Talk:Arab citizens of Israel/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Allegations of Discrimination

Oneworld25 and I appear to be in the early stages of a revert war, and I wanted to prevent such a war from occurring. So let's discuss:

I believe that Bard's refutation of allegations of discrimination in Israel should remain in the article. The argument against this (if I understand correctly) is that information is redundant, because the article states elsewhere that Arabs have the right to vote in Israel. In the first place, I do not think it is terrible to include this information twice (although best avoided if possible). In the second place, if this information is to be included anywhere it should be in this section, which is the most relevant in the article. In the third place, I haven't found any other section in the article that states that Arabs in Israel have the right to vote. The possible exception to this is in the intro, which states that Arab residents of East Jerusalem are allowed to vote in municipal elections. This is a far cry from what Bard articulates. Thoughts? Screen stalker (talk) 03:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not against mention being made of Israeli Arabs having the right to vote, but I am against this quote because:-

1. Is he a reliable source?

2. It does not refute the idea of discrimination against Israeli Arabs, since in Israel and a lot of other countries there can be subtle and not-so subtle discrimination by various means.

3. Actually, women do have the right to vote in some other places in the Middle East, including the PA (and it is the Israelis who have deprived them of this right). However, even if it was true that Israeli Arab women were the only women in the Middle East with the right to vote, this would be not at all inconsistent with there being a high level of discrimination against Israeli Arabs. PatGallacher (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"and it is the Israelis who have deprived them of this right" - ya right ..... Zeq (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That is correct. Israel has refused to accept the election of Hamas and is backing the coup in the West Bank. Hamas achieved a higher vote among women than men, because women tend to be more religous than men. PatGallacher (talk) 10:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The whole discussion about Palestinians is irrelevant, because this article is about Israeli Arabs, not Palestinians.

1. Yes, he is a reliable source, and he represents a side of the argument that is critically lacking in this article (this section in particular).
2. I don't understand what you mean by this point. So because there might still be discrimination in Israel, we shouldn't place a source in there that helps clarify the question of discrimination? My goal in including this source wasn't to show that there isn't discrimination against Arabs in Israel (only someone who is truly naive believes that). It was to help provide another side of the story for the reader, so that they can get a broader view of what the situation on the ground is like for Israeli Arabs. No single quotation can encompass all the facets of potential discrimination.
3. Bard doesn't say that Israel is the only place in which Arab women can vote in the Middle East. He only says it is one of the few where they can. Insofar as I am aware, that is true. Screen stalker (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Okedem can you please provide the source for the following: "While formally equal according to Israeli law..." According to whom are the Arabs equal under Israeli law? You need a reliable source saying that, and I've asked for one twice already.Bless sins (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That's sort of like asking someone to prove he doesn't have a sister...

Laws are normally written as applying to all people, or all citizens (see some example in Basic Laws of Israel; You can look at other Israeli laws and see the same). The opposite claim would require proof, not this simple claim.

Through a short search, I've come across these links - BBC News saying: "Israeli law demands equal rights for all its citizens but many Israeli Arabs say in Israel, some citizens are more equal than others." (saying in effect there is discrimination, as opposed to the equal legal situation), this one, another one, another about access to land, etc. I'm not arguing for the quality of these sources right now, just pointing them out. But do consider the problem of sourcing positive claim, which should be, in this case, presumed true. okedem (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason I asked you was in the light of Israeli laws like Law of return which discriminates against non-Jews. Also since Arabs (except Druze) aren't required to serve in the military then they are also unequal in this respect (whether this inequality is a preferred or disadvantaged state for Arabs has been debated).Bless sins (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The Law of Return has no bearing on citizens, only people who wish to become citizens (it's like saying poor people in Canada don't have the same rights, since poor foreigners can't get citizenship, or can, but with great difficulty). We're talking about citizens, not immigration policies (many nation states give preference to one ethnic group in immigration, by the way).

Army - first, most Bedouins also serve in the army. I don't think there's any point in counting the army thing as equality or inequality. Arabs have the choice to serve, if they'd want to, for some odd reason. So if we write it as anything, it'll be "Jews are discriminated against, by having to serve in army for two to three years". We're talking about rights and liberties, equality in the eyes of the law, not a specific duty that other people have to fulfill. okedem (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Arabs have the option to serve in the military if they wish. Also, you'll notice that Bard acknowledges that The sole legal distinction between Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel is that the latter are not required to serve in the Israeli army. So what you are saying has no bearing on his reliability (actually, it supports the thesis that what he says is true). Screen stalker (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Bless Sins is right. A reliable source that supports the statement that begins "While formally equal under the law..." is in fact required to support its inclusion. This is a contentious statement and it requires a source. Does anyone have one? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 00:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, Okedem, you statement that "this article is about Israeli Arabs, not Palestinians," is misleading. As the sources in the article show, most Arab citizens of Israel don't like being called "Israeli Arabs" and most of them identify as Palestinian by nationality. So this article is in fact about a population, the majority of whom identify as Palestinian, who are citizens of Israel. Tiamut^talk 00:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut, I don't think I was unclear before, but let me clarify - for lack of a better definition, when I say Palestinians, I mean NOT Israeli-citizens, but residents of Gaza and the West Bank, citizens of the PA. All claims regarding their status don't belong in this article. This article is only about the Arab citizens of Israel, regardless of how they define themselves (Palestinian, Israeli, whatever - it doesn't matter here). okedem (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Phyllis Bennis Quote

Regarding this quote (in "Legal and political status"):

Phyllis Bennis, a Middle East analyst, has stated:

"All Israeli citizens, including Palestinians, have the right to vote in elections for members of the Knesset (parliament) and for the prime minister. But not all rights are citizenship rights. Other rights are defined as nationality rights, and are reserved for Jews only. If you are a Jew, you have exclusive use of land, privileged access to private and public employment, special educational loans, home mortgages, preferences for admission to universities, and many other things.

These claims are either false, or misleadingly inaccurate. Let's tackle them one by one:

• "exclusive use of land" - The only issue here is the JNF lands, privately held lands, purchased with money donated by world Jewry, intended for use by Jews. After the creation of the state, the ILA (Israel Land Administration) was granted the right to handle all of the land, JNF and state-lands. The state land allotment is equal, and nationality has no bearing on it. This is the place to explain that most of the lands in Israel are not privately owned, but leased from the state, usually for 99 years. Only a few percent of land is privately owned (excluding JNF land), mostly by Arabs. The JNF lands (some 13%) did pose a problem, as the JNF charter only allows it to lease land to Jews. This caused several legal proceedings, where the Supreme Court ruled that the practice is unlawful (the issue is that the land is administered by ILA, a government entity. If the lands were administered by JNF they would not be under the court jurisdiction in this case, as JNF is a private organization. The recent solution is such - if an Israeli-Arab wishes to lease some land, anywhere, held by the JNF, he is allowed to do so, and the land is transferred to the state (ILA), which compensates the JNF with an equal area of land elsewhere, in areas not-intended for building (mostly forests, as the JNF does a whole lot of forestation work in Israel).
• "privileged access to private and public employment" - There are cases of discrimination in the private sector, as can be found in pretty much any country. Such action is illegal, though hard to prove in court. Same goes for the public sector. The commonest way of this is requiring military service, which sometimes makes sense (when it's a security company), but often doesn't. See below for details about such requirements, and why they discriminate against a wide range of people, including many Jews. The situation is improving, as detailed in our article, but is still wanting.
• "special educational loans, home mortgages" - Misleading. Peoples who served in the army can, sometimes, get some loans for education, and might have an easier time getting good rates on government subsidized home mortgages (though those have fallen out of favor, as the commercial mortgages are highly competitive). These "perks" are unrelated to nationality. They are dependent on army service, 2 to 3 years of a person's life, with laughable pay ($100 a month, plus $150 per month to be used only after discharge, under some conditions, like using it to pay for college). Arabs can, and some do, join the army (like Beduin), and so enjoy those privileges. Many Jews don't serve in the army, like the Ultra-Orthodox Jews; and many others who get an exemption on medical grounds, both true and fake, and pacifists, who are also exempt. Just like Arabs who don't serve in the military, all those Jews don't get any of said benefits. And let me tell you, as someone who did serve in the army for 3 years - all those "perks" are next to worthless, their economic value being completely negligible compared to 3 more years of being able to work and earn a living, or being able to start academic studies 3 years earlier. By the way, some steps have been taken to institute a "civilian service", in which young people who can't or won't serve in the army, could serve some time helping the community (like helping in hospitals, etc), and this would "count" as military service for the few relevant benefits. The idea has encountered both support and resistance from the Israeli-Arab community, and serious resistance from the Jewish Ultra-Orthodox community.
• "preferences for admission to universities" - simply untrue. Admission is based on matriculation exam scores and the psychometric test (similar to the SATs); note that both of those are given in Arabic alongside Hebrew. Sometimes specific exams are required, like in Architecture or Medicine. Nationality or military service do not enter this equation. Perhaps she is confused by a different issue - I believe one or two universities give partial preference in dorm allocation to people who served in the army (a few more "points" in the rating of the student's eligibility for dorms). The rational for this being, again, to try and help compensate people for the time they put in, given that people who didn't serve could have spent the time working and saving up, or are young enough to stay at home, if they wish. Personally, I think this is not the way to go, but it has nothing to do with admission. The vast majority of students don't live in dorms anyway, and again - many Jews don't serve in the army.
• "and many other things" - well, can't really say anything about that, but it leaves the reader thinking there are actually more, when there are no details to back it up.

I hope I explained the problems clearly. I ask that this quote be removed, as it is misleading and highly inaccurate. okedem (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Addition: The Roselle Tekiner quote that immediately follows is also misleading. First off, it only says that some rights are withheld, but doesn't expand upon that - discriminating practices or laws should be detailed in this article (and they are), letting the readers get the info for themselves. Furthermore, following the link for that source (of Roselle Tekiner) shows she completely misunderstood the land situation in Israel, claiming "Israel's Two-Tiered Citizenship Law Bars Non-Jews From 93 Percent of Its Lands". It's a common misconception, as can be read here. As I said, only JNF lands posed a problem for Arabs, and those are just 13%, which are privately held (by the JNF). As I detailed, that situation has been resolved, finally. okedem (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Okedem, please provide sources that express the viewpoints you have expressed here. Per WP:NPOV we don't remove POVs that are sourced to reliable sources. Phyllis Bennis is a reliable, though partisan, source. The way to balance out the section, if you feel it needs to be balanced out, would be to add other POVs that challenge what Bennis says. Extended posting of your opinion of what is wrong with a particular quote aren't necessary or helpful and come off as WP:SOAP when they don't invoke any sources. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 00:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

PS Palestine Facts does is definitely not a reliable source. It doesn't list its authors or their expertise so we cannot judge the validity of the information provided there. So please don't link to them as a way of supporting your arguments. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 00:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut, honestly, are you claiming what I said above isn't true? Can you point to the specific examples in the subject? I have taken to time to explain, in detail, the facts here. Are you claiming I'm misrepresenting reality? Can you cite real, specific, sources for the analyst's claims? Let me make this even more specific - are you saying that her claim, that "93 percent of Israel's land can only be leased or owned by Jews or Jewish agencies"? ([1]). Are you claiming that Jews have "preferences for admission to universities"? You live in Israel, you know that those claims are simply false. One can make truthful claims about discrimination in Israel, but those are simply untrue.

Regardless of the veracity of the quotes, they are wholly unnecessary here. Instead of telling our readers some "analyst" says there's discrimination, we should give the specifics of any such discrimination, with good sources, and let the reader draw his conclusions. The article does a good job, I think, of detailing the facts of this subject, and these quotes serve no purpose. okedem (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

GA

Has anyone considered nominating this article for GA status?Bless sins (talk) 06:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the first encounter I've had with the possibility of nominating an article as a GA article. Do you really think this is good enough? Screen stalker (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion it needs a great deal of work. Concerns over the JNF land issue and urban planning, the unrecognized villages, and relations with Palestinians elsewhere - three of the most central issues impacting daily life for Arabs in Israel, are absent, and must be filled in somehow. Refcahman (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Political parties

Something rubs me the wrong way with regard to the "Political parties" section. Actually, a few things rub me the wrong way:

1. "Arabs on the Move" says that Arab political parties that […] attracted the majority of the Arab vote, garnering 75% in 2003 and still 70% in 2006. It doesn't say that the rest of the vote went to Zionist parties. But the article says that in the 2006 elections 30% of the Arab vote went to such parties, up from 25% in 2003. This is Synthesis of the information presented, since we can't know for sure that the rest voted for Zionist parties. They may have voted for Arab Parties which were not represented in the Knesset (because they failed to obtain the threshold) or for non-Zionist, non-Arab parties.
2. I've never heard of "Open Democracy." Could someone who is familiar with it tell me more about it? It may very well be that it is a reliable source, but I'd like to know for sure.
3. "The Arab Vote in the Israeli Elections" seems to me to be a source of questionable interpretation abilities. It calls Meretz a Zionist party, which means that it is including non-Zionist parties in the list of "Zionist parties." This is further evidenced by the fact that all parties which identify themselves as Arab are listed as non-Zionist, and all parties that do not identify themselves as Arab are listed as Zionist (which is why the two groups add up to 100%). Surely not every non-Arab political party in Israel is Zionist? Screen stalker (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll answer some of these issues later; but on Meretz, it is undeniably a Zionist party. It is a constituent part of the World Zionist Organisation, it is represented on the Zionist executive. This is not a value judgement, or original research/synthesis; it is a simple statement of fact.

I will try to clarify the question of the Arab vote. I have seen and read Open Democracy before, not sure how reliable it is. This may deoend on the reliability of the individual contributor. RolandR (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I certainly won't object to Open Democracy as a reliable source. It seems to be at least satisfactory in its credibility. If we could find the same information elsewhere, however, that would be preferable.

I am still concerned regarding point #1: the fact that x-many Arabs voted for the three Arab parties mentioned does not mean that the rest voted for Zionist parties. Screen stalker (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Meretz, I reviewed the article to which you linked. It is true that that article calls Meretz a member of the WZO, but both of the sources cited were dead links. Do you know of an up-to-date, reliable source that says this? Screen stalker (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Look at Meretz's own web site: "The realization of Zionism will be implemented through Israel's transformation into a place that is attractive to immigrants and from which emigration is minimal"; "Ours is a twofold goal: to encourage all types of Jewish culture in the Jewish communities while simultaneously deepening the commitment to Zionism and to Israel". On the Meretz-USA site, you can read "The World Union of Meretz, to which Meretz USA belongs, is an alliance of similarly-minded groups throughout the world. It is particularly effective as a tool for the Meretz groups to work together within the World Zionist Organization and other world-wide Zionist bodies.". There is a lot more, both on these websites and the various sites of the WZO. RolandR (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, you've persuaded me that Meretz is a Zionist party. I am still unconvinced, however, that the 70% and 75% statistic is not synthesis. Screen stalker (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

POV- terms, etc.

I am a new user. My understanding is that facts can be changed, but wiki is not for expressing personal opinions. I had tagged this page with the category 'Palestinians' and it has been removed. I imagine this has happened many times before. Thus, it might as well be opened as a topic of discussion so that we can attempt some kind of consensus here. From my perspective, the people who determine what they are called are the people themselves. While sure, I know some Arab citizens of Israel call themselves Arab Israelis, I do not know a single one who would not say that s/he is also Palestinian. Currently, this page is listed under the 'Arab Israeli' category, a term offensive to many Arabs in Israel. So to be fair it should be listed under 'Palestinians' as well, a term offensive to many Israelis.Refcahman (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. This article is categorized under "Palestinian people", and has been for a long time. okedem (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic and Religious Groupings section

Today, upon re-organizing this section as much as I could (pure clean-up and few additions or subtractions), I 'discovered' that the descriptions of each population is limited to:

1. Their birth rates

2. Their military service

It is vital that these sections, especially the Muslim and Christian sections, not limit their definition to such a very narrow scope. What is greatly needed:

1. A few sentences about Muslim and Christian locales/a BRIEF history

2. A few sentences about prominent Muslim and Christian community figures and institutions

Without this information, clearly this section purely presents the definition of Muslims and Christians in Israel from a State demographic/military perspective, with hardly any mention of the perspective of Muslims and Christians about their communities. I am not very informed about the above 2 points (those in need of insertion). I invite those who do know, to add the missing context. Thanks, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• I went ahead and re-organized here (as elsewhere), so that the military question has its own section. It is easier to follow now and covers some of the major issues raised, now, whereas before it was embedded everywhere and actually became too heavy a theme in defining Arab identity in Israel, I think. I think you will see that the headings I've added throughout the entry as a whole should help guide future additions to this entry - when I started tonight the demographic and legal sections seemed like more of a hodgepodge of unorganized info under broad headings.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Population Administration

This edit requires some clarification, I think. First off, the "Population Administration" is mostly a book-keeping administration, with little to no executive power. Why should anyone care about it, in this context?

Second, "known to be tough on non-Jews residing in Israel" really needs some more data. What does that mean? "Tough"? Doing what, exactly? What powers does he have, and where has he used them? Without some details, this is next to meaningless.

Besides, that's not what the source says. It doesn't talk about "Jews" vs. "Non-Jews", but of Ganot's treatment of foreigners, both foreign workers and Palestinians, saying nothing about Arab Citizens of Israel (who are the subjects of this article). okedem (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and have reverted the edit for now. The article doesn't talk about Arab Israelis at all, only about foreign workers. Also it doesn't directly say that 'Ganot is tough on foreigners', so the statement is 100% WP:OR. I'm not sure how the user who made the edit came to the conclusion he did, but they are not correct and at the most, the paragraph should be re-written (although as you said, I'm not sure why it's even relevant here). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

In that same paragraph there's another piece of OR, or interpretation: "...played an active role in pushing for the passage of the Citizenship Law to curb the growth of Arab families." - no one's "curbing" the growth of Arab families. It makes it seem as though the law takes away citizenship from Arab families if they're too large or something. That law just prevents Palestinians from gaining citizenship by marriage, due to the security risks (and one can also claim it's due to the "demographic threat"). In other words, it changes regulations of how foreigners can gain citizenship in Israel. It has nothing to do with growth. An Arab family, like a Jewish one, can grow as large as it wants to. okedem (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In any case, a long time ago I noticed this article was a mess, and set out to copyedit it, with a couple dozen edits (I think) which effectively converted it into a properly-formatted decent article, although it had little content then. The article has been expanding since, and now it's many times larger than it was then; and, unfortunately, most of the contributors have apparently been trying to display Arab Israelis as a discriminated and persecuted indiginous minority (serious POV). If I have time this week, I'll try to copyedit the article again, although it will be much harder this time. I encourage other editors to try to do the same. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Okedem, point taken - I have pared down the info on the heads of the Population Admin -the only important info is who they are, not the surrounding language. They are definitely linked to the question of Arab citizens - by mentioning them briefly next to the Koenig report, I show how they are linked.

YHockney, while you have a right to your opinion, I hope that your evaluation that editors who are including info on discrimination are POV-pushing does not lead you to POV-push that there is no discrimination. I hope that rather than quickly deleting info, you will simply edit it.Thanks.

This was such a minor point, I hope it doesn't become a long topic of discussion. I acknowledge it was not the best addition I've ever made. So long as we all work to refine what's there rather than omit or negate particular perspectives, it's good that we're all here to follow up on each other. Best,LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

At first I just, as I said, pared it down, but upon re-reading it really didn't make any sense. So instead I went back and added more support. Thank you for your feedback about the weakness of the addition before, you were on target.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Jews as arabs

1st ref was a dead link. 2nd did not attest to claims. Ori (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

In general, that claim is extremely unacceptable among Jews immigrated from arab countries and descendents Ori (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I would also take out the par. starting with "Yemenite Jews and certain specific communities... Jewish are accounted for as Arabs". You do not grasp the full meaning of the Dichotomy Ori (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You are right of course- most Jews from Arab countries would very much abhor being called Arabs and see Jewishness and Arabness as a dichotomy. However, other Jews from Arab countries are very willing to be called Arabs and do not see Jewishness and Arabness as a dichotomy. I believe the statement was - "some," not "all," or even "most."LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Legal and political status

Under "Legal status guaranteed in Israeli law" we have the phrase "Citizenship is implicitly linked to military service in Israel." - this requires clarification. How is it linked, implicitly or otherwise? I mean, a large part of the population (Arabs, Hardeim, and some secular Jews) doesn't serve in the army, and yet vote and have the same legal status etc. So - what does this sentence actually mean?

Under "De jure vs. de facto legal status" we have a quote by MAR, saying Arabs citizens in Israel "suffer political discrimination based on decades of social exclusion." I have two issues with this - first off, MAR is a terrible source. I don't remember where we had a discussion about it, perhaps in Talk:Israel, but it was found to have a whole lot of blatant errors, whole lies and half-truths, and we decided not to use it there. There are much better source for these issues. Second, the use of quotes this way is very problematic. You see, you essentially say "someone said there's discrimination", but you never say what it is. I wrote about a similar issue on this talk page, under "Phyllis Bennis Quote". That quote was much worse, but the point remains the same - if there's discrimination (I know there is), write about it, not about other people saying there's discrimination. That way, the reader gets real information, instead of a vague impression, created by our specific choice of words, or the phrasing the source we chose decided to use. okedem (talk) 06:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

POI I did not insert the MAR quote, just moved it from elsewhere in the article. I don't know MAR, and am not attached to the quote - there are plenty of other sources which say the same thing, better. I will try to find a better source.

"Citizenship is implicitly linked to military service in Israel." - you're right, it does need clarification. It might be better to say that equal citizenship in the sense of equal opportunity is linked to military service, since education and housing loans, etc. are linked to military service. This can be better written, of course. There are many sources for this, but I would need to find a good citation. Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

POI?

Please - find the actual details, not just general quotes. They usually give a very distorted picture, and fail to convey actual information. The housing loans, for instance, are actually useless today, with commercial loans offering better rates (and those loans are only for a not too large part of the cost of the house/apartment). Education loans barely exist at all, and even when they do - they're very small. These very minor financial benefits pale in comparison to giving away 3 years at basically no pay, and that needs to be clear - meaning, if you're an 18 year old Arab citizen, if you spend those same 3 years working, even at minimum wage, you'll save up way more than any of those benefits are worth. Alternatively, you can start studying for your degree 3 years earlier, and get to the job market earlier, having 3 additional work-years in your life.

My advice - try to find detailed sources on discrimination in jobs, usually by private employers, though the public sector does that too. That's something that really does happen, and really means something, unlike nearly non-existent education loans. okedem (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(POI means "Point of Information", meant to be less aggressive than FYI can sometimes be.)LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The point is not to detail the impact of discrimination quantitatively, or to argue that Arabs are economically disadvantaged for lack of government support. That info goes elsewhere. The point is to clarify that their legal status differs because of these provisions. You're right, housing and ed. loans have become negligible in the past decade, so the magnitude of the economic impact is not great. It's more of a legal issue.

I agree with you, giving three years is quite a sacrifice for Jewish kids. However, the situation of Arabs in Israel re: military service cannot be compared to that of Jews. I could say more, but why get into it right here right now.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Still, under "De jure vs. de facto legal status" you present these quotes, but don't give any details, and so the reader has no idea what you actually mean, or how severe any discrimination really is. I think we should either present the details, or avoid such quotes. okedem (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think that title even makes sense to me - legal status is de jure. "De facto legal status" seems like a contradiction. okedem (talk) 07:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, you're right of course: I changed it to citizenship status. Am working on replacing the quote. As far as getting facts vs. quotes, I understand what you mena but it won't be instantaneous. I actually spent a billion hours more here today than I should have.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 08:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You've been putting a whole lot of effort into this, I know. Don't think I'm criticizing you... okedem (talk) 08:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Another point - "Another party currently banned under this law is the right-wing Jewish Kach party." - actually, that's the only party ever actually forbidden from running to the Knesset, AFAIK. In fact, the text above it doesn't mention any party currently forbidden, only the overturned Election Committee decision regarding Balad. okedem (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Cabinet - under "Arab figures in political, judicial and military positions" we have "No other Arab has been included in a Prime Minister's cabinet" - saying "cabinet" - do we just mean the ministers? Because if so, then Majadele is also in the cabinet. If we mean the narrower meaning used in Israel, I don't even know if Tarif was in the narrow cabinet.

"or invited to join any political coalition." - well, here we definitely have Majadele. He is mentioned in the next paragraph ("Knesset"), though that seems out of place there. okedem (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Your courtesy is appreciated, and also, points taken, I should have been more careful on nights like this one, when I probably make a thousand edits and start to overstate things. Re: this last point, I certainly would not have been offended if you just wanted to make the correction, since it was clearly an out-of-date assertion. Best,LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I just didn't really understand what you were getting at, and didn't want to cause edit conflicts, seeing how many edits you make to this article right now... okedem (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

JNF section

I think the JNF section should be removed. Here's why:

1. The section is currently presented in a highly biased matter, for example, right at the start it says that the JNF's decision to give lands only to Jews is a salient example of discrimination. Who established this? TheGuardian? The author should note that WP:RS does not cancel out WP:NPOV and the facts should be presented as they are without taking sides.
2. Further down, the section cites a Haaretz opinion editorial (op-ed), to blatantly claim that the JNF is racist, period. That's a serious violation of several major Wikipedia policies, among other things.

The source I cited called the JNF racist; the entry did not do so. While you may boil at the name Haaretz chose for its editorial, the editorial otherwise has relevant, important facts in it. We do cite such editorials on Wiki.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

1. The main reason to delete the prose, instead of re-writing it, is that if there's no proof that it relates directly to Israeli Arabs, then there's no reason to have it in the article. So far, I cannot see proof in any of the sources that indeed JNF is a racist anti-Arab organization - all of the presented sources make allegations, but it would be quite difficult to prove this (probably impsossible, because the JNF is not racist).

I welcome more opinions, and hopefully we can delete this anti-JNF hate propaganda. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC

I have to agree. JNF lands are private lands, purchased and paid for in full using donations from Jews around the world, with the specific purpose of buying land of Jews in Israel (Palestine, originally). Private property can be leased to who ever the owner wants. This simple point is not even mentioned.

"In 2007, the JNF responded with a preemptive bypass of the High Court and Mazuz, with a bill" - JNF does not bypass anyone, and can't write bills. The Knesset is the only one who can do that, and it does what it wishes, whether it's to the benefit of some bodies or not.

And after all that rant about racism, the most important development in this, the solution to the issue, isn't even mentioned! (Land exchange - when ILA leases JNF land to Arabs, it takes control over that land, and gives JNF alternate property, elsewhere, in areas not destined for development, like forests).

If we want to present the JNF issue fairly, that's fine. But this paragraph is terrible (sorry, I know you mean well, LamaLoLeshLa). okedem (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the section title again, to "Arab perceptions of citizenship status." One cannot argue with the inclusion of such as section as this, I think, in an entry called "Arab citizens of Israel." I do not think the section should be deleted, obviously, but as far as your other points, go ahead and make the edits you see fit, I won't argue, though I may tweak.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Any edits I make will necessary remove all of the anti-JNF hate propaganda. I'm sure that you won't agree to this, so instead of edit-warring, why not reach a consensus and then it won't matter who makes the edit. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm not going to give up on having a section on the JNF here - it's one of the key points for Arabs in Israel. Also, a good deal of the paragraph doesn't 'smear' the JNF, it simply states the facts around the court cases, etc. However, feel free to add countering perspectives such as, "others say...." or "the JNF argues..." or, "the JNF charter does not explicitly argue against sale of land to Arabs, but rather, specifies that the land should be reserved for Jewish uses...." I didn't know what you meant, Okedem, about the solution - why not insert it? Give it a try, before considering deleting the section (which yes, I will resist with great tenacity), add the counterpoints you feel are necessary, and maybe at the end you won't feel the same way. I think this issues greatly deserves inclusion and that it is highly possible to get it into a form we can all agree on.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

As I know this is something Arab-Israelis feel strongly about, and is one of the major topics in the discussion, I do feel it deserves mention. Just not like this. okedem (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to check out for now and finally get actual non-virtual work done. I'll be back and curious to see what you come up with. Regards,LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've a complete rewrite of that section. Before it dealt too much with the legal disputes and the animosity from both sides, now it just details the facts. okedem (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks okedem! The new version is much better, especially because it introduces the context first and the accusations later. I have reworded the context a little to clarify that the JNF is not a government-owned organization. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks pretty good now too. See, that wasn't so painful.Thanks for taking the time, Okedem.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the law proposal bit, as explained in the summary. Failed proposals are nearly meaningless, and add little to the article.

"As of 2008, according to the law the ILA is legally bound" - firstly, you've got repetition here ("according to the law", "legally bound"), but are you sure that's right? I don't think anyone changed the law for this, it might just be a government directive or something like that. okedem (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I wanted this to be over but upon closer inspection I must add, my dear Okedem: The article you cited did not indicate that the 2007 decision was a lasting one nor that it was active in 2008. Indeed, according to the source, the decision was for three months only and is already expired! Thus, to present it as a lasting solution, to imply that the matter has been resolved, is quite misleading, don't you think?

This is what you wrote:

As of 2008, the ILA does lease JNF land to Arab citizens" That's really not what the reference said. Thus I left your additions there but was obliged to edit for accuracy. I may have to reduce/remove the phrasing (per your own argument: "Failed proposals (or expired agreements) are nearly meaningless, and add little to the article") unless you can give a better source which shows that the ILA currently leases land to Arabs, on paper and in reality. Best,21:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I used the text from the JNF article, and got that source from there. As far as I know, the situation hasn't changed. This article, by the way, contains lots of details, one of them being that the land swap thing was done for a long time, and only in 2004 did the ILA stop leasing JNF lands to Arabs. I'll try to find a source regarding the situation today. okedem (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The 2005 decision that you mentioned in your earlier edit, did in fact suggest severence or limitation of the JNF-ILA relationship, however I don't have time to find a citation that says so. More recently, Ayalon has promoted such a move, so I added that in. It seems like a highly relevant point to mention.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Length of article

After the recent flurry of changes, the article has grown considerably. Currently, the article has 88 thousands characters of readable prose (excluding refs etc.), or 14 thousand words. While it certainly deserves the attention, it's becoming very long, which seriously damages its readability. While I understand the desire to add every detail, we also need to be reasonably concise. Please keep that in mind while editing. okedem (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This is true. However before, the article failed to address some central issues so we have to take that into account. After the JNF entry, I can't think of much else that's conspicuously missing. At present I think it is pretty read-able, but yes, much more info and it will cease to be.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, so many changes, thanks LamaLoLeshLa! I think the length is fine, personally. I'd been gone a while and came back to finally add in a section on the JNF, and now I don't have to do anything.Refcahman (talk) 00:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

TOClimit

Revealing my ignorance about some technicalities here, I'd like to ask if anyone could add {{TOClimit}} to the table of contents so that it is not so damn long. Best,LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Flow of article

Before we remove all the unnecessary content from this article, I propose a simple solution to the most immediate flow/readability problems: let's remove all the templates on the right except the one at the very top. That means removing the 'Arabs', 'Government of Israel' and 'Palestinians' templates (and more if I missed them). These templates are not really necessary in any article and seriously clutter up the page. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I read your suggestion and thought, hmmm, interesting idea - then when I took a look, I had the opposite reaction, that we should remove the one at the very top (as, with the table of contents, it creates a big gap after the intro), and keep most of the others. You're right that there are quite a lot of them.

I personally was not about to start cutting things out - I think all of it belongs. I can't imagine adding anything else and the only edits I was about to make were to reduce obvious repetition. Okedem is right that things can be edited precisely so that entries are more concise, without deleting anything. (I am very guilty of the long addition, I realize.)LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the lead section will be improved (in flow) if the top template is removed. It will mostly stay the same, only have a couple lines less. This is not a great change compared to the enormous space that could be saved by removing the other templates. Right-hand topic templates were popular on Wikipedia back in the day, but today such templates usually go at the bottom and we have relevant bottom templates for all those topics, I believe (and if we don't, they should be created). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Putting them at the bottom sounds about right. I don't think they are all there as yet. I do not know how to transform a right-hand template, do you?LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I could create them, yes. I think I'll do it another day though. Meanwhile, you might want to practice in the sandbox and come up with something yourself :) {{Israel Defense Forces}} is a good example template to start with. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"Other political organizations" subsection

These are indeed significant organizations - simply because they are outside the 'system'/State does not mean they are irrelevant, and they do deserve mention in the article. However, the detail included here may not be necessary, and maybe they should be moved to a separate article of their own? Rather than deleting them from the annals of wikipedia, they could be described on this page in perhaps in a sentence, and then we/I could make a page about them with an intro paragraph explaining their relevance, linked from this section. Feedback?LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I support creating an article List of Arab political organizations in Israel. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ynhockey's suggestion that we create a list of Arab political organizations in Israel. I would also say that it might be a good idea to mention some of these organizations somewhere else in the article. For example, the history section has a discussion of the Islamic Movement.--Oneworld25 (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit for conciseness, don't cut

My two cents re: editing style: Especially on a page so rich with so many different types of information and editors of so many different perspectives, we should all first do our best to edit out extras while maintaining the message. If even after editing out the fluff we find that the information distilled is not of historic importance, then delete. (For instance, rather than deleting Abna al-balad, Taayush and the RCUV, they could have been listed in a sentence or short paragraph). LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

blue ID

to my best of knowledge, blue ID means israeli citizenship, implying said person was an arab citizen of israel. the fact that he lives in a disputed area doesn't matter - compare vis druze in the golan heights that took the ID - they're israeli arabs. permanent residence certification means you don't have/want a blue ID. MiS-Saath (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

and of further merit is the influence this case is going to have (or already has) regarding arab citizens of israel, and regardless of the actual citizenship status of the terrorist. already calls are being made to restrict travel of blue-id-carrying arabs within israel. it's meaningful and relevant to the article even thus. MiS-Saath (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are confusing some points. In the past, the Palestinian permanent residents of East Jerusalem carried orange IDs. A few years ago this was changed, and they received blue IDs, like citizens. However, their status is still that of permanent residents, not citizens, and that's what their ID says (the text in it). They don't hold Israeli citizenship, and cannot vote in the Israeli general elections. They are eligible to vote in the Palestinian Authority elections, and in the Jerusalem municipal elections, though they rarely participate in either.

The Druze of the Golan were offered citizenship, and those who accepted are full fledged citizens.

Point being - the color of the ID is not a measure of anything. It's just an identity card.

The calls of travel restrictions are, again, only for the East Jerusalem Arabs, being in the special status of having permanent residence with blue ID, and enjoying free travel in Israel, yet being foreign citizens (Jordanian, or some status of the PA). okedem (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Request regarding sources

Hello,

I saw a book by Ilan Pappé was used as a source. I ask that we refrain from doing so. Pappé is a highly controversial political activist (and see his article for more details), and his books cannot be trusted to be neutral in any way. He has, on multiple occasions, revealed that even if the facts don't really fit the story he wrote, that's good enough. What matters is that "the message". His view is of equally valid "narratives", eschewing facts, and focusing on unsubstantiated stories and fabricated tales, like the so-called "Tantura massacre", which never took place.

This is a propaganda agent, not a real researcher or historian. I'm sure we can find real sources, and avoid such obvious POV pushers. okedem (talk) 07:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well.... I cited Pappe and Morris (as I'm sure you noticed). Thing is, Pappe is a rather hated scholar in some circles (and loved in others, of course), but he is a scholar nonetheless. His work is printed by academic presses (i.e. Routledge, Cambridge, etc.), he is not some guy writing on the internet. I don't know if the fact that he is heavily critiqued means he cannot be cited. So too is Daniel Pipes heavily critiqued, yet he is cited all over the place. Honestly, I don't really care if he's cited here since the info is backed up further with a Morris citation, but on principle, I don't know if I can agree with you on this one, Okedem. Feedback? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't say anything about Pipes, I don't know him. I do know Pappe shows a complete aversion for facts - he simply doesn't like them or find them useful. He seems to make things up to suit the story he's trying to tell. Using him makes us look bad. He's a political activist - expressed support for Hamas, initiated the annual "Israeli Right of return conferences", and supports boycotts of Israel, including an academic boycott. (He supported this, by the view, while still a Professor at the University of Haifa, and receiving government money. A political activist and a hypocrite.) Pushing an agenda this way makes it perfectly clear he's not a real scholar, but one using the academic process to suit the message he's trying to push. This kind of person cherry picks facts, and ignores conflicting evidence, all to tell "the right story". okedem (talk) 07:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting. The prestigious University of Exeter writes of him: "Professor Ilan Pappé is one of the world's leading historians of the Middle East, with a distinctive view of Arab-Israeli relations. Among the publications relating to these themes are: Britain and the Arab-Israeli Conflict (1988), The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict (1992), The Modern History of Palestine: One Land Two Peoples (2003) and The Modern Middle East (2005). He is the fulcrum of a group of historians and political scientists at the Cornwall Campus working on 20th century ethno-politics. He has published extensively on the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict and his experiences have resulted in some very incisive thought on what it is to be a historian and the methodology of historical enquiry". [2] But I'm sure that Okedem is a greater expert than this university on academic reliability. RolandR (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course that's what they say - they hired him. However, I maintain that such obviously political figures should not be used for anything other than their own articles. He doesn't care if the facts don't match his story. He uses whatever he can find, and whatever he can fabricate, to support the narrative he's trying to push:

"I am not as interested in what happened as in how people see what's happened." "I admit that my ideology influences my historical writings...", "Indeed the struggle is about ideology, not about facts. Who knows what facts are? We try to convince as many people as we can that our interpretation of the facts is the correct one, and we do it because of ideological reasons, not because we are truthseekers." ("An Interview of Ilan Pappé," Baudouin Loos, Le Soir [Bruxelles],Nov. 29, 1999)

"The debate between us is on one level between historians who believe they are purely objective reconstructers of the past, like [Benny] Morris, and those who claim that they are subjective human beings striving to tell their own version of the past, like myself." (“Benny Morris’s Lies About My Book,” Ilan Pappé, Response to Morris’ critique of Pappé’s book, “A History of Palestine” published in the New Republic, March 22, 2004, History News Network, April 5, 2004)

A historian who doesn't care for the truth, but tell his "own version of the past", is a hack.

And adding to that his political activism makes his completely useless for any kind of factual discussion. okedem (talk) 09:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If you actually know what history is, as this man admits with honesty, it is telling your interpretation of the sources and the facts. In essence history is always written from an angle, and cannot be written otherwise, the goal is not to write it otherwise, but to provide a strong argument from the angle that you view it from. You are a hypocrite if you say anything else (at least If you have written anything on wikipedia about the past, and I assume you have). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.52.67 (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, what you're saying seems like post-modernist drivel. Facts are facts. They don't change, no matter who's writing them, or from what perspective you're looking. Motives are mostly open to speculation and interpretation, but the facts of what actually happened - aren't. Some people don't understand that, and unfortunately, they have infiltrated the academic history circles. okedem (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Contesting Discrimination Section

I know that many editors on this page are not crazy about the deletion of entire sections, however, I have deleted the entire Contesting Discrimination section. This is because I find that both the Bard and CAMERA references do not bring any new information into the article. Bard states that Israel is one of the few places in the Middle East where women can vote, however, it is already stated in the article that Arab Citizens of Israel can vote so I don't see why his quote is necessary. Furthermore, I'm not even sure Bard's assertion is true. The CAMERA reference states that Arabs get more rights than Jews because they don't have to serve in the military. The article already mentions that Arabs don't have to serve in the military, it is up to the reader to decide for themselves if this means they get more rights than Jewish Citizens. I will move the Israeli government source about housing segregation to the section on spatial distribution.--Oneworld25 (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Bard also talks about the military thing, and I do think his quote should be there ("The sole legal distinction between Jewish and Arab citizens..."). The voting right quote is indeed not useful, and the CAMERA quote redundant. If you can incorporate the two useful quotes (Bard and the housing) elsewhere (in the "Recognition of discrimination" part, I assume), I don't oppose the deletion of the rest of that section. okedem (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm one of those who doesn't like deletions. I'd just agree with Okedem that whatever of substance that can be preserved, should. I agree that CAMERA's arguments here, as many other places, are pretty unsubstantial and could be deleted. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Bard comes across as a serious propagandist with a particular interest in denial. His "Myths and Facts" contains such gems as MYTH: "Settlements are an obstacle to peace." He should try and persuade Condoleeza Rice of that. CAMERA's single-mindedness and attitude to integrity doesn't need further discussion, there's been an RfC on it and other action. PR^talk 06:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Identification as Israeli vs. Palestinian

The lead section of this article claims that the majority of Arab-Israelis self-identify as Palestinians, based on a 2007 BBC article. According to a recent survey, 45% were proud to be Israeli in January 2009, and 53% in 2008. This data somewhat contradicts the BBC article, and is more reliable because it is empirical, while the BBC article does not cite its source. It is unclear from either article whether the Druze are included, but it is clear that this data changes each year, sometimes significantly, and the statistic is around 50%. I therefore suggest removing the part about self-identification from the lead section, or rewriting it to say something along the lines of 'some self-identify as Israelis, and others as Palestinians', maybe with a link to a section in the body which deals with this in-depth. Alternatively, someone should point to recent reliable research on the subject that proves this point beyond doubt. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 05:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The atmosphere among the Israeli Arabs swings from euphoria to dismay so often, that every survey about this subject is relevant to the date in which it was conducted. If you conduct a similar survey today you'd get very different results, and who knows what kind of results you'd get a few months from now. Nevertheless, there are several firm facts: (1) Most Israeli Arabs regard themselves as Palestinians. Major exceptions are the Druz community, and some Beduin communities. (2) The overwhelming majority of Israeli Arabs reject any political solution which will make them citizens and/or residents of another country. (3) Israeli Arabs developed during the past 60 years a distinct culture and political system, related to both the Palestininan and Israeli culture and politics, but also considerably different from both of them. The Israeli influence over this culture is usually called "Israelization" while the Palestinian influence is called "Palestinization". The Israeli Arab culture and politics is often described as swinging between Israelization and Palestinization. DrorK (talk) 10:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Are there any empirical sources about the assertion that most Israeli Arabs self-identify as Palestinians? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The best source for data on this issue is the researches of Prof. Sami Samoha from Haifa University. There are also researched conducted by Sara Osatzki-Lazar. There are also researches by Israeli Arabs, especially the younger generation, but I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with the names of the new researchers. Most researches about this issue are published either in Hebrew or in English, even when the researcher is an Israeli Arab. DrorK (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Some data from Prof. Samoha and other Israeli researcher's work is available on the net in Hebrew in the official report of the Or Committee, a national fact finding committee established after the October 2000 clashes between the Israeli police and Israeli Arabs. If you read Hebrew, you can look here, paragraphs 78-94. The original researches' titles are mentioned in the footnotes. DrorK (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Section on Muslims

The section on Muslims Arab_citizens_of_Israel#Muslims basically treats them as a demographic. There is little info on their identity, culture, geography etc. as there is in the section on Druze. Reducing a people to a number, ignoring other aspects is incredibly POV.VR _talk 03:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If there is unique information about Muslim Israeli Arabs, feel free to add it. I have not seen such information, because most sources identify a large part of the Muslims with Palestinians, and we have a plethora of articles about Palestinian culture. To that end, the identity of all Israeli Arabs is addressed in the article, in fact this was the subject of the last discussion between DrorK and myself. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 04:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Article Size

This article is way too long per Wikipedia:Article Size Guidelines. I'm going to be consolidating redundant info in this article when I have time. Just figured I'd give people a heads up. Oneworld25 (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article is a bit too long (but just a bit), but on the whole disagree that it needs to be split (except one section, see below). There are a number of sections in the article which should be greatly trimmed, which will reduce the size of the article (currently about 120 kB of readable prose + HTML). Notably, the 'Recent political developments' section is full of recentism and historically non-notable content, which should be removed (it also happens to be full of original research). The 'perceived demographic threat' section should be trimmed and consolidated per WP:SUMMARY (main article exists), and possibly other sections. The section I think should be split is 'intercommunal relations', as the relations between Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs is notable enough for its own article. However, I doubt that a single Wikipedian is both knowledgeable and neutral enough to write such an article, so I suggest focusing on the other aspects right now. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

"Perceived" Discrimination

Why is this secion titled "perceived discrimination" when there are a wealth of sources testifying to the reality of anti-Arab discrimination in Israel? Having "perceived" in the title is poisoning the well and is a sneaky way of attacking the credibility of the idea of anti-Arab discrimination.

Discrimination against other groups isn't titled "perceived". Factsontheground (talk) 07:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

There are also many sources saying there is no discrimination, and that the current situation of Arabs (more poverty, et cetera) is the result of lower education and a different culture (women, mostly, don't work, leading to a vastly smaller workforce). I don't like the word "Perceived" either, as it does imply a judgment, but just "discrimination" isn't good either. That's the problem with a short title, with no room for grays. Perhaps we can come up with a better suggestion. I'll think about it. okedem (talk) 12:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

False edit summary

In her "edit summary" Tiamut has accused me of changing material that I did not touch. Let it be recorded here for posterity. Oh, and if I did do some copyediting it is because this article is so badly written that it would be a sin to leave it as is. --Gilabrand (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting is more than welcome. I did some myself. Deleting things completely without explaining why, is not. So please, before deleting information again, try using the talk page. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 13:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Gilabrand, you did remove some material that Tiamut re-inserted, so her edit summary was correct. In that same edit she also changed something you didn't edit previously, so maybe that threw you off. okedem (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

An all out (biased) attack on Israel

Security vs POV of calling it racist

This entire categorization of honest security worries (so naural to vulnerable Israel/Jewish-population-of-the-area under constant attack from Arabs (in itself motivated by racism bigotry) since the 1920's) as racist has to be -- at least -- reconsidered, even though political groups inside Israel brand it as such out of politics AKA 'propagandists' .

Criticism of preferential treatment for Arabs over Jews

Introduction: Critics however point out to the reversed unevenness, some have summed it up in one phrase: "If Arabs Can Live in Jewish Neighborhoods, Why Can't Jews Live in Arab Neighborhoods?" [3], In fact, many have raised the issue of Arabs not only being equal citizens as Jews in Israel, but often as first class citizens, Arabs, Muslims first class citizens in Israel whereas Israeli Jews are second class citizens [4] [5]

Land issues: an example: Israeli Police evict Jews from Jewish-owned Hebron home as applauding Palestinian Arabs looked on [6], there are complaints of Jews who proclaim that they are sick and tired of being second-class citizens, while all Arabs in Judea and Samaria are treated like first-class citizens. [7], in another case An Israeli Supreme Court ruling did not deny that the land was Jewish-owned, but ordered the Jews to be moved out. [8] In another case, a lawyer for Y. Herskovitz, owner of property in Jerusalem, said his client will sue Jerusalem police for failing to execute court orders to evict Arab squatters from his property. [9]

In court (broader issues), the Israelis routinely decide in favor of the Palestinians against their own government, applauded by U.S. Justice Brennan,[10] preferential treatments to Israeli Arabs, Palestinian-Arabs include steps on the expense of security, such as the 'Democracy in action' [11], Israel's Supreme Court took up the grievances of Palestinians and required the government to move the fence in the area near Jerusalem to make things easier for the Palestinians [12] Even the NYTimes acknowledges that at least [13] periodically, Israeli courts rule in favor of Palestinians (instead of security/government officials).

Voting: the Arab minority are full citizens who enjoy equal rights despite not being required to serve in Israel's army . [14] and decry: Israel is the only country in the world that endows a community of its citizens with full voting rights on both local and national levels without also requiring them to serve in the army, adding that Israeli Arabs even refuse the alternative National Service. They even refuse a national service in their own communities and exercise intimidation against members of their community that raise the subject. [15]

Employment: Israel has enacted affirmative action policies to help its minority citizens achieve full social and economic equality. [16] [17], in an example: if an Arab candidate received the same number of points as the Jewish candidate, the Arab doctor was preferable, in keeping with the policy of affirmative action in government ministries. [18]

In academia: a professor has written about Israel's "affirmative action", quotas and preferences for Arabs [19] Israeli universities... instituting programs that discriminate in favor of Arabs and against Jews [20] and that Israel already has a system in place whereby Jews are often treated as second-class citizens. [21]

Checkpoints: From May 2009, All Israeli citizens - including Jews - must now show their ID cards at the large Tarkumiyeh checkpoint, at the same time, life is being made easier for Arabs in the region – despite the several murders that have been perpetrated by Arabs. The IDF explained that the decision was made to “reward” the Arabs for not rioting or attacking during the recent Israeli offensive in Gaza. [22]

Media freedom: while the Arabs have unlimited freedom of broadcast [23] and the Hebrew radio stations like Kol Yisrael and Galei Tzahal (IDF Radio) systematically broadcast from an Arab point of view, yet the Arutz Sheva radio station, often called "Free Israel Radio" (because it is the only independent news network in the Middle East) [24], has seen restricting steps from the Israeli government. [25] [26]

Access to holy sites, often Israeli police closes the Temple Mount to non-Muslims Like: Temple Mount shut to non-Muslims on election eve - was closed to Jews today in response to Muslim threats of violence [27] and on more occasions. [28]

---

In my last edit, I left out "blogs", Reinstating the criticism section, vital to ANY encyclepdia VS POV puch by this entire controversial page on Israeli-Arabs.

To RolandR!

1) Why are NYTimes, (lefty radical liberal) Haaretz, (mainsteeam) JPost and INN are all of a sudden "highly unreliable sources"?

2) Is it not really racist to claim that Israelis that want to be secured are there for "racists"?

BaronMaronite (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm usually attacked and criticized by pro-Palestinian editors, so please believe me I have no bias against Israel. However, your edits construe things in a very POV manner, take things out of context, and misrepresent sources. Claims like "Israel is the only country in the world that endows a community of its citizens with full voting rights on both local and national levels without also requiring them to serve in the army" are patently and obviously false (most western nations have a volunteer army). To take some possible affirmative action and claim that "Israel already has a system in place whereby Jews are often treated as second-class citizens" is ridicules. Many of your points discuss (again, in a very POV manner) Palestinians, whereas this article is about Israeli-Arabs. Your "Media freedom" section is especially absurd.

While I often disagree with RolandR, I'm with him 100% on this one. If you repeat your edits, I'll revert them, and support having you banned. okedem (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Remove Druze! Druze in Israel are not Arabs!

The Druze in Israel are not genetically Arabs. And most importantly they're identity is not Arab. They don't see themselves as Arabs, this is well documented. This is from the Druze article: "In a 2005 study of ASPM gene variants, Mekel-Bobrov et al. found that the Israeli Druze people of the Carmel region have among the highest rate of the newly-evolved ASPM haplogroup D, at 52.2% occurrence of the approximately 6,000-year-old allele.[49] While it is not yet known exactly what selective advantage is provided by this gene variant, the haplogroup D allele is thought to be positively selected in populations and to confer some substantial advantage that has caused its frequency to rapidly increase. According to DNA testing, Druze are remarkable for their high frequency (35%) of males who carry the Y-chromosomal haplogroup L, which is otherwise uncommon in the Mideast (Shen et al. 2004).[50] This haplogroup originates from prehistoric South Asia."

Haplogroup D: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_D_(Y-DNA)

Haplogroup L: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_L_(Y-DNA)

http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Shen2004.pdf

So this shows Druze in Israel are genetically non-Arabs and most importantly, their identity is not Arab. Druze in Israel don't see themselves as Arabs and therefor it is inappropriate and wrong to have them in this article about Arabs in Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course the Druze are Arabs. See, for instance, the major study The Druzes in the Jewish State by Kais Firro, available on Google Books [29], which examines this issue, and concludes "Ethnicity and ethnic issues, however, were ready tools for the Zionists in the pursuit of their policy aims vis-a-vis the state's Arab population. Central among these was the cooptation of part of the Druze elite in an obvious effort to alienate the Druzes from the other Arabs - creating "good" Arabs and "bad" Arabs served the Jewish state as a foil for its ongoing policy of dispossession and control." We should not import this Zionist policy of divide and rule into our article on the issue. RolandR 19:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"Of course" - no, not of course. I personally know many Druzes who feel insulted when you tell them they are Arabs. The issue is complex and the "Israeli plot to divide the Arabs" stuff is getting old. This needs to be checked.Benjil (talk) 09:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Benjil, so you agree with me that we should remove israeli druze from this "Arab citizens of Israel" article? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

So documented genetic studies and the identity of 99% of them means nothing? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If different sources make contradicting claims as to the ethnic identity of the Druze, then all these views (properly sourced) should be represented in Wikipedia. In this case, an extensive account should appear in the article Druze; here a brief mention of the controversy would suffice. Dan ☺ 11:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

There are no different sources. All the sources show the same thing. The genetic studies clearly show they are not Arabs and it is also well documented that they're identity is also not Arab. They must be removed from this article because they are not Arabs in any way! --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there has been some misunderstandings here. First off you don't have to be genetically Arab to considered Arab (it's more of a common language thing, and I've been to Yirka and Beit Jann many times and people there certainly do speak Arabic). Secondly, Druze do not identify as Palestinians, not Arabs. It is purely politics to say Israeli Druze are not Arabs yet Syrian Druze are Arabs. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

To be an Arab you have to be Arab genetically or by identity., in the case of the druze in Israel, they are neither. What you speak is of no importance, I now some Assyrians that speak arabic, does this mean they are Arabs? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hajjar, “Israel's Interventions among the Druze” Middle East Report #2000, (Jul-Sep 1996) pp2-6,10 examines this issue. Israeli Druze were officially classified as Arabs until 1962, when they were reclassified as a separate nationality. This was an intentional move for political purposes. Zero^talk 10:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The question is: Do Israeli Druzes see themselves as Arabs ? Do the Arabs see them as Arabs ? If the answer to both questions is no, they have nothing to do here. In other cases this is open to discussion but I guess that the Druze POV about themselves should be the most important.Benjil (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the documented facts I have provided above (showing they are not Arabs), does anyone have any objection removing Israeli Druze from this Arab article?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I strongly object. I do not accept the accuracy or the relevance of your "documented facts" and I certainly do not agree with your assertion that "they are not Arabs in any way". Two other editors have posted above, contesting your position, so there is clearly no consensus for this deletion, and to do so would not be acceptable. RolandR 14:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do you not accept the relevance of this research? http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Shen2004.pdf

All DNA studies show the same thing. It clearly shows Israeli druze are not Arabs, and we already now they're identity is not Arabic. What two other editors are contesting my position? Benjil is on my side and Al Ameer and Dan Pelleg have failed to answer my last posts.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

All reliable and reputable academic research confirms that the Druze in Israel are indeed Arabs. For instance:

"Following the lead of the British authorities during the Mandate, Israeli statistics categorise the population into Jews and non-Jews. The non-Jews are divided, further, into Muslims, Christians and Druze, so that we are able to estimate the ratio of Palestinian Arabs among the non-Jews. They comprise all the Muslims and Druze¹² and between 91 and 96 per cent¹³ of the Christians...

¹²"Israeli authorities have spent a considerable effort in distinguishing between Muslims and Druze for the purpose of attracting the Druze to their side. In attempting to divide the Aeab population, Israel insisted that this sect constitutes a 'nationality' (it is known that the identity cards of the Druze formally carry the word 'Druze' for the 'nationality' item). By and large, however, this attempt met with failure." (Demographic Characteristics of the Arab Palestinian People, George Kossaifi, in The Sociology of the Palestinians, eds Khalil Nahkleh and Elia Zureik, Croom Helm, London 1980, p 18, 44.)

"Druses have given sufficient proof of their nationalism. They have always preached Arabism, perhaps even before the Sunnis who were originally tied to the Ottoman Sultans by Islam. The Druses, who had no such unreflecting inhibitions, were quick to support Arabism against the Turkish yoke. They have always been loyal to Arabism, and have fought in every battle to defend it. No accusation against them can stand". (I Speak for Lebanon, Kamal Jumblatt, Zed Press, London 1982, p39.)

"Within the Arab population , the rate of increase is highest among the Moslems -- 43.7 per thousand in 1970 -- followed by the Druze, 37.5 per thousand, and then the Christians, 19.7 per thousand... Table 4 shows the division of Arabs by faith: more than 70 percent are Moslem (Sunni), 20 percent are Christians, and 10 percent are Druze." (The Arabs in Israel, Sabri Jiryis, Monthly Review Press, New York 1976, p5).

And there is much more. So far, three editors have opposed your proposal, a fourth has argued that both positions should be stated, and only one has agreed with you. Please stop wasting our time and recycling discredited Zionist propaganda, and start to work cooperatively on improving this article. RolandR 16:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Before attacking someone about his "Zionist propaganda", you should try to understand that this person acts on good faith. Furthermore, your sources about a "zionist" conspiracy to separate the Druzes from the Arabs are not exactly the most serious and look like political propaganda in disguise of academic material. I have no clear opinion on the issue. I want to know if someone knows about a study about what the Druzes themselves do think on the issue it would be helpful. From personal experience (which, I know, is not a relevant source) I met Druzes who did not see themselves as Arabs, or at least that's what they told me. I don't know what all the Druzes think about it. And I want to know what the other Arabs think about it also. Anyway, it seems that we should write something in the article about it (like a sentence like "some Druzes do not see themselves as Arabs"). Benjil (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

In his Hebrew book titled "Citizens of equal duties—Druze identity and the Jewish State" Israeli author Rabah Halabi states that the vast majority of Israeli Druze consider themselves Arabs (though not necessarily Palestinian). Member of Knesset Said Nafa and the political movements associated with him assert their Arab identity, as did Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt on several occasions. I think this is enough to rule out the removal of all references to Druze in this article. With all due respect to Benjil's Druze friends, so far we are yet to see any substantiated evidence of Druze rejecting Arab identity.--Doron (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Walid Jumblatt is a lebanese druze and Said Nafia is really originally a Syrian druze. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

And the precise relevance of that comment is ... ? RolandR 18:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Said Nafa is not Syrian in any way, and he identifies himself as a Palestinian Arab.--Doron (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok I found a poll from 2008 that answers the question: 64.4% of Israeli Druzes gives importance to their Arab identity, which means that at least 64.4% of them see themselves as Arabs. Poll in hebrew. Benjil (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: 64.4% of them regard their Arab identity as very important.--Doron (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

So now we appear to have six editors who do not agree that this content should be removed, and just one who insists that it must be. A pretty clear consensus to leave it as it is, it seems to me. To remove the content now would be a vexatious edit, possibly even vandalism. RolandR 18:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How could we claim Israeli Druze are not Arabs, yet Lebanese and Syrian Druze are? On the contrary Benjil, I've met several Druze that say they are Arab, but are still Israeli patriots, especially in the town of Yirka. Also, there are Druze like Samih al-Qasim who are supporters of Arab nationalism (or once were at least). Anyhow, your experiences and mine have no merit because they are perfect examples of WP:OR. This is the first time I've heard that Druze in Israel are not Arabs. It is well-known they don't consider themselves Palestinians by any means, but I've never heard of any contesting the fact that they are Arabs. Anyhow, if Supreme's view has any merit, we could include a sentence that says some Druze do not consider themselves Arabs, but if this view is the view of an extreme minority then it doesn't belong in this article at all. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ameer, Syrian druze are genetically Arabs. They descend from Yemenite tribes. While those in Lebanon and Palestine are not, they descend from eastern Asian groups and kurds.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Roland, I'm gonna stand by my claim that they are genetically not Arabs and they're identity is not Arabic. But I'm gonna leave the article as it is for now. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, Arab identity is not genetic. I think many of todays Arabs, in particular those from Northern Africa and Egypt, do not descend for the greatest part from Arabs of ancient times, but are Berbers or ancient Egyptians and other people who have been culturally arabized. If we go your way, then we will have to say that most Arabs are not Arabs which is ridiculous. Benjil (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The inclusion of Druze among Arabs is a matter of controversy, and it a political, cultural, linguistic and religious controversy. Linguistically, they speak Arabic in a dialect of their own, but this dialect is closely related to the Levantine dialects, and they have no problem communicating with other Arabic speakers in the Galilee, Lebanon and Syria. They write in Standard Arabic and are part of the Arabic written culture. Culturally they have many customs and habits very similar to these of the Levantine Arabs, but they also form a society in its own right, with its own special customs. Religiously, they have their own special religion, which stems from the Shiite Islam, but today it bears little resemblance to any form of Islam. They use Classical Arabic as their liturgic language, like the Muslims do. Politically speaking, Druze align with different political groups depending on the local political circumstances. In Lebanon they are considered part of the Arab Muslim communities. In Israel they are sometimes included in the statistics about the Arab population, but they are not registered as Arabs, which makes them subject to the compulsory army service law. DrorK (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to note that dialects vary among Palestinian Arabs depending on geography, class, and between urban, rural and nomadic populations. The same can be said even about England. This does not necessarily have any bearing on ethnicity.--Doron (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding genetics, it is irrelevant to the question. Since there is no genetic definition of "Arab", there is no genetic way to say someone is not Arab. It is not at all surprising that Druzes display different genetic statistics from other Arabs, because they have largely only married other Druzes for centuries. The correct conclusion is that Arabs are not genetically uniform; big surprise. The same "genetic proof" can be advanced that Yemenite Jews are not Jews. We shoudn't play such games here. Zero^talk 22:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

One thing's clear: some controversy in this matter exists, and the classification from the outside of Israeli Druze's identity as Arabs or non-Arabs correlates at least partly with political interests of pro and anti Israeli attitudes respectively. This information is interesting and relevant and should be included in the article Druze, and a short comment referring to it could then be added to this article, something along the lines of "Some controversy exists as to the classification of Israeli Druze as Arabs, see Druze" (by the way, the poll mentioned above states that "73.2% of the poll participants said that the Druze's status in Israel isn't different or is worse than that of the other Arabs": not "than that of the Arabs"! This indicates that in this context both interviewers and interviewees perceived the Druze as a subgroup of Arabs, not a separate entity). Dan ☺ 13:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

If Druze in Israel do not identify themselves as Arab, and even take offense in such labeling, they ought to be removed from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feindfahrt (talk • contribs) 16:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong: if Druze in Israel do not identify themselves as Arab (and this can be sourced) but other sources do, then all these views must be represented. Read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Dan ☺ 13:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

As an observation, the Druze are a group proud - and respected - for excellence of their indigenous Arabic dialect (it is considered archaic and hence closer to the ideal of Fusha/Qur'anic Arabic), who are the descendants of Arabic-speaking Levantine converts to the Druze branch of Ismailism, which accepted no further converts after about 1200 AD and admits no intermarriage with non-Druze. They have a strong identity as Arabs, but in Israel one separate from other Arabs in Israel and from Palestinians (i.e. non-citizens). They are subject to compulsory military service by the community's own demands, thus giving the Druze a separate social and legal status from other groups, who are usually labeled "Israeli Arabs". Thus we are confusing the issue by ignoring the distinction between the category "Israeli Arab" - of which a majority are Bedouins and a minority of settled descent - and that of "citizens of Israel who are Arabs" - which includes the Druze. When the Druze distinguish themselves carefully from Israeli Arabs, it is for legal and social reasons.

So: the first is a social and legal category, the second is a descriptive one. This is why the argument is going on so long: apples and oranges. So: which of these two issues does this article address, the larger or smaller category? Ogress _smash! 08:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Obviously Israeli Druze are, in certain contexts and by certain sources, considered Arabs. This warrants their being mentioned in this article, though a reservation like "Some controversy exists concerning the classification of Israeli Druze as Arabs, see Druze" is in place. All other information addressing contexts, categories, points of view etc. belongs in the article Druze. Dan ☺ 11:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Kafr Qasim

Under the heading "Israeli violence against Arab citizens", the first sentence is "Arab citizens have been killed by Israeli security forces in the wake of violent demonstrations and riots, such as the October 1956 Kafr Qasim massacre..."

How was the Kafr Qasim massacre "in the wake of violent demonstrations and riots"? It was 48 people returning from work, who stopped when told to by the Israeli Border Police, and were then shot in cold blood, exactly as the Wikipedia article on the massacre states. There was no demonstration or rioting of any kind going on, and exactly zero sources claim there was.

The paragraph should start off by stating "Arab citizens have been killed during violent demonstrations and riots" and then should also state "Arab citizens have been subjected to mass killings for no apparent reason, particularly in an incident known as the Kafr Qasim massacre."

If I change this, is someone going to fly off the handle and change it back? 129.111.182.196 (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Although the quoted sentence is wrong, your following claims are also wrong. There were no "mass killings for no apparent reason", but one incident, Kafr Qasim, with a small group of soldiers acting under what they thought were orders from above (unclear if such an order was given by their commanding officer, or if they misunderstood him), shooting at people supposedly breaking a curfew order (even though they didn't know about it). Those soldiers were tried and spent some time in prison, though they were pardoned after a few years.

Following the incident, the doctrine of "illegal order" was established, allowing a soldier to disregard a highly illegal order, like the one in Kaft Qasim. -Before it a soldier had to obey any order, no matter how wrong it seemed to him. Disobeying an order, during a time of war (that was the first day of the 1956 Sinai war) was ground for a court martial and execution, though no one was ever executed for that. Don't turn a single incident into several "mass killings". Keep to the facts, please. okedem (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point, although you inserted the "several" (as in "Don't turn a single incident into several 'mass killings'.", I didn't.); regardless, my wording was poor, you're absolutely right. Still, I think all would agree that the Kafr Qasim massacre was indeed a massacre, and that it was not "in the wake of violent demonstrations and riots." Right? So can that be changed? It's not accurate as it's written, but again, you're correct, my suggestion was not the best way to modify the paragraph, which is why I wrote here before changing anything.

There have been many other killings of Palestinians living in Israel (although "mass killings" would probably not be accurate, you're right) for "no apparent reason", for example many of the Or Commission's findings are fiercely disputed by the Palestinians living in Israel. Many of the people whom the Or Commission concluded were killed during "violent demonstrations and riots" were killed while doing nothing violent according to other investigations, which isn't mentioned in this entry. The same is true of the '76 Land Day killings. But that's neither here nor there: the issue raised here is mass killings, and you're correct, there has been only one massacre of Palestinian citizens of Israel by the Israeli army that I know of.

So, can we change this paragraph so that it accurately reflects reality: that the Kafr Qasim massacre was not "in the wake of violent demonstrations and riots"? If you propose better wording I'd be happy to work on it with you. As it stands now it is not historically accurate.

Maybe we can start with this and agree to something and then I (or you) can change it in the article:

Israeli violence against Arab citizens

In the 1956 Kafr Qasim massacre, 48 unarmed Arab citizens of Israel (nineteen men, 23 children and teenagers, and six women, one of them pregnant [the reason for the detail is that a) the killing of children is not irrelevant, and b) the pregnancy addresses the dispute some will find in terms of numbers killed: 48 in most western and Israeli sources, 49 in most Arab sources]) were gunned down by an Israel Border Police platoon while attempting to return to their village after the imposition of a curfew about which they had not been informed. Arab citizens have also been killed by Israeli security forces in the wake of violent demonstrations and riots, such as the March 1976 Land Day demonstrations, which left 6 dead, and the October 2000 events in which 12 Israeli Arabs and one Palestinian from Gaza were killed.

Suggestions?

68.206.110.240 (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

In principle I agree, though I object to the level of detail - none of the other incidents mention anything beyond numbers, and I prefer to keep it the same, as much as possible. The explanation for the discrepancy in the number of dead belongs in the main article about the massacre, not here.

How about:

"In the 1956 Kafr Qasim massacre, 48 Arab citizens, returning to their village, were gunned down by an Israel Border Police platoon; a curfew had been imposed, but not all villagers were informed of it. Arab citizens have also been killed by Israeli security forces in the wake of violent demonstrations and riots, such as the March 1976 Land Day demonstrations, which left 6 dead, and the October 2000 events in which 12 Israeli Arabs and one Palestinian from Gaza were killed."

I removed the detail of exactly who they were, and changed the phrasing a bit, moving things around. I thought about adding the detail that it was the first day of the Sinai War (to explain the curfew), but, again, I think that would be too much detail. okedem (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I can understand why you found the detailed numbers to be out of place in this particular paragraph, looking back on it I agree with you. The only objection I have to your rewriting is removal of the word "unarmed", as in "In the 1956 Kafr Qasim massacre, 48 unarmed Arab citizens...". The whole point of creating a new sentence in this paragraph is to contrast the circumstances of the massacre with "violent demonstrations and riots". In the former nobody would argue the state's violence was justified, in the latter some people would argue the violence was justifiable.

I can't think of a better word to use: "inoffensive" would be technically correct but not the manner in which the word is commonly used; "non-combatant" would be out of place as it's a term of the international laws of war (and violent demonstrators and rioters are not combatants in the legal sense of the term); "civilian" has no real meaning; "peaceful" sounds silly in that sentence. If you can think of a better word let me know, otherwise unarmed" is the most accurate term and should be included in the sentence.

Objections?68.206.110.240 (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yea, you're right about the contrast with the following incidents. "Unarmed" is fine. okedem (talk) 05:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

about "martial law" being imposed

I noticed that in the section of 1949-1966, the article says martial law was imposed on Arabs. This implies that is was solely done on them, and discriminatively. However, the only sources for this part of the article are "new historian" Tom Segev and two other sources likely biased to Palestinians. There is no opposing viewpoint and the fact that all of this info comes from biased sources leads me to think there is a lack of balance here which may leave out very important facts, like perhaps there was unrest in the areas near the then-Jordanian border. Perhaps fedayeen attacks were very common and it was hard to tell the enemy from the citizen. Also, it implies all Arabs regardless of where they lived were subject to martial law, which seems very dubious. Also, I take issue with the line "In 1965, the first attempt was made to stand an independent Arab list for Knesset elections, with the radical group al-Ard forming the United Arab List. The list was banned by the Israeli Central Elections Committee." Maybe there could be some background on why the group was banned. Like perhaps did some members have contact with hostile people? Was martial law just imposed on areas with heavy Arab concentrations?Tallicfan20 (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that all the Arabs of Israel regardless of where they lived were subject to a military government until 1966 is very known and documented in tons of places. (But I'm not sure if "martial law" is a legally correct phrase.) That part of the article should be expanded. Here is a summary from Alina Korn, Military government, political control and crime: The case of Israeli Arabs, Crime, Law & Social Change 34: 159–182, 2000.

Since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, and until December 1966, a system of military government was imposed on the Arab population living within the boundaries of the state. During the eighteen years of the military government, the main, and perhaps only, contact of Israeli Arabs with the state was through the army, the police and the criminal justice system. There was hardly any area in which the Arab residents were not dependent on the security forces and the law enforcement agencies.

Zero^talk 10:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No you're using the "its not controversial" defense. She is also a college professor with her biases, and has been used in Ilan Pappe, who has come under heavy scrutiny and approved a patently false thesis or something to someone. I am talking an actual expert, not some college professor and a less "new historian" source. Doesn't change the fact either that "new historians" are vastly overrepresented and the fact is there needs to be more explanation, perhaps there were fayedeens inside Israel, which there very likely could have been. Tallicfan20 (talk) 11:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I used the "argue by providing reliable sources" technique. Also, the claim that someone is suspect as a source because Ilan Pappe cited them refelcts very badly on your objectivity. Zero^talk 19:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Until 1966 certain areas of Israel was placed under military administration - a part of the Galilee, a part of the Negev, and the Triangle. Though the administration was geographic, it was limited to almost solely Arab areas, and most of its rules weren't enforced for Jews in those areas. Arabs living in the mixed-population cities, like Haifa and Jaffa were not under that administration, and were subject to the same laws as Jews. Until 1959 residents of villages under the administration needed permits to leave their village; after 1959 permits were only needed for night-time travel (perhaps until 1963, I'm not sure). The administration began following the war - Israel had only a small Jewish population, and felt threatened by the sizeable Arab minority (20%) - part of the greater Arab world, with which Israel fought a bloody war for its existence.

Though the military administration was seen as needed in the country's first years, after the mid-50' there were calls to cancel it, and several votes were held in the Knesset on the question (and failed). It was eventually canceled by Prime Minister Levi Eshkol, in 1966. It's important to note that during this time (1949-1966), the Arab did vote for the Knesset, and were represented there by several parties.

"United Arab List" - the link there contradicts the text in the article. There's no source for the claim. I went over every Arab party article I could find, but failed to find anything matching this. The closest I have is the Progressive List for Peace, which was originally banned by the Elections Committee, but the ban was overruled by the Supreme Court. To this day, the only party ever actually prevented from running is the ultra right-wing Jewish party Kach and Kahane Chai. okedem (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected, thank you user:RolandR. I mis-remembered that piece of information. The accurate point is that only Kach was prevented from running based on Section 7A in the Basic law:Knesset, which gave specific criteria for disqualifying a political party (if it acts against Israel's nature as a democratic and Jewish state). The courts have given a strict interpretation of this, which is why all the Arab parties are still in the Knesset, despite all of them calling for a change in Israel's nature as Jewish. okedem (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"Notable Arab citizens of Israel"

Any women? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.141.73 (talk) 03:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's start with Asma Agbarieh; Amal Murkus; Hiam Abbass; Kamilya Jubran (who should have an article); Hussniya Jabara; Nadia Hilou; Haneen Zoubi; Mira Awad. And there are many more. RolandR 11:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

So why not put them at the beginning of the article instead of having only men?

Lead - unsourced definitions

Hi there CuriousGnome. I would appreciate you not readding this text [30] until you find sources discussing the descendants of Arab citizens who have emigrated in this way and have added information on this subject to the body of the article. Per WP:LEAD, it should reflect the contents of the article and not introduce new information not covered in the body. Also, I'm not sure that the descendants of Arab citizens necessarily identify as such outside of the context of Israel. Most that I know identify either simply as Arab or Palestinian and leave their "Israeli" identity behind. So sources supporting the phrasing you are introducing before it is introduced would definitely be a good thing. Tiamut^talk 18:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I find this passage very strange: "Virtually all political parties, movements and non-governmental organisations from within the Arab community use the word "Palestinian" somewhere in their description – at times failing to make any reference to Israel.". Here are the names of some major Israeli Arab organizations (established volonarily by Arabs), some of them are even mentioned in the article: "High Follow-Up Committee for Arab Citizens of Israel" ("Arab", and not "Palestinian", and the name Israel appears); "Adalah - The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel" (ditto); "Arab Movement for Renewal" (a political party reprsented in the Israeli parliament); United Arab List (ditto); The Arab Association for Human Rights - Association in service of the Palestinian Arab minority in Israel" (the term "Palestinian is there, but so is the name "Israel" [31]); "Mossawa Center - The advocacy center for Arab citizens in Israel" [32]. Of course there are also organizations that use the term "Palestinians" or avoid the name "Israel", but they are not even the majority. DrorK (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, the next paragraph claims that "Israeli Arab" is a term used by "the Israeli government, Israeli Jews, and by the Hebrew-speaking media in Israel, while the BBC ref used in the previous paragraph uses the term "Israeli Arabs". I wasn't aware the BBC is part of "the Hebrew speaking media". Here's one from MSNBC. They might be under the control of ZOG though. Here's an Israeli Arab referring to herself as such. Here are a couple more. A google search for "I am an Israeli Arab" returns over 28,000 hits. "I am an Arab Israeli" returns over 41,000 hits.

The terminology section should be edited to reflect the above sources. Should I do it or does someone else want to?

Also, the "Israel's official demographic dichotomy" part is completely unsourced. One wonders if this situation, if true, is because of the Israeli government or because an insignificant minority of Israeli Jews consider themselves Arab. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed language claiming that 8 Arab-Israeli members of the legislature were beaten by police. That is a large claim and if it is it going to be made, needs real evidence. The source linked to is inflamatory and does not even pretend to be unbiased. I am not saying that it could not have happened. I am saying that it is a large claim and if it is going to be made, include a better source, like a statement by any government or major media outlet, published book etc. If a real source is found, by all means, add it back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.52.255.70 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It is attributed to the organization that made the statement, what else do you want? nableezy - 18:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Deliberate falsification of sources

This message appears on the user page of Factsontheground, who has just falsified a section of this article, deliberately misquoting an article. For the record, I added the comment below, which he promptly deleted.

"As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here. PhilKnight (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Read and understood :) Factsontheground (talk) 07:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You apparently did not understand. Your insertion of deliberate falsehoods and misquoting of source material just now in the Arab citizens of Israel article makes this quite clear.--Gilabrand (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Gilabrand, if you have issues with me I recommend you follow the dispute resolution process. Lets keep this talk page for talking about the article, okay :) Factsontheground (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no issue with you. I have an issue with the way sources have been falsified in this article. Since this comment was deleted from your talk page, I have brought it to where it really belongs - which is here.--Gilabrand (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well can you tell us exactly what you are unhappy about? We can't fix it if we don't know. Factsontheground (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Terminology section

The Terminology section states:

"Arab citizens of Israel", "Arabs of Israel", "Arab Israelis", "Israeli Arabs", "Minorities", "Arab population of Israel", "Arab inhabitants", or the "Arab sector" are terms used by the Israeli government, Israeli Jews, and by the Hebrew-speaking media in Israel, to refer to Arabs that are citizens and/or residents of the State of Israel.

This is misleading. The international media as well as many Arab Israelis regularly use "Arab Israelis", "Israeli Arabs", and "Arabs of Israel". These are not terms used exclusively or even predominately by Israeli Jews or the Hebrew-speaking media. I tried to fix this a while ago but was reverted. I suggest changing it to "Arabs of Israel", "Arab Israelis", "Israeli Arabs", are terms used to refer to Arabs that are citizens and/or residents of the State of Israel. "Minorities", "Arab population of Israel", "Arab inhabitants", or the "Arab sector" are also used by the Israeli government. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Case of housing discrimination against Bedouins

Jonathan Cook - Israeli Couple Forbidden From Renting to Bedouin Friends, March 23, 2010 -- ZScarpia (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
And another Jonathan Cook story, this time about nursery school discrimination. -- ZScarpia ^talk 04:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"Arab Victims of terror"

There are extensive details about the Arab casualties in terrorist activities, but all the details are meaningless due to the lack of general context - do palestinian terrorists not distinguish between the various Israeli citizens: Jews and Arabs, or that this is a "work accident", undesirable side-effect in terms of terrorists? when the soldiers (arab IDF soldiers or jewish IDF soldiers) - the first answer is correct, in the case of civilians - the second answer (are there kindergartens in Umm al Fahm have security guards on the gate, as there are in the jewish ones?). in most cases, even an terrorist organisation's apology come after the the terror act that brought to casualties in israeli-arab citizens. In any case, I think an explanation is required here

"Arab Victims of terror" are not targets for palestinian terrorism. Will anyone of you even think about writing a paragraph called "victims of terrorism in foreign workers in Israel" in the "foreign workers in Israel" article? Perhaps also write detailed paragraph about the victims of terrorism among the elderly population in Israel? Among the female population? among tall people? fat people? You can go on. the whole paragraph should be deleted. There were also casualties among the Bedouins who enlist in combat units, but it's not worth a special coverage, for it is obvious that the death rate IDF soldiers is compatible to combat activities. It is enough to write that there are some Bedouin enlist in the IDF, and some combat units. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.179.13.189 (talk) 09:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Israel Security Agency/Shin Bet as a source

The Involvement in attacks on Israeli citizens section contains 4 instances of this ISA primary source being used to make unattributed statements of fact. This is inconsistent with WP:PSTS. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Birth Rates

Could someone please re-write the Birth Rates section? The way it is currently worded, it seems to assume prior knowledge of the subject. It shouldn't read like it's a news article updating previously believed theories, it should make it clear what the current state of birth rates are, and then perhaps follow up with background information. Please assume that the reader is completely ignorant, and that this is their only source of information. I would do it myself, but I am ignorant on the subject, and will remain so until someone rewrites it to make it clearer.  :-p Thanks! 76.126.38.210 (talk) 07:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Arab Victims of Terrorism

This paragraph is confusing:

"On 22 August 2006, 11 Arab tourists from Israel were killed when their bus overturned in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula. Israel sent Magen David Adom, but the ambulances waited for hours at the border before receiving Egyptian permission to enter and treat the wounded, responsible for at least one of the deaths. The victims say that the driver acted as part of a planned terrorist attack, and are attempting to receive compensation from the government.[245][246]"

It sounds like there was a car accident, but I don't understand exactly who or what was responsible for the one death (the delay in the ambulance getting there, or the wounded). It's also unclear which driver they are alleging was a terrorist- the bus driver I assume, but it could be the ambulance driver. Does this incident really belong here? I know I'm missing a lot of background information that would probably make this make sense, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article. It shouldn't require previous knowledge of the subject for it to make sense. 76.126.38.210 (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

"Israeli-Arab population declined"

In the article it says:

A study released in 2011 showed that Israel's Jewish population had increased, while the Israeli-Arab population declined. The study showed that in 2010, Jewish birthrates rose by 31% and 19,000 diaspora Jews immigrated to Israel, while the Arab birthrate fell by 1.7%.

But this isn't true. If you look att the article it says [t]he study also notes a decrease in Arab births in comparison to Jewish births in 2010. While 125,119 children were born into the expanded Jewish population in Israel in 2010, marking an increase of 31 percent, a total of 40,154 children were born in the Arab sector in 2010 versus 40,831 children born in 2000, a mere 1.7 percent decrease.", so what has declined is the Arab births. The claim that "the Israeli-Arab population declined" isn't true - the Arabs actually increased by 36,007, according to the study.

Please correct the Wikipedia-article, if you don't think I'm wrong of course.

--IRISZOOM (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Under "Contesting discrimination"

"In contrast to the non-Israeli Arab world, Arab women in Israel enjoy the same status as men." However this is also untrue. For example, on many public buses in Israel, women are forced to enter through the back door and sit at the back." (Source: http://blogs.forward.com/sisterhood-blog/124800/)

Arab women have the same rights as any man in Israel as far as the law concerns. The quoted wasn't dealing with the social issuses Arab women face in Israel. Pointing out the segregation in busses, without mentioning the fact that it's illegal and being practiced only by a minority within another minority, let alone claiming that "many" are "forced" to so, is against Wikipedia policies. If you wish to inform the readers about the problem of religious women in Israel being oppressed by their community, some Arab women included in that, I encourage you to do so, but in a natural point of view etc.. In the meanwhile, the paragraph is removed. 217.132.229.32 (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Is "Arab citizens of Israel" really a "consensus term"?

"Israeli Arabs" is the official, consensus, conventional, and legal term for "Arab citizens of Israel". A quick search on Google, Google News, Google Scholar, or the asking of some Israeli Arabs themselves, will reveal this. ItsOurHomeToo (talk) 09:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I reverted because WP:LEAD. If the article is renamed then the lead can be changed. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so how does one change the title? ItsOurHomeToo (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You review previous discussions in the discussion archive (see top of page...I'll try to add a search box), make your case based on policy (e.g. WP:NAME) and try to get consensus for the change. And before you do any of that you need to read the link to the discretionary sanctions at the top of the page. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Call me cynical but your use of rfctag as your 9th edit suggests you are not a new user. If you have edited under an alternative name you should be transparent about that and declare it so that editors who converse with you are in full possession of the facts. Sock puppetry isn't allowed and editors are therefore not allowed to work with sockpuppets in these kind of discussions. So, if you are not a new user please be open about that so that you don't put other editors in a position that they may not have chosen to be in if they were in full possession of the facts. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

PARANOIA! Oh yes, G-d forbid that a new user might try and use Wikipedia's features to their advantage! Are you afraid on getting wider input on this issue, and not being able to intimidate me with your vast knowledge of Wikipedia policy? ItsOurHomeToo (talk) 10:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't take it personally, I'm not trying to intimidate you and I don't have a vast knowledge of Wikipedia policy. Since you ask, no, of course I'm not afraid of wider input. I don't care about the result as long as the decision process is consistent with policy. I don't have this article watchlisted because I care about the topic. I have it watchlisted because it is prone to disruption and POV pushing etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, your RfC statement is an assertion without any evidence to support it. You won't get very far with that. It's your responsibility to provide the evidence required for a policy based article name change. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support Arab citizens of Israel - Per my comments in the sections above. Additionally, Sean.hoyland's comment "is an assertion without any evidence to support it" is absolutely correct. This is a terribly, terribly worded RfC. NickCT (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Prefer Israeli Arabs - Wikipedia has a long-standing preference for preferring the terms that are more commonly used in the media, even if there are questions about the neutrality of those terms. See for example, WP:POVTITLE. "Israeli Arabs" is a much more widely-used term than "Arab citizens of Israel". Searching Google News gives 52 references for "Israeli Arabs"[33] vs 13 for "Arab citizens of Israel"[34]. Google Books is about 33,800 for "Israeli Arabs"[35] vs about 3,500 for "Arab citizens of Israel"[36]. Stylistically, "Arab citizens of Israel" is also clunkier. (comment copied and pasted from Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy). GabrielF (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• When the article deals with a group of people, how they prefer to be named, i.e. self-identification, should be taken into account. Many Arab citizens of Israel reject the label "Israeli Arabs". For example,
• "We have been called, crazily, 'Israeli Arabs'. We have named ourselves 'Arabs in Israel' and then 'Palestinians in Israel'." (Dr. Faruq Musawi's article 'The Arabs in Israel – Where To?' quoted in Jacob M. Landau's The Arab Minority in Israel, 1967-1991: political aspects (1993), p. 171)
• “As Suleiman (2002) has noted, national identity has become more central to to Arab students' self-identification, reflecting their alientation from their civic (Israeli) identity. Suleiman also claims that the fact that the use by Israeli Jews who are experts on Arab issues (known as Arabists in Israel) of the term “Israeli Arabs” to define the minority does not reflect the terms used by indigenous minority members (suleiman 2003).” (International perspectives on youth conflict and development (2006), p. 120)
• And this source discusses a study on self-identification among Arabs in Israel that found that 68% chose a label with a Palestinian component that excluded an Israeli identifier, and less than 1% chose the term Israeli by itself. It also says; "Over the past ten years, a new label has grown increasingly popular- 'Palestinians in Israel'." (Asian and African studies, Volume 27 (1994), p. 108.
• I myself prefer "Palestinians in Israel" or "Palestinians of 1948" which is there preference of most Arab citizens I know (as indicated by sources quoted in the Talk:Arab citizens of Israel#Verify tag section show). I can live with Arab citizens of Israel as a compromise consensus term (for now). Tiamut^talk 20:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Prefer Israeli Arabs. This the term I have always heard and seen in print. At the very least it could be in bold in the lead. Like this: Arab citizens of Israel also refered to as Israeli Arabs,[2] --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Israeli Arabs. The google books and news supplied by GabrielF seem to show pretty conclusively that this is the common term. Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:POVTITLE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Arab citizens of Israel No strong feelings on the issue, but to the contrary I find "Israeli Arab" to be non-neutral, but since it is arguably the most common reference to Arabs in Israel in English sources (quicker to say than the current title I guess/think) it should be present in the lead in bold. "Israeli Arabs" is a debatable term, while Arab citizens of Israel is a near perfect, plain and simple description of the majority of Arabs who live in Israel. There's really no need to change the current title. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
• It does matter what reliable secondary sources have to say about how Arab citizens of Israel identify themselves. The sources provided indicate they do not use "Israeli Arabs". Using a google hits argument here isn't compelling [37]. It ignores how the people who are the subject under discussion self-identify. Tiamut^talk 08:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The WP:Google section you provided above talks about raw hits being problematic. It goes on to say that "Note that other Google searches, particularly Google Book Search, have a different systemic bias from Google Web searches and give an interesting cross-check and a somewhat independent view". COMMONNAME says "In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals, and a search engine may help to collect this data". So it seems that using a search engine is appropriate. I don't recall encountering a guideline that talks about group self-identification. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Is a guideline necessary here? From the source content we have reviewed, it has been determined that "Israeli Arab" is the preferred terminology of the Israeli government and establishment, but not of the Arab citizens themselves. There is no clear alternative winner either. As this source, which uses "Israeli Palestinian" states, "The term "Israeli Palestinian" is itself problematic. The label one uses - whether "Palestinian", "Arab", "Israeli", "Palestinian Israeli", "Israeli Arab", or other variations - can be an indication of ideology and one's attitude toward the State of Israel. It can also reflect identity confusion." Is it really appropriate to suggest that we take sides in this debate? Like I said, I prefer "Palestinians in Israel" and reliable secondary sources indicate this the preference of most Arab citizens today. But the situation is dynamic and evolving (as identity issues tend to be), so I'm wiling to accept Arab citizens of Israel because I know there is contestation over this issue and think it is the best compromise term for now. Tiamut^talk 12:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It is my understanding that articles are named according to the most common term used in English, even if that title could be considered POV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

That may be true when the subject of the article is a policy or theory (like Judaization of Jerusalem), but not when it is the name of ethnocultural group. MOS:IDENTITY, which I pointed out to you previously at Talk:Eden Natan-Zada says, Disputes over how to refer to a person or group are addressed by policies such as Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and Article titles where the term appears in the title of an article. When there is no dispute, the term most commonly used for a person will be the one that person uses for himself or herself, and the most common terms for a group will be those that the group most commonly uses for itself. Wikipedia should use them too. (See for example the article Jew, which demonstrates that most Jews prefer that term to "Jewish person".)

In this case, we have verifiable secondary sources that say that most Arab citizens of Israel do not identify as "Israeli Arabs" and that the term is seen as representing the POV of the Israeli government and establishment. Using it as the article title would not be in line with WP:NPOV. The guideline also suggests that the preferred term to use is the one the group most commonly uses for itself. The verifiable secondary sources we have indicate that terms preferred by the majority of Arab citizens are Palestinians in Israel, Palestinians of 1948, and Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel or Palestinian citizens of Israel. These terms should be considered as article titles in place of what we have if we are to follow what the guidelines say. WP:COMMONNAME, as attested by using raw google hits, does not trump NPOV or verifiability, and POVTITLE was never meant to apply to ethnic or national groups. Tiamut^talk 19:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Disputes over how to refer to a person or group are addressed by policies such as Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and Article titles where the term appears in the title of an article brings us back to COMMONNAME and POVTITLE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Tiamut, I don't think that the policy you're quoting is intended to apply to article titles. If it meant that article titles should refer to terms that members of the group prefer, regardless of use elsewhere, than why does it reference the article Jew, which the policy says is titled differently than the group's preferred term? If you were interpreting the policy correctly, than wouldn't the policy encourage us to change Jew to Jewish person? GabrielF (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting point GabrielF. I read the article Jew to see what it says about Jews feel about that term being used to describe them. The situation outlined there is somewhat more ambivalent that the situation here. It says that when used as an attributive noun, in cases such as "Jew lawyer", that is definitely offensive, but that when used alone, only some people find it offensive. Conversely, replacing it with "Jewish person" is offensive to others since it implies that "Jew" is inherently negative. That leads me to believe that the situation is not equivalent to the one we are discussing here.

In this case, the term "Israeli Arab" is rejected by the majority of the people to whom the term is supposed to refer. It is seen as a construct of the Israeli authorities that is used to deny any sort of political or national identification among this constituent population. It seems perverse that we should title our article on this group of people in a way that offends most of them and in a way that disregards what verifiable secondary sources have to say on the matter. I do not think that COMMONNAME and POVTITLE were intended to trump NPOV and V. I also do not think it is wise to title an article in a way that offends/alientates the group under discussion. Tiamut^talk 06:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

We have not established the term "offends most" members of the group. Anyway, it still seems to be the most commonly used term in English, and that's how article names are decided. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The most common name is not used when it is inaccurate or ambiguous. The sources indicate that "Israeli Arab" is not used by the majority of Arab citizens to refer to themselves and that most Arab citizens identify as Palestinians, rather than as Israelis. That makes it an inaccurate term.

When the most popular term for a given subject is inaccurate or ambiguous, neutral descriptive terms should be considered as alternatives. NPOV, a cornerstone policy, also requires that we not take sides in debates, but rather present all significant viewpoints in our articles. "Arab citizens of Israel" is a neutral alternative that satisfies our naming criteria. To insist that we name the article "Israeli Arabs" despite what we know about the term from reliable sources is to declare that Wikipedia is taking sides in a very contentious debate over the identity of the group under discussion. I don't think our readers will understand why our article on this group of people is titled to accord with one POV over another, particularly when its not the POV of the group it discusses. Tiamut^talk 16:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with NMMNG, the sources seem to suggest that the terminology is in flux and that there isn't a preferred replacement for "Israeli Arabs" that members of the group use consistently. An article in The Forward's language column states: "I quite agree with Ms. Rosenfeld that all this is confusing, especially since none of these terms, as far as I can make out, is used entirely consistently even by those espousing the nuance expressed by it: I have come across “Israeli Arabs” in extreme anti-Israel statements, and I have heard “Arabs in Israel” in perfectly moderate contexts." Tiamut, you yourself have stated that you feel that "Arab citizens of Israel" is an acceptable compromise but that other terms would be preferable. Further, it isn't clear that "Arab citizens of Israel" is more neutral. The Forward argues: "“Arabs in Israel,” “Palestinians in Israel,” “Arab citizens of Israel,” etc. These are still more extreme formulations favored by the most radical, anti-Israel elements in Israeli Arab society. All imply that Israel’s Arab population does not identify with Israel in any way and that it has no other connection to Israel other than living in it."[38] Given that a more neutral and universal alternative doesn't exist, I think the encyclopedic thing to do is to use the most common English term as the title and explain the controversy in the text of the article. GabrielF (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I read the article you provided by Philologos in The Forward with interest (confession: while I dislike The Forward, I love Philologos' column). While it is a well-written article, as are all of Philologos' works, and I appreciate his personal declaration of intent to call Arab citizens "Israeli Palestinians" (as he believes they wish to be called), I don't think its a reliable source for this topic. First, it is written under a pseudonym and its simply not of the same quality as the other sources we have reviewed in this discussion. It is not a scholarly source and its not peer-reviewed. It also seems to be flatly wrong in its conclusions on "Arab citizens of Israel". This phrase is by no means favoured by extreme Palestinian nationalists. Our own article quotes the International Crisis Group as saying that "The Israeli National Security Council (NSC) has used the term "Arab citizens of Israel"." I'm quite sure they are not extreme Palestinian nationalists.

As such, I have yet to see evidence from a reliable source that indicates that "Arab citizens of Israel" is a partisan term. And so my comments to NMMNG above stand. Using "Israeli Arab" is inaccurate given what the sources say about the term and "Arab citizens of Israel" is the most neutral alternative I have seen proposed to date. Indeed, its been the article title for years now. Readers have had no difficulty understanding what the subject under discussion is, and those looking for them under "Israeli Arabs" still arrive here via redirects and will understand why the term is not the title after they read the article. Tiamut^talk 16:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. If you do a google books search for "Arab citizens of Israel" and examine some of the 3,650 results, you will see that it is used by authors whose views cover a wide spectrum, both pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian, and by those whose views lie somewhere in the middle. I'm disappointed that Philologos could get something so wrong, but hey, nobody's perfect. 16:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The International Crisis group are also neither scholarly nor peer reviewed. Moreover, they seem to be mistaken in the piece used as a ref 4 times in this article. Specifically where they say "Virtually all political parties, movements and non-governmental organisations from within the Arab community use the word "Palestinian" somewhere in their description – at times failing to make any reference to Israel." See above No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I read the sources you provided in that section. Neither one of them (this and [39]) mentions an organization representing Arab citizens. Could you link what you are referring to?

As regards the general reliability of the International Crisis Group, their website states: "The International Crisis Group is now generally recognised as the world’s leading independent, non-partisan, source of analysis and advice to governments, and intergovernmental bodies like the United Nations, European Union and World Bank, on the prevention and resolution of deadly conflict." Would you like to discuss the reliability of this source in a separate section further? Tiamut^talk 17:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

A separate section is a good idea. Also, I think you should put your !vote somewhere where it can be seen in case someone decides to close this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to vote, because this isn't a poll. Its a discussion about whether the current title enjoys consensus and I've said my share (and more) as to why its the best default option we have. If you want to pursue the idea of a page move, the process for how to go about doing that is listed at WP:RM. In my humble opinion, the sources do not support a move to "Israeli Arab" and consensus for moving to an inaccurate, unrepresentative name will not be garnered. But by all means, go ahead, if that's what you think is the right thing to do. Tiamut^talk 19:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Tiamut, you're clearly editing against consensus here. Please try and engage in the future before pursuing your activist agenda. Thanks. ItsOurHomeToo (talk) 09:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Warnings from "new" accounts carry little water. Tarc (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Arab Citizens of Israel is descriptive and neutral, as well as adhering to MOS:IDENTITY. This is a slanted and poorly-wroded RfC to begin with though, as the ducks are quacking mightly loudly. Tarc (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Arab citizens of Israel - as the name preferred by the group themselves. But this whole things should be shut down and started over, as the socking here makes any result lacking in credibility. nableezy - 18:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Revert

I'm not editing against consensus ItsOurHomeToo. I'm editing using high quality sources that represent the best scholarship on this issue. If you have a problem with my edits, please discuss them in a section separate from the RfC and outline specific issues such as the reliability of the source, NPOV, etc. Blanket reverting all of my changes and citing the discussion above (which is about a separate, though related issue) is unacceptable. I will be undoing your revert now. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 11:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

For a start, you've completely removed "Israeli Arabs" - the most testified, common, legal, and authoritative term - from the entire introduction. So to claim that you're "using high quality sources that represent the best scholarship on this issue" is laughable from the outset. You're trying to conform Wikipedia with your very specific conceptions and philosophy regarding Israeli, Palestinian, and Arab identity - which are very complex and contested issues. Which one wouldn't know, reading your arguments on the matter. You are a clear Wikipedia:Activist ItsOurHomeToo (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"Editors operating in good faith, not seeking to promote specific views, will usually try to find some way to cooperate, collaborate, and compromise with almost all other editors. Rather than just insisting on their version of the article". Nice Hezbollah box on your User page btw. I think I'll put a Baruch Goldstein box on mine. *rolls eyes* ItsOurHomeToo (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Since "Israeli Arabs" seems to be the most commonly used term in English, removing it from the lead is a blatant violation of NPOV and probably LEAD as well. Even if it were just very common and not the most common, it would still be against NPOV to remove it. It certainly seems to be more common than your personal preferences which you deemed lead worthy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for identifying which part of the many edits I made that does not meet with your approval and for elucidating as to why. It could have been done without the personal attacs and innuedo but as I've developed something of a thick skin in my years editing here, that's water off my back.

To the only relevant point at hand; i.e. The reason I added "Arabs in Israel" and "Palestinians in Israel" bolded in the lead, in the place of "Israeli Arabs". First, as reviewed in the source material covered above, "Israeli Arabs" is rejected by most of the people this article discusses. Its inaccurate term that assigns an Israeli identity to a people who largely prefer to identify as Palestinian. Second, "Arabs in Israel" is used alongside "Israeli Arabs" by the Israeli establishment but does not carry the baggage of the former. This allows the lead to reflect a POV of the Israeli establishment, but one that does not alientate the group under discussion. Third, "Palestinians in Israel" is the preferred term for a large segment of the population under discussion and reflects that some (in fact, most, but no matter) of the Arab population identifies as "Palestinian". I think the terms reflect NPOV. If you do not, we can remove all alternate terms from the lead until we can reach agreement on which, if any, should be highighted over the rest.

Is there anything else? Tiamut^talk 13:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty misleading. What you have provided is the opinion of one Dr. Faruq Musawi (who is he?) and snippets from a book that do not allow reading in context of what is being discussed. On the other hand, you removed the most common term used in English. Again, this looks like a pretty blatant NPOV violation.

We do not need to remove all the descriptors so you can hold the article hostage pending agreement to remove the term you don't like (a term which currently seems to have consensus in the RfC above), we need to restore the article to the longstanding consensus version that was there before your BOLD edits and discuss from there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? Misleading? That's funny given how far from reality your description is of the extensive research I've presented here and used to improve the article.

And if anyone is holding a hostage, its you. Threatening to revert hours of work introducing reliable secondary source material, cleaning up OR based on primary sources, and flat out quote fabrications because the material clearly demonstrates why your preferred term for this article is inaccurate and offensive ... You can do that of course, though it will be clear that your aim is not improving this encyclopedia, but rather defending your POV which cannot acknowledge what high quality reliable sources have to say about this subject matter. Have a nice day No More Mr Nice Guy. Tiamut^talk 17:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, misleading. In Landau's The Arab minority in Israel, 1967-1991: political aspects which you use as a source above, Dr. Muwasi (not Musawi as you posted, and we still don't even know who he is) is called "An Israeli-Arab" [40]. Your two other sources are snippets. This is "high quality reliable sources"? Can you give us a longer quotes from those books?

Removing the most commonly used English term from the lead of the article because you or anyone else doesn't like it is POV pushing par-excellence. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the spelling of his name. According to page 91 of Landau's book, Muwasi is a PhD graduate of the Arabic literature program at Bar-Ilan University. Landau mentions him or his writings in different articles three times in his book. Yes, on page 37, Landau, writing in 1993 (almost three decades ago) describes him as an "Israeli-Arab". This despite knowing from Muwasi's article, 'The Arabs in Israel – Where To?' which Landau quotes on page 171 how he feels about the term: (Recall: "We have been called, crazily, 'Israeli Arabs'. We have named ourselves 'Arabs in Israel' and then 'Palestinians in Israel'."Why Landau would do this beats me. However you will note that on page 171, he uses the term "Arabs in Israel" instead, at least three times himself. Indeed, a google search inside his book indicates that he uses this term much more frequently than "Israeli-Arab". Is there something in Landau's book that I've overlooked that you would like to add to the article? It is a somewhat dated source, but there may be more there of value that I have not mined.

As for your request for longer quotes from some of the books I've used could you specify which ones and why? WP:V does not require me to provide online links or type out longer passages simply because you asked for them. There are libraries you can access. But I'm willing to consider any requests as long as they are necessary to establishing the verifiability of the content being included. That we only have snippets available online does not diminish the inherent reliability of the source and its ridiculous to imply that it does.

As for your last point, I don't know exactly when "Israeli Arab" was bolded and added to the lead. The last time I was actively editing here some months ago, it was not there, nor were there any alternate names bolded. Given what the sources say about "Israeli Arab", its not NPOV to have it there at all. As I said earlier, perhaps the best solution is no alternate terms bolded in the lead given the controversy surrounding many of them and the difficulty is choosing between so many (what criteria, how many, etc). I tried to include what I thought was NPOV based on the sources (not my personal preference, which is not represented in the lead terms currently FYI)). Anyway, this is all irrelevant back-and-forth ("you are POV", "no you are"). I'd be happy to see this discussion get back to an examination of the sources and their content as it relates to the article's improvement. Shall we? Tiamut^talk 20:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

How exactly do you figure that "Given what the sources say about "Israeli Arab", its not NPOV to have it there at all"? Where does NPOV say that if people don't like a term, it's a violation of NPOV to include it? Au contraire, omitting the most commonly used term because there is a dispute over it is a violation of NPOV.

Landau uses the term. It shows that this term is used.

My request for longer quotes is in one case to see the context of the statement. What were people asked when they chose this label? What is the breakdown of results? In the second case who is the Suleiman they are referring to? What is the context of these two sentences? I was not implying that having only snippets online makes the source unreliable. What it means is that editors who don't have access to the actual books (like me) can't read the couple of sentences we have in context. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"There" refers to the lead, not the article. NPOV requires us to include all significant viewpoints. The term "Israeli Arab" is included in the article and its use is explained using reliable sources. Inclusion in the lead is not necessary. But if you insist on discussing this further, let's open a section to discuss which of the dozen or so terms in the terminology section should be included and why. Until we have consensus, I'll remove all alternate terms.

Which label are you referring to? About Suleiman, who is used to support the statement that the term "Israeli Arab" is not used by Arab citizens, his full name is Ramzi Suleiman bio here, and he is an academic and author from among the Arab citizenry. I believe he also sits on the Board of Directors of an Arab NGO and research institute called Mada al-Carmel, based in Haifa. I provided the full quote for this above. (Recall: “As Suleiman (2002) has noted, national identity has become more central to to Arab students' self-identification, reflecting their alientation from their civic (Israeli) identity. Suleiman also claims that the fact that the use by Israeli Jews who are experts on Arab issues (known as Arabists in Israel) of the term “Israeli Arabs” to define the minority does not reflect the terms used by indigenous minority members (suleiman 2003).” (International perspectives on youth conflict and development (2006) p. 120). Is this unclear? Tiamut^talk 06:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This is crazy. All Tiamut is doing is finding a couple of random sources to support her own preferred label. Which any of us can do. Except ours, "Israel Arabs" is by far the most common and "official", if you like. This much is clear. All else is obfuscation. I've reverted Tiamut. AFolkSingersBeard (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No, what I did over the course of many days, with the input of hours of work was review the literature on how Arab citizens self-identify. My searches for material in google books were not for my preferred terms (as the urls in the examples I provided demonstrate). It does not matter how many times you or others repeat falsehoods or cast aspersions regarding my intentions. Nor does waving around aggregate google search results cancel out what high quality reliable sources have to say about the subject. Your intervention here also ignores my request for specific problems with the changes I've made to be raised. Ad hominens are not a substitute for real discussion and do not justify your revert. Tiamut^talk 06:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding labels, I was talking about this. Do you have access to more than just the snippets? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't. But I did not use the study in the edits I made to the article because it is unclear when it was conducted, how many participants there were, etc. I onlyused it as a source for to support the statement that Arab citizens identify as "Palestinian in Israel". Is there a problem with that? Tiamut^talk 09:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think there's a problem with a snippet no editor has seen in context. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I just went back to the version of the article with the changes I made to check where that source you have a problem with was used. And guess what? It seems i got my wires crossed in the citations for that line. I don't even use it as a source for the information there and I forgot to add another relevant cite specifically for the "Palestinians in Israel" preference directly at the end of that sentence which comes from Amara's work here. Amara's work can be seen in context and it supports what the snippet in the other book says. So that information can be sourced to Amara instead, since you have a problem the snippet (I don't, its pretty self-evident, but to each his own). Cool? Tiamut^talk 11:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a better source. Did you notice that Amara uses the term "Israeli Arabs" several times in the book? Also, that the Israeli establishment prefers "Israeli Arabs" doesn't mean they are the only ones who use it. A quick search of google news clearly shows that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you like the source. Yes, I did notice that Amara uses "Israeli Arabs" several times - its a convenient shorthand when one wants to distinguish between Palestinians in the West Bank and those inside Israel (which is most often the context in which he uses it). I'm also aware that people outside the Israeli establishment use the term. But so what? What's significant to scholarly sources is its association with the Israeli establishment and its rejection by the Arab citizenry. I've never seen a reliable secondary source write about how common its use is in the English-language media. If you have one that says that, please provide it. To include such information without it would be primary source original research. Tiamut^talk 16:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting. I've seen you argue COMMONNAME based on google books and English media search results. I'm sure I don't need to show a secondary source writing about how common it is. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You need to show a secondary source writing about it to include mention of its commonality in the article. If its commonality is not significant to scholars on the subject, then its not significant enough to be included in the article. Tiamut^talk 17:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The Sock Drawer creaked open

Note The initiator of this RfC (ItsOurHomeToo (talk · contribs)), along with a participant (AFolkSingersBeard (talk · contribs)) in the discussion are one and the same, and have been blocked for socking. Tarc (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice to see some things around here never change. Tiamut^talk 16:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)