Talk:Arab citizens of Israel/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Unrecognized villages"

It is not only sedentarized bedouins who live in "unrecognized villages". There are original palestinian villages which have not been evacuated during the 948 war, but were not recognized by Israel, and lack very basic services, not "social" services: e.g., no electricity, no water. --Josce 20:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Different names of the population group

Deleted from intro:

Israeli Arabs sometimes consider themselves Palestinian, sometimes Israeli, and sometimes both.

I don't know what consider themselves means. Do they call themselves "Palestinians", and if so what do they mean by that? Palestinian Arabs? Residents of Palestine?

"Israeli" is less troublesome, as it refers to a recognized sovereignty. Hmm, maybe not. Are there any major Islamic countries near by which do not recognize the sovereignty of Israel? Maybe that's the problem.

Anyway, the sentence should be revised and/or moved. It should say something like:

• Some Israeli Arabs call themselves "Palestinian", some "Israeli", and some use both designations.

Does this make sense? --Uncle Ed 21:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Yes. This makes perfect sense, although previous wording worked also. Zeq 17:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I thought the previous description was quite clear: some Israeli Arabs identify with the Israeli nationality and do not consider themselves part of any Palestinian nationality, some say they are of Palestinian nationality and simply happen to live in Israel, while a third group identifies with both the Israeli and Palestinian nationalities. Your proposed description is actually a less inclusive re-wording of the previous (since considering yourself part of a nationality is more than just calling yourself by that nation's name). -- Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 21:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if there were an article on Palestinian nationality then we could link to that. But as there isn't, what then? I come to Wikipedia looking for understanding about the various ethnic and religious groups in Palestine (region) but find much confusing verbiage.

I think I understand a bit about what it means to be "Arabic", unless my stereotype of camels and caravans is utterly mistaken. I've heard of Arabic numerals, the Arab tradition of hospitality. Much of the Arab world (if not most) is intrinsically linked with Islam as well.

What I don't understand is this term "Palestinian" - not in any way that helps me to distinguish the "Palestinian identity" in ethnic, linguistic, or political terms from "Arab". I hesitate to brand it as being manufactured out of whole cloth for political purposes, but I haven't seen a better explanation yet. Perhaps you can steer me in the right direction. --Uncle Ed 21:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

More manufactured than, say, "American"? Regards, Huldra 22:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I also think that the Palestinian national identity was originally manufactured for political purposes, but currently a lot of people identify with it, and unfortunately this was also caused, in part, by political reality. There actually is an article on the Palestinian national identity, as part of the Palestinian people article. -- Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 04:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Uncle Ed, I don´t think that your edit: "Human Rights Watch refers to Israeli Arabs as "Palestinian Arabs" [1]" is quite reflected in the ref. article. If you read the article it says that it is some Israeli Arab that defines themselves as "Palestinian Arabs"...Human Rights Watch doesn´t name anybody, they simply reports it, or pass the information along, if you like. Regards, Grandaunt Huldra

I have provided multiple citations to the deleted terms and re-added them. Lokiloki 01:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Lokiloki, even if you provide a million citation for Israeli Arabs being referred to as Palestinian Arabs, it shouldn't be in the lead because the lead should clearly describe how Israeli Arabs can be named, that is, with a name that clearly distinguishes them from other Israelis, and other Arabs. Palestinian Arabs is not a name that distinguishes them from West Bank/Gaza Strip Arabs, or Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, who are not Israeli Arabs. I won't delete your edit right now, but please take this into account. -- Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 04:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

To give an analogy, having your edit in the lead is like saying that The French, also referred to as Eurasians, are a nation in Europe... isn't that completely irrelevant? -- Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 04:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Just as the West Bank article highlights all of the various name possibilities for that area (e.g., Judea and Samaria) in the main intro section, the controversy and conflict necessitates some degree of comprehensiveness in terms of the various names used. As you can probably guess, the other various names are used to reflect different viewpoints (e.g., to not differentiate themselves from other Palestinians elsewhere is presumably one of the goals of one of the other names) and, given the conflict in the region and in the other related topics on WP, it seems prudent to reflect such naming issues upfront. While the naming might be irrelevant to you, it clearly isn't to others who use particular names for particular reasons.

Such usage is not unique to this topic, and we should aim to reflect the construction of other articles. See, for example, Native Americans in the United States ("Native Americans in the United States (also known as Indians, American Indians, First Americans, Indigenous Peoples, Aboriginal Peoples, Aboriginal Americans, Amerindians, Amerinds, or Original Americans)"), African American, Indian American, First Nations, etc. The use of names is important, and given that many Israeli Arabs, and others, use different names is worthy of record and note up-front.

Lokiloki 04:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I still don't think the name without distinction should be presented on par with the other names (and the same extends to those other articles), although I guess if there are many articles which use this, there's not much I can say. Maybe (in an Israel-related context) should be added to that sentence. -- Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 04:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Lokiloki 04:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Lokiloki, I looked at the references you brought but unfortunately they did not support your claim. I am awfully sorry about this and did suggest what the references may support. It is all in the edit history. I would appreciate if you can restore my well summarized edits. Regards, gidonb 05:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, reflected as "Palestinian Arabs within Israel" Lokiloki 05:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, you could derive that from the references but not Palestinian Arabs. This is what I suggested. In Israel would be better than within, however, as it was the common use among the articles. Regards, gidonb 05:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I concede that I didn't read the entire referenced web article before, but I just glanced at the last section now. It says:

• ...this report uses "Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel" or "Palestinian Arabs" [2]

I think if (1) HRW writes a report and (2) "this report uses" a term, it is equivalent to (3) HRW uses the term - to refer to Israeli Arabs. Thus I consider HRW a primary source for the usage.

Furthermore, HRW says that the terms used for "Israel's Arab citizens" are "highly politicized."

Finally, HRW says:

• this report uses "Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel" or "Palestinian Arabs" because that is how most people we interviewed defined themselves. However, it should be noted that not everyone of Arab origin we interviewed identified herself or himself as Palestinian, and a few rejected the term altogether.

It appears that there is contention over whether there is a generic or neutral term for Arabs who are citizens of Israel.

• Individuals are rejecting the term "Israeli Arab," which is used by the Israeli government, in favor of "Palestinian Arab."

Just glancing at the term from (what I hope is) a neutral perspective, I read "Israeli Arab" or "Arab Israeli" as meaning an Arab who holds Israeli citizenship. It sounds lingustically the same as "Hispanic American", i.e., a person of Latino heritage who is a US citizen.

The term "Palestinian Arab" can mean either:

• an Arab from the region of Palestine, or
• an Arab who identifies politically with the idea of forming a sovereign state in the so-called "Palestinian territories" which aren't yet under sovereignty of any Arab country, i.e., those portions of the British Mandate of Palestine which did NOT become Jordan: Gaza, West Bank and possibly also East Jerusalem.

The latter packs a powerful punch - or as HRW says, is "highly politicized".

It's very hard to remain neutral when writing about this sort of thing. Let's keep trying, though. --Uncle Ed 14:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think this first sentence has improved with all the edits the last 24 hrs. However, I am a bit concerned that the HWR report is no longer referenced. This HWR reference [3] is the only one I have seen in this article which actually discuss what the Arab Israeli themselves want to be called (though as a side issue, under "Terminology"). I think that it is generally a good principle to call people by the name(s) they themselves want to be called. If anybody finds/knows of a better reference regarding the communitys view of the name-question; then that would be welcome. In the meantime, perhaps we should reintroduce the HWR-reference? Regards, Ms. Huldra 22:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC) (never Mrs. Huldra)

Name change

Related and unrelated. Does anyone object that I move the article from Israeli Arab to Israeli Arabs? Plural is the norm for articles about populations. This is also the first term in the article. gidonb 06:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That seems fine. Will a search for "Israeli Arab" still find its way, directly, here? Lokiloki 06:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because it becomes a redirect with the name change. gidonb 06:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Racism or distrust on a security basis

Jews in israel know that every month or so a suicide bomber, an arab, explode in their midst. Most often he arrive at the scene with the help of other Arabs, most likley Israeli Arabs. This cause mistrust. Mistrust is not racism.

While many Arabs live in "Jewish towns" such as Tel-Aviv, not a single jew is allowed to live in Taybe, Um El Phaem, Baka and other Arab towns so please stop the nonsense about "Racism" as far as where people can live. I would agree that it is much harder for an Arab to get a job in Jewish places (hard but not impossible, as most Arabs eventually works inside Israel) but it is almost impossible for a jew to get a job in an Arab town. (mot 100% impossible as few do work there) Zeq 07:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, Are there really "arab towns" or are they arab ghettos? Looking at it from an american perspective, would a jew (american white person) really want a job in an arab town (afro-american 'ghetto')? Is there even a job there that a jew could want? WikiTony 22:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

They are not "Ghetto"s. Some towns are among the poorer places in Israel but some are not. In some of them there are large mensions in some there are shacks. Many non-Arabs work there, shop there (this has gone down after in teh 2000 riots Israeli shoppers were attacked, but now it is slightly resumed. Zeq 04:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Zeq- If you made a list of the towns in Israel from wealthiest to poorest, all of the Jewish towns would top all of the Arab towns in Israel. The poorest Jewish town is better off than the wealthiest Arab one. -Matt

"While many Arabs live in "Jewish towns" such as Tel-Aviv, not a single jew is allowed to live in Taybe, Um El Phaem, Baka and other Arab towns" <------not true; refer to the memoirs of Susan Nathan called 'The Other Side of Israel.'

Arabs can go anywhere - they are not afraid of the Jews because they know that Jews will not hurt them (unless they start shooting etc.). On the other hand, Jews will generally be afraid to walk among groups of Arabs, Arab cities, etc., because they know that Arabs are dangerous.

!!!!!!! SO SORRY, but that last sentence must be deleted "because they know that Arabs are . . ." give me a break! "they" ! & " Know" !!!!!! oh NO!!!!! if it is to stay at all, it must be changed to reflect the ignorance of the idiot who typed it: perhaps, use the word "think" instead of "know" . . . in an article that is highly semanitc, saying what you mean, and meaning what you say take a back seat to clarity and facts.

Polls

Poll result can be manipulated by choosing how to ask questions and how to interpret respondent that are not so sure. I suggest to remove the poll results about Racism as it is noting more than a PR stunt commisioned by a an organization that has an agenda. Zeq 07:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Sir: They were reported in a presumably neutral source, Ha'aretz, and, like polls used in many other places in Wikipedia, attempt to quantify the discrimination of Israeli Arabs. If you feel that the polls are biased, please provide citations for such. I have provided citations. Lokiloki 07:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

And this is why I did not delete it just NPOV the languge. Clearly the poll itself is not worth much but if you want to inculde it I moved it to the appropriate section in correct terminology. Zeq 13:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed title change

Since some groups say that Israeli Arabs is a term favored by one side and opposed by another side, then how about moving the article to Arab citizens of Israel?

The intro of the article should indicate that there is a dispute between side A and side B about what these Arab citizens ought to be called.

Does Wikipedia have a policy on names for groups? Do we contributors go with:

• what the group says they want to call themselves; or,
• what most English speakers call them; or,
• ?????

A Human Rights Watch article claims they interviewed these people (can I say "these people" or will someone take offense?) - and that some objected to the term "Israeli Arabs" while others did not.

• this report uses "Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel" or "Palestinian Arabs" because that is how most people we interviewed defined themselves. [4]

Please note that a page move will leave a redirect in place, so existing articles need not be changed. Any reference to:

• Israeli Arabs will link automatically to
• Arab citizens of Israel

Is this a good idea? Will it make things more clear for our readers? Will it be neutral, or will it endorse a particular point of view? --Uncle Ed 15:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Arab citizens of Israel is more neutral, because there are some Arabs in Israel who don't want to be called Israeli, but on the other hand, Israeli Arab is a much more common term. So, I'm staying neutral for now (with leanings to oppose), although this could change. By the way, you can always make Arab citizens of Israel redirect here... it says both names in the lead section. -- Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 15:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see any difference between Israeli Arabs and Arab Citizens of Israel. The "Israeli" part of Israeli Arabs implies that they are citizens. There is absolutely no problem here. -Matt

In Israel, they are officialy called Aravim Isre'elim (ערבים ישראלים) - "Israeli Arabs" - or Arviye Isra'el (ערביי ישראל) - "Arabs of Israel". Also, the results of the Google test:

• Arab citizens of Israel
• Israeli Arabs

The equivalent German, Spanish, French and Dutch articles are named "Arab Israelis" (the German article is named Israelische Araber, "Israeli Arabs").

The Arabic article is called Arab al-48 (عرب الـ48) - "Arabs of 1948" (the year the State of Israel was established), but notice how the article begins - "Arab Isra'il aw Arab al-48..." ("...عرب إسرائيل أو عرب الـ48") - "Arabs of Israel or Arabs of 48..." - meaning that the term is used by some Arabic speakers as well, and note that is appears before the name of the article.

Make your conclusions yourselves. 85.250.218.52 14:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

One could claim that the title should be consistent with how ethnic groups in other nations are identified, which is ethnicity or country of familial heritage, followed by current country of permanent residence and/or citizenship. I was a German Canadian until I emigrated to the United States, whereupon -- if my ethnicity must be cited -- I would be called a German American. That ethnicity is four generations back so I prefer it not be cited at all but, if it must, then that is the proper form. The fact that my heritage includes Judaism from three nations is a seperate issue. It also fails to recognize my matriarchal heritage, which is Ukrainian -- but the custom of identifying one's heritage using the male lineage is a different controversial subject, not for this topic. (Yes, yes, I know: It was my mother that was Jewish, so . . .}

On the other hand, the literal meaning, in that vein, of the term "Arab Israelis" would include Jews who came from Arab lands.

The title as it stands, while not in conformance with common Western usage, is probably about as close to a neutral description of the intended topic as one can get. NeverLift 17:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Jews who came from Arab lands are never called "Arab Israelis". I'd like to remind you that Israeli is nationality, not religion. And please explain what un-neutral about "Israeli Arabs".

The previous (unsigned) comment is factually incorrect. "Israeli" is explicitly not a nationality under Israeli law. An Israeli ID card contains a space for Nationality; for most Israeli Jews, the term "Jewish" is entered. Some years ago, a group of Israeli intellectuals, including academics, artists, politicians and others, petitioned the High Court to have the word "Israeli" entered as their nationality on their ID cards. The state opposed this petition.According to the state prosecutor's office, "Offering citizens the option to register as Israelis in the "nationality" clause in their identity cards 'does not reflect, is not suitable and undermines the very principles under which the State of Israel was created'." [5] Another anomaly noted by the petitioners is that "only a non-Jewish Israeli can register as Arab, while an Egyptian wishing to become a citizen would be registered as Egyptian rather than Arab". This issue is also discussed in Ha'Aretz articles at [6] and [7].

The title of the article is both politically neutral and factually correct. Changing it to either "Arab Israelis", or to the term I use in political writing, "Palestinian citizens of the Israeli state", woiuld be to take a political position on a highly-charged issue. The title should be kept as it is. RolandR 00:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"Palestinian citizens of the Israeli state"? Palestinians are Arabs who used to live in Jordanian West Bank and Egyptian Gaza Strip, and have been either exiled or occupied by Israel in the Six Day War in 1967. It has nothing to do with Arabs who live inside Israel and have Israeli citizenship. 85.250.39.61

Political and legal realities

Cut from intro:

Israeli Arabs are full citizens of the State of Israel, with equal protection under the law, and full rights of due process.

Is this assertion universally accepted, or is it a claim made by boosters of Israel? I seem to recall claims of legal discrimination, and I'm sure I've heard claims that Arabs are excluded from certain goverment positions.

Perhaps it's like the US in the second half of the 20th century. Laws were passed which said blacks had the same rights as whites, but how long did it take (will it take?) until those rights were actually secured. --Uncle Ed 15:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually that sentence is a fact, AFAIK. However, the fact that Arabs don't have to serve in the army (but can volunteer) makes those who didn't serve uneligible for certain government positions (which they often complain about). Actually in this respect, IMO, Arabs have it better than Jews - if they want to, they can volunteer for the army, but they don't need to get Profile 21 if they don't want to serve. Just for the record, Jews who get Profile 21 are also uneligible for the same government positions. Also, Arabs pay less taxes than Jews. They are not entirely discriminated against. However, I don't know of any legal discrimination which contradicts that sentence - which is actually pretty well written in that it does not assert that Israeli Arabs do not face discrimination or get all the same benefits (e.g. infrastructure funding) as Jews, it asserts that they have equal rights under the law, which is true. -- Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 16:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact, actually they have benefits in getting goverment jobs. Why is it important part of the article: because most people don't realize that such a group (of 1.5 Million) actually exist. They are Both Palestinians and Israeli - which to many is a contrediction. Zeq 17:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Many articles say that this is a fact "on paper only", similar to the "equal rights" of black sharecroppers circa 1910. Lokiloki 18:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to find good sources and add them. Many Arab citizen who every day use goverment facilities, get social security, use the Israeli court system and vote may not agree with you. It seems you read too much propeganda Zeq 18:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

How about the Orr Commission of Inquiry? [8] Lokiloki 18:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Make sure you get to section 79, 99 and read on.... facanting reading about how the Arab leaders incited the riots. Zeq 19:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't change the topic by using questionable distractions. And again, among their findings (of that commission) are:

• "that the 'Government handling of the Arab sector has been primarily neglectful and discriminatory,' that the Government 'did not show sufficient sensitivity to the needs of the Arab population, and did not take enough action to allocate state resources in an equal manner.' As a result, 'serious distress prevailed in the Arab sector in various areas. Evidence of distress included poverty, unemployment, a shortage of land, serious problems in the education system, and substantially defective infrastructure.'" (I quoted from the article, reference is found there, I hope the user who contributed those quotes don't mind).Zadil 19:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

What I meant was, can they serve in the Israeli parliament, even rise to the post of prime minister? Can they be judges, even serve in the Supreme Court?

Can they at least vote?

If they leave the country, are they allowed back in?

Are their children automatically citizens of Israel, or must their children convert to Judaism to become Israelis?

These questions interest me. Perhaps they will interest other readers as well. --Uncle Ed 12:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, (and yes , yes yes and yes to all your questions) they are Israeli citizens with equal rights but less obligations. Zeq 13:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless there is an objection I will restore this sentence that Ed had re-removed. Zeq 08:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to do that. Pecher ^Talk 10:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I object. As a Palestinian Christian citizen of Israel, with first-hand experience of the discrimination at the airport, where almost everytime my husband and I are pulled over even before getting to the airport building so they can search our car when we say we are from Nazareth (code-word Arab). Or, more generally, consider the fact that we do not get to benefit from low-rate mortgages available to those wishing to be settlers in Modi'in or Ariel, even should we wish to. Low-rate loans are also available in many Jewish areas inside the Green Line, but not in Arab areas inside the Green Line. We cannot even buy land from the quasi-private JNF, who control some 12% of Israel's land base. Even the Israeli state often refuses to sell land to Arabs, who are sometimes forced to go to court to fight for our "equal rights" to be respected and implemented, simply because we are not Jewish. And even when favourable Court opnions are rendered, they often remain unimplemented. I'd say that there is outright, systemic discrimination against Palestinian Arabs in Israel and the failure of the article to address it is amazing. Tiamut 15:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to correct Tiamut -- the JNF actually controls about 93% of Israel's land. It is bound by its statutes to provide services for Jews. And it is a registered charity in Britain, the US, and elsewhere.RolandR 01:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Lets make it clear. The Arab citizens of Israel have equal political rights. as for social equality - like in most countries with ethnic tensions and minorities, it is lacking.

Question

Hello, my cousin went on a trip to Israel and told me only Jews can become citizens of Israel. Does this mean that in other words non-Jews living in Israel before 1948 can be considered citizens of Israel, but no other non-Jews can? Or can only jews be citizens of Israel, period? Thank you, Rakovsky 21:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Rakovsky, Israel has both Jewish and non-Jewish citizens and both Jews and non-Jews can and do become citizens of Israel, although for most Jews becoming Israeli is considerably easier than for most non-Jews. Most Israelis are Jewish and most people becoming Israeli are also Jewish. This article discusses the Arab minority in Israel and some of the laws and practices that perhaps brought your cousin to minsinterprete Israeli citizenship. Regards, gidonb 03:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Any person, Jew or non-Jew, who remained in Israel after 1948 is a citizen. Your cousin was probably referring to a recent Israeli law that prohibits any Palestinian from the West Bank and Gaza from citizenship. This law was recently amended to allow some Palestinian men over the age of 35 or 40, and women over 25, to become citizens, but I don't know if it is implemented. As Gidonb said, if you are a Jew, citizenship is automatic. If you are not a Jew, you can apply for naturalization in Israel as you would in any country (which takes effort and time as it would anywhere else), but if you are Palestinian, you are not allowed to apply unless you are above a certain age, whereupon your application can then be submitted but not necessarily (and usually not) approved. Palestinians who want to become Israeli citizens usually do so because of marriage to an Israeli Arab citizen, in order to enable the two spouses to live with each other. The new law has caused many situations where families are separated. Ramallite ^(talk) 05:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahlan Ramallite, thanks for the extra explanations. It may also have been an assumption that the law of return is the exclusive method of becoming Israeli. Some people even think that Israeli and Jewish are synonymous. This relates to the current title of our article because it suggests that Arab Israelis are merely "citizens of Israel" and not actual Israelis. I think it is discriminatory. Do you agree? Regards, gidonb 23:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello - I have to admit I'm a little lost as to why the title change occurred - was it because some Israeli Arabs don't like to refer to themselves as 'Israeli', and therefore this title is more neutral? On the other hand, from another point of view the title may appear discriminatory as you said. From a WP policy standpoint, the English common name "Israeli Arab" would prevail... and that would also be in line with some other article titles where the common English name is considered 'POV' by some, such as Armenian genocide or Yom Kippur War (although I myself have a problem with neither). In any case, I also have no problem with 'Israeli Arab'. Ramallite ^(talk) 04:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think the law states that a Palestinian may not attain automatic citizenship by marrying an Israeli citizen, unless he/she is aged X or higher (the age was changed several times IIRC). The reasoning behind the law was that it was believed that many young Palestinians created false marriages with Arab Israeli women in order to better be able to assist Hamas etc. in terrorist acts against Israel. I neither oppose nor support this law (both arguments bring up valid points), but I'm fairly sure that a young Palestinian may in fact attain Israeli citizenship through the normal means (e.g. living here for 5 years and then applying). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Yan - actually the law states that no Palestinian at all may receive permission for a residency permit, let alone citizenship. The only exception is in the case of spouses or kids of Israeli citizens, where the applicant spouse must be above 35 (male) or 25 (female) to apply. Other exceptions include medical treatment, or Palestinians who spied on behalf of Israel. The law can be read in English here or in Hebrew here. As for motives, Palestinians question the stated reason (terrorism), and think it is actually because of the so-called 'demographic threat'. Palestinians who are clearly not Hamas/Islamists have been denied permits, including people like Marxists and Christians. Ramallite ^(talk) 15:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The law is based on security concerns not demographic ones. After several suicide bombesr were delivered to their targets but relatives who just got Israeli citizenship the law forbids young people from enemy areas to get citizenship. Zeq 17:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

all countries must put a qouta on the amounts of people it will allow from outside to become citizens, Isreal is no exeption. But since Isreal is a Jewish state, it grants Jews the "right of return" which meens they dont need to go through any major process but can automaticly be eligable for citizenship. Turbonox

It's worth pointing out that Arab Israelis do not have the free choice to form, belong to, or vote for political parties that have not been registered with the state. The state will not register political parties which challenge the "fundamental Jewishness" of the State of Israel. In other words, Israeli Arbas may only vote for political parties which espouse Zionist principles.

Are non-Arab Israelis free to form, belong to, or vote for political parties that have not been registered with the state? Can non-Arab Israelis vote for political parties which don't espouse Zionist principles? Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 00:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

What kind of question is this ?

There are no special limitations on Arabs to form any party they want

The article already sais that they are equal citizens. Any limitation (if such exist) is on any citizen Jew or Arab or Budhist or whatever.

Can "they" vote for a party not registed with the state ?

What kind of question is that ?

Can anyone, in any country, vote for a party that is not registed ? How the .... can the party get on the ballot if the party did not registed.

Do they have to be Zionist ?

What kind of question is that ? Read the article see the political views of the members of knesset from Arab parties and decide for youself if they are Zionists or not. Zeq 03:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The Law of Political Parties (1992) and Section 7A(1) of the Basic law bars from registration or participation in elections of any political party whose platform does not accept that Israel is "the state of the Jewish people". This provision has been used to deny registration to Arab parties seeking equality between Arabs and Jews such that Israel is a state of all its citizens. See: The Legal Status of Arabs in Israel, David Krezmer, Westview Press, 1990.

Ya, right, try telling all the arab members of knesset that they are zionist. Otherwise how could they get in ? Zeq 16:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There are in israel laws against racism and any party (including of jews) that is racist is prevented from running. Zeq 03:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Intro

The intro is already far too long, so please don't extend it even further, Loki. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Avigdor Lieberman's views

I've commented out the statement

Lieberman has made more radical statements in the past; in May, 2004, while part of the Ihud HaLeumi, he proposed transferring 90 percent of Israeli Arabs: "They have no place here. They can take their bundles and get lost."

While this is true, as I point out, the sentence probably doesn't belong in this article, as it appears to have been a one-time off-the-cuff statement, rather than a party platform. It may belong in the Lieberman article, but I can't see why a one-time statement by a politician, which was not even part of the platform of the party he was with, a party which no longer exists, and which was never in government even when it existed, would belong here. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree; if a well-known politician endorses blatantly racist policies, then it is notable. I think a statement of this sort could only be regarded as an off-the-cuff remark if he had withdrawn or apologised for it. Palmiro | Talk 13:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The remark is in my view a largely supported one in israel, unfortunatly. It also supports the idea that arab israeli problem is similar to apartheid in south africa. There is an underlying racism of one minority vs the other and all methods of division are used, from forceful removal to segregation in "homelands" like the westbank and gaza, just like the bantustans in the apartheid era.

In my view the remark isn't largely supported. Look at the election results. This is why personal views have no place in Wikipedia. Antgel 02:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright infringements

From a quick glance, roughly 60% of the article appears to be directly stolen from [9] and [10] and several other pages related to Arab Israelis on that site. I have deleted some, but the overlap is too great, as it pervades every section.

For example, the entire "Work and economic situation" is directly from [11] and from the Israeli government, who state on their Web site: "Subject to the law of copyright, User may not copy, redistribute, retransmit or publish protected material, without the prior written consent of the office." It is not fair use to copy entire sections as such.

Can you please state which sections exactly are copied from which websites? Rather than sticking a tag on it, it would make sense to fix it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

All of the sections I deleted were taken directly from the referenced sites. There appears to currently be no copyrighted content in the article. You can check the deletion history to find those sections which copied, in whole, from the referenced pages. Please remember that it is legally insufficient to simply replace a few words here and there. These sections should be rewritten from scratch, as the WP:Copyright infringement article states. Lokiloki 02:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

If there's no copyright material in it now, why do you keep adding the tag? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Because you kept re-adding the deleted, copyrighted content back, and I assumed, incorrectly, that some was still there. Lokiloki 02:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't keep re-adding coprighted content. Start checking diffs, and please stop posting to my talk page. I think your point about not liking it because it's from the Israeli govt is closer to the reason you removed it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

(copied from User talk:SlimVirgin) All of the sections I deleted were taken directly from the referenced sites. There appears to currently be no copyrighted content in the article. You can check the deletion history to find those sections which copied, in whole, from the referenced pages. Please remember that it is legally insufficient to simply replace a few words here and there. These sections should be rewritten from scratch, as the WP:Copyright infringement article states. It also seems unbalanced to include so much information directly from the Israeli government. Lokiloki 02:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

More from Lokiloki

(copied from User talk:SlimVirgin)

Copyrighted text should not be included

Copyright violation and infringement is a very serious matter. It is inappropriate to simply "cite" complete theft of significant chunks of this article. Lokiloki 01:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. All of the passages I deleted were verbatim from the link I provided. I do not have time to rewrite much of the entire content of this page from a biased source. From the copyright warning: "Note that simply modifying copyrighted text is not sufficient to avoid copyright violation — it is best to write the article from scratch." Lokiloki 01:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

For example, you restored this sentence: "Improvements in medicine have largely contributed to the increase in the Arab population, as life expectancy has increased 27 years since 1948." That is directly from [12].

Same with this: "The most common health-related causes of death are heart disease and cancer. This could be a result of the large number of Arabs who smoke. Approximately one half of all Arab men smoke cigarettes. Diabetes is also common among the Arab population with 14% diagnosed with the disease in 2000."

And your "tidying up" also included a direct infringement: "Approximately one half of all Arab men smoke cigarettes. Diabetes is also common among the Arab population with 14% diagnosed with the disease in 2000."

Before you assume bad faith on my part, please check the citations. These sections need to be completely rewritten from scratch, not just reworded.

Lokiloki 01:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not have time to rewrite copyrighted content. Feel free to rewrite it. It is not disruptive to delete copyrighted content, as that is the process that is elucidated under the various WP Copyright pages. Lokiloki 01:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The majority of the content in that article is copyrighted. It is inappropriate to simply change a few words here and there to overcome copyright -- that is still a violation. Lokiloki 01:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe your copy-editing of copyrighted content is inappropriate: the copyright is still there. It is insufficient and legally indefensible to simply change a few words here and there, as you are doing. This is still a violation of copyright, and presumably the copyright notification I have applied to the page is appropriate in this instance.

If you feel the retention of large chunks of copyrighted content is permissible, please discuss on the talk page before simply re-inserting.

Please review the notice of copyright by the Israeli government at [13]. The Copyright Infringement notice indicates that users who continually post copyrighted content can be permanantly banned: please can you instruct me on how I can file these charges against such violators?

Lokiloki 01:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyrighted

All of the sections I deleted were taken directly from the referenced sites. There appears to currently be no copyrighted content in the article. You can check the deletion history to find those sections which copied, in whole, from the referenced pages. Please remember that it is legally insufficient to simply replace a few words here and there. These sections should be rewritten from scratch, as the WP:Copyright infringement article states. It also seems unbalanced to include so much information directly from the Israeli government. Lokiloki 02:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

And more

If you are re-editing the content, it would be nice if you could add additional sources. Instead of saying misleading things like, Education has improved 500% since 1969... (how hard is it to go from, say, 1% to 5%)... it would be nice to start off with some hard figures, as in, actual current percent and actual numbers, rather than rates of improvement which are misleading. Lokiloki 02:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe you were the one that earlier moved the polls showing that many Jewish Israelis discriminated against Israeli Arabs. And now I see that you are glossing over that racism and discrimination, and including no references in the intro. Lokiloki 02:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

It seems that the last paragraph of the intro is trying a little too hard to convince us that Arab Israelis are (undeservedly) well-off. This paragraph probably doesn't belong in the intro to start with, but regardless, it should be rewritten in a more neutral tone, as right now the selection of facts and statistics seem deliberately chosen to convey the POV that Arab Israelis are free from oppression and, in fact, very well-off. The paragraph briefly mentions that some Arab groups do not share this view, but no explanation of the opposing POV is made. Kaldari 02:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I would also note that international human rights organization do not share this view, neither does the European Union.--Marielleh 03:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The fact that the introduction provides all these glowing details about the status, wellbeing, and fame of Israeli Arabs, and then presents only a gloss of the discrimination and racism that they experience (and in the previous version, these facts were counterclaimed with even more statistics about their relative well-being compared to other Arabs elsewhere) is POV. I am placing a POV dispute on this article. Lokiloki 02:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I also think the Discrimination and Racism section is somewhat POV. Instead of being a list of debating points (and a rather huge list at that), it should concisely summarize the main points and provide references if people want more detailed information. Kaldari 04:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the original title of this section. The vast majority of is a POV reproduction of an American report on discrimination, not racism. The notion that Jews and Arabs are different "races" is, itself, rather racist. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

One more... the quote from Dr. Wahid Abd Al-Magid doesn't seem to add anything of substance to the article other than the vague implication that Arabs are trying to take over Israel my multiplying faster than Jews. Is there a reason we want this in the article? Kaldari 04:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has responded to this, I've gone ahead and removed the quote. Kaldari 19:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. Palmiro | Talk 19:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It is sourced material that shed light on how the role of Arab Israelis is seen as part of the overall conflict. So It is an important quote. Zeq 20:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the demographics section of the article is not about the conflict, it's about demographics. I have cut the quote to include only what is relevent to demographics. Political POV is not appropriate in that section. If the quote were in a section about Jewish/Arab conflict I would feel differently. Kaldari 03:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It is sourced material that shed light on how the role of Arab Israelis is seen as part of the overall conflict. So It is an important quote. Demographics is becoming an important aspect of the conflict so the quote is relevant. Please stop trying to hide it. Zeq 06:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to hide it. If you want to include quotes about the conflict, that's fine with me. Just don't put them in the demographics section. The quote in question is an extremely provocative quote from a figure with a political point-of-view. Tacking it onto the end of the demographics section (which is otherwise occupied with striaghtfoward NPOV statistics) is inappropriate, and frankly seems to be motivated by a desire to push a particular political POV. For example, if you do a search for the quote on Google, many of the places it is mentioned are in articles of political commentary which are anti-Arab Israeli. Yes, it is sourced, but because something is sourced certianly doesn't mean its not POV. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? This seems to be a rather obvious POV example if you ask me. Kaldari 07:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry you see it this way but I disagree. It is a relevant quote as I explained above. If you want you can find something to add (if you think the quote is POV and you must balance it with another POV) but in any case please don't remove sourced content. Zeq 07:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do you believe that one person's provocative assertion that Arab Israelis need to out-reproduce Jewish Israelis is important and relavent enough to include in the demographics section of an encyclopedia article about Israeli Arabs? Do you believe that such a quote would be included in a similar article by Britannica? Do you really believe that having equal numbers of provocative POV quotes in a article is what the NPOV policy endorses? Would you recommend that I add some provocative quotes by Avigdor Lieberman to balance things out? Kaldari 07:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Because it is charateristic. And yes, if you find a quote by Liberman that is charteristic of the situation please include it. Make sure it is a recent one. Zeq 07:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• The quote you added is not currnt and not charteristic. Libermen said this is not his plan, the party Ihud lemi no longer exist. Please change the quote to Liberman current plan (change of borders to undo what was done in 1949 in Wadi Ara area. Zeq 09:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, and the Dr. Wahid Abd Al-Magid quote is from 5 years ago. How many times has he changed his stance since then? What difference does it make anyway? It's all just political posturing and has nothing to do with the actual demographics. I still stand by my opinion that the entire paragraph has no place in that section. Kaldari 20:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• • • We included the Liberman quote although He Clearly changed his mind .
    • The issue is becoming the center of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You can say it is not relevant but others would disagree with you. hence all the recent interst in Liberman (who rode the demogrphic ticket to a place in th Israeli goverment...) Zeq 21:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Then why don't we put it in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article where it belongs? Do extremist political views really have to permeate every section of every article about Israel or Palestine? Why wouldn't a sentence such as "The increasing population of Muslim Arabs within Israel has become a point of political contention in recent years" work just as adequately as the provocative quotes (and without catering to either POV)? Kaldari 21:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The quote obviously doesn't belong here; it was a one-off statement, and never part of the party's policy or platform. It only serves to inflame, not illuminate. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that's the only thing we all agree on. What do you think about the rest of the paragraph? Kaldari 06:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I restored the quotes before seeing Jay's comment above. I will edit it again to shorten it and to remove the non relevant Liberman quote. Zeq 05:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well now it is just absurdly POV. In case you haven't done so, I would encourage you to read over the Wikipedia NPOV policy and seriously consider how it relates to this paragraph. Kaldari 06:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, both of your recent additions to the article seem to consist of news stories chosen to portray Israeli Arabs as violent, oppressive people. However "characteristic" or "relevant" you may deem these stories, Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy is not optional. Please edit this article with the goal of producing a well-rounded, neutral article that will stand the test of time. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Kaldari 17:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Kaldrai, This is the reality. It maybe that in Israel, because there is free press, one can actualy know what is going on. I am sure this also occur else where. In any case, I have self reverted. Please be specific what would you like to add to NPOV the issue. It kind of frustrates me ( to say the least ) that women are being killed and assolted and all you care about is what image it give to man of specific group. But go ahead NPOV it. I 'll be glad to see how. I want to learn. Zeq 20:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Your frustration and convictions are admirable, and believe it or not I am sympathetic to most of them. I have no interest in downplaying the abuses that muslim women face or violence perpetrated in the name of religion or "honor". There are places on Wikipedia to illuminate those issues: Women in Islam, Religious violence, etc. "Israeli Arabs", however, covers a broad range of people, cultures, politics, and history and it is not proper for us to stereotype or systematically characterize them in a negative light here. Our job as encyclopedia editors is to present a balanced view that readers on all sides of the conflict could read without feeling attacked or slighted. It is also important to paint with broad strokes. Scattering anecdotes, news clips, and quotes throughout Wikipedia articles tends to lower their overall quality. Instead of picking and choosing example facts to relate, we should be providing a synthesis of all known facts and points of view related to the issue and then providing references to specific examples. If you do use a specific example, explain what that example is supposed to illustrate rather than just adding it to stand on its own. Wikipedia articles should be explicit and confident (but fair) rather than relying on inuedo, propaganda, or selective evidence. Sometimes it is useful to practice writing for the enemy, in order to make sure that your own biases are not skewing an article. Also, try to make sure that you are adding information where it is most appropriate. For example, if you want to add information about Bedouins in general, it would make more sense to put it in the Bedouin article rather than here. The Bedouins section here should specifically be about Israeli Bedouins and their unique characteristics (so as not to be redundant). Information about "Honor" killings (which is not unique to Israeli Muslims) would be more appropriate in an article about Muslim fundamentalism or Religious violence. Piling it on here seems like we're trying too hard to force the issue where it may not be most appropriate. Some time in the near future I would also like to work on editing down the discrimination section, so that it provides an overview of the issues rather than a laundry list of complaints. It's easy to pile on examples of bad behavior to support one side or another, what's hard is to provide a fair synthesis of facts and opinions that (most) everyone can agree on. Kaldari 22:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Good answer but not the NPOV example I was looking to get from you.

1. The situation of Israeli bedouin women is unique. On one hand they are part of a very traditional Islamic society on the other hand they are part of modern democrtic country. This is unique situation that need to be expended on. try this : http://www.lakiya.org/aboutsidreh.asp and combine it with the deleted section .
2. honor killing in Israel (and the west) should be covered because in Israel it is ileagl while in Saudi Arabia it leagl .

Zeq 04:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

it seems the taboo conerning this issue is startng to break. So Kaldrai here is your opportunity to write about this in a more general way : http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=healthNews&storyID=2006-04-07T112952Z_01_L04162888_RTRIDST_0_HEALTH-SYRIA-WOMEN-DC.XML&archived=False

Zeq 12:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Now there's a valid angle if you can cite references for it: the conflict between Islamic customs and Israeli laws. The trick here is to make sure that you're not doing original research, i.e. it would be tempting to cite articles which present examples of backwards islamic customs and then say "look, this conflicts with Israeli law", but that would be original research and POV-pushing. If you can find some articles that discuss the legal conflict, however, that would be fair game and totally relevent (assuming you keep the tone as neutral as possible). I think information like that would be an interesting addition to the article. Kaldari 15:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

More sources about "honor killing"

According to an Arab israeli writer http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/073/784.html there is an increase in honor killing among Israeli Arabs. Zeq 17:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

In use

I'm currently trying to get this page in shape. I've put the in-use tag on it and I'd appreciate it if that could be respected. If anyone wants to make an edit, please e-mail me. I'll see that faster than a post on my talk page. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Loki, are you not going to allow me to do this edit? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you can... sorry, I was editing a specific section open for some time which I thought wasn't the whole page, and I made no changes apart from the title. Anyway, go ahead... Lokiloki 03:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to make an extensive copy edit of this article, because it's a mess. I placed the tag on it, and left a note here. Despite that, you made an edit and continue to post progress reports to the talk page. I have only just started!! Please let me do it, or tell me you're not going to let me, so that I don't waste any more time. Every time I have any dealings with you, there's a huge amount of talk and time-wasting, Loki. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The ratio of good content to discussion should be about 1:10. That is, there should be 10 times as much discussion, analysis, and debate as there is good content. This seems to generally be true on most articles. Content should go through the boiler of scrutiny and discussion. Presumably that is the purpose of talk pages. By the way, I noticed you qualified the Ha'aretz poll on racism today as being from a pro-Arab group: interesting to see this in light of your edits elsewhere which denied such qualifications of other authors. Lokiloki 03:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting dangerously close to violating NPA, which I assume is your intention, so I'll keep this brief. There is no point, no point at all, in discussing an article as badly written as this one. It needs to be rewritten almost from scratch. I was about to try to do something like that, then you'd have had something to discuss. And I did not qualify the poll as being from an Arab group. Stop posting to me, stop annoying me, stop interfering with my edits, don't post to my talk page again (ever), don't make accusations, and stop trying to tell me how to write and use sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Good luck trying to get the page into shape. If you look back at the history, I tried to do the same thing once, and almost succeeded, but the page became a mess again over the next few weeks. Hopefully though, since you have this whole talk page to use as a guide, you can avoid the POV accusation issues which I faced. -- Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 09:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Yan, sorry not to have seen your comment before now. I may come back to this at some point in the near future. If I do, I'll set up a draft page for the rewrite because it's likely to take a few hours. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

To SlimVirgin

SlimVirgin: You keep deleting my messages to your discussion page and tell me to take it to the article talk page. Okay... but it isn't related to the article. In my talk, you accused me of trying to get a high edit count. I asked on your talk page what the benefit of such is, and why make such accusations. Thanks for answering. By the way, feel free to return that "in use" tag... I was editing specific sections rather than the page itself, but I won't do that either... Lokiloki 03:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Do not post to my talk page again about anything, please. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Okey-dokey. Do not post on my talk page again, either. You have done so 5 times today. Lokiloki 03:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I have been answering you! I take it you will now allow me to continue to work on the encyclopedia? Remember, if you edit while the tag is on, I will get an edit conflict when I try to save, so please don't. That is why I left the note above, asking people to e-mail me if they wanted to edit, which you have now also done, but you went ahead and edited anyway. *blink* SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Where did you answer about the high-edit accusation you leveled against me? (Incidentally, I spend 10 hours per day on Wikipedia, so high edit count seems natural). Lokiloki 03:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually no, I've changed my mind. I'm too angry to edit now. Mission achieved, Loki. You may spend ten hours a day on Wikipedia, but nine of them are devoted to annoying people. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Article intro and set theory

"Most Israeli Arabs are descendants of the 150,000 Muslim Arabs, including 170,000 Bedouin, who remained within Israel's borders during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War." The author of this sentence probably meant: "Most Israeli Arabs, including 170,000 Bedouin, are descendants of the 150,000 Muslim Arabs who remained within Israel's borders during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War." Otherwise, the sentence makes no sense because 170,000 Bedouin cannot be a subset of 150,000 Muslim Arabs as the current version of the sentence states. Pecher ^Talk 11:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• you are correct. Zeq 11:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Pecher and Zeq, I had just started what was going to be a rewrite/copy edit, but was interrupted by Lokiloki who had objections, so I gave up. Therefore, the intro may need tidying. Feel free to go ahead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't give up just because one user annoyed you. This article can really use a copyedit, and you were already working on it. -- Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 16:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I second Ynhockey. This is a complex subject that very few people know about. With Liberman proposal of redrawing the borders to exchange territory (where 1/3 of israeli Arabs live) this subject will get interest. Zeq 17:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Page move

I didn't see any objections, so I moved Israeli Arabs to Arab citizens of Israel. If you want to move it back, go ahead. I don't care. I just think all this fuss over what they should be called isn't that important.

Unless it's important to them or to others who have a strong interest in them. In which case, every significant point of view about what their "real" or "proper" name is, should be described fairly somewhere in the body of the article. I moved the terms out of the intro and made it the first named section. Fair enough? --Uncle Ed 21:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the name should be Arab Israelis, as these people are not just citizens but part of the Israelis in every respect. I think that the new name is POV and discriminating as it suggests that Arab Israelis are less Israeli than Jewish Israelis. I had serious issues also with the previous name, which are perhaps now not very relevant. gidonb 02:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that I am fine also with Palestinian Israelis for those who wish to call themselves as such, the only issue is that it doesn't capture the entire population. gidonb 02:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If we go by how they call them self it will have to be "Palestinians of 48". I also think that the previous name was better as this is how they are now known. Zeq 05:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you had no opposition because not enough editors noticed the proposed title change. Now that I think about it, Arab Israelis was better. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 07:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, actually the name Palestinians of 48 is more commonly used by Palestinians in the Westbank, Gaza Strip and diaspora for this population. Many Arab Israelis, with a strong Palestinian identity, strongly object to this name. As I implied before there are also Arab Israelis who object to be called Palestinians, especially Druze and Bedouin of Galilee. One has to respect that in Jordan and Israel, unlike naturally the PA but also countries with Palestinian refugee camps, the Palestinian identity is a voluntary identity. It is a very common identity. Best regards, gidonb 08:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Would someone then please do a little research (not "OR", of course) and tell us how most Israeli citizens who are Arabs like to refer to themselves? By Israeli, law they are Israelis, i.e., "citizens of Israel" just like by United States law I am a "citizen of the United States".

But perhaps they (or some of them) wish to emphasize another aspect of themselves, beyond their legal connection to the state of Israel. I suppose this additional aspect is related to the nationalistic aspirations of the population group the PLO's Palestinian National Charter [14] calls "Palestinian Arabs". And much of the political rhetoric I've read about Arab nationalism in Palestine emphasizes identity, by using terms having political overtones.

I was trying to choose for this article a title which had as few political overtones as possible, thinking this would be "neutral", i.e., in accordance with Wikipedia:NPOV. I believe article titles should not express a point of view, unless the article is entirely about that point of view. Within a neutrally entitled article, I would like us contributors to describe every significant aspect about the topic named in the title.

Please, let us describe the history, ethnicity, political rights and aspirations, social & economic conditions, etc. of Arabs who hold Israeli citizenship. If what they are called (or call themselves) is also significant, then let's cooperate to write a section about that aspect also. --Uncle Ed 13:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't done any so-called research, but can tell you off-hand that Arab Israelis vastly differ in their ideologies and there isn't one name they'll all agree on to call themselves. For example, the Israeli Druze are loyal to Israel but mostly prefer not to call themselves Arabs at all, while others, like many residents in Baka Al-Gharbiya, prefer to call themselves Palestinian Arabs and do not acknowledge the 'Israeli' part. Arab Israeli, however, is a term used by Israelis to refer to Arab citizens of Israel in general (sometimes including permanent residents of East Jerusalem, who are not citizens, as the article states). Arab Israelis would also be a more standard name, considering there are articles such as Mexican American and Cuban American. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, we can move the article again (from Arab citizens of Israel to Arab Israelis) or even just move it back to Israeli Arabs. But why fuss about the title?

Is our intention to settle on one "correct" term for this population group and then use the article title to show Wikipedia's endorsement of that term? I'm suggesting we move in the opposite direction to that approach.

I think we should make the article title as bland and general as possible. If the the "true name" of the population group is a big issue then we should describe that issue within the body of the article. Remember, Wikipedia's job is not to settle disputes, but to describe them fairly. --Uncle Ed 13:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it was a good move. The previous title is one that lots of the people in question don't like and indeed reject; the current one is neutral and factual. Palmiro | Talk 13:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The new name is unwieldy and not in line with the other similar Wikipedia articles, as Ynhockey pointed out. Also, I see no consensus for the move on the talk page. Pecher ^Talk 15:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ynhockey and Pecher, the move is not a good idea.

I am still mistified why, after getting an answer, Ed Poor (who asked question such as "Do they have to convert to Judasim to become citizens" have removed this:

"are Arabs who are citizens of the State of Israel. Israeli Arabs are full citizens of the State of Israel, with equal protection under the law, and full rights of due process.

If I removed this (from the article entirely), then I was wrong to do so. I intended only to move it down a bit. If it's out of the article please put it back (or just revert me, whichever's easier). If it's too far down, then maybe the section on political rights should be moved higher up. --Uncle Ed 02:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This line was there exactly for people who think that in israel only jews have rights.

All in all, I think Recent edits made this articl worse than it was before these controversial edits were made. Ed, please reconsider what you are doing. Zeq 16:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

PS, with the exception of Druze and Bedouins, most israeli Arab are clearly Palestinian and identify themself as such . Zeq 16:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a very bad idea for an article about an ethnic group to go under a title that many mambers of that group reject and that their own organizations rarely use, when there are alternatives available such as this one. So I would be entirely opposed to reversing the move. Palmiro | Talk 14:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

source

http://www.jordanembassyus.org/remarks.htm

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=409643&contrassID=2

Zeq 09:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC) since so many people are objecting, i guess go ahead and put it back... but honestly, the only reason anyone has any problems is because Jews have a double-standard, that is, no one in the world is perfect, but Jews are expected to be, and talked of as if we're horrible when we make decisions which aren't 100% perfectly just to absolutely everyone. People say its unjust to split up a country with a population at war, but it worked beautifully in India in the same year, 1948. Also, somehow not letting Palestinians (meaning occupants of West Bank and Gaza Strip)enter the rest of Israel is considered to be unjust, but its to prevent them from killing Israelis! Anyways my point is any English teacher can tell you theres no difference between Bloopy Blanks and Blanks of Bloop, but that double-standard makes us look evil in the eyes of the world, but anyone who sees the bigger picture will know what I'm saying. Please mention the double-standard somewhere in one of your articles. I'm sorry if I'm messing anything up by editing the page instead of sending an email or something.....

Ethnic groups and their names

Is anyone saying that the Arabs who bear Israeli citizenship are a distinct ethnic group? If so, who's saying it, and what's the ethnic distinction between Arab citizens of Israel and other Palestinian Arabs? (Or is the claim that Arab Israelis aren't Palestinian Arabs?) --Uncle Ed 15:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ed,

There is no such distinction. these are on many cases people of the same family.

Even the Druze only date back to about 11th or 12th century at the time they stopped intermarry with others. Some of the bedouins (who as the Druze see themself as different that the palestinians) can trace their origin 400 years back to Saudi Arabia. The rest (which are the majority) now call themself palestinians and some of them (those the article is about) have israeli citizenship. Zeq 19:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Are they all really "Arab"

Here's an odd thing Joseph Agassi wrote, I wonder if I can believe it:

Israel officially considers her non-Jewish citizens as Arabs, including the Christians among them. [15]

Does the Israeli government lump all non-Jewish citizens together as "Arabs"?

Are the actual Arabs of Israel just ordinary "Arabs", or is there a distinct group of "Palestinian Arabs"?

• When the press mentions "Palestinians" these days, do they mean "Palestinian Arabs", or is there some distinct political or ethnic group of "Palestinians" who aren't "Arab"?

Is there any place at Wikipedia where any or all of these questions have already been answered? --Uncle Ed 15:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually the Israeli government lists Jews, Arabs and 'others'. Arabs are further divided into Muslims, Christians, Bedouins and Druze, as this article details. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

YnHockey is 100% correct. Not all non-jews are Arabs.

Israel is divided between Jews, Druze, non-Arab christians on one side and the rest which see them self mostly as "palestinians" Zeq 15:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I was wrong on one account, apparently the Israel MFA does not classify Druze as Arabs, according to their website. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Is "Palestinians" a political or ethnic designation? Is it synonymous with "Arab Palestinians" (as the PNC initially said), or what? --Uncle Ed 21:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Technically it is not, Jews who lived in Palestine before the first Aliya, as well as other non-Arab inhabitants, are also supposed to be Palestinian, according to the PLO's definition. However, in practice we all know that the PLO propagated the murder of all Jews in 'Palestine', so maybe a different definition may need to be looked at. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 03:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on Ynhockey, you know it's not true that "the PLO propagated the murder of all Jews in 'Palestine'". Even on the most critical reading, nothing in the PLO charter can possibly be interpreted as meaning that. And of course there are Jewish members of the PLO, who presumably are not calling for their own murder. RolandR 20:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Lol you don't think there are traitors? Yup the Jewish Nazis got treated real well for turning in info on their friends. Oh and by the way, obviously Palestinian is a citizen of Palestine... as i went over on another discussion, and Palestine come from Philistia which essentially comes from the Phillistines. Yup the people who conquered Judea wanted to eradicate Jewish conection to the land, so they changed it back to what it was before. But really I've been to Israel and there are big differences between Bedouins and Palestinians and Druze and Arab and Caucasian Christians, and Sephardic and Mizrahi, and Ashkenazic Jews, and Chasidic lubavitch plo haredi sheik muszeein preist adventist noachide dasljghfak;lghas;lcnasd;lkhgalknf!! Anyways, I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in John.

HRW

HRW claim that "on the basis of their parents' military service". In israel, many Jews and many arabs do not serve in the army. Thus it is not a discrimination against any specific ethnic group. Haredi jews for example are also exempt from military service and as such are suffering from the cut in vetren benefits. Zeq 05:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

East Jeruslalem residents

I reverted The one exception is Arab residents of East Jerusalem. In 1967, the East Jerusalemites were given a one-time offer for citizenship. Most refused and today, the majority of that population do not receive voting rights. because it was long and not totally factual (being as residents of East Jerusalem are eligible to all social benefits and vote in municipal elections). Is there a source that residents of East Jerusalem are no longer able to apply for Israeli citizenship? Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 00:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Haretz article

haretz article also include this: "Poor Arab families with many children will not receive the new payment (though wealthier Arab families actually will). But Haredi families with many children will receive it. Arab children will not benefit, but Haredi children will. It is impossible not to ask what exactly the people who reached this brilliant agreement were thinking. "

So clearly the quote was part of the article, not telling the whole story and thus POV. Zeq 20:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This is nonsense. A report in Ha'Aretz criticises the new government for an agreement which, although apparently neutral, in effect (and presumably intention) will benefit Jews, but not most Arabs. The article goes on th say "The time has come for even Israeli politicians to understand: In a democratic country, there is no way to encourage birthrates among one ethnic group while discriminating against the children of another ethnic group... it must be clear that all children are equal: All poor children are equal, and all hungry children are equal - even if they are Arabs". It is bizarre to pterend that this article somehow denies the official discrimination in the Israeli state.RolandR 21:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nither for you nor for haretz publicist. If you don't quote in an NPV way the whole quote will have to go. Zeq 21:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the quote will not "have to go". I quoted it perfectly accurately, and in context. The quote directly relates to a previous assertion in the paragraph where I inserted it, and shows that policy -- or implementation of policy -- has changed this week. You are trying to censor from Wikipedia an article from Israel's leading daily criticising a racist policy, in order to hide the fact that this policy exists. You are the one attempting to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. If you don't like the quotation, I suggest you try to change the facts, not the reporting.RolandR 23:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I moved the Haaretz Editorial to the "discrimination" section, and removed the author's irrelevant comments about "chutzpa." This may require further attention. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 05:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have recerted Tewfik's POV changes. The article is NOT an editorial, but a signed opinion piece. It belongs where I placed it, since it directly challenges the claim (which I have not removed) that Orthodox Jews and Palestinian Arabs face the same deprivation of child benefits. Tewfik's other alterations, which he failed to mention, were equally tendentious. RolandR 07:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Roland, Yes, it is a signed opinion piece, and not a Haaretz news item. It discusses a possible coalition agreement, does not document the agreement as actually happening, and it speculates as to the motivations behind the possible agreement. I added an accurate representation of the passage, and I moved it from the already extended introduction to a more appropriate place. I'm not sure which other tendentious alterations I failed to mention, as the only other edits I made were to correct misspelling. My edit-summary reads move; rmv POV; copy-edit. Additionally, you seemed to have accidentally deleted the end of the article. Please WP:Assume good faith, and if you must revert, do so after addressing the substance of my changes, which I detailed above when I made them. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 07:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologise if I removed part of the article. It was entirely inadvertent, and I think caused by a hiccup in my browser. In fact, it's just done it again and only loaded part of an article, so I had to again reinsert what I'd accidentally deleted/

On substance: I have removed the phrase "however the cuts will also affect the children of the Jewish Ultra-Orthodox who don't serve in the military", since, even if it was true at the time (which I dispute), it is no longer. Nor does the quote reflect accurately the source, which went on to say, in the same sentence, "but they are eligible for extra subsidies, including educational supplements, not available to Palestinian Arab children". Since the disputed claim is no longer in the introduction, I agree that there is no need for the Ha'Aretz article to be noted there, and I'm happy for it to remain where Tewfik has moved it. I've not reinstated the quote from the article, as readers can easily click on the link. However, Ha'Aretz tends to delete English language articles from the archive after a while, so I will watch this, and if necessary insert a different URL or even insert the quoite again. I have also amended "editorial" to "op-ed" and "alleging" to "noting". It was NOT an editorial, which, as per the reference you provided, is " a statement or article by a news organization"; while "alleging" suggests an element of doubt. The facts are not in doubt, only the interpretation. I hope we can agree on these changes.

By the way, I see now that if I edit an article, and then look at a preview, although all of the text is in the preview itself, half of the original is missing from the edit pane, and unless I am very careful when I save it truncates the article. I had rthe same problem when attempting to edit the Law of Return article. I don't know whether this is a fault with my own set-up, or a general Wikipedia bug -- can anyone advise?RolandR 20:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Roland,

No apology necessary, as I mentioned above, I was just illustrating WP:Assume good faith in reference to the "tendentious" edits you had claimed I made. Just consider that it's a weighty accusation and others may not respond well to it. I'd also like to point out that op-ed redirects to editorial, which does have a subsection on the topic. I repaired the link to reflect that, but the [moot] point that I was making previously was that the piece wasn't subject to the rigourous standards of objectivity that a news article would be, a fact not clear from the initial wording of the passage. Finally, I replaced the "Haredi" line because it wasn't related to the op-ed, which alleges discrimination based on salary/employment, and not benefit from military service. In any event, it is unclear that the op-ed's discussion was actualised into policy. If you have a source to that effect, then we should update the article to reflect that. You may want to use Wikipedia:Footnotes to avoid problems with dead links (vis-a-vis Haaretz). As for your technical problems, you may want to check Wikipedia:Computer help desk or Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). I'd also like to commend you on engaging in constructive dialogue, which is key to the success in Wikipedia. I hope that you have a great experience here. Tewfik^Talk 04:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have again removed the phrase "however the cuts will also affect the children of the Jewish Ultra-Orthodox who don't serve in the military", since it is still untrue, and it still does not reflect accurately the source.RolandR 13:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Equal protection

I’m afraid I cannot take seriously several entries here, and the general weighting of the material chosen (another way of dressing up POV). It would take a long essay to reveal the POV hidden in this entry. So instead I will focus on the most egregious example: the line that Israeli Arabs (or whatever you want to call this group) have “equal protection under the law”. No one who knows anything about the subject will read past this false statement. Israel lacks a constitution, so I wonder in what ways the writer(s) of this line believes such protection is offered. The only overtly human rights legislation Israel has on the books is the Basic Law on Freedom and Human Dignity (1992), but that doesn’t posit equality as a fundamental right, nor freedom of religion and expression. It also defines Israel as a “Jewish and democratic state”, as do many other recent laws, thereby giving official recognition to group rights for Jews but not for Arab citizens. Although officially Israel may enshrine equal individual rights, the country’s legislation ensures groups rights (for Jews only) take precedence. Off the top of my head, here are a few ways in which Israeli Arabs lack “equal legal protection”:

1. The Law of Return offers only Jews automatic citizenship. Palestinians are denied all citizenship rights under the revised Nationality Law. This means that an Israeli Jew can bring relatives to Israel under family reunification principles, while an Israeli Arab is legally excluded from doing so. How is this equal protection? 2. Some 100,000 Israeli Arabs (mostly Bedouin) live in communities the state refuses to recognise under the Planning and Building Law (1965). In other words nearly one in 10 Israeli Arabs is denied all public services such as water and electricity, and their homes are subject to demolition, by law. Only Israeli Arabs live in such communities because of the way the law is framed. 3. The Jewish National Fund and other international Zionist organisations are offered special quasi-governmental status under Israeli law. The JNF owns 13 per cent of the land in Israel (inside the 1948 borders), most of it given to it by the government in especially prized areas for habitation. The JNF is bound by its charter to discriminate in favour of Jews, and given its special status nothing can be done to challenge that in the courts. 4. Under the Absentee Property Law (1950), the state has confiscated the land and property of all Palestinians not considered to be inside their homes inside Israel on a specific date during the war of 1948. They have no rights ever to reclaim their property or return to their land. This law targets only Arabs, not Jews, and continues to deny the rights of 300,000 or so Israeli Arabs (the original dispossessed and their descendants), who are are effectively internal refugees. That's about one in four of the Israeli Arab population 5. Let’s not forget that Israel still has a set of emergency laws it inherited from the British Mandate that, though technically can be applied to all citizens, are in practice used almost exclusively against Israeli Arabs with no oversight from the courts. This is hardly equal protection.

I’m not even mentioning the myriad forms of not-so “covert legal discrimination” documented by David Kretzmer.

Also, can anyone cite a reference for 200,000 Palestinians entering Israel under family unification? I don’t accept as proof the Population Administration, which was shown by a Haaretz investigation to have fabricated similar figures. According to Haaretz, they found 6,000 such cases. I think the 200,000 figure includes the 170,000 illegal entries (not a unification issue) and I think this latter figure too is dubious. This is part of the government's demographic timebomb discourse.

And finally, why no reading list of the seminal works on the subject: Sabri Jiryis’s The Arabs in Israel (1975), and Fouzi el-Asmar’s To be an Arab in Israel (1976)? It would also be worth directing readers to other important recent works, including David Grossman’s Sleeping on a Wire (1993), Dan Rabinowitz’s Overlooking Nazareth (1997), Susan Nathan’s The Other Side of Israel (2005), Dan Rabinowitz and Khawla Abu Baker, Coffins on our Shoulders (2005), and my own Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State (2006). JCook10:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Bedouins in the IDF

This article currently claims that only 4% of Bedouins serve in the IDF without citing it's source. I have twice queried this claim, only to find the "citation needed" I placed removed and the source still not verified. I simply would like to know where the this statistic comes from. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.79.39.127 (talk • contribs).

according to this the number vary between 5% to 10 % : [16] Zeq 03:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

ISRAELI ARABS ARE 2nd CLASS CITIZENS AND FEEL THAT WAY. TAKE NOTE OF THIS ARTICLE FROM THE BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1999/05/99/israel_elections/341587.stm

http://www.arc.org/C_Lines/CLArchive/story_web00_04.html

An jew murdered Arabs and the arab familites didn't get "Terror stipends". NOT EQUAL FROM BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4198754.stm

Dude, either your an arab or you're seriously listening to the wrong people. In Beersheva most Bedouins pay no or insufficient taxes, but 50% of the babies being born in the biggest hospital in the Negev are Bedouins. Personally, when it was obvious i was a Jew, i walked into Beersheva hospital on my Israel trip and gave a Bedouin child a teddy bear and his dad said thank you to me in English and even thinking about how his voice sounded makes me cry. Sure there are some places where Israeli Arabs might not be able to get a job easily in a Jewish city, but NO JEW can get a job in an ARAB CITY. Also: 1) The wall is not a Berlin Wall as it's built up to be, and most Israeli Arabs/Palestinians would have it better off if they didn't kill Jews and each other! How can you let someone be free to roam arround your country if they're likely to kill the inhabitants? 2) Half the time news stations get information from Arabs only, without verifying, and just go and report it right away. Like how in Jenin they said there was a massacre in which 500 people were killed, but it turned out there were only 50 some and most of them were combatants. Palestinians still name their children Jenin.... 3) People get strung out about Israelis accidentally killing civilians, but Arabs target civilians, and yes this goes for all Arab countries which Israel has been at war with, including Palestinians. 4) Finally, Israeli Arabs would have all the rights of Israelis (maybe with the exception of the right of the return) and everyone would be able to live in harmony if any Arabs wanted to. HOW CAN WE NEGOTIATE WITH PEOPLE WHO FOR THE MOST PART AND WHOSE LEADERS BELIEVE IN A TRANSLATION OF THE KORAN WHICH REQUIRES WORLD DOMINATION!?!?!? OH and i looked at the website about the guy who didn't get terror stipends... heres the deal: It was murder, and that is one thing everyone can agree on. However, Israelis killing Israelis intentionally is murder, which is bad, but it's not terrorism. Maybe a hate crime, but not terrorism.

new info

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3273263,00.html Zeq 13:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Politicians

I've removed the statement that Arab MKs are being investigated by police for visits to an "enemy" country. Muhamad Miari has not been a Knesset member since 1992, and Muhamad Kanan has not been a member since 2003. This entry is simply incitement, it adds nothing to our knowledge or understanding.RolandR 22:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Disputed Discussion

As per a number of comments on this page, I have flagged this article as disputed. Particularly egregious is the claim in the introduction that Arab citizens enjoy full rights as citizens as Israel. This is a patently false statement. See the websites of the Arab Human Rights Association (www.arabhra.org), Mossawa (www.mossawacenter.org), the I'lam Media Center (www.ilamcenter.org), and a selecton of links on the situation of Palestinian of 48 at The Electronic Intifada(http://electronicintifada.net/cgi-bin/artman/exec/search.cgi). The entire article needs a massive rewrite. It's POV is blatantly Zionist and contradicts even articles published regularly in Ha'aretz and Yediot Aharanot. I will begin making edits but would appreciate the input of others in highlighting the most problematic sections to begin with. 82.102.241.6 14:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• First off, the above comment is min, I just forgot to log in so only my IP was registered rather than my user name. This is how I propose we should rewrite the introduction:

Arab citizens of Israel is a term used to refer to Arabs who are not Jewish, but are citizens of the State of Israel. As citizens of the State of Israel, some observers claim that they enjoy equal protection under the law, and full rights of due process. Most Arab citizens of Israel do not share this belief. Many have continued to identify themselves as Palestinian and hold many ties, including family ties, to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, as well as residents of occupied East Jerusalem, annexed by Israel in 1980 [17]. Like other indigenous minority populations elsewhere in the world, the relationship of Arab citizens to the State of Israel is often fraught with tension.

Arab citizens of Israel comprise 17% of the country's total number of citizens. When Arab residents of East Jerusalem are included - the majority of whom do not hold Israeli citizenship having refused the State’s offer in protest of the occupation of that area in 1967 - that figure rises to 19.5%. Terms used by others or Arab citizens of Israel to describe themselves include “Arab Israelis", "Arab citizens of Israel", "Palestinians of 1948", and "Palestinian Arabs in Israel".

Most Arab citizens of Israel are descendants of the 150,000 Arabs who remained within what became Israel shortly after the end of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Since then, thousands of others have emigrated into Israel from the Gaza Strip and West Bank, receiving citizenship under family-unification provisions that were recently made significantly more stringent. Arab citizens of Israel are predominantly Sunni Muslims, but also include 120,000 Druze and 180,000 Christian Arabs.

The large population of Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews, who fled or were expelled from Arab countries, mostly after 1948, or who are the descendants of those immigrants and refugees, are not usually identified as Arabs, although many of them and their ancestors were traditionally Arabic-speaking and some Mizhari and Sephardi Jews do self-identify as Arab Jews.

Comments, concerns? Or should I just go ahead? Tiamut 15:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• So I made changes to the introduction and moved the netrality and disputed tags to specific sections I think need priority work. I also moved a paragraph that was under "Muslims" to the section on spatial distribution which should probably lead into the section on demographics as well. The entire article is very poorly organized right now. In particular, I do not understand why the trivia section exists (it seems to be just a collection of random facts designed to offset the serious issues riased in the discrimination section). Also, preferably the issues raised in the discrimination section could be incorporated into each individual section above like Legal and political status, education, health, etc. Will continue working and would appreciate feedback. Thanks. Tiamut 09:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have continued making changes, renaming the section on "Initial Measures taken by the Israeli government" to "History" and moving it up to the first category under the lead, while expanding its content. I am slowly making my way through the entire article which is too long and badly need reorganization, setting aside the POV issues outlined above. Any suggestions on how to streamline the rest of the reogranization is welcome. Tiamut 09:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

OR regarding election law

I have removed the sentence that reads "A party with a platform calling for full and complete equality between Jews and Arabs in a secular state for all its citizens can be therefore be disqualified. (See: Israeli Central Elections Committee for more information) " as this is an OR interpretation of the actual law, which says only that a party "may not participate in the elections if there is in its goals or actions a denial of the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people". If you wnat to re-insert that, please qualify it as the opinion of some fringe groups, and I will then add examples showing why this claim is flase, as parties with that explicit platform have been allowed to run. Isarig 17:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This interpretation of the law was used by the Israeli Central Elections Committee on June 17, 1988 to ban the Progressive List for Peace from participating in the 1988 election. After sppealing to the Supreme Court, the decision was overruled and the PLP was permitted to run in the election. Notwithstanding, the legality of section 7(a) remined intact. The Court merely decided that PLP policies did not match the description. The decision was appealed by a right-winger, who lost his appeal by a 3 to 2 vote. But the justices reaffirmed that "a political party may be disqualified under section 7 (A) (1) if it rejects the ideology of Israel as the State of the Jewish people, even if there was no danger to the security of the state." [18] I will reinclude the statement, sourced as you requested. Tiamut 13:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not surprising that the Supreme court found the legality of 7(a) intact - but it very clearly found the interpretation you had proposed - that parties advocating equality for all citizens may be banned - to be false, and reaffrimed this decision on appeal. Isarig 14:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You are going to have to find your own source to support the claim you made in your latest edit to that section. I will not allow you to use my research and source to superimpose an opinion not substantiated by that source and if fact, directly contradicted by it. Do some research and see if you can find something to contradict the interpretation offered in my source. Tiamut 16:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC) Note also that my editing note changing your formulation which read: "readding the original formulation backed by the source cited; the editing of this section by Isarig is supported by the citation included," should have read "is NOT supported by the citation included". Tiamut 17:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want me to find additonal sources, I'd be happy to, but your source supports my edit in full. In fact, if anything, it directly contradicts your statement that "This interpretation of the law was used by the Israeli Central Elections Committee on June 17, 1988 to ban the Progressive List for Peace from participating in the 1988 election" - becuase it says "Ben Shalom, a right wing activist, filed an appeal to the Supreme Court against the Knesset Election Committee because it allowed the Jewish- Arab party, (The Progressive List for Peace (PLP)), to run in the elections.". IOW, the KEC allowed the PLP to run (contradicting your claim), this decision of the KEC was appealed, and the SC ruled to uphold the KEC decision - just as I wrote. [not that my personal opinion is a particualrly relevant to this discussion, but I find it audacious that a law that was created in order to prevent racist anti-Arab parties (Kach) from running, and invoked successfully in that role, is being used by pro-Arab partisans to allege anti-Arab discrimination, in spite of the fact that right-wing activists were unsuccessful in their attmpt to use it to ban an Arab party, and in spite of the fact that both the KEC and the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the PLP cannot be banned using that ammendment. It takes some large amount of spin to turn that against the Israeli democratic system] Isarig 18:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, you have not the source or else you have difficulty understanding the nuances involved in legal rulings. The article I sourced states clearly that: "By a narrow vote of 3 to 2, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Knesset Elections Committee, which enabled the PLP to participate in the elections. But there was a consensus among the Justices that a political party may be disqualified under section 7 (A) (1) if it rejects the ideology of Israel as the State of the Jewish people, even if there was no danger to the security of the state. Justices Levin and Elon even went further to state that redefining Israel as the state of all its citizens is like denying the existence of the state. " The article continues to say that: "David Kretzmer, professor at the Hebrew University and member of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, criticized the court's decision and said that such a decision would mean that: "there can not be total equality between Arabs and Jews in Israel. The State is the State of the Jews, both those presently resident in the country as well as those residents abroad. Even if the Arabs have equal rights on all other levels, the implication is clear: Israel is not their state."" How can you possibly suggest that this source to backs up your twisted interpretation of the court ruling? It does not. I am reverting the change you made. When you find a source that backs up your claim, you can add it. Until then, stop twisting reality to serve your opinions. Tiamut 13:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The source says the KEC allowed the PLP to run: 'the decision of the Knesset Elections Committee, which enabled the PLP to participate '. The source further says that the court upheld this decision - just as I wrote. Please do not revert my well sourced claims just becuase you don;t like them, or favor some minority opinion thta thinks otherwise. It is not in question if a party can be disqualifed for rejecting the ideology of Israel as the State of the Jewish people - that part is in the law, and I have left it intact in the article. What is in question is if demanding equallity for all citizens is equivalent to rejecting the ideology of Israel as the State of the Jewish people - and the answer to that, according to both the KEC and the court is NO. Prof. Kretzmer is welcome to his opinion, but it is not the opinion of the Israeli court, or of the KEC. Isarig 14:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Isarig, I'm sorry but your interpretation is just that, an interpretation, unbacked by citations, and it is wrong. "The political program of the PLP called for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state and viewed the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian Arab people. The PLP was a completely non-violent party list, did not challenge the existence of the state of Israel and did not deny the right of the Jewish people to an independent state. More than that, the PLP was composed of an equal number of Arab and Jewish candidates, and the second candidate on the list was the reserve army General Matti Peled." [19] Further, "The question before the Supreme Court was whether, under Section 7(A)(1), the PLP List “denies the existence of Israel as the state of the Jewish people.” The Supreme Court, by a hesitant majority of 3-2, decided to uphold the decision of the Election Committee, and thus to allow the PLP to participate in the elections. Although the Court split as to the result, there was general agreement among the justices in the majority and the minority that a political party may be disqualified under Section 7(A)(1), if it rejects the ideology of Israel as a state of the Jewish people, even if there is no subversive element and no danger to the security of the State. The two dissenting justices - D. Levin and Elon - agreed that any attempt to redefine

Israel as the State of all its citizens is tantamount to the denial of the existence of the State. Justice D. Levin wrote: “The PLP asks for absolute equality between the Arabs and Jews in Israel. It asks to apply this request [for equality] on the Jewish character of the State and such a list [political party] must be outside of the Knesset.”50 Justice Elon added that the State is not a Jewish-Arab state but that instead, “it is the State of the Jews and for the Jewish people only.”51 The majority - supported by Justices S. Levin, Beisky, and Shamgar - held that at a minimum, the definition of Israel as the State of the Jewish people is based on three fundamental principles: 1) that the Jews form the majority in the state; 2) that the Jews are entitled to preferential treatment such as the Law of Return; and 3) that a reciprocal relationship exists between the state and the Jews outside of Israel. According to the majority, a political party which rejects these fundamentals must be disqualified." [20] Can you please provide a source which states that a party can run on a platform calling for full equal rights for all its citizens in a secular state? Because it is not this ruling. As such, I am going to put back in my version supported by the citations there and here. If you want to add your interpretation, please find a source to back it up. Thanks. Tiamut 11:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome. I am not disputing that PLP called for equallity between all citizens - I am pointing out that despite this, it was allowed to run. Your OWN source shows this - the PLP ran on a platform calling for full equal rights for all its citizens in a secular state. It was NOT disqaulified. Isarig 14:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is getting tiresome. But I am not going to let you mislead readers. Fact: the PLP was disqualified for running on platform of equality for all citizens by the Central Elections Committee. Fact: The Supreme Court overruled the Committee's decision to allow the PLP to run. Fact: An appeal against the ruling by a right-winger was refused by the court. BUT, Fact: the judges decision made clear that a party calling for equality in such a way that challenged the Jewish character of the state of Israel, could be disqualified in the future. Therefore, my formulation is the correct one. Yours is an attempt to mislead the reader into beliving that the ruling vis a vis the PLP is binding for all parties calling for equality, when in fact, all the court decided was that the particular call for equality by the PLP actually deferred to Israel's character as a Jewish state. Peace. Tiamut 19:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

From the top: Your first "FACT" is disputed. Your own source says the KEC allowed the PLP to run. (I believe your source is wrong, BTW, but that it what the source says). Yes, the judges made it clear that a party calling for equality in such a way that challenged the Jewish character of the state of Israel, could be disqualified in the future, but they also made it clear that calling for equality between all Israeli citizens, which was the PLP's explicit paltform, does not amount to challenging the Jewish character of the state of Israel, which is why the PLP was allowed to run. Your formulation is thus OR. Isarig 22:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Look Isarig. Your interpretation of the the facts discussed by the sources I have provided constitutes original research. If you want to say what it is that you think was the outcome of the ruling, find a source that says it. My source says very clearly that the judges decision does allow parties to be disqualified if running on a party platform calling for equality if this equality challenges the notion of Israel as a Jewish state. That is not my interpretation. That is the argument put forward by the article I have cited. If you think they are wrong, find a source that supports your interpretation of the ruling, place it beside my formulation and source as the contrary view. Do not delete my faithful recounting of the article's contents to insert your own original view not explicated in the article cited. That is vandalism. Thank you. Tiamut 14:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Look Tiamut. My edit consists of nothign but facts sourced directly to your reference. Here is my edit, in its entirety:

"An Israeli Central Elections Committee ruling which allowed the Progressive List for Peace to run for the Knesset in 1988 was challenged based on this ammendment, but the committee's decision was overruled by the Israeli Supreme Court, which ruled that the PLP's platform calling for Israel to become "a state of all its citizens" does not violate the ideology of Israel as the State of the Jewish people, and thus section 7(a) does not apply"

. It is a fact that the SC upheld the ICEC decision. It is a fact that it allowed the PLP to run. It is a fact that the reason cited by the majority of judges in their ruling was that the PLP platform, which called for Israel to become a state of all its citizzens, did not violate sections 7(a). None of this is interpreation, and all of thsi is directly stated by your sources. The only interpretation here is done by you, when you speculate, contrary to this very explcit ruling, tah t in the future some party callign for equallity may be disqualified. Isarig 20:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand the difference between my citing an article that clearly states the judges ruling paves the way for future disqualifications and my own opinion that that article is correct in its interpretation. In order to change it the way you would like to see it, you have to find a source that backs up your interpretation and it is not the sources I found after you insisted that I source that material. I resent this constant going back and forth and if you revert my edit again, I will report you for POV pushing and vandalism. Add your source with the opposing viewpoint, stop changing my legitimately sourced text for your own interpretation. Thank you. Tiamut 23:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

(1) Please cease and desist immediately from making threats - your behaviour here has been equiavlent to min ein every aspect, and I can jsut as legitiamtely claim that it is you who is reverting my edits. My disagrreing with your POV pushing is not vandalism - I have backed up everything I wrote. (2) what is the "interpretation" that you think I am making? I have lsited my edit above - what part of it is "interpretation"? Isarig 23:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Isarig, let's start over with this. You wrote: "An Israeli Central Elections Committee ruling which allowed the Progressive List for Peace to run for the Knesset in 1988 was challenged based on this ammendment, but the committee's decision was upheld by the Israeli Supreme Court, which ruled that the PLP's platform calling for Israel to become "a state of all its citizens" does not violate the ideology of Israel as the State of the Jewish people, and thus section 7(a) does not apply.[26]" This is factually incorrect. The Israeli Central Elections Committee originally banned the PLP from running. A Supreme Court decision overruled the banning. then, a right-winder appealed that ruling and the Supreme Court upheld its earlier decision. The way you have phrased it ignores that it was teh Central Elections Committee itself that banned the PLP from running in the first place. They only changed their ruling after the Court ruled against their decision. Can you please change the formulation accordingly? Or shall I? Tiamut 15:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I was quoting from your own source. I as wrote before - "Your own source says the KEC allowed the PLP to run. (I believe your source is wrong, BTW, but that it what the source says). "

I'd be happy to change the edit to what you now propose, which I believe is the correct sequence of events, as soon as I find a source that documents it. Isarig 16:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Tiamut's interpretation of the situation re the PLP and the election law is absolutely correct. But he misses one central point -- that, in order to stand in the elections, the PLP was obliged to amend its platform at its conference in April 1988. It has taken me some time to find this document, which I translated from an Israeli paper when I was working as a journalist in Jerusalem in 1988. It is by a political activist, a supporter of the PLP, protesting that in its determination to be deemed acceptable to the elections commission, the party abandoned its principles:

The second topic at the heart of the conference was a new political document which was intended to supplement the platform adopted at the time of the last elections. The intention of those who formulated this document was to deal with the new law which makes participation in elections conditional upon on accepting the principle of the state of Israel as “the state of the Jewish people”. From MK Mati Peled’s opening speech, it was possible to get the impression that the list did not intend to surrender to this anti-democratic dictat of the Knesset, and although it would adopt the principle of a Jewish state, it would give this a historical interpretation, as the achievement of the UN resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish state and an Arab state in Palestine.

However, the formulation presented for the conference's decision represents a total surrender to the racist and anti¬democratic law adopted by the Knesset with a huge majority: not just Israel as a Jewish state, but as the state of the Jewish people, wherever they are. This is a serious retreat from the positions of the Progressive List, and it is no surprise that the proposal faced fierce opposition from many delegates, Jews and Arabs alike. The new position adopted by the conference is particularly unfortunate in the light of the former position of the List, which was distinguished by its stubborn support for the principle of equality and democracy, for the existence of the state of Israel as the state of its citizens, Jews and Arabs. The original platform of the Progressive List for Peace emphasised the need to work for true democracy and equality among all the inhabitants of the state; in contrast to the other left parties, which focussed on various strange diplomatic solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Progressive List for Peace stressed the need for a total change in the patterns of government and society in order to transform the state within the borders of 4 June 1967 into a democratic state.

This surrender to the dictat of the racist parties in the Knesset held up to scorn and mockery the democratic pretensions of the Progressive List for Peace, and the praises bestowed by right-wing Labour commentator Dan Margalit on the restrained and realistic formulations in the new political document should worry the movement's activists. In its conference, the Progressive List has thrown into the dustbin the progressive 'something' which it contributed to the left in the Knesset.

Michel Warshawsky, Matzpen 168, June 1988. English translation in News From Within Vol IV No 8, 2 August 1988.

You don't have to agree with Warshawsky's position, in order to recognise that, as he argues, the electoral law did indeed prevent the PLP from standing in the election on a platform of Israel as the state of its citizens, and obliged it to accept the Zionist position of Israel as "the state of the Jewish people". RolandR 22:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Roland. Hi Isarig. Re:Isarig: I gave you three sources, not one. The first begins with the second appeal and thus leaves the reader unaware that the CEC in fact disqualified the party originally. The second [21] begins at the beginning of the story and says clearly, “In this case the Central Elections Committee disqualified two party lists from participating in the elections to the 11th Knesset. One list was the "Progressive List for Peace" (PLP) a joint Palestinian Arab-Jewish list, which was disqualified by the Elections Committee on the ground that it contained within it so called "subversive elements which conducted themselves in a manner that identified with the enemies of the State."[358] The third source I provided you with, again speaks only of the second appeal, and like the first leaves the reader unfamiliar with events to believe the CEC in fact approved the party originally. But both you and I know better than that. As RolandC has pointed out as well (excellent research and thanks for the translation too!) the fact is that my original formulation was more accurate and in fact downplayed the significance of what happened. Accordingly, I propose we include RolandC’s new findings alongside the second source I provided you with and construct a paragraph that better accords with reality. Respect. Tiamut 23:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you are misreading what the second source [[22] says. The sentence you quoted refers to the 1984 elections, prior to the amendment we are discussing, and irrelevant to the issue because the PLP was disqualified (intially, this decision was then reversed) on grounds that it was subversive and alllied with enemies of the state, not because it called for a "state of all its citizens" or for equal rights. With regards to the 1988 elections, it says "The Elections Committee rejected the request to disqualify the party from participating in the upcoming elections". I am beginning to question whether my personal recollection (that the PLP was disqualifed in 1988, then re-instated) is in fact correct. Perhaps I , too, had been conflating the event of 1984 with those of 1988. So no, your original formulation was wrong and confusing, combining elements of the 1984 decision (prior to the amendment that speaks of the 'denial of the Jewish character') with the results of the 1988 decision. If you want to add a new, seperate paragraph, describing the events of 1984, and making it clear that the PLP was initially disqualified becuase it was judged to be allied with enemies of the state and workign to suvert its existance, but then that decision was overruled and it was allowed to run, that's fine. Isarig 23:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Isarig's interpretation is simply not borne out by the facts, nor by my own memory of developments in 1988. I've just found another account of the nature of the Elections Law and the decision to allow the PLP to run for election in 1988, from what must surely be considered an irreproachable source: an Israeli government website. On its Citizenship Education pages, the Education Ministry publishes -- and thus presumably approves for educational use -- an essay by Professor Samy Smooha on Community and National Rifts in Israeli Democracy. Smooha writes (my own rapid translation):

The Arab opposition to the positions of the Jewish majority on the issues of Zionism and Palestinian nationalism is considered not merely illegitimate but even, to some extent, illegal. Although the law does not ban public opposition to Zionism, a party denying the definition of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people cannot run for election to the Knesset. Until 1985, the Arabs benefited from unclarity in the relevant legislation, but the legal loophole was closed with an amendment to the Elections Law approved by the Knesset on 31 July 1985. According to this amendment, the Central Elections Committee will not authorise the participation in Knesset elections of a party inciting racism, opposing democracy, or opposing the definition of Israel as the state of the Jewish people. The provision that Israel is the state of the Jewish people, and not the state of all its citizens (Jews and Arabs) accords to the Arabs of Israel a status of outsiders, who in effect do not belong to the state in which they are citizens and permanent residents. In addition, this amendment to the law changes the Jewish-Zionist character of the state to an explicit and accomplished legal fact, which cannot be challenged. The basic democratic right not to agree with majority opinion is thus clearly limited in Israel: there is no right to attempt to change the character of the state through democratic parliamentary means. This limitation is an extension of the more understandable ban on opposing the territorial and political integrity of the state (the Supreme Court in considering this matter interpreted sweepingly the clause obliging recognition of Israel as the state of the Jewish people, but by a 3:2 majority approved the participation of the Progressive List for Peace in the elections because of factual doubts).

These "factual doubts" arose from an interview in the weekly magazine Koteret Rashit by the party's Knesset secretary, and number five on their list, Haim Hanegbi, a founder of Matzpen. Hanegbi stated that "the inevitable condition for real peace is renunciation of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people. . . only then will there be no problem with the Jewish existence in the region. The Zionist factor will wither away. . . once and for all we have to understand that there isn't, and will not be, a separate existence for Jews in the Arab East".(Translated in The Other Front, Issue no 08, 24 October 1988). The court only approved the PLP's participation after accepting the argument that Hanegbi's views were a personal statement, and not the party's own position. It is clear that, had the PLP remained true to its original (and possibly continuing) positions, it would have endorsed Hanegbi's statement, and thus forfeited its right to stand for election. As Smooha writes, "there is no right to attempt to change the character of the state through democratic parliamentary means". This is the underlying issue, which Isarig and others are attempting to obscure through quibbles. They are entitled to justify this, to condemn this, or even to ignore it; but not to deny it -- unless they can produce a source that disproves the statement. RolandR 14:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are confused, or are trying to confuse others, as to what is an "interpretation", and who is doing the "interpreting" here. I have done no interpretation whatsoever- I listed several facts, which are undisputed by you or Tiamut: (1) The ICEC allowed the PLP to run in 1988. (2) the ICEC decision was appealed to the Israeli SC, attempting to uses ammendment 7(a) (3) The SC upheld the ICEC decision, ruling that 7(a) is not applicable (4) the PLP subsequentlt ran in the elections. The various interpretations were intorduced here first by Tiamut, and no wby you. For example, Tiamut's interpretation of 7(a) is that a party calling for Israel to be a "state of all its citizens" ir to provide equal rights to all its citzens woudl be disqualified. This is not text found in 7(a), and is thus an interpretation (and a false one at that, as the PLP's platform in 1988 explictly called for Israel as a "state of all its citizens" - and was allowed to run. Your interpretation, is that the provision that saying that Israel is the state of the Jewish people means it is not the state of all its citizens (Jews and Arabs) - but again this is an interpretation that does not appear in the text of 7(a). You further allege that "the court only approved the PLP's participation after accepting the argument that Hanegbi's views were a personal statement, and not the party's own position." - but that is not found in the actual court decision. And finaly, on the burden of prrof - you again have it reversed. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof . You are the one making such claims - that despite the fact that the PLP was allowed to run, in 1988 and in every subsequent elections, while explictly calling in its platform for Israel to be a state of all its citizens, that 7(a) allows disqualification based on such call. You need to show a source that proves this, I don't have to disprove an allegation which flies in the face of reality. Isarig 14:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is Isarig, that you are willing to recognize the facts that cleave with your view of Israel as a democratic nation, and consign to interpretation the facts that contradict that view. The articles I cited clearly stated that the Supreme Court ruling regarded the case of the PLP only and that the Court retained the right to disqualify other parties in the future on the basis of section 7(a). RolandR's contribution (note: research and translation to which credit should be given for the time that takes, the latter also being a reputable governmental source from the curriculum of the Ministry of Education) also helpfully pointed out that the PLP changed their platform to include recognition of Israel as a Jewish state in order to avoid being disqualified under the amendment and that no party can run in Israel if it is does not recognize Israel as a Jewish state. I recalll when this entire debate first started, after my very first edit introducing the subject, you claimed that no party had ever been disqualified for calling for equality for all citizens. That was when I found the PLP case and provided you the information. Since then, I have found a disqualification of Bishara and his party in 2002-2003. That makes (at least) two parties so far disqualified under that amendment. (The Land Movement was also prevented from registering a party as well). Source after source we have provided you with, including Israeli government sources, note that a party must recognize that Israel is a Jewish state to run for elections. Indeed, that is exactly what the law says as presented on Israel's own website covering the Basic Laws. And yet you keep denying that this is the case, holding that simply because the court ruled the PLP could run, that this is an interpretation. Initally, you tried to obscure the fact that the PLP was in fact disqualified by the Israeli Central Elections Committee, then you tried to ignore the fact that they changed their party platform, stating that this was in 1984 (with no source to prove it), when the article translated by RolandR says it was in 1988, the same year the Court was deciding whether or not to overrule the CEC decision. This stubborn repudiation of the facts that you do not like is very unfair. I spent hours of time researching this subject and providing you sources and working on alternate formulations only to be reverted time and time again, as though my work is irreparably flawed. RolandR has generously stepped in to point out that my edits are in fact correct, and if anything underplay the seriousness of the matter. Why don't you try editing, including sources that support your position to balance off any errors or things you view as POV in my edits, instead of reverting? It might be a nice change for once. No? Tiamut 20:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This debate is not about me or my opinions, but on what is acceptable in an encyclopedia, and what constitutes OR. Kindly keep your assumptions about me and my motivations out of this. The question we are debating is NOT whether parties can be disqualifed under 7(a). Amendment 7(a) is part of Israeli law regarding elections, so of course parties can be disqualified under it. We are contesting a different claim - which is "can a party which calls for equallity among Israel's citizens, or for Israel to be a 'state of all its citizens' be disqualified under 7(a)". Your interpretation (and note that this is an interpretation, not found in the text of 7(a)) is that recognizing that Israel is a Jewish state is not compatible with calls for equality among Israel's citizens, or for Israel to be a 'state of all its citizens'. I disagree with that, and so did both the ICEC and the Israeli supreme court, because they allowed the PLP to run despite the fact that its platform explictly called for Israel to be a state of all its citizens. So, stating your interpretation as fact in the article will not fly. If you want to state in the article that parties can be disqualified on the basis of 7(a) - go right ahead. That is factual. If you want to be more detailed and say that parties can be disqualified if they don't recognize Israel as a Jewish state- that's ok too, as that's what in the law. But if you want to include your interpretation that calling for equality among citizens is a violation of 7(a) - that's where you cross the line taht seperates fact from POV, and I will revert that. Now to the specific claims you've made above: I dod not attempt to hide anythigng - in fact I pointed out to you that the source you provided says the PLP was not disqualified, though I thought that is an error. I now think it is not an error, and in fact the PLP was not disqualified in 1988 at all. Bishara was not disqualifed under 7(a), but rather for calling for armed struggle against the Israeli state, and this disqualification was overturned by the Supreme COurt. Al Ard was disqualified back in 1965, so clearly not under 7(a) and not for callign for equality anmong all citizens. I have not denied even once that a party must recognize that Israel is a Jewish state to run for elections - that is a Red Herring, again. I have denied that calling for equality among citizens is tanatmount to not recognizing Israel as a Jewish state - and the ICEC and SC agree with me. That the PLP was disqualified in 1984 (again, prior to 7(a)) is directly supported by the source you provided - take the time to read it. The article Roland provided says the platform changed between 1984 (when it wwas first disqualifed, then allowe dto run) and 1988 - but does not sya it was disqualifed in 1988 (again read the aritcle). The last 2 of these claims by you make it very hard for me to WP:AGF with regards to your here. Isarig 20:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As was realised somewhere in the middle of the above confusing discussion, there were two CEC decisions and two SC decisions regarding the "Progressive List for Peace". One was before the 1984 election, when the CEC barred it from running and the SC overruled that decision. The other was before the 1988 election, when the CEC allowed it to run, someone challeged that decision before the SC, and the SC rejected the challenge. The judgment of the first SC case is online in English [23] (PDF, 128 pages). It contains a lot of useful information about earlier cases that could be mined for this article. The second court case (EA 1/88, Neiman et al. v. The Chairman of the Central Elections Committee for the Twelfth Knesset, P.D. 42(4) 177) is not online in English; someone please check if it is there in Hebrew. --Zero^talk 12:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Civil Rights vs. Le'om rights

You are presenting allegations by partisan sources as if they were fact. It is not a fact that there are any rights based on nationality -those are allegations by Phyllis Bennis in Centre for Research on Globalisation and by Roselle Tekiner in WRMEA. Both of these are very clearly pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli sources. (Just look at today's "news" stories on both sites "Israel used chemical weapons in Lebanon and Gaza"; "Balance Kills: Media, Good Will, and Israeli Oppression in Palestine" "UNIFIL only protects Israel" 'Israel’s Plan for a Military Strike on Iran"; "Te Real Reason for Israel's Wars on Gaza and Lebanon"; "In Context: Israel's Assault on Gaza and Lebanon "; " Is Israel Using Arab Villages in Northern Israel as Human aShields?—"). It is ok to present such allegations (though the sources you are using are of questionable reliability) - so long as we label them as such. You have also twice used the incorrect transliteration "Le'um", when the correct one is "Le'om" (which, incidently, shows how much credibiltiy we can put on the claims made by those making these arguemnts - they don't even get the basic terminology right). Using the qualifier "reportedly" in front of the Israeli position is just a childish game. Everything we write here is (or at least should) be based on secondary sources, hence every single claim made on a WP page could be prefaced with "reportedly". Let's not do that. Isarig 23:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Isarig, I am going to please ask you not to make personal attacks when you address my concerns. Calling my edits a "childish game" and talking down to me go against the spirit of WP:Civility. That aside, let me address your core objections.

First off, the "le'um" transliteration is used by many Jewish and Israeli sources, as is the "le'om". See for example, The Definitive Source for Talmudic Learning [24], and Tal G. in Jerusalem [25]. It's a matter of tranlisteration style, and not ignorance as you have claimed. I won't object to the "le'om" formulation unnecessarily however. If you like that transliteration better, so be it. I used "le'um" because it appeared that way in the source cited.

Second, I used "reportedly" because there is no source for your claim that the Israeli government has responded to these "allegations". I placed a "citation needed" notation there and you deleted it repeatedly, rather than respecting the fact that I was looking for a source. (When you have asked me to provide sources I have, only to have you use them in ways I think are totally inappropriate as I have outlined above.) I am not against removing "reportedly", but please provide me with citation that proves the Israeli government has responded.

Finally, as regards the perceived bias of the sources, I am very much against calling these sources "pro-Palestinian". Phyllis Bennis is Jewish, and both she and the Centre for Research on Globalisation do not identify themselves as "pro-Palestinian". That is speculation on your part. Please find a more accurate adjective or remove that allegation. You cannot simply surmise that to be the case by reviewing the titles of headline articles at the website cited. I could just as easily counter that they should be described as "pro-social justice", or any number of other labels, that accord with my POV. Without a source, or a clear statement from either the person or the organization on the matter, adding such labels is original research and POV pushing. Can you relate to anything I am saying? Can we begin to move towards consensus of some kind on something? Thanks. Tiamut 01:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I have attacked you personally. It has long been held on WP that while saying "you are childish" is a personal attack, saying "this edit is childish" is not. But in any case I did not mean to attack you, and if I offended you I apologize. To the matter at hand: If all you meant by "reportedly" was a lack of citation (for which {{cn}} would have been enough) , fine, I will add a citation shortly. I think it borders on the pedantic to require cites showing that a governement claims it provides equall rights, but very well. To the issue of le'om: if you want your arguments to be taken seriously, you're going to have to do better than anonymous poster "Tal G", posting on an internet forum. The word is spelled with a holam , which is pronounced "o". (see [26]). You can produce a dozen more web sites on which it is mis-transliterated, and that won't change fact that in Hebrew it is written with a holam and pronounced "Le'om". Finally, on the bias of sources: Let me begin by saying that even if you seriously believe they are non-partisan, you are still stating allegations by a couple of hand-picked sources as if they were fact, and should not be reverting my restatment of those allegations as such. But in addition: Bennis being Jewish is an irrelevant Red Herring. There are obviously pro-Palestinian Jews, and anti-Israeli Jews. I note you are not very much against describing CAMERA as a pro-Israeli advocacy group, though they describe themselves in similar non-Partisan language. I think it is pretty obvious that both the sources and the individuals are biased as I claimed. Bennis, for example, is an activist for the "U.S. Campaign to End Israeli Occupation." - clearly a pro-Palestinian group. She is also an activist for "United for Peace" - yet another pro-Palestinian group that defines one of its goals as fighting against what it described as the "illegal" Israeli occupation. And should you have any remaining doubts, she is decribed by the Jerusalem fund (another pro-palestinian organization, which describes itself as such) as a 'palestinian sympathizer'[27]. WRMEA is no different. Despite using neutral language to describe its goals (the same way the CAMERA describes itself), it is the sponsor of an ad campaign "calling for the Palestinian refugees' right to return and the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the occupied territories"; it sponsors the 'Palestinian Arts and Crafts Trust - "educating the public about the rich traditional Palestinians Heritage"; it supports two dozen Palestinian charities, amongst them "Addameer—Prisoners’ Rights and Support Group" which supports Palestinian political prisoners through visits, aid, advocacy and the media; The editorial content I listed earleir speaks for itself, but again, lest there remain any doubt in your mind, WRMEA has been described by the neutral Middle-East Realities as "creature[s] of the Arab establishment ...founded by substantial monies coming directly from the royal families and friends of those in power in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States". MER itself is an organization that gets enthusiastic support from pro-Palestinian supporter Tanya Reinhart. To claim that either of these sources is not pro-palestinian is ludicrous. Isarig 04:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a ridiculous notion that many rights are denied by the government to non-Jews based on nationality (leom, not leum - those 'sources' should take a Hebrew lesson). There was a common problem in the past where an employer wouldn't accept non-Jews (this probably affected Russian Christians more than Israeli Arabs anyway), this is one reason the government changed the ID cards so that it doesn't show nationality anymore, and your employer is not allowed to ask for your nationality either (a nationality-based decision to hire/not hire is equivalent to racism). It is true that you can tell who is a Jew by seeing whether their birthdate is also written with the Hebrew calendar, but in this case you cannot know who is an Arab, therefore this cannot possibly be considered anti-Arab discrimination (pro-Jewish?) as it affects other workers (notably Russian Christians). Moreover, it's not government-sponsored discrimination, considering the government has taken steps to curtail it by removing the nationality clause. Phyllis Bennis claims that there are at least 20 laws based on nationality, which is decided based on religion, but not only is that misleading (nationality is only decided based on religion if you made an orthodox conversion to Judaism, otherwise it is based on your parents' nationality and so on), he also says completely false things when elaborating on this discrimination, claiming that 93% of Israeli land can only be leased for Jews, which is incorrect. (I think it can only be privately owned by Jews, but almost none of the land in Israel is privately owned anyway). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This "ridiculous notion" is repeated by the Jewish Agency for Israel [28] who describe how citizenship rights differ from nationality (le'um/le'om) rights (which they translate as "ethnic community" while noting that the actual definition is closer to "nationality" but because of the similarity in meaning between citizenship and nationality in English, they choose the term "ethnic community instead". This is not a radical fringe opinion, it forms part of the essence of Israel's identity as a Jewish state, and something that is a matter of pride for most of its Jewish citizens. I am going to work on a formulation that includes such sources alongside the ones I have provided earlier. Tiamut 01:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent whatthat source says. While it distinguishes between the concepts of citizenship (which it says is the western concept of natioaality) and le'om,which is ethnic community", it does not say that in Isreal there are civil rights based on "Le'om" Isarig 04:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny you should post that link, having just read what I said about nationality on ID cards. The policy was considered racist and removed. It's no wonder that it says on that page: by Barbara Weill, WZO, Jerusalem, 1987, revised 1997 . Yes, 1997. Time to update. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Also it's interesting that the page lists religions as 'ethnic communities' even though there were actual nationalities (le'om, which is what WZO is talking about!) written on ID cards, for example, my father, who was not Jewish, had Rusi (Russian) written on his ID card. I know that it said Druze for Druze, but AFAIK there were Arabs for whom it said 'Arab', not Muslim or whatever. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Kafr Qasim massacre

I think it should be mentioned in the article that the education minister Yuli Tamir recently ordered that all Jewish schools have lessons about the Kafr Qasim massacre in light of its anniversary on October 29. I'll try to find a news link, read it in a metro newspaper (Israeli) myself. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That sounds interesting and relevant. The article as it stands doesn't seem to have any material on the massacre, though. Presumably that would need to be included too! Palmiro | Talk 00:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

POV

it's impossible to start the history as "in the aftermath of the war" without properly explaining that those arab citizens supported the invasion and declared intention of policide/genocide of all Jews, and so were a part of the enemy. Amoruso 22:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If you have sources that express that opinion, feel free to include them, properly referenced and attributed. Tiamut 11:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Do we really have to go over all the territory of the Palestinian exodus article again here, though? Surely a brief reference to the expulsion of the Palestinians, referring the reader to that article for the detail, should be enough.

I'm surprised Amoruso objects to the current version, given that a more anodyne account of what happened in 1947-49 could hardly be imagined. Palmiro | Talk 12:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point Palmiro. I would prefer that we link to the Palestinian Exodus article and hash out differences on the point raised by Amoruso there. My note to him was simply a reminder that that POV could be included if well-sourced and appropriately attributed. Tiamut 14:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The pov can be included if referenced of course but it's still POV. The section lacks the background and implies that Arabs suffered terribly for no fault of their own, which is a POV. Amoruso 14:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

your addition tiamut was both POV and non wp:rs and shall be removed. Also, your reversion of the section about arabs killed to malformed titles is very grave. Amoruso 21:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

POV:indigenous minority

(First time here) I think this paragraph should be changed or deleted, it's POV:

Like other indigenous minority populations elsewhere in the world, the relationship of Arab citizens to the State of Israel is often fraught with tension. The attitudes of Arab citizens of Israel toward Israel range from deep resentment to pure loyalty.

As regards the first of the two sentences, I disagree. It's an important point further elucidated in this study [29] by Ismail Abu Saad at Ben Gurion University in the Negev. I will add the source so that it does not seem like WP:OR to passersby. The second sentence, I'm neutral about. I would prefer a citation for it though, so I will add a . (By the way, this is my note from a few days ago. Tiamut 03:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

Editing bug in article?

There seems to be a bug somewhere. Clicking on the Edit link for sections of the article actually takes you to the next section, rather than the one where it appears. I don't know how to fix this -- perhaps someone with more experience can fix it, and also let me know ho so that I could do this in future. RolandR 17:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi RolandR! I think I managed to fix the coding error by going through the template layout and references in the first quarter of the article. The problem may have been that the Template:Palestinians was placed beside a sub-heading, rather than under it (by me, I think, sorry). So I moved it under and it seems to be okay now, though I didn't check further down. Let me know if it's still a problem. Tiamut 16:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"Jewish Citizens Killed in Violent Acts by Individual Arab Citizens"

The examples listed here simply does not match the headline. Either the headline must be changed, or almost all the examples must be cut out. Regards, Huldra 18:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I edited it a bit for language and removed info on attacks that were allegedly planned but did not happen. If people insist on retaining that info (which is I believe irrelevant), similar info on attacks allegedly planned by Jews against Arabs should also be included. I think though, that it would be best not to go there. Tiamut 03:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Section headings

The two events listed under "Arab Citizens Killed by Israeli Security Forces during riots " are Land Day , and October 2000 riots (Israel). The latter is explictly a riot, as indicated by the title, and the former says, in its intro paragraph "The demonstrations were peaceful at first but then turned to violent riots as roads were blocked, and stones and Molotov cocktails were thrown. ". There no need to hide the fact that these were riots. Isarig 22:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The article cited as evidence for the Land Day violence is in Hebrew and contradicts all other sources cited who make no mention of violence of any kind on the part of the demonstrators. The Jerusalem Post source cited there (not in the external links but in the body of the article) clearly states the demonstrators were unarmed. Until this contradiction is resolved, the heading should not read this way. Tiamut 02:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have decided to remerge the two headings into one. Considering that police and the IDF were involved in the Land Day killings, the distinction is artifical and they were obviously separated just so as to make POV edits to the sub-headings, including words like "violent" and then "riots". Tiamut 02:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

al-Mawasi massacre

Isarig, please provide a source for your assertion. According to this site, [30], Arabs were granted citizenship in 1948. Now it is possible, that this was done retroactively and that Temporary Residence Permits were used before that. That would render your objection semantics however, since had these individuals not been massacred, they would have been granted citizenship. I am not against palcing a footnote explaining this distinction, if you find a source that outlines it. Tiamut 17:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Your source is wrong. See [31] - the natioanlity law was only passed in 1952. Including this incident is problematic: It is a case of people killed during a war, when nationality was not yet established. If we include this, we would then be obligated to included the hundreds of non-combatant Jews killed by Arab irregulars from May 1948 on. Do you really want to go there? The claim that these individuals would have been granted citizenship is specious - we don't know if they would have remained in what became Israel, or if they would have fled and became non-citizens. Isarig 19:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If you're taking this point of view, then be consistent and remove eg "On September 22, 1948, Arabs from Latrun attacked a Jerusalem bound convoy killing three Jews and wounding several others".

PalestineRemembered 12:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I will be happy to take out the Latrun claim once you agree that the al-mawassi example should be removed. Isarig 16:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys. What I've done instead is place a footnote to the first mention of "Arab citizens" that explains that there were no Israeli citizens until 1952 and that any events mentioned before that time that refer to "citizens" should be read with that point in mind. I therefore reincluded the massacre. Cool? Tiamut 12:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

(I'm not commenting on the al-Mawasi massacre, per se.) It is quite a surprise to read Isarig's discovery, a 1953 claim by US-Israeli lawyer Haim Margalit that there were no Israeli citizens until 1952. This is very much a minority opinion, and I don't remember ever seeing it before. Most people would say that there were citizens since the moment of independence. The first explicit compilation of persons who were called "citizens" by the government was made in a census of Nov 8, 1948. This included certain Arabs (in fact a primary purpose of the census was to establish which Arabs were resident in their own villages so as to exclude others from citizenship). See Anat Leibler and Daniel Breslau, The uncounted: Citizenship and exclusion in the Israeli census of 1948, Ethnic and Racial Studies Vol. 28 No. 5 September 2005 pp. 880-902. In addition, both the Knesset and the High Court referred to "citizens" of the state long before the Nationality Law. See www.court.gov.il for examples of the latter. --Zero^talk 13:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are missing my point. I don't mean to enter into a lengthy debate over the exact legal status of the residents of Palestine in the period May 14 1948 - July 14, 1952 .[Though I note that what you dismissively refer to as "a minority opinion" and "a 1953 claim by US-Israeli lawyer" was in fact published in a peer reviewed Academic journal (the American Journal of Comparative Law), by an academic expert in the field.] the point I'm making is that to claim that the Bedouins killed at al-Mawasi constitute a case of Israeli Arab citizens killed by Israeli security forces rests on very specious grounds- apparently we must consider every resident of the entire territory of the former British Mandate of Palestine as an "Israeli citizen". Surely you see the problematic nature of such a claim, and my recent additions to the article , which rest on such a premise, illustrate the problem. Isarig 16:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The footnote is designed to make explicit that there were technically no Israeli citizens before 1952. This is, in fact, true, since Israel stalled in formulating the Nationality Law precisely because it wanted to find ways to lessen the nubmer of Arabs given citizenship, as Zero points out. Perhaps, we should actually write up a whole section on the citizenship issue, using the sources cited here, in addition to others. It would be a vaulable inclusion to an encyclopedic article on Arab citizens of Israel, particularly since this period of Israel's history is often glossed over. I recall reading about the use of TRP (temporary residency permits) before the issuing of citizenship. All of this can be included in a section between the 1948 war and martial law. Anyone up to the task? Or shall I do it? Tiamut 18:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Having researched this issue somewhat, I can report that there are two opinions on it. One holds that until the Nationality Law, Israel had no citizens are all. The other holds that Israel had citizens from the moment of its independence even if it took a few years before there was a precise definition of who those citzens were. An example of the first opinion is the 1953 article mentioned above. I found one other legal source agreeing with that. An example of the second opinion is I. Brownlie, The relations of nationality in public international law, British Year Book of International Law, vol 39, 1963, 284-364. Brownlie says "From the point of view of international law new States must possess nationals ab initio". Then he gives Israel as an example (of several) and quotes an Israeli court in 1952 prior to the Nationality Law: "Any other view must lead to the absurd result of a State without nationals--a phenomenon the existence of which has not yet been observed". But the same court appeared to give the opposite opinion in a different case. In summary, the correct way to report this is as a point of disagreement. --Zero^talk 14:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

One more point that somehow slipped through. The 1952 Nationality Law was retrospective. The relevant part states (Section 3(a), my emphasis): "A person who, immediately before the establishment of the State, was a Palestinian citizen and who does not become an Israeli national under section 2, shall become an Israeli national with effect from the day of the establishment of the State if- ...". So even though there was legal uncertainty until the law was passed, the law removed the uncertainty. --Zero^talk 22:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It removed the uncertainty, but only with regards to those who, in 1952, were alive and resided in those areas over which Israel held soveriegnity. It does not at all establish that everyone who was a a Palestinian citizen immediately before the establishment of the State of Israel is an Israeli citizen in 1952, and as it relates to the dispute in this article, does not establish that those Arabs killed at al-Mawasi are or were Israeli citizens. Isarig 23:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct, the law does not say anything about people who died before the 1952 law came into effect. Whether this has been clarified by court decisions since then, I don't know. (It simply is not plausible that an Israeli court would judge a resident Hagana member who died in the war as not having been a citizen, but maybe the question never came up.) I don't personally think that a list of 1948-9 massacres should be included in this article anyway. I think there should just be a one-liner, something like "For events that occured while the 1948 Arab-Israeli War was still in progress, see ...". Would you agree to that? --Zero^talk 23:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i think that's a fine solution. Isarig 00:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

Where is the discussion regarding the POV tag on Arab-Israeli War sub-section? --khello 21:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. It's under the "POV" sub-heading above. One editor seems to think the section is POV and placed the tag himself. However, he has done nothing to introduce new information or edits. Susequent changes I made to respond to his concerns were deemed even more POV by him. See if you have any better luck. Tiamut 17:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Found it! I think the subsection as a whole is fine, but I think the last sentence of the first paragraph can be "neutralized" a bit:

"The significant reduction in numbers, the tearing apart of families who found themselves on either side of the newly created borders, and the loss of lands and homes, even for some of those who managed to remain, is referred to by all Palestinians, including those who are now citizens of Israel, as “al-Nakba,” i.e., the Disaster."

How about simply saying something like:

"Consequently Palestinians, including those who are now Israeli citizens, refer to these [events] as Al-Nakba (the Disaster)."

I think this would be viewed as more NPOV (by whoever had a problem with the section) without removing any information, Since all these things listed here are mentioned in the lead-up to that sentence (razed villages etc...), and the Nakba article deals with this in more detail. Apart from that I see no reason to have the POV tag!

What do you reckon? --khello 03:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The East Jerusalem issue

The Jewish Citizens Killed by Ideologically-Motivated Arab Citizens paragraph raises a serious issue about the proper definition of an "Israeli Arab". Even though Israel annexed East Jerusalem to its territory (unilaterally), the Palestinian residents there didn't receive Israeli citizenship. They have a "blue ID", but they don't have Israeli passports, and cannot vote in the general elections. Their legal status in Israel is defined as "permanent resident", and they have close ties with the West Bank's population, much stronger than those of the Israeli Arabs.
Most terror attacks mentioned in the paragraph were carried out by Jerusalemite Palestinians who doesn't have Israeli citizenship. One cannot disregard this fact - it is very relevant.
The Israeli authorities usually publish data about permanent residents of Israel, i.e. citizens who actually live within its proclaimed borders, and non-citizens who are entitled to live within these borders permanently. These official figures obscure the difference between Jerusalemite Palestinians and Israeli Arabs. This is done for political reasons, and yet Wikipedia should emphasize this difference, as it is relevant to anyone who wishes to learn about the actual situation. drork 19:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to count random Arabs killed by the IDF in 1948, post May 15th, as "citizens", surely we can count these permanent residents who were offered citizenship but declined to accept for poilitcal reason in the same category. Isarig 22:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you totally miss the point. The final status of citizenship wasn't determined before the 1948 war (Israeli War of Independance) ended in mid-1949. The residents of Umm El Fahm, for example, couldn't know whether they would receive Israeli or Jordanian citizenship till the signing of the truce agreement (eventually it was an Israeli citizenship). The story of East Jerusalem is totally different, and it is the consequence of the Six Days War in June 1967. drork 22:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I get the point completely. My point is that if, despite the fact that the final status of citizenship wasn't determined until 1952 (not 1949, read previous discussions), we are calling random Arabs killed in 1948 "citizens", we can do the same for permanent residents who refused the citizenship offered them. Isarig 22:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This looks very much like a trivial (or even "recognised propaganda") argument that would have the result of wasting the time of and frustrating other editors. PalestineRemembered 17:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

well, i don't know much about this topic, so i won't try to assume anything, but i think it is important to note that Jerusalem isn't even recognized as the capital of Israel in the United States.(i disagree with this, but it was a diplomatic move, because Jews won't riot for not being recognized, but Muslims will riot for Jews being recognized) Perhaps the old city being part of what is considered disputed territory has something to do with it, but i like how theres less debate and more dialogue in this section than the others and wanted to give you guys a thumbs up : )

Jerusalem's status has nothing to do with the citizenship of its inhabitants. Isarig 23:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course it does. The Israeli law states that anyone who was a subject of Mandatory Palestine on May 14, 1948, and on July 14 1952 was registered as a permanent resident in a territory controlled by Israel, is entitled to Israeli citizenship. Jerusalemite from East Jerusalem is not entitled to citizenship according to that law. When Israel annexed East Jerusalem it gave a permanent residency status to non-citizens who dwelled in the annexed territory, but almost all of these people maintained their Jordanian citizenship, granted to them in 1949. When King Hussein of Jordan abandoned all Jordanian claims to the West Bank in 1988, their citizenship became obscure, but they are still not considered citizens of Israel. drork 04:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Jerusalem's status as the recognized capital of Israel has nothing to do with this. Yes, the East Jerusalemites did not become citizens under the 1952 act, and I did not claim they did. However, they were offered citizenship in 1967, but (most) elected instead for permanent residency. And, as I wrote, if we can consider as citizens, for the purposes of listing them as citizens killed by Israeli jews, random Arabs who lived in the mandate territories, surely we can consider, for the purpose of listing them as Arab citizens who killed non-Arab Israelis, those permanent residents living in areas annexed by Israel who were offered citizenship. Otherwise, it would be a curious double standard whose only purpose would seem to be to push a certain POV. Isarig 04:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

When we are talking about the Intifada (actually both Intifadas) or about the Israeli-Arab conflict as a whole, Jerusalemite Palestinians definitely have a different role than the Israeli Arabs. It is evident in many ways, including the relatively low rate of participation in terror attacks and riots among Israeli Arabs, in comparison to Jerusalemite Palestinians, and, needless to say, West Bank Palestinians. This is true especially for the time prior to October 2000, but even afterwards. For the sake of fairness, we should at least mentioned whom of the attackers or victims (depending on the case) was from East Jerusalem, and whom was from Green-Lined Israel. drork 05:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want to add that a specific attack was carried out by an East Jerusalemite, that's fine with me. Isarig 05:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the suicide bombing attacks listed that were not carried out by Arab citizens. As the text states in that section, there is only one suicide bombing that was carried out by an Arab citizen of Israel. Listing all those other suicide bombings misleads the reader into thinking that Arab citizens were the perpetrators of those attacks. East Jerusalem residents are not citizens. Claiming that they should be considered citizens because those Arabs that were living in Israel between May 1948 and July 1952 are considered citizens is not a valid argument. It's WP:POINT to include these other incidents on that basis. It's a completely different time in history and completely different situation. Trying to score propaganda points by listing a series of unrelated violent activities in this article to artificially enlarge Jewish casulaties at the hands of Arab citizens is unacceptable. That info can be included in an article on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not in this article. Tiamut 16:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you know that those East Jerusalemites were only residents and not citizens? Isarig 16:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately we have WP guidelines for this kind of thing - information in the encyclopedia needs to be verifiable. It's not for other editors to find evidence these things are untrue, it's for you to provide reliable sources that they are true. Otherwise it will look as if your contribution is aimed at wasting the time of and frustrating other editors who are acting properly to improve articles. PalestineRemembered 17:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you know that they are? Every single one of those incidents cited an article that made no mention of the perpetrator being an Arab citizen, a fact that would be very noteworthy. In addition, this book review in an August 2006 edition of the Washington Post notes that: "Of the hundreds of suicide bombers in Israel, only one, a worker from a Galilee village who blew himself up in the seaside town of Nahariya on Sept. 9, 2001, has been an Arab citizen of Israel" [32]. And this article in the Guardian in 2002, notes that: "Only one among the scores of recent suicide bombers was an Israeli Arab but many Israeli Arabs said yesterday that the state was beginning to treat them as a fifth column" [33]. As an Palestinian with Israeli citizenship, I also pay attention to these kinds of things, since there tends to be a backlash against us whenever there is a suicide bombing, and particularly so the one time that the suicide bomber was an Arab citizen of Israel. Finally, Isarig, it's up to you to prove that they are citizens, not up to me to prove a negative, which is harder, but which I have obliged you with in the sources above. Respect. Tiamut 16:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine. If you think this is a distinction with some relevance, I've changed the heading to read "citizens or permanent residents" Isarig 17:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not good enough Isarig. East Jersualem residents are not citizens. You can't just change the title to include permanent residents so as to list a bunch of unrelated suicide bombings. Israel does not recognize permanent residents of East Jerusalem to be citizens. You cannot just include them here because it is convenient for your POV to enlarge the number of attacks against Israel. If you do, we have to cinlude a whole section dealing with East Jerusalem residents rather than the one or two sentences that refer to their differentiated status. Plus, the sources you provided do not mention that East Jerusalem residents carried out those attacks. You are not proving the merit for inclusion, just trying to mnake square pegs fit into round holes to suit your POV. Tiamut 17:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to yoru POV, but I disagree. Israel offered these people citizenship, and they (for the most part) declined, opting for PR status instead. I don't think the status difference between a PR You seem to think that this choice has some meaningful differnce when it comes to evaluating their actions, so I have made allowence for this, and named them permanent residents rateh rthan citizens. Attenmpt to now remove this is POV censorship. I note that when it was convenient for your POV to include random Arabs killed between May 1948 to 1949 , whose citizenship was far from clear, you chose to obfuscate their actual legal status. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and you do not like it, even though I explictly told you this would be the outcome of playing fast and loose with the defintions. We can either agree to remove both this AND the random arabs killed in 1948-1949, or keep both. Isarig 18:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

One more thing Isarig ... have you even bothered to check the articles sourced for each of those attacks? They are the same three articles for over 40 attacks! and there is no mention of the identity of the bombers as either citizens or even East Jerusalem residents. Your repeated inclusion of this BS is POV pushing with a total disregard for the facts and it should end now. Tiamut 17:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

And finally, please stop reverting completely valid edits I made to the introduction that are unrelated to this issue by reverting to drork's version. If you insist on continuing to include this improperly sourced, irrelevant material, at the very least you could copy and paste it from an earlier version and reinsert it so as to avoid reverting to a version with factual errors regarding the annexation of Jerusalem, and spelling mistakes of the term Druze. I would hope however, that good faith and a little common sense might prevail over stubborn POV reverting edits. Tiamut 18:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

While the Israeli citizenship of Arabs within the Green Line is unquestionable and almost automatic according to the Israeli citizenship law, East Jerusalem residents should apply for citizenship and Israeli authorities can easily reject their application. Israeli law clearly distinct between Arabs within the Green Line who are citizens by default, and those in East Jerusalem who are non-citizens by default. drork 20:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Drork - I'm not sure of the point of that statement addressed to Tiamut. East Jerusalem residents are not (generally) citizens of Israel, and suffer really serious disadvantages as a result Ethnic Cleansing in Jerusalem, Israeli Style - By former Congressman Paul Findley (R-IL), chairman of the Council for the National Interest. 1997. Isarig claims they were all offered citizenship, but I think it's both necessary for him to "prove" that, and "prove" that this offer was meaningful. I think I could quickly find "evidence" that Israel has regularily made statements about it's treatment of non-citizens that were meaningless, the people were actually being cheated.

(It's not even clear that citizenship for Israeli Arabs means much, here's an account of the ethnic cleansing of Christian citizens of Israel March 14, 2005)

PalestineRemembered 17:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why you keep asking editors to "prove" to you what are generally well known facts. On the issue of citizenship being offered in 1967, here's a pro-Palestinian source: "After the annexation, Israel conducted a census in these areas, and granted permanent residency status to residents in the annexed areas present at the time the census was taken. Persons not present in the city for whatever reason forever lost their right to reside in Jerusalem. Permanent residents were permitted, if they wished and met certain conditions, to receive Israeli citizenship. These conditions included swearing allegiance to the State, proving that they are not citizens of any other country, and showing some knowledge of Hebrew. For political reasons, most of the residents did not request Israeli citizenship"[34] Isarig 17:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Isarig, you are purposefully conflating two entirely separate issues which leads me to believe that your edit is WP:POINT. The historical period between 1948 and 1952 when there were tehcnically no Israeli citizens is one issue that we settled by the inclusion of the footnote based on your source, indicating that for the purposes of this article Arab citizens and Jewish citizen will be used to refer to Jews and arabs that were in the area that became part of Israel before the passing of the Nationality Law which conferred citizenship. We agreed upon this definition after you objected to the inclusion of the al-Mawasi massacre and included the Latrun killings, again to make a point, which I let stand because I feel it is relevant to the article. I thought this issue was settled. Now you are reopneing the discussion of that issue by inserting these unrelated suicide bombings, the sources for which, I repeat, do not indicate that they were carried out by either Arab ctizens nor residents of East Jerusalem. The issue of permenant residents in East Jerusalem is mentioned only briefly in this article to distinguish between them and the subjects of this article which are Arab citizens of Israel, which East Jerusalem residents are not. You cannot change the sub-heading to include discussion of these permanent residents when they are not the subject of the article in order to list 40 suicide bombings that rely on three sourced articles, none of which mention the identity of the bombers. This information is totally irrelevant to this article and even to the section as titled or as you propose. I will not accept the linking of these two issues simply so you can score propaganda points. Nor would I accept the listing of the suicide bombings as is, even in an article on Palestinian-Israeli conflict which is where it belongs, since it is so poorly sourced. Respect. Tiamut 20:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

One historiographic point - East Jerusalem was annexed to Israel in 1967. The 1980 Basic law merely reaffirms the 1967 government order, and formally enhances it, making it a Basic law rather than an order, but the status of the territory remained the same. drork 20:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Clearing up several issues

Dear friends, I do wish you read the sources you bring carefully before jumping into conclusions, and making far reaching statements. I'll try to clarify some of the issues raised above:

1. Any permanent resident of Israel may apply for full citizenship, and may get one if he meets certain criteria mentioned in the Citizeship Law, e.g. knowing some Hebrew, waiving previous citizeship etc. Getting a permenant resident status in Israel is not an easy process. The East Jerusalem residents skipped this tedious process, and became permanent residents of Israel shortly after the annexation. Therefore, they could apply for Israeli full citizenship soon after the annexation, but this does not mean that anyone who applied actually got full citizenship. Furthermore, the criteria for citizenship are quite harsh, especially as most Jerusalemite Arabs wished to maintain their Jordanian citizenship (which was valid until 1988, when Jordan cut its relations with the West Bank). Just to make things clearer - a person of Jewish background who wishes to immigrate to Israel, is not required to meet these criteria to get full citizenship.
2. A permanent resident of Israel is entitled to all rights and must meet all demands like any full citizen, except the following: (1) using an Israeli passport (2) voting in the Israeli general elections (3) retaining the right to live and work in Israel when living and working abroad.
3. Israeli Arabs have full civil rights in Israel. They complain about tacit discrimination in several issues and about a few laws that imply priority to Jews in buying state lands. Personally, I find these claims valid, however no one can deny they have effective civil rights as citizens.
4. The so-called "ethnic cleansing" of Israeli Christian Arabs in Mghar in March 2005 was actually a conflict between Druze and Christian residents of the village which deteriorated into violant riots. The conflicat was over an allegation that Christian Arabs published photo-montage portraying Druze girls naked. For two weeks the entire Israeli society dealt with these alarming riots, and the Israeli police was heavily criticized for not doing enough to prevent it. However, this criticism was in the general context of enforcing law and order, and not in the sense that the police doesn't mind about Arab citizens. You might want to mention the October 2000 riots in which the police was criticized for using too much force when it comes to Arab citizens. Indeed this criticism led to a special investigation of the events, after the Arab MPs lobbied for it, and forced the government to conduct a special investigation. drork 21:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

New edits - explanations and justifications

1. Considering the controversy about the definition of Druz as Arabs, we'd better of say "Arab and Arabic speaking people that are not Jewish". The Druz may or may not be Arabs, but they definitely speak Arabic.
2. Some of the 150,000 Palestinian Arabs who became Israeli citizens in 1952 were refugees who managed to return to their homes before the borders closed. By the way, I wonder if we should write "Palestinian and Bedouin Arabs", as the Bedouins often distinguish themselves from the Palestinians.
3. "Occupied East Jerusalem" - let us do without the complicated discussion about the legal status of Jerusalem. Saying that East Jerusalem was unilaterlly annexed is quite enough in terms of supplying required information.
4. It is improtant to emphasize the special status of the Druze.
5. It is important to emphasize the special status of Jerusalemite Arabs.
6. The regard of Israeli Arabs as an indiginous minority is a theory or a claim. It is not a fact. It is very hard to determine which of the Arabs in Mandatory Palestine is an immigrant from other parts of the Middle East, or a descendant of such an immigrant, and which of them is actually indigenous. This way or another, the conflict between Israel and its Arab citizens cannot be said to be the mere result of a universal phenomenon of tension between indigenous people and newly established authorities. The main cause of tension is the Israeli Arab conflict. drork 05:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with these points except the last. It is not controversial amongst anthropologists that most Israeli Arabs have roots in Palestine from before the Zionists started arriving. It is only controversial as a public debate created by political activists. Your final sentence is obviously correct, but it leaves unanswered the question of what the root cause of the Israeli Arab conflict is. --Zero^talk 12:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Allegations on the account of a single research

A serious ethic problem turn this article into a propoganda rather than a serious account. The allegation raised here against Jewish and later Israeli authorities during the 1948 war are extremely grave (rape, labor camps), yet they rely on a single controversial account by Ilan Peppe. He is an Israeli professor alright, but that does not mean that he necessarily tells an accurate truth when he talks about alleged crimes committed by Israeli authorities. If Prof. Peppe cites declassified documents from 1948, why won't we cite the very documents, rather than his interpretation? Why do we need Peppe as a mediator if the documents are open to the public? In any case, we simply cannot have such serious allegations on the account of one research. drork 05:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Pappe is not important enough in relation to this issue to be named in the article. That's a mistake. It would also be a mistake to expand that section to include more sources. We already have an entire article Palestinian Exodus devoted to it that, needless to say, it is a constant battleground. I think we should reduce that section of the current to a brief neutral statement with a "see Palestinian Exodus for more information". --Zero^talk 11:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have to disagree. The section on history must include mention of al-Nakba as it pertains specifically to Arab citizens of Israel. Their experience is slightly different since they stayed behind, and the information there differs from that in the Palestinian exodus article. Additionally, Ilan Pappe is cited as the most recent, serious scholarly work attesting to the long-held notion of the destruction of over 400 villages, but his is not the only work to bear this out. Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim and other New Historians have all come to similar conclusions. It is essential to mention this progression in the view of events surrounding 1948. It is not controversial anymore, only to those with a strong Zionist POV. I would not be against including a strong Zionist POV source that attempts to debunk or counter this claim, but the information itself is defenitely relevant. Tiamut 15:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

When you say "rape" and "labor camps" you need strong evidence. much stronger than Peppe can supply. "Tokhnit Dalet" ("Plan D") of the Haganah states that Arab villages within the planned Jewish state borders that show resistance should be burnt down or blown up. That's quite cruel, but it is neither "rape" nor "labor camp", and sadly it is in line with the cruelty both sides showed during that war. Do you have any information from Benny Morris or Avi Shlaim about rape cases and labor camps? drork 20:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Benny Morris writes in this article [35]that, “Pillage was almost de rigueur, rape was not infrequent, the execution of prisoners of war was fairly routine during the months before May 1948 (the country was under British administration and the Haganah had no PoW camps), and small- and medium-scale massacres of Arabs occurred during April, May, July and October to November.” Chibli Mallat notes that Morris’ The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited," reveals that, “In addition to the killings, what emerges in months of ethnic cleansing is a persistent pattern of looting, and more disturbingly of rape. I could not keep track of the number of rapes documented in this book, but the sense of nausea is also overwhelming for their recurrence. Documentation of rape as a pattern appears as a particular addendum in the new edition of the book.” [36] Morris in this interview [37] notes he was surprised by the many cases of rape he uncovered. Note that Morris is also a Zionist. This is not a fringe POV, it's a statement of fact based on archival materials. I even read a Ha'aretz article about it recently, though I cannot find it. For the labor camps, I will get back to you with more shortly. Tiamut 21:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

On the issue of labor camps, bsides Israeli academic Ilan Pappe, Palestinian academic Salman Abu-Sitta notes that: “The international Red Cross visited the labor camps. Their report on 06 February 1949 (No. G59/I/GC), now released 50 years later and I have just obtained a copy of it, gives the following list: 1. Camp No. 791 in Ijlil, near Herzlia, 1991 prisoners, Israeli Commander Mosedale. 2. Camp 792 in Atlit, near Haifa, 1640 prisoners, Israeli Commander Weissbach. 3. Camp 793 in Sarafand, near Ramle, 1360 prisoners, Israeli Commander Rappaport. 4. Camp 794 in Tel Litvinsky, near Tel Aviv, 1310 prisoners, Israeli Commander Kossovsky. (Earlier reports indicate higher figures of prisoners). These were the camps visited by ICRC. There are other concentration camps not visited. It should be noted that the prisoners were treated much worse before they were moved to places where ICRC were allowed to visit.” [38] We can add all of these sources to the existing text and even find the original Red Cross report. I do not think omitting this information does the reader a service since it seems that information on these subjects (expulsion, destruction of villages, rape and labor camps) will increase rather than decrease in the years to come as more material becomes declassified and studied by courageous scholars of all persuasions. Tiamut 21:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The name Benny Moris is certainly not new to me. I know his background. When it comes to rape, numbers are crucial. Rape is sadly (and I repeat: sadly) a common habbit. During wars, in particular civil wars, it becomes even more frequent due to the atmosphere of chaos. The question is not whether rape events happened. I wouldn't be surprised to learn they did. The question is how many cases of rape happened, and how the official authorities dealt with these cases. Furthermore - it is crucial to know whether this kind of crimes persisted when order was restored. I am not sure you understand how delicate are the issues we are discussing here. We are talking about a cruel war between desperate peoples. On the one hand Jews whose families were massacred in Europe and wished to create a refuge to the survivors, versus Palestinian Arabs, on the other hand, who felt they are going to lose their homes. The sources you bring to establish your claims are very problematic. I read the passage in "Zokhrot" (aka "Tadhkurna") site. This site is very one-sided, and it doesn't hesitate to cite questionable sources. For example, the alleged massacre in Tantoura is not a fact of history, but merely a questionable testimony that cannot be proved. The dissertation based upon the Tantoura testimony was disqualified following a libel suit. Using this or similar sources to establish a claim about labor camps in unacceptable. As for the IRCRC report - I do not understand why you insist on interpreting the word "camp" as "a labor camp". POWs were taken on both sides and held in camps during the war. A POW camp would be my first guess as to the meaning of the word "camp" in an IRCRC report. drork 00:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, reading carefully the interview with Moris I found out he was talking about 12 cases of rape which happened before the state authorities were established in late May 1948. This is certainly a shameful evidence, yet it cannot be said to be a systematic approach towards Arab women, especially when considering the chaotic situation in which one authority was eliminated, while another was yet to be established. Moris also talks about 24 cases of massacres, i.e. mass unjust execution or arbitrary killing. I'm afraid this is hardly a surprise in a situation like that, and I'm not saying that to justify these acts. The fate of Jews who accidently got near Arab combatants was not any better. Benny Moris found out that Zionist Jews were not as pure as he thought. He reacts in shock because he is a Zionist and he was raised on the idea that Zionist and later Israeli soldiers are pure and righteous. I can relate to his feeling, but you are abusing his words when you portray the 1948 war as a vicious attack of Zionist criminal on a defenseless Palestinian population. The 1948 war was cruel. Wars are usually cruel. Don't try to take it any further. drork 01:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay then. If wars are usually cruel and terrible things happen, why can't these thing be mentioned in this article? Or are we supposed to gloss over the facts to avoid offending people by the cruelty of war? Interestingly, there are no documented cases of rape of Jewish women by Arab men, though as you admit yourself there are at least 12 such documented cases of Jewish men raping Arab women. These are just what can be proved, not the totality of rape cases at that time, and 12 is not one or two or three or four, but 12, which indicates something of a pattern. Also, I didn't read into those camps being labor camps. The personal testimonies of two people cited before the ICRC report indicate they were put to labor there. If we used your measure of evidence, and discounted ICRC reports, personal testimonies of survivors, and government archival documents, people would be able to deny the holocaust happened. It is simply unfair to hold Palestinians to a higher burden of proof than other people. This evidence should be included and if you have sources who deny that these events occurred or claim that they were negligible phenomena, then we can juxtapose those claims against these ones and let the reader decide. But I don't think we should remove perfectly legitimate, sourced scholarly work and personal testimonies, simply because you think it's unfair. I'm sure that the people who lived through those events feel that the unbelivably high burden of proof you are imposing is unfair too. Tiamut 08:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

1. This article is not about A-Nakba, but rather about the community known as Arabs citizens of Israe. The A-Nakba issue is merely a background here.
2. I admit to nothing, as I'm not on trial here. It is Benny Moris who mentions 12 cases of rape. Benny Moris work was about Jewish/Israeli violance towards Palestinians the '48 wars, so he didn't bother to mention cases of violance and rape committed by Arabs towards Jews or Jewish women. I wouldn't like to start looking for evidence about this issue, because this is not the subject of this article. Going back to Moris' account - 12 cases is definitely not something to rejoice at, but these statistics would not surprise any police investigator in times of peace, let alone during a civil war.
3. The testimonies about the alleged Tantoura massacre were questioned for many reasons. There are contradictions in the testimonies themselves, and there are doubts about the way they were transcribed. The Haganah veterans who were said to be the killers filed a liable suit, and Teddy Katz who collected these testimonies for his dissertation could not defend his claims before the court, and had to publish an apology to avoid ruling against him. You can find many documents in Hebrew and in English about this case in this link [39]. Naturally, Katz, Peppe and some Palestinian scholars insist these testimonies are true, and yet we cannot rely on them to establish facts about the 1948 war, as they were undermined by many other scholars.
4. Oral testimonies about the Holocaust are rarely considered a historical source. The facts and figures about the Holocaust are backed with authentic documents, usually those found in German archives. Testimonies of survivors are collected for cultural and social reasons. Historians are usually reluctant to use them unless backed with authentic written documents.
5. The account of the IRCRC official (in French) is very vague. Salman Abu Sitta writes in the "Zokhrot/Tadhkurna" site: "ICRC report of 11 November 1948 notes that the prisoners were treated just so 'd'obtenir d'eux un travail extrêmement utile à l'économie de l'Etat' - to obtain from them the most extreme hard work to enhance the economy of the State". First of all, he brings one fragment of sentence, which I cannot judge by context. Second, this account in French sounds strange to say the least. Couldn't the IRCRC official simply report that the prisoners were subject to hard labor? Why did he bothered to use the expression "extrêmement utile à l'économie de l'Etat"? Couldn't he simply state that the new Jewish State illegally abuses Arab prisoners by forcing them to work? Did the Israeli authorities threatened him? Could the new Israeli army reach Geneva and hurt him there? I suspect this citation is just the tip of a much more complicated iceberg. drork 09:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't think rape should be mentioned, and I argued that way (unsuccessfully) in other articles. In a war of this size, 12 rapes is a small number. That's nothing to be proud of, but it's true. I don't know enough about the labor camps to comment. The ICRC archives can be reached at archives.gva(AT)icrc.org. --Zero^talk 12:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

for some masochistic and/or procrastinatory reason i actually read all of this discussion ... i'd like to comment that i think the above quote from Salman Abu Sitta has crucially mistranslated the french quote. the correct translation is "to obtain from them work that is extremely useful to the economy of the state", whereas Abu Sitta has moved the "extremely" to get "most extreme hard work". Benwing 03:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

An important article

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/795055.html

"The figures show that Arab towns are reluctant to collect city taxes from their residents."

"determination on the part of city officials. Officials at the Israeli ministries charge the clannish nature of Arab society means the town leaders aren't taking steps that would be unpopular in their social circles, for instance, demanding their relatives pay tax. "

Zeq 04:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Spatial distribution

Please stop adding the false claim that no new Arab towns have been established - especially when this is followed by a POV-pushing rationalization why the 7 new towns that have been created "don't count". This creates a contradiction in the article. Isarig

The number of new Bedouin towns in the Neggev is negligible in comparison with the number of new Jewish villages, towns and cities. Some Jewish towns were built in the middle of Arab populated areas, and attempts made by Arabs to buy houses there were rejected, until the Israeli supreme court ruled that this rejection was illegal. The establishment of the new 7 towns came while dozens of existing Israeli Arab villages are unrecognized by the Israeli authorities, thus do not get proper state support. So, although I try to NPOVize so many problematic phrases in this article, in this case I must agree that 7 is not enough. drork 07:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to your personal POV that 7 is not enough, but this is an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia is about facts, not political desires. We can't have an article that falsely claims "no Arab towns were built", immediately followed by an admission that actually 7 were built, but that they shouldn't count, or that they are not enough. Isarig 15:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem, write the exact number, but don't forget to put it in the right context. By the way, putting things into context is the greatest weakness of this article. For example, technically speaking all many Arabs killed in the Israeli War of Independence from May 15th onwards are Israeli Arab citizens killed by Israeli security forces, but putting it this way is misleading. The fact that the state of Israel was declared did not change the fact that Jews and Arabs kept fighting and killing each other in the territory abandoned by the British. This situation changed only when truce was declared in 1949, and actually you can hold the Israeli authorities accountable for such cases only from this point onwards. You see, it is all a matter of context. drork 18:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on both points. I have put in the exact number, and it keeps gettign reverted. Isarig 19:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we also say that Israel evacuated/ethnically cleansed many towns (Yamit, Gush Katif, Homesh...) and all of them were Jewish ? Amoruso 04:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

as for arab citizens it's not only out of context it's wrong. The law was only created in 1950 and most arabs didn't become citizens until the law was amended again in 1952. that section should be removed as it's false. Amoruso 12:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again let's put the facts into their right context. Israel was established on May 14, 1948. The Israeli War of Independence began on November 30, 1947 as a civil war between Jews and Arabs in British Mandate Palestine, escalated into a regional war on May 15, 1948 and ended practically on January 1949 or formally on July 20, 1949 (when a truce was declared). The first Israeli general elections were held on January 1949. Some Arabs who lived within Israel's transitional borders voted in these elections, and 3 Arab MPs were elected. I suppose letting a person vote in the general elections implies that the state regard him as a citizen, even if the entire citizenship legal structure was not complete. Therefore, I suggest January 1949's elections as a milestone. I think it would be strange to talk about responsibility of the State of Israel towards its future Arab citizens before the war ended, as much as it would be strange to disregard this responsibility after it let these future citizens vote in the elections. drork 20:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

As I documented above, the 1952 Nationality Law granted citizenship retrospectively back to the beginning of the state. So the debate over who was a citizen before then is of theoretical interest but not of actual legal importance. --Zero^talk 23:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

On the "new Arab villages", some of them weren't new at all but were long-existing communities that were finally recognised. Example: Arab el-Naeem in the Galillee. It is also the case that the "new" communities in the Negev are a government attempt to gather the population of the much larger number (more than 40) of unrecognised villages. So rather than being an expansion of the number of Arab communities, they are part of a plan to drastically reduce the number. --Zero^talk 23:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No, that's wrong. They weren't citizens until 1950 and most of them (galilee) not until 1952. Sure it was retrospective but that doesn't change the mens rea of the state or the soldiers. It's a logical fault in legal issues. At the time of the actions, which is what's important, they weren't citizens. There was no expectation from the soldiers that these will one day become citizens or not - it was in the future and therefore they're not "accountable". Fact there was elections it's true but they still weren't citizens and this is what the article refers to. Amoruso 18:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Soldiers aren't suppose to kill civilians anyway. However, the 1948 war was, to some extent, a civil war, where the "boundary" between a civilian and a soldier remained unclear, at least in what concerns the internal fightings between Jews and Palestinians.
2. A person who votes in the general elections can be considered a citizens, even if he is listed otherwise. I cannot think of a more profound civic privilege. In any case, the fact that the Israeli authorities let Arabs participate in the January 1949's elections show that their status as citizens was decided, even if the actual citizenship law was yet to be formulated. drork 04:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

all the events in the article in question were in 1948. Amoruso 04:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Citizens Killed by Ideologically-Motivated Israeli Arab Citizens

The last four cases in this section aren't examples of Jewish citizens being killed! Perhaps theses cases should go under some section that deals with treason. But if they're are no Jewish citizens killed, a case cannot be placed under this classification. Also, for the section in general, I think that the choice should be made between providing verbose details of each case or providing brief summaries. The other "kill" sections under Intercommunal Relations maintain more of a list format, and I think that, for consistency, this section should also be brought into list format. However, I admit this isn't my area, so please respond to my suggestions. Thanks. The Behnam 03:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right. I'll try to see to it soon, unless someone else is willing to rewrite that paragraph. drork 14:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, but something doesn't seem right with the section. Was the murder of the nineteen-year old ideologically based? I couldn't find a clear description in the source. They are described as "terrorists", but the specific ideology is not mentioned; there is no background. Perhaps somebody can look for a more detailed description of the incident? The Behnam 07:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

October 2000 killings

Shalom to Shamir1 and others, On 01:08, 22 December 2006 Shamir1 carried out an edit with the following comment: (Rv. The 12 Israeli Arabs were killed by Palestinians (please stop, Abu Ali)). I do follow events in Israel quite closely, and all the controvosies I have heard so far have been about whether it was "necessary" for the Israeli police to kill the 12 citizens (and one non-citizen). This is the first time I have heard the allegation that they were actually killed by Palestinians. I would appreciate it if Shamir1 or one of his friends would provide some evidence or references for this new (to me at least) allegation. Thanks Abu ali 10:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Could Shamir1 really believe that? Unbelievable. Shamir1 should stop this blatant pov pushing. --Zero^talk 11:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going away for a while, here is a little something.

The Arab citizens of Israel live in a reality in which they experience discrimination as Arabs. This inequality has been documented in a large number of professional surveys and studies, has been confirmed in court judgments and government resolutions, and has also found expression in reports by the state comptroller and in other official documents. Although the Jewish majority’s awareness of this discrimination is often quite low, it plays a central role in the sensibilities and attitudes of Arab citizens. This discrimination is widely accepted, both within the Arab sector and outside it, and by official assessments, as a chief cause of agitation.

-- Or Commission Report, page 33. Translation in Judge (Ret.) Theodor Or, The Report by the State Commission of Inquiry into the Events of October 2000, Israel Studies, vol. 11, no. 2, 25-53. --Zero^talk 11:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a good quote and I tried to add it to the article, but someone reverted it on the grounds that there already is a citation of the Or commission in the section. I think that there is no prohibition on quoting from a document more than once and the quotes say different things. Could it be that the quote was deleted because it sheds too much light on the situation of Arabs in Israel? Abu ali 23:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Indiginous ?

Jews and Arabs have lived in the area for long time. No one can claim to be the only indiginous people. New arrival: Many jews arrived during the last 150 years but so did arabs. Not all jews arrived in the last 150 years and not all arabs arrived during that time. But many from both sides did. Zeq 13:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

How many Jews and Arabs were in Palestine 150 years ago? Does anyone have a link to the figures. Perhaps these should be incorporated into the article? Abu ali 13:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There is some in Palestine but watch out for the junk like quotations from Katz. --Zero^talk 14:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

the issue is not what took place 150 years ago. There are article about history. The question is simple: Do ALL Israeli arab indiginous to israel ? they don't. Zeq 20:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

of course not. but then neither are the jews Abu ali 20:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The intro currently makes the claim that the Arab population is indigenous to Israel. That is a misleading POV claim, as the above discussion shows. Recently, this claim was sourced to the following abstract:

"State-Controlled Education and Identity Formation Among the Palestinian Arab Minority in Israel

Ismael Abu-Saad

Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel

In many modern nation-states, national identity is not inclusive of all of the state’s citizens; rather, it is limited (in varying degrees) to the members of the dominant group. Because such states are structurally unable to meet indigenous/minority groups’ basic human needs for identity, inclusion, and equality, the formation of ethnically based identity and political organization is a natural alternative. To the extent that such alternatives are considered threatening to the state, it will deal with indigenous/minority groups by developing systems of control, based on varying degrees of force, depending on the state’s claim (or lack thereof) to be "democratic." In this article, the author examines the role the state educational system plays in identity formation and the state’s system of control among indigenous Palestinian youth in Israel."

As can be clearly seen, the source does not support the claim made- It is research made on a subset of the Palestinian population (which subset the author asserts is "indigenous"), but does not claim the the Arab population, as a whole is indigenous, nor that the tensions between minority groups and the majority are necessarily between indigenous and non-indigenous. I have there for removed the claim. Isarig 16:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Quite correct. It is poorly source POV-pushing intended to make a point. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to miss the point, the sentence says that "this can be regarded in the context of indigenous/minority..." (slash meaning and/or). This means _not_ that all palestinians are indigenous. Read the sentence again with fresh mind and/or read [[40]]. --Magabund 10:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I fully understand the point of all your edits, Magabund. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you just say that WP:SOAP? Seeing something "in the context of" means not "this is it". Should be not so hard to understand concept. --Magabund 09:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Zero Arab Ministers: WP:OR?

Hi (or should I say Shalom), I added a sentence to the effect that there has never been an arab minister in any Israeli government. I think that this is significant. Arabs make up 20% of the population but 0% of the cabinette. This sentence has been removed a number of times on the (in my opinion) rather weak grounds that it is WP:OR. This is not original research, and is an uncontroversial fact which is well known to anybody with even a superficial knowledge of Israeli society. Does anyone here dispute the fact that there has never been an Arab minister (not counting deputy ministers or Mizrachi Jews)? If so please give me just one counterexample. If not, the please reinstate the sentence into the article. Abu ali 10:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

To help you out here is a link to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign affairs. Even the most hard line editors on this page will not dismiss this page as antisemitic propaganda. You can browse all the governments since 1948. Enjoy. [41] Abu ali 11:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a verifiable reliable source for your original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that the MFO site is not a reliable source? Or are you saying that you can't verify this information there? --Zero^talk 09:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

There was one Druze minister for a short period of time. It was Salah Tarif. By the way, Israeli Arabs make up 20% of the population only if you include the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem as Israeli territories. Otherwise they are 16% of the population. drork 09:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dror, thanks for the correction. I'll correct the article Abu ali 16:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

when you correct the article, please do not use polemics like "although... only one...". State facts, without editorializing. WP is not a Soapbox. Isarig 17:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Isarig giving orders and telling me how to write and what to write. What a suprise....not! Abu ali 16:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the further original research. We list what we know, not what we guess at. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Jayjg, you can't just lable everything you don't like as original research. And as you seem to be concerned enought about Israel to write hear, maybe it is time you learned some of the stuff you don't know. Abu ali 16:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Re-read WP:NOR. You can't come to your own conclusions about these things, you need to cite sources making these claims. This is basic, fundamental policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Original research is anything and everything that you can't support using a verifiable secondary source. You can't personal go to a list of ministers, research it yourself to count how many ministers of this or that ethnicity there have been, and then post it to WP. Please read WP:NOR - as this is spelled out quote clearly. Incidentally, I would have expected that after you had blatantly violated WP:NOR by editing the article to say "no Arab ministers", based on incorrect personal research of the kind I have just described, and were found out to be WRONG about this OR, you'd exercise a little more humility here. Isarig 18:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It was not me who made the claim about no Arab ministers. We can discuss whether the approach you outlined would necessarily count as "original research". However the source for the statement that there has only ever been one Arab junior minister is now clearly given as a Wall Street Journal review of a book by ex-President Carter, if that isn't a reliable source what is? The term "indigenous" is now clearly sourced as well. PatGallacher 18:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not say it was you - I was responding to Abu Ali. There's no need to discuss my apporach - it is very very clearly spelled out in WP:NOR:

Original research excludes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any personal analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position the editor may hold. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article.

The term indigenous, as used in the article, is not used in the source given in that form. Isarig 18:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think making comments like "See Talk, indeed - it's about time you actually contributed something there" is very helpful, particularly after I did just contribute something there. However, you have not replied to the point that there only being one Muslim junior minister is now clearly backed by a reliable source, not original research. PatGallacher 19:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I wrot emy comment before I saw your edits to the Talk page, which you added only after you reverted my edits with a "See Talk" summary - I looked and talk and saw you had nothing there. To your comment: The WSJ article you have linked to is a for-pay article, so I can't verify it says what you claim, but the part I can see shows it is a an editorial by a pro-Palestinian advocate - hardly a NPOV source. Isarig 19:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Please use reliable sources for these claims, sources that can be checked, and please realize that if your reverts keep re-inserting POV language like "This is recognised by the Israeli establishment", whatever that is supposed to mean, they will be reverted out of hand. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

but any good material reveted in an attempt to turn Wikipedia into a zionist propoganda website may well be restored.Abu ali 23:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Please realize that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it [42]? btw. I suggest that to find balance between Jayjg and Abu ali we could phrase the sentence something like "...and at least one has served as cabinet minister". As it seems that you cannot agree whether there has been one or more. --Magabund 10:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have a reference from [43] from the Israeli Mistry of Foreign affairs which confirms that he was the first "non jewish" minister in Israel's history. And there are enough editors on this page who follow the Israeli media to confirm that there have been no ministers since. Salach Tarif was incidenly minister without portfolio, i.e. a minister without a minstry. Abu ali 10:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been out of this article and its discussions for quite a while, but it should be noted that Peretz appointed an Arab minister into the Knesset, Raleb Majadele (Labour), making him the first ever Arab minister.[44] -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Or commision quote repeatedly deleted, why?

Hi Zerotalk suggested adding the following quote from the Or commision. Iadded it to the descrimination section and it was deleted 3 times on spurious grounds. What do you people have to hide? Abu ali 10:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The Arab citizens of Israel live in a reality in which they experience discrimination as Arabs. This inequality has been documented in a large number of professional surveys and studies, has been confirmed in court judgments and government resolutions, and has also found expression in reports by the state comptroller and in other official documents. Although the Jewish majority’s awareness of this discrimination is often quite low, it plays a central role in the sensibilities and attitudes of Arab citizens. This discrimination is widely accepted, both within the Arab sector and outside it, and by official assessments, as a chief cause of agitation.

-- Or Commission Report, page 33. Translation in Judge (Ret.) Theodor Or, The Report by the State Commission of Inquiry into the Events of October 2000, Israel Studies, vol. 11, no. 2, 25-53.

The section is "Examples of discrimination". What examples are given there? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The section is titled "Descrimination". The quote from the Or commission, gives a clear overview of the existence of discrimination against Arabs. Is this the reason for your repeated attempts to delete the text? Abu ali 07:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

How strange; after you changed the title, I didn't remove the information, but merely NPOVd the text around it, yet you reverted anyway, insisting I was still deleting the text. Could you please avoid blind reverts? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. I apologiseAbu ali 09:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

best off Arabs

Arabs in Israel do much better than Arabs in Arab countries. Arab Israelis have equal rights. There ar even Israeli arabs abd palestinians even from the West Bank and Gaza working in Israel.There are Arabs [even some israeli arabs, who are anti Israeli] in the Knesset. Arabs have equal voting rights. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dendoi (talk • contribs) 05:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

That's really cool. What does this have to do with the article? The Behnam 07:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It has a lot to do. For example it has a lot to do with the wish of the israeli arabs to remain Israeli citizens even when they have the ability to become Palestinian or other nations citizens. they have a complex relationship with Zionism and Israel in part because they, of all arabs, know the benfits of living in a westren style democrcay. Zeq 08:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have heard Israel supporters say "Arabs are treated like dirt in their own countries. Why should we treat them any better?" Abu ali 10:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have heard Arab citizens of Israel say "All Zionist must be pushed into the sea". Not sure how either is relevant to the article. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not the one who raised the arab countries quote. But I have heard it often, mainly used as a justification for the way arabs are treated in israel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abu ali (talk • contribs) 19:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

You mean as better citizens who get full rights without many duties ? Amoruso 16:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL, Abu Ali says "I have heard Israel supporters say "Arabs are treated like dirt in their own countries. Why should we treat them any better?"" What does that have to do with anything? Should a source be removed because you heard someone say that? Has that comment affected one's political rights or freedoms? Please, stay on topic. --Shamir1 00:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, I dont want to step into your war, but removed OR quote about this being a "fact" that arabs in israel are more free than any other arabs. The source does not support such conjecture. It just has a country index by some criterion. Yes, I live also in a "free" country by that index, but this is not to say that I'm better of or this is a "fact" or smth. --Magabund 22:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Shamir1, the source does not say what our article says. In fact, it says nothing on this subject at all. Please do not include your personal interpretations of outside data in this or other articles. If you find a source that draws the conclusion you have drawn, you can by all means include it, and I'll support your doing so, but until you do, this has to be omitted. Grace Note 05:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It most certainly does. Please see Freedom in the World#Middle East & North Africa, Freedom House, and liberal democracy for more information. No "interpretations" were drawn, only facts. --Shamir1 07:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It compares Israel to other countries. It is your OR to claim the the overall level of freedom experienced by Israelis in general is true for Israeli Arabs in particular. This is a well-debated question. Your source does not appear to mention Israeli Arabs at all. --Zero^talk 10:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC) The fuller report on Israel here mentions positive and negative matters regarding Israeli Arabs but does not compare them explicitly to other countries. --Zero^talk 11:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've taken out the reference to the chart, as it says nothing at all about Israeli Arabs. Since Shamir was determined to have the Freedom House material about the Israeli Arabs included in the lead but wasn't having much success giving an accurate summary of it, I have replaced his summary with a direct quotation of the main point it makes about the Israeli Arabs. Palmiro | Talk 02:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Israel Land administration

Shalom to you all. On 1st January, isarig removed the statement: "All citizens are legally equal in rights, however some regulations make it harder on Arabs to buy or lease state owned lands." with the comment rm unsourced false claim. I assume that the claim Isarig feels is false is that the second part of the sentence. Is Isarig correct or incorrect here? Have the restrictions on Arabs puchasing Israel Land Administration land been abolished? Abu ali 21:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There are no restrictions on Arabs purchasing ILA land. ILA land cannot be purchased by any citizen, Arab or Jew- it can only be leased, and it is leased by Arabs and Jews alike, according to the same laws. Isarig 22:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, you are wrong there. The ILA (Minhal Mekarke'ei Yisrael) is forbidden by law to sell state lands, so the only option is to lease lands according to different leasing programs. However, ILA definitely favors Jews over non-Jews in offering leasing privileges and conditions. This goes especially to the leasing programs of agricultural land. State lands comprise about 90% of the Israeli territory, so Arabs are definitely discriminated in this field. Of course there is no explicit law that says "Arab cannot lease state land" but we all know that discrimination is often tacit, and hides behind bureaucracy. We are here to report the truth, good or bad, not to tell nice stories. drork 22:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Dror, total BS based on urban legend. Just this week ILA issued a tender (Michraz) to land near Kfar Kasem, the tender is open only to resident of Kfar Kasem itself. This means that unless you are an Arab (all residents of Kfar Kassem are) you can not buy or lease the land in that tender. Here it is:

http://www.mmi.gov.il/PirsumMichrazim/pirsumDetails.asp?id=3122006%EE%F8&rc=1&tr=2

http://www.mmi.gov.il/PirsumMichrazim/pirsumDetails.asp?id=3172006%EE%F8&rc=2&tr=2

Zeq 22:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I must admit these are good news, and it might be the start of a change in policy. May I remind you that only few years ago, the right of an Arab citizen from Umm El-Fahem to buy a house in Katzir (the neiboring newly-established Jewish village) was the subject of an appeal to the supreme court (Bagatz). It is not unlikely that the the supreme court's ruling led to the new tender in Kafr Qassem. Do consider, though, that we are talking about a limited expension of Kafr Qassem built area. Arab farmers, particularly Bedouin, find it very hard to lease agricultural land. drork 00:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

As Zeq wrote, this is total BS. Arabs can and do lease land just like Jews do. You are welcome to your personal POV (which you concede can't be supported by citing any written policy or law) that "Arabs are definitely discriminated in this field", but this is an encyclopedia, and as you say - we're not here to tell stories - neither nice ones, nor ugly ones. Just the facts. Isarig 00:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand that a lot of the discrimination is contracted out to the Jewish National Fund. PatGallacher 01:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You understand wrong, but thanks for sharing your obvious bias. I'm sure we can count on you to contribute to the encyclopedia in a NPOV way. Isarig 01:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Shalom again. Thanks to Dror for providing actual information for this discussion. The language and tone of zeq and Isarig is instructive. They donounce Dror's contribution as "BS based on urban legend". The angry tone shows the weakness of the facual basis of their arguments, and is an attempt to intimidate editors who do not subscribe to the Isarig school of NPOV into silence. I am amazed that none of the Israel supporters here saw fit to protest this blatant personal attack on this honest Israeli. When PatGallacher comments that discrimination is carried out by the Jewish National Fund, Isarig just says "You understand wrong". But a quick google yields the following link [45], so presumable the Israeli high court, and the Jewish National Fund themselves "understand wrong" too, and it is only our esteemed editors Isarig and zeq who understand right! The AAD website has many articles on from the Israeli press showing that land discrimination against Arabs is systematic and widespead. Abu ali 11:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue of the Jewish National Fund (Keren Kayemet) is complex. It was originally a fund that collected donation for purchasing lands, but during the 50ies it became a semi-official istitute of the state. Today, most of its lands are originally state's lands, and the debate in the supreme court was whether the state can give lands to an institute which declares it prefers Jews (also non-Israeli Jews) over other Israeli citizens. drork 07:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It isn't true that "most of its lands are originally state's lands" (ok, we can argue about what "most" means). A very large chunk was originally under the Custodian of Abandoned Properties. --Zero^talk 09:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No, thats's wrong - you have it almost completely backwards. The JNF's lands are most certainly not 'originally state's lands' - it is the other way around - the ILA manages both state land and privately owned JNF land..

When I wrote "state's lands" I also meant Abandoned Properties. The Custodian of Abandoned Lands is part of the state's administration. drork 09:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the infomative discussion. Do we now have a consensus that the edit [46] and its comment are wrong and can be reverted? Do we have a good reference make it sources? Abu ali 09:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No, we most certainly do not have such a consensus, as that edits was 100% correct, as the recent discussion shows. Isarig 16:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If we want to play fair, we could add that there are first signs of change in policy, as the supreme court's final ruling reverted some of these regulations, and the tender in Kafr Qassem is also an encouraging sign of change. drork 09:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I am all in favour of fair play. Especially is there is a rare bit of good new we can report. Abu ali 10:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for at least being honest enough about the fact that the original wording which I removed was not fair. Isarig 16:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Military service issues

I have reverted some contentious material because it appears to me that some of what it says about military service by Israeli Arabs is confused. It refers to Christians as conscripts, but they are volunteers. It also refers to 85% of Druze serving, as if that was a sign of their integration into Israeli society, but as they are liable to conscription 15% could be a relatively high rate not serving. Are these 15% medically unfit, refuse to serve or what, and how does this compare with Israeli Jews and other countries which have conscription? PatGallacher 10:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

15% is not a relatively high rate at all. For one, keep in mind they are an Arabic-speaking people. Two, there are very many exemptions from military service: university exemption, volunteering for a national service instead, unfit/disabled (mental, emotional, or physical)...

If one reads the NGO research, used by the United Nations, that goes through each country and territory annually, finding facts, examining the system, etc. It clearly states where Israeli citizens are, and it has its own page. You can find more information on Freedom House, Freedom in the World, or liberal democracy. The fact that some Arab Israelis complain of whatever, does not change the fact that they have their political rights (ex. universal suffrage) and civil liberties (ex. freedom of press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion), which is not present in actual Arab countries. Again, you can check for yourself.

Also, as reliable links say, the Bedouin and Druze live quite harmoniously with Israeli Jews. It is not "relative" because someone finds an incident where someone says "I dont like the government" or whatever. Do you know how many cases like that there are with Jews involved? Too many to count. But, like any democracy, they can express themselves, debate it, assemble organizations that promote their ideas, and protest, as indeed they have. However, this is in both cases a minority. According to a Druze Israeli who split the Druze into 4 categories, the Druze that actually favor the Palestinians is the smallest of the 4, while the ones that sympathize/favor/show solidarity with Israel and identify as Israeli are the two largest groups, and even the third Druze-only category is not hostile with Israel. As for the Bedouins, I recently saw picture during this last conflict of Gaza of a row of local Bedouin men taking turns to kiss the Israeli soldiers. The Bedouin refused to remain in the Gaza Strip without the presence of Jews or Israel, and requested the IDF expel them too, and indeed they were. On Israel's Independence Day, there were parades for Druze and Circassians as well as for Bedouins in the Negev. We can go on like this for any country. Should I say that the attitude of Jews to Israel is "relatively" warm because so-and-so refused to join the army and such-and-such organization exists, and this guy wrote a book that said.... of course not.

Also, please stop removing the correct percentage of each religious group. For one, it heavily contradicts the percentage below it, and also I have a source. And Abu ali, my edits are valid. Because you dont like them does not make it "propaganda" nor does it give you an excuse to remove them. --Shamir1 01:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)