete all the history sections of any country article since it happened before the date of independence? (talk) 03:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The lead defines " the Palestinian territories refers to intolerance harboured by the Palestinian leadership, various Palestinian groups and factions, the Palestinian media and the wider Palestinian population". Under that definition it is fine to keep it. Are you disputing the existence of the Palestinian people as a distinct group before 1967? Marokwitz (talk) 07:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Hitler's pal, the Palestinian leader: the Mufti was not on Palestine land? man...RolesRoice (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

PA court: Death to man who sold land to Jews

Khaled Abu Toameh 04/29/2009 23:54

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

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

Thanks for clarifying. But note the article also says:

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

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

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

nonsense material[edit]

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

I would advise you to refrain from massive edits to this article at this time and changing its scope to deflect onto Israel instead. --Shuki (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I would advise you not to return BLP violations to articles. nableezy - 00:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I would advise you of being extra careful of slandering settlers and attempting to paint them as racists, thereby violating BLP. --Shuki (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
The source said exactly what I wrote in the article. Also, please explain why you returned and other unreliable sources to the article. nableezy - 00:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I related to your OR settler section below. Please show where each was declared nonRS. NGOs can be quoted if they are attributed to them, not in first-person WP language, you know that. --Shuki (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
WND is not an NGO, neither is Alan Dershowitz. I dont plan on doing your homework for you, you reinserted those sources, you should verify they are reliable. nableezy - 00:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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


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

I did not say he was a settler, I wrote he was a general who instigated racism among settlers in the Palestinian territories. Just as a source published by a university press said. You have a long history of attempting to defend extremist elements in the settler movement, such as calling Baruch Goldstein a "murder victim", let's try to not make this the latest in that series. Please explain why you removed material about "racism in the Palestinian territories" sourced to a book published by a university press in an article about "racism in the Palestinian territories". nableezy - 00:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
C'mon, do I look as stupid as you think we all are? Your new section started with an OR sentence, and then continued with WP:SYNTH and an unrelated quote. --Shuki (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Really, have you read the source? That single source supported both sentences, it is not OR and to say it is OR is either an act of ignorance or a display of willful dishonesty. nableezy - 00:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the lead defines this article as referring to "intolerance harboured by the Palestinian leadership, various Palestinian groups and factions, the Palestinian media and the wider Palestinian population". Marokwitz (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

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

I restored the original lead. I don't know why it was replaced with the views of an editor. This article is not about settlers or Israeli soldiers, it is about racism/discrimination in the Palestinian territories by the Palestinian leadership and/or the Palestinian people. There is no "historic" or state-sanctioned racist discrimination of Palestinians within the settlements or universities such as ariel. Palestinians are discriminated against, and inequalities exist or else a "peace-process" wouldn't be going on. But claims that the settlements are inspired by racism and hatred of the Arab people is an entirely different issue and not mainstream enough to justify a mention in the lead. This isn't electronic intifada. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
That material was sourced to a a book published by a university press, not electronic intifida. Please explain why your views, ie "the views of an editor", are being used in place of what a reliable source says. nableezy - 13:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Shall we compare? Racism in the Palestinian territories' refers to racist attitudes and actions in the Palestinian territories, both by Palestinian people and Israeli settlers and soldiers. These attitudes and actions have been directed at Jews and Blacks by Palestinians and towards Palestinians by Israeli settlers.. No source to support the obvious OR, and dubiously equates the historic and long-documented racism that has existed among Arabs in Palestine, and the rest of the Arab world, with the Jewish residents in the West Bank, who haven't been successfully described as "racist" by mainstream sources. For example, the Jewish villages cooperated with the Arab residents in Palestine, and it was the Arabs that founded the anti-Jewish organizations only to be shut down by the British. Whatever racism exists in Israel it is not unique in the same away racism is institutionalized in the Arab media and schools. And for starters, any allegations that Israel as a people are racist belongs in the pertinent article, not here. Jewish settlers are not legally considered to be citizens or residents of the Palestinian territories. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
The lead is a summary of the article. The lead has no sources supporting it now. The source published by a university press did say that the settlers have committed racist acts against the native population. This article is about the Palestinian territories, the settlers' racism in the Palestinian territories belongs here. The source I added was from SIU Press. It is a RS and explicitly linked settlers with racism. You not liking that fact is not relevant. nableezy - 13:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

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

What you sem to be suggesting is that the article turn into a trinity of: Racism of the Palestinian National Authority vis a vis its residents (including Jews, Christians, Blacks, gays and others), (your wish to expand to:) alledged settler racism against Palestinians. But you do understand though that if you insist on this, the next part of the threesome is creating and expanding a section on racism that Palestinians and Palestinian organizations carry out on settlers. I do not think that this article should include the last two, as this is developed in other places. The settlers do not live in the Palestinian Authority or are affected by the PNA. Or, should we move the tile to Racism of the Palestinian National Authority? --Shuki (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Add whatever you want. That does not explain why you removed what a reliable source explicitly linked to the topic of this article. The topic is "racism in the Palestinian territories", the settlers who live in the Palestinian territories, ie all settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and their racism is within the scope of this article. Ill be going the NPOV/N shortly. nableezy - 15:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
See here. nableezy - 15:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thats nice, do you have any policy based reason as to why material about racism in the Palestinian territories does not belong in an article on racism in the Palestinian territories? And why you deleted well-sourced text and reinserted OR and poor sources as well as BLP violations? nableezy - 19:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
What is nice? the fear of Jews to enter Palestine areas? Tracking back the page history it was first "founded" about Palestinian regime/groups.

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

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

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

There is obviously a POV bias to sugar-coat the racism by Palestinian leaders with an exaggerated emphasis on Jewish residents of the WB. Jews live INDEPENDENTLY of Arabs, Jews can't even enter Palestinian cities without the tacit approval of the PA (including the IDF). whatever racism it exists it is purely abstract or philosophical (i.e, Jewish settlers want to turn the WB into a greater Israel and expel Arabs), but there is no history, none whatsoever, of a documented racism against Arabs. Abuse, human rights violations, or killings is always a human rights issue but not always a racial issue. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Cross posting here. In 1981 the Attorney General of Israel formed a commission of inquiry which confirmed reports that crimes committed by Israeli settlers against persons of Palestinian nationality in the "administered territories" were routinely closed without a proper investigation. The Israeli GPO report was reprinted and is available as "The Karp Report: An Israeli Government inquiry into settler violence against Palestinians on the West Bank", Institute for Palestinian Studies, ISBN 0-88728-141-9. The UN Fact Finding Mission gathered testimony and conducted inquiries which revealed that the same problem still exists in the West Bank today. See paragraphs 1384-1440 starting on page 294 in A/HRC/12/48, 25 September 2009.
The contracting state parties to the ICERD agree to accept the competence of the CERD, an elected panel of legal experts, who monitor the implementation of the treaty. The CERD panel of experts stated that the establishment of Jewish-only settlements in the occupied territories violated the prohibition against apartheid and similar forms of racial segregation contained in article 3 of the ICERD:

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

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

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

The Israeli Settlers 'Price Tag' Campaign [13] and "The King's Torah" produced and studied by the settlers of the Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva have been reported as examples of racism or incitement to racism by many sources. [14] [15]; [16]; [17] harlan (talk) 13:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Cross-posted here: Huh? You obviously have not read 'King's Torah' or know what it is really about so your just harming your credibility with wild claims. The book has nothing to do with racism, let me add a - 'duh' to that. It is merely a study on a particular facet of Judaism from sources in the Torah, the Talmud, and other rabbis. Anyway, a state's handling of citzens of other nationalities is not racism. When you get to an airport and there are separate lines for US passport holders and 'others', this is not racism. And FWIW, Arab (self-described Palestinians) citizens can vote, are members of parliament, and ministers in the government and there are several 'affirmative action' programs to increase Arab participation in the Israeli civil service. It would be racism iff, Judea and Samaria were annexed and those citzens discriminated against with 2nd rate rights. Since this is not the case, these issues go to the human rights page or the settler violence page or NN. You are free to talk about the racism here, not other issues. --Shuki (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
The police arrested the author on suspicion of incitement, so it isn't a case of me being misinformed about the contents of the book. [18] Israel ratified the ICERD convention. It contains the agreed-upon definition of racial discrimination. Start using it, before your editorials get deleted. harlan (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Carwil/federico/nableezy, etc. It is about Arab Palestinian regime, groups, population!,_groups,_population)&redirect=no -- No settlers here.RS101 (talk) 09:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

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

I have also discussed there, please don't insert new things before reaching a consensus.RS101 (talk) 04:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Care to respond there?--Carwil (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Arab Nazi Party[edit]

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

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

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


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

Please point out where it states that Husseini had a party called "Arab Nazi Party". --Frederico1234 (talk) 05:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I searched the book for "Arab Nazi Party". The book does not support the claim made in your edit. I will revert your edit. --Frederico1234 (talk) 10:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Rolesroyce is right, I looked at the link it says so, and the article doesn't say that the Mufti was leading an Arab Nazi Party, but that the HUSSEINISTS and Arab Palestinian students did. I don't know what you have searched, but Googl;e doesn't always show if it's in the book, check the above link please! There's also no point at all in de-initializing ZOA or JCPA.Marthas1989 (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The quote by RolesRoice do not support the claim that a "Arab Nazi Party" was founded as it only says that "Palestinian students [...] returned to Palestine determined to found the 'Arab Nazi Party". It doesn't say that a party was actually founded. --Frederico1234 (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Note to editors[edit]

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

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

POV subject matter tag[edit]

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

I concur. Racism in the United States includes all racism within its borders, regardless of originating group. Likewise, Racism in Israel article includes all racism within the state of Israel: Arab directed at Jew; Jew directed at Arab; etc. It makes sense that this article follow that convention. --Noleander (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I removed the duplicate POV tag. There are many issues here that should be dealt with, including keeping on the topic of racism. FWIW, there is an issue here about what the Palestinian Territories include because Israelis do not live in the 'Palestinian Territories'. --Shuki (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Reverted. Those are two different tags addressing two different kind of issues (the content of the article vs. the subject the article should cover). --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Your personal opinion on what the "Palestinian territories" are is not consistent with the sources or reality. The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip are the Palestinian territories. You have repeatedly made this argument without once providing a source. Kindly stop pushing this right-wing propaganda on encyclopedia pages. nableezy - 19:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
The Palestinians claim that these are their territories (as well as Israel fwiw), but reality shows that Israel controls and administers this area and has given the Palestinians limited autonomy in some areas - Area A and B, which you might call PA territories. --Shuki (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Reality, if you want to come back to it someday, actually shows that there are countless sources that directly contradict your warped imagination and not a single one that backs it up. The Palestinian territories, as defined by reliable sources, are the territories within the British Mandate that Israel occupied in 1967, ie the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. Your own opinion on this subject is worthless and I have provided numerous sources that show how incorrect you are. You have yet to provide one single source that backs your fantastical claim. nableezy - 19:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Fascinating tenacity you have to continue your single-purpose non-collaborative editing. --Shuki (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I would rather fascinate you for my ability to actually read sources and reflect them in articles instead of mirror your nationalistic POV-push that is not founded in even the most extremist of partisan rags you euphemistically refer to as "sources". nableezy - 19:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree. The subject of the article need to change. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Hey! I'd like to actually resolve this. Why does being uncivil seem to be the only way to get an extended response?--Carwil (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you could re-state the issue under discussion; list the 2 or 3 solutions; and identify which solution you are proposing. If no editors respond within 4 or 5 days, that may be a good indication that they agree with your solution, and are just too busy to reply. --Noleander (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed resolutions[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

  • Option 1 is consistent with policy and a natural extension of Racism by country. Option 2 would be technically consistent with policy, if and only if, it were re-named Racism within Palestian Authority control. However, Racism in the Palestinian territories would still be a perfectly acceptable, different article that should summarize the broader issues, including both setters and non-PA-ruled Palestinians. Going with Option 2, would mean excluding all pre-1994 material, and carefully assessing where each example of racism took place. It would still include any alleged racism by soldiers and settlers within the named territories. Option 3 blatantly violates NPOV by way of soapboxing and POV-pushing.--Carwil (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Option 1 seems most consistent with the growing series of "racism in ..." articles that are per-country. I think the intent is to divide the world in to distinct geographic regions. Within each article, the racism topics go in all directions: they are not limited to "majority discriminating against minority", but also include "minority discriminating against majority". If settlers etc were excluded from this article I suppose an entirely new article could be created on "Racism in settlements in Palest. Territories". But excluding settlers from this article would confuse readers (do we really expect readers to have a detailed knowledge of settlement boundaries?), and also would deprive readers of the "it goes both ways" balance that is seen in most "racism in ..." articles. --Noleander (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Option 1 Wikipedia policy requires that POV forks be avoided and that the content of articles that discuss the same subjects be harmonized using Template:Sync. The majority viewpoint is that Israeli settlers and settlements are located in the Palestinian territories and that they have been there in violation of article 49 of the Geneva Conventions since 1967, e.g. See the State Department policy documents [20] and [21] Israel is a contracting party to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). A review of Israel's country report conducted by the experts of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) stated that the establishment of Jewish-only settlements was a prohibited form of racial segregation: "The status of the settlements was clearly inconsistent with Article 3 of the Convention, which, as noted in the Committee's General Recommendation XIX, prohibited all forms of racial segregation in all countries. There is a consensus among publicists that the prohibition of racial discrimination, irrespective of territories, is an imperative norm of international law." See CERD/C/SR.1250, 9 March 1998, paragraph 82 [22] harlan (talk) 04:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Option 2: Palestinian Territories are undoubtedly those defined by areas controlled by the PNA and Hamas. Final status has not been decided and WP is not a crystal ball to decide if the Jewish areas are/will be included in this 'area'. I would expect a dab or one line to a separate article or separate section in another article (Israeli settlement) about racism by settlers if that exists. --Shuki (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
You have continued to assert this blatant falsehood without one source backing you. The Palestinian territories, defined by countless reliable sources, are the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. nableezy - 15:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Not that I'm proposing this for now, but... Shuki, would it deal with your concerns about WP:NOT:CRYSTAL if we titled the page Racism in the West Bank and Gaza Strip? Also, which are the Palestinian territories: Area A, or Areas A, B, and H2? Do you think it's feasible to sort out each Palestinian racist act as to whether it occurred in these areas? How would we manage our block of racism articles: R in Palestinian territories; R in Israeli-controlled West Bank; R in Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip? Would there be one super-article over them all? And what would that article be called?--Carwil (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with WP:NOTCRYSTAL. The English-speaking world already considers Israeli settlements to be illegal, e.g. [23]
Shuki mentions the final status negotiations, but those do not alter the current status of Jerusalem. In 1995 the State Department published a Memorandum of Conversation between William Crawford Jr. and Mr. Shaul Bar-Haim from the Israeli Embassy (February 7, 1963) regarding the US position that Jerusalem is part of Palestine. Crawford explained that the practice is consistent with the fact that, in a de jure sense, Jerusalem was part of Palestine and has not since become part of any other sovereignty. See Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961-1963, Vol. Xviii, Near East, United States. Dept. of State, G.P.O., 1995, ISBN 0160451590, page 341.
In July of 1969, Ambassador Yost said that resolution 242 treated the entire Middle East situation, including Jerusalem, as a package. He said that Israel was bound by international law and that the US government had consistently refused to recognize the measures taken by Israel in that part of Jerusalem that came under the control of Israel in the June war. See John Norton Moore (ed.), The Arab-Israeli Conflict, NJ: Princeton University Press, Princeton, Volume III, Documents [1974], pp. 993-994 and paras 93-98 of S/PV.1483 [24]
In many cases it is also illegal to represent that the West Bank settlements are located in Israel. In 1997, the US Government advised that it considers the West Bank and Gaza Strip to be one area for political, economic, legal and other purposes, and that goods produced there cannot be marked "made in Israel". [25] The same goes for Great Britain and the EU. [26] [27]. harlan (talk) 07:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Harlan, thanks for keeping me honest. Although I would really like to rush this debate and get busy editing. Shuki, can you still answer my first hypothetical question? And the other questions which aren't hypothetical at all.--Carwil (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Option 1 - without question is the only one that complies with non-negotiable policies of this website. There is no dispute, except for in the minds of a few Wikipedia editors, what the term "Palestinian territories" means. This definition is determined by the sources, not by the expansionist POV of settlers and their supporters. nableezy - 15:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Option 1 - Everybody knows that "Palestinian territories" means the West Bank and Gaza. Zerotalk 23:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Option 1 - This seems to best represent the position of the weight of the sources. unmi 14:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Unrelated settlers line/tag[edit]

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

Could you please spell out which territories you think should be defined as "Palestinian territories" for the purpose of this article? And could you specify if you are endorsing Option 2 (restricted set of territories), or Option 3 (ignore any racism by non-Arabs)? See West Bank#Administration and Administrative divisions of the Oslo Accords for descriptions of the areas and who lives there.--Carwil (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Isn't it in the territories? And the settlers aren't in Israel so what's the problem? Sol (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
If you mean the settlements, well I and the international community think they are in the territories. And I've advanced the idea that "racism in the Palestinian territories" can only refer to racism by anyone is said territories. RolesRoice seems unwilling to respond to the POV-neutral geographic options listed above. Roles? Do I have to say something insulting or uncivil to get you to answer straightforward questions?
Re: "an anti-Israel POV push to make it larger than the racism by Palestinians." Only reliable sources can tell us whose racism is "larger" or "smaller", and most RSs will simply focus on describing that racism. If settler's racism is in the Palestinian territories, what possible basis is there for excluding it from this article?--Carwil (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Sol, if you could phrase your rhetorical question in the form of a response in the section above, that would be helpful to getting a variety of editor's assesments of what is consistent with policy.--Carwil (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

SYNTH and sources[edit]

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

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

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

religious persecution[edit]

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

Opposition to Zionism or Israel, or the opposite[edit]

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

"Simple" solution. Write a NPOV section about alleged racism of opposition to Zionism and Israel and another about alleged racism of Zionism and occupation to discuss these accusations about these issues per se. Fortunately, we already have Zionism and Racism and New antisemitism to summarize, and localize to the context of the Palestinian territories (the meaning of which we hopefully can agree on soon).--Carwil (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately it then just becomes a sort of competition over who can get the most dirt to stay in the article. Like we are seeing now. Zerotalk 10:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Facts not allowed on this page[edit]

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

Read more carefully. The source says there was "an obscene caricature of an Israeli soldier with a dead child slung from his bayonet." and that the caricature is "racialist". Nowhere in the source is the word anti-semitism to be found much less an accusation of "intense anti-Semitism". It appears as though this blog has brought another person who has no interest in faithfully representing what the sources say. nableezy - 16:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Andy. Here's the original quote from the source you mentioned:
On a wall in a street in central Gaza, a mural – clearly displayed with official approval – shows an obscene caricature of an Israeli soldier with a dead child slung from his bayonet.
Next to it is written in Arabic 'Child Hunter'. Other propaganda, in English, is nearby. My guide is embarrassed by this racialist foulness. I wonder how so many other Western visitors have somehow failed to mention it in their accounts.
Here's what you wrote:
British journalist Peter Hitchens writes of the intense anti-Semitism of the "obscene caricature"s of Israelis that cover walls in the Palestinian territories with "racial foulness." (
Now, facts are welcome here. What you managed to do was transform the relevant facts described (the "caricature of an Israeli soldier with a dead child slung from his bayonet" and the caption "Child Hunter"; the common existence of racialist propaganda), into an unverifiable (how do we confirm the presence or absence of "foulness"?), POV sentence which does not have the tone of an encyclopedia, but of a diatribe. To tell you that was the problem, I tagged my edit: Gratuitously insulting, needs formal WP:TONE & verifiable claims. Now, if that didn't make sense to you or if all you saw was the revert and not the explanation, I'm sorry. And usually, I go to the source and rewrite unencyclopedic content, but instead I reverted with an explanation. I hope the reason is now clear. (Also, please cite the original source of mainstream press pieces, so it's clear they aren't blog posts. Thanks!)--Carwil (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

You are the edit warrior here. So far you have not tried to justify a single one of your insertions. Start with the explicit reasons I gave in my comment just about yours. Zerotalk 12:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Federoalostt, Are you reading what I wrote? Or my edits on the page itself? For example, you re-inserted this:
British journalist Peter Hitchens writes of the intense anti-Semitism of the "obscene caricatures" of Israelis that cover walls in the Palestinian territories with "racial foulness."
My reasons for removing it are above. More recently, I even edited it to be NPOV-ish, leaving this:
Graffiti in Gaza includes "an obscene caricature of an Israeli soldier with a dead child slung from his bayonet" labeled "child hunter" and other propaganda that British journalist Peter Hitchens describes as "racialist foulness."
Mega-edits are tempting, but they confuse the editing process and sweep away changes made in the interim. For instance, I'm restoring your tiny edit on the authors who dispute that nazi analogies are racist. But try to use different edits for different things. And justify them here on talk, if they are repeated changes.--Carwil (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Large scale edit-warring sweeping out intermediate improvements[edit]

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

Yes, but you made smaller edits soon after that massive revert so it is hard to fix. Zerotalk 11:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I should add that your additions to the article (like the Mandate Palestine paragraph) are excellent. Zerotalk 12:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 1) Pre Mandate Palestine, with noted William Bernard Ziff, Sr. on racism by Bedouins against Fellaheen.
  2. 2) Hamas' propaganda found in the notorious antisemitic incident of Ilan Halimi.
  3. 3) Ex- Nazi Bonian soldiers came to Palestine (as qtd from B. Morris).
  4. 4) Author David Solway on judenrein / Jew-free in Palestine.
  5. 5) Noted author (Paul Kuttner) about Hamas' mickey-mouse resembling Nazi Racial hatred.
  6. 6) YNet about 'apartheid palestine.'
  7. 7) Hamas racism as charged by the Kurds.
  8. 8) Peter Hitchens of the Daily Mail on racist graffiti in the territories. (added by another user)
  9. 9) Muslim attack on Jews under the Ottomans, by T. Parfitt that it is related to "Muslims xenophia in Palestine."
  10. 10) JCPA on Amin al-Husaini that he "mixed the old traditional and the new racial hatred of Jews."
  11. 11) One can disagree with the article in WSJ about the roots of the conflict in Mufti (and the like) Judephobia, but it doesn't make it 'invalid.
  12. 12) On the racism of terrorists' ideology such as that of Hamas, about "monkey children." as written by noted professor: Martin Edmonds and by Oldřich Cerný who is the Executive Director of the Forum 2000 Foundation, and Director of the Prague Security Studies Institute. Federalostt (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
You are just doing a massive trawling exercise, finding every bit of anti-Arab dirt you can locate regardless of its quality and you think it is fine to just dump it all in this crappy article. You don't seem to have the slightest knowledge of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT or other policies. The unsuitability of many of your edits has been explained above or in edit summaries but you pretend to not notice. This is not your private article. Zerotalk 12:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Federalostt, either you don't understand the technical system for editing and reverting or you are being deliberately obtuse. First, since your previous, I haven't removed anything. I have only added and improved material since your last edit. However, both that edit and your current edit combined two things: a massive reversion that deleted numerous improvements to the article and some new additions (in both cases some of those additions were questionable). Zero clearly couldn't be bothered with sorting out the difference and reverted the material, thereby restoring the work that I and others have done. This time, you reverted substantial improvements by both myself and Marokwitz to the article. Again, with no explanation.
So, please:
  • Read the policies Zero mentioned
  • Make small edits to individual sections
  • Do not revert over large stretches of edits unless you are claiming (and justifying) that ALL of those edits are illegitimate
  • Never combine a large revert and a new addition; it's extremely annoying to address your new text
Points #4 and 8 are addressed above on talk. Point 11 was presented as an over-generalization that is best addressed by the hundreds of sources on the roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and not by an opinion piece in a newspaper. In my memory (which is limited), other editors have recently described their reasons for removing #3 and #7 in their edit summaries. Why don't you check the history?
Even more bizarrely, you added the Fellaheen material (the translation of fellaheen is peasant, so this material might be inappropriate here, even by the very broad definition of racism used on this page) THIS TIME, so no one has removed it yet.
In my opinion, you need a break from editing here during which you learn how not be disruptive. Zero has mentioned bringing this to the Administrator's Noticeboard on Incidents, which I support unless you can agree to be constructive and stop steamrollering over our work.--Carwil (talk) 13:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Someone please revert Federalostt's changes. --Frederico1234 (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Done. The user is a sock of a banned user. All of their edits may be reverted. nableezy - 21:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Good work. --Frederico1234 (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of tags[edit]

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

  • NPOV—A large fraction of the article content consists of accusations made by one side of a major dispute about the other side for the purpose of promoting one side versus the other, but no recognition of this quality is present and only one direction of this propaganda war is presented.
  • FACT—Due to the use of very poor sources, even including student term papers, this article contains serious errors of fact, such as the ridiculous claim that Amin al-Husseini visited Auschwitz (a charge not even levied by the propagandists Pearlman or Schechtman in their books about him).
  • SYNTHESIS—Material is collected from random places (anything sufficiently anti-Arab will do) and presented together in a transparent attempt to produce an overall impression of Arab racism.
  • COATRACK—Although supposedly about racism in the Palestinian territories, this article presents distinct phenomena such as religious intolerance, and describes events that allegedly happened in Europe. The only common theme is Arab-bashing. Zerotalk 13:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with most of your comments, and already taken some action to remove some of the worst material. Marokwitz (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Please do not do make any changes while Federalostt's disruptive edits are still in the article. Federalostt's changes consisted of a careless mass revert of other peoples changes. A total revert of that mass revert is the only proper response. Unfortunately, I do not know how to do that. --Frederico1234 (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


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

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

Hey, now that this has been reverted, I want to point out that Racism by country articles often include a variety of related forms of discrimination (see Racism in the United States). Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're making this article consistent with the exception (the article on Israel). This isn't a very strong feeling, but I don't see the harm in the shorter title, and at least its concise. In general, Israel/Palestine articles are the subject of editwarring, leading to awkward work-arounds ("Palestine" itself has pretty much been vetoed from article titles). The fewer of these we have the better.--Carwil (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that it is wrong to include non racial ethnic discrimination in an article with the current article, yet these do belong in the article. Not changing the name would undoubtedly result in removal of relevant information. Having the longer title would reduce edit warring and make the name consistent with the title. Including non racial discrimination in an article called "Racism" implies that they are racism. It is a non-neutral title. For now, I'm tagging. Marokwitz (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
What "ethnic discrimination" is not covered by "racism"? nableezy - 21:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
For example, many would disagree that religious discrimination and persecution of Christians is a type of "racism". It is very controversial. It is certainly "ethnic discrimination" but not universally accepted as a form of "racism". People can convert their religion, yet "race" is an immutable property. Some may say that it is "racism" but it is not universally accepted and therefore not neutral to call this "racism". Marokwitz (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Discrimination against Christians is also not "ethnic discrimination" as there is no "Christian ethnicity". It is "religious persecution", but it would not belong in either title. Islam and Christianity are just religions, there is not an equivalent of "racial antisemitism" for Islam or Christianity. nableezy - 21:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Christian Arabs are an Ethnicity. "Arab" is considered by sociologists to be a panethnicity containing many seperate ethnicities. From an encyclopedic utilitarian approach, there is no fundamental difference between antisemitism and the persecution of Christians, so it is beneficial for the article reader to get information about both. Marokwitz (talk) 06:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Friends, please cite sources. This is going to get tedious soon. But at least we should have some factual grounding.
It's not at all clear to me that sectarianism = ethnic discrimination. The Arab panethnicity usually refers to its inclusion of different national groupings, of which Palestinians are one and not two or three. In other contexts (say, Iraq), religious affiliation (I'm thinking Sunna/Shi'a here) is not generally considered to be ethnic, in part based on the extremely high level of intermarriage.
The confusing thing for the Israel/Palestine context is that Jewishness has become a nationality (or a kind of panethnicity itself), so that Palestinian Jews and Arab Jews in general are suddenly "not Arabs" at all. For some, this was obviously always true, while for others (like Ella Shohat) this is a theft of a national heritage and the right to self-determination. It seems overwhelmingly likely that the former is the majority view for Arab Jews, but we need strong, internal sources to claim a separate ethnicity Palestinian Christians.
Finally, maintaining an historical distinction between religious antisemitism and Racial antisemitism is a conventional distinction for scholars in the field, and should provide a historical limit on discussing past antisemitism here. This is not the place for exploring the destruction of the temples etc. On those grounds alone, separating out sectarianism into its own article seems strongly preferrable. It might seem at first to you, Marokwitz, that "It is 'religious persecution', but it would not belong in either title, but this would open up a Pandora's box of Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount/Wailing Wall controversies (and attendant debate about whether these are in Palestinian territories), which facilities close on Friday/Saturday/Sunday in the PA, as well as Cave of the Patriarch issues, etc etc etc. Dumping that issue in the separate space it belongs--Sectarianism in the Palestinian territories, Sectarianism in Mandate Palestine and Sectarianism in Ottoman Palestine, in my opinion--with a "see also" here would make our edting task much easier here, without separating anything that must be considered here. Note that haredim/secular/halakhic law issues are not coming up at racial and ethnic discrimination in Israel either.--Carwil (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not advocating adding religious discrimination, only discrimination based on ethnic group (the Palestinian Christians are a distinct ethnic group in the Palestinian society, not like the haredim/secular in the Israeli society which are of mixed ethnicities). I think that adding an article about sectarianism could make sense if there is sufficient material to create a meaningful article. Otherwise, widening the scope of this article would be helpful in order to avoid losing meaningful content. Marokwitz (talk) 11:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The Encyclopedia of Palestine by Philip Mattar draws a distinction between Christians and Christian ethnic minorities (who are Ethiopian, Armenian, Russian, Copt, and Syrian Orthodox) on pp. 421-3. It also states on p. 396, "the major statistical division among Palestinians is religious," referring to Christians. I found a less authoritative source in chapter 10 of Studies of Israeli society, Volume 10 By Ernest Krausz, David Glanz, Aaron Antonovsky, that treats Christian and Muslim Palestinians as two separate ethnic groups. So, again, I would suggest that we need strong backing of RSs to claim that ethnicity is the WP:Majority view.
What is currently in the article, however, is discussion of how an Islamist movement has increased pressure on Christians for their religious activities (such as attacks on a Christian bookseller), so how is that not "religious discrimination"? Are there any RSs saying this is based on ethnicity (RSs saying Christian Palestinians are an ethnicity don't answer the question)?
Wikipedia is not paper, and I'm all for a Religious discrimination in Palestine or Discrimination against Christian in Palestine to hold the current material.--Carwil (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

ref removal[edit]

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

The section New Anti-semitism[edit]

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

the article is about many things, and the #1 item addressed is anti-semitism. (see #1) 'new-anti-semitism' is not 'so-called', it is what it is, based on an article by that name and dozens of RS. so, new (or old) anti-semitism is a major part of this article. as for it not directly linking to the palestinian territories, well, he talks mostly about the palestinians. the palestinian territories are made up of mostly palestinians (the largest community of palestinians in the world, by far, live in the palestinian territories). it is directly linked since that is the main subject of the piece. not sure why you would make the comments you did: 'this article is not about new-anti-semitism' - i am sure we all know that it is not about that; 'author's thoughts' - most of the article itself is comprised of "author's thoughts'; etc. Soosim (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
What part covers the Palestinian territories? A direct quote, please. --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't see anything in the column about racism in the Palestinian territories, you know, the subject of this encyclopedia article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
it is written by a Palestinian, about Palestinian anti-semitism issues. it includes Palestinians who live in the territories. if you read the wiki article itself, you will see that more than half of the material there doesn't mention the territories specifically, but rather, talks about Palestinians and anti-semitism and racism in general. not sure why you (malik, frederico, et al) are so against this? the author is a well respected, credentialed individual whose thoughts are important on this matter. Soosim (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Please provide a quote from the article explicitly dealing with anti-semitism in the Palestinian territories. Thank you. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It's time to remove the neutrality tag[edit]

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

The tag will stay forever if the article remains in its present disgusting state. Actually I might add some more tags. Zerotalk 15:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I do not mean to imply the article could not use improvement. May I suggest changing the tag to say "This article has multiple issues" such as Racism_in_Russia or Racism in China? Liberal Classic (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I have to block your proposal on the repeatedly put out concern that settlers and soldiers are in the Palestinian territories and exhibit racism against Palestinian Arabs, both overtly and through systems of segregation and exclusion. I've sought consensus on talk to include this and haven't reached it. But neither have opponents gained a consensus that it doesn't belong here. Despite some merits for both ways of working, WP divides racism in X articles by geography, but this page is an anomaly to that convention: racism by Jewish Israelis is categorically excluded and that's a problem for NPOV. If you'd care to help mediate a conversation on this, that would be appreciated.--Carwil (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I have timidly added a tag calling for clean-up. POV tag retained per conversation on the talk page. In my opinion, this article and Racism_in_the_Arab_world are both pretty bad. They could probably be merged. The problem as I see it is that there are attitudes of intolerance for ethnic groups as well as for religious groups. There are some places where they overlap, and some places where they don't. The main problem I have with this article is it is as much about religious intolerance as it is about racial intolerance. Its strays from its scope. Liberal Classic (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Propose this article be merged into Racism_in_the_Arab_world[edit]

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

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


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

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


I thought Palestinian territories didn't exist before 1949?

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

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

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

One clear example is this: the article says "Black slaves were owned by Bedouin in the Negev..."
Since when is the Negev part of the Palestinian territories? Again, lets keep this limited to the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem only.Wheatsing (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian territories didn't exist pre-Mandate when Ottomans ruled. Palestinians territories didn't exist pre-Israel when British ruled. Palestinian territories didn't exist in 1949 when State of Israel was established. Palestinian territories didn't exist in 1949-1967 when Jordanians and Egyptians ruled. Palestinian territories didn't exist in 1964 when PLO was founded. Palestinian territories was created in 1988. (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

RE: Racism during times of slavery[edit]

this entire section is ridiculous and should be removed.

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

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

Move discussion in progress[edit]

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

Move discussion in progress[edit]

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

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

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

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

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

could this article please state its scope? Is it about the Palestinian territories specifically, or does it include the history of the Ottoman Empire and the British mandate of Palestine? Is there any monograph that would establish this as a bona fide encyclopedic topic (as opposed to agenda-driven WP:SYNTH)? Establishing what the article is about, and establishing that the proposed scope is identifiable in secondary sources would be the very first step before starting to write the article even in cases not as blatantly pov-prone as this.
be honest, was "Racism in the Palestinian territories" the result of a competiton "come up with the worst humanly possible drama-magnet title for a Wikipedia page"? --dab (𒁳) 11:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)