Talk:Arab citizens of Israel/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Israeli Arabs in the IDF

As far as I know some Israel-Arabs serve in the IDF, though they are not drafted. Jayjg 17:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good point - and it turns out the Bedouin aren't actually drafted, though the Druze are. - Mustafaa 21:28, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Israeli Bedouin are not included in the compulsory army service act, but they can volunteer if they wish to serve. A few of them are accepted as volunteers to the IDF every year, though the vast majority do not serve. 212.179.238.155 00:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

"bizarrely in the latter case"?

"bizarrely in the latter case" - is that really NPOV?

Actually, I suspect I was wrong. I vaguely remember seeing some book treat them as separate, but I can't find any corroboration, and it would be a very strange thing to do. - Mustafaa 16:04, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mahmoud Darwish

Is it really acceptable to call Mahmoud Darwish an "Israeli Arab"? I doubt if he would accept the term. The term "Palestinian citizen of Israel" is not a political circumlocution any more than "Native American" - it's simply the term used by most sensitive observers in this field because many of the people in question reject the first term. cf:

Also, some terms are in common usage but are commonly regarded as offensive to large groups of people (Eskimo and Mormon Church, for example). In those cases use widely known alternatives (Inuit and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). When in doubt, check a mainstream reference work.

from Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(common_names)Palmiro 12:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Did you notice the whole topic of the article? It's an obvious circumlocution in order to make some political point. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Not a political point, the term "Israeli Arab" is rejected by many Palestinian citizens of Israel. If you can find any source where Mahmoud Darwish descibes himself as an Israeli I'll be more than happy to go along with you.Palmiro 10:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

And the term is accepted by others. The article outlines this, and regardless Darwish fits the definition. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps in that case it would be better to address the issue, if you feel that way, by indicating in the article that the term 'Israeli Arab' is controversial and is not used by most organisations representing the people in question.

The issue is addressed, though I'm not sure why the term is all that controversial. "Israeli Arabs" gets almost 90,000 Google hits, including some fairly pro-Palestinian Human Rights organizations like Amnesty International [1], reasonably neutral media sources like MSNBC [2], fairly pro-Palestinian media sources like Reuters [3] and Associated Press [4], and actively anti-Israeli media sources like Al Jazeera [5] Jayjg ^(talk) 01:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Pro-Palestinian sources like AP? Hmmm... In any case, Darwish wasn't in fact a citizen of Israel (as I had initially written): see here for one citation. Neither was he born in Israel, so he certainly wasn't "originally" an Israeli Arab. On that basis, I've taken him out of the article. Palmiro | Talk 20:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The Arabic Wikipedia entry [6] calls them "Israel's Arabs", and in the opening section suggest two more terms: '48-Arabs and "Arabs of the Inside [of Palestine, that is]".

One big POV

It seems that this whole article was placed here for the section about discrimination.

Isn't there anything else to say about israeli Arabs except a brief introduction and dive itno examples of discrimination ?

Maybe it is the whole identity of the Israeli arabs that is defined by their wish to be described as victims ? I don't think so. There is much more aspects of their lives that are not mentioned here. See the African Americans article and you will start to get an idea how a NPOV article should look like.

Either someone can do a much better job writing about this complex subject or this whole article should be removed. Zeq 19:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

There is plenty of information in the Hebrew version of this article. I suppose some of it can be translated into English. I'm afraid my English is simply not good enough. 212.179.229.188 02:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

From these three sentences at any rate, your English sounds quite fine. Why not make an attempt at translation, put it on the talk page here, and other users can refine it? Palmiro | Talk 19:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The section in question was created by User:Alberuni, while banned, and then inserted by User:Yuber. Of course the whole purpose is to POV the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course the article is inadequate, but there is nothing POV about the section in question, though the facts it includes may be inconvenient to the promotion of certain points of view. Palmiro | Talk 18:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Overweighting one aspect of a complex situation inevitably introduces POV; that was the whole point of adding the information. I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say "the facts it includes may be inconvenient to the promotion of certain points of view" - it seems deliberately vague, yet insinuates something rather negative and conspiratorial at the same time. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

If it is "overweighting one aspect of a complex situation", may I suggest that the best way of dealing with that would be to introduce adequate coverage of the other aspects? I don;t think it is in itself introducing too much detail on this aspect for an encyclopedia article on the topic. Palmiro | Talk 19:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

If???? The article tells us almost nothing about Israeli Arabs, and 3/4 of it is devoted to a description of discrimination against them, without any balance even in that. If the encyclopedia article happened to be "Discrimination against Israeli Arabs", you might be on firmer ground, but this article is simply a farce. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Palestinian Arabs?

Which of them are not Palestinian Arabs? Palmiro | Talk 19:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, Druze are arguable, as are Bedouins. Also, the introduction of the term POVs the discussion that follows. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see on what basis you argue that the Druze or Bedouin aren't Palestinian Arabs. They are Arabs from Palestine, which seems an adequate reason for using the term. Could you please elaborate? As for the discussion that follows, it is about self-identication, which is a somewhat different issue, and if we can't describe them as Palestinian Arabs on that basis, it would seem equally dubious to call them Israeli Arabs. Palmiro | Talk 14:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

You could read this article itself, or the related articles. Bedouin are a distinct ethnic group from other Arabs, as are Druze, and self-identify as such. Israeli-Arab is simply a statement of citizenship, Arabs who are citizens of Israel; Palestinian, on the other hand, is a statement of self-identity. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

This sounds rather like an updated version of Golda Meir's infamous jibe. I note your suggestion that I should read the article and related articles, and assure you that I've already done so. Palmiro | Talk 14:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Being bold

Some parts which made this article one sided were removed. Zeq 09:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

To Marsden: Please explain your reverts Zeq 13:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

To Palmiro: Please explain your reverts you are adding NPOV info (one sided) Maybe you would like to talk about how much Arabs pay taxes in Israel (as a group) and how much the state pay them in social Security. If you do that you will find that they are not as discriminated as you think. Usually in Israel a 23 year old Arab that gets married (after finishing university) live in his own single family home fully paid ofr (no morgate) An israeli in the same age is just finishing his military service and if in 5 years he will own his own apartment (80% morgatge) he will be lucky Zeq 14:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Zeq, the information you took out appeared to be accurate and from a reliable source, and highly salient to the topic. Discrimination is one of the main features of the life of Palestinian citizens of Israel. If you have an equally reliable source for information about discrimination in favour of Palestinian Israelis, or something else that you feel would balance the article, by all means balance the article by adding that in, not by taking things out. An anonymous user above suggested that the Hebrew article would be a good source of additional information. Why don't you look there (I presume you have Hebrew?) and if they were right and there is useful stuff there, make a rough translation of it and post it here? Then we can work on adding it into the article (provided of course that it is accurate, NPOV and verifiable). Palmiro | Talk 14:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

The accuracy is not the issue. Cherrypicking just the info that demonstrate one POV is non neutral.

This whole article is now lacking many aspects and as such it only exist here to complain about discrimination. As such this whole article (or all the one sided info in it) should and will be deleted unless someone will take the time to write it in a NPOV way. Zeq 18:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you're well aware of what the article is lacking, why not add information (accurate, NPOV, verifiable information) to make up the lack? Or respond to my suggestion above? Palmiro | Talk 19:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Working on a more detailed article. Until it is ready removing one sided data.

If you want this article to exist it must be NPOV. Zeq 04:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I have reinserted an unjustified delete of perfectly sourced and relevant material. To Zeq: it is considered very bad form to delete anything from an article without at least coping it into the "talk-space". Having said that: I think you are on a much more constructive path when you add material, that when you cut it out. As for the material you have added; mostly ok, it seems, but a bit "bulky"? -some information comes twice. And it needs to be "wikified", of course. I´ll go through the article and insert my commens as invisible text (behind a <!- ): you must look at the "edit" verison to find them. Huldra 16:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)-->

Of course, even with the material that Zeq added: there are still areas that are completely uncovered. I´m thinking particularely about the land-issue. However, I think we should all consentrate on getting the latest additions of text up in "ship-shape" before we think of adding more; I will, at least. Huldra 16:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, cleaning up after being bold

Ok: I have inserted some comments "hidden" in the the text. And I have some suggestions: The "Current situation"-section is simply too big -I think it should be split in several smaller sections. That way we could also get rid of "double" information, that is the same inf. which appear in several places. One (the first?) of these smaller sections could be:

• "Population and population grouth" (merge it with the "Population grouth" -section.) Also: now the inf. is contradictory: in the beginning of the article it says that the Arab is 15%, later ist says that it is 19% --->Not good!!
• "Location/geography" -section: where do they live?
• "Education"-section, -now that inf. is a bit here and a bit there -
• "Health"- section.
• "Legal and Political Status"-section. (The prominent Arab Israeli judges mentioned should come in here, perhaps with a link to other politicians, such as Azmi Bishara.)
• a "Triva"-section? I´m tempted to throw miss Israel there ;-) Huldra 17:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC) PS: more for the "Trivia"-section: wasn´t there an Israeli Arab who won the Israeli version of "Big Brother"? Or was it "Idol"?

......lets try to get some sense of order to this article before we add anything more, shall we? And the spelling! Groan! We can start with "Population grouth" (yes: I also cut & paste..) And Zeq: I removed some of the text you inserted under "Discrimination Against Israeli Arabs" because the exact same text was already in the article (further down) (yepp: somebody else had "cut & pasted" before you :-) ). There was only one sentence (in that paragraph) that wasn´t in the article already, and I appended that at the end of the original "cut and paste") And I rewrote the intro. sentence so I could insert your other paragraph into the list. Huldra 19:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I have created the above sections (except "Trivia") and moved the appropriate inf. there. Internally these sections (esp. the "population etc") are very messy at the moment, and must be reorganised and slimmed down. And they must be linked. As for the 3 sections:

• Current situation
• Pluralism and Sectoral Identity
• Development
  

I´m not quite sure that the present division is the best -and some of the info. in "Developement" should probably go into their appropriate new sections ("Education", "Location"). Huldra 03:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have created a "Work and Economic situation" and moved the relevant inf. into it. I have also moved all inf. from "Current Situation" and "Developement" into the appropriate sections. I have "blocked out" (=made invincible) inf. which I consider irrelevant or is contradictory to other inf. on Wikipedia, or both. I think the division into different sections is now OK? However, the situation inside each section is still a complete mess....I will strongly ask the other editors here not to bring any new material into the article before we have "cleaned up" and "wikified" what is already there! Please show some consideration.... Thanks..... - Huldra 07:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

You made irrelevant material invincible? Surely that wasn't such a good idea? ;) (sorry, only really noticed that now!)Palmiro | Talk 13:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I´m not sure what exactly you refer to, but generally I try to adher to the WP policy of not cutting out something completely from an article without copying it to the talk-page. As there was soooo much double inf. in this article and the talk-page was (is) getting so full anyway: I decided on a compromise which was making it invincible. Yes, it became messy. And yes: I suspect/assume that most of those "blocked-out" inf./comment can just be removed completely. Huldra 14:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I have just minorly edited the article, cleaning up some (but not all) misspellings, etc, and I could not help noticing that many of the articles containing facts could be removed, as they are either irrelevant or could be moved to separate pages to reduce the article size (see Wikipedia:Article size). Other sections are related and ould be amalgamated and then removed to separate pages. Just a suggestion, as this article is to big to effectively clean up anyway. Any thoughts?

--The1exile 16:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

work to do for Zeq:

Under Population....:

• What is the percentage of Arabs in Israel? In the material you have added it says both 15% and 19%.
• The text you added states:
  • "The number of Muslim residents in Israel at the start of 2003 stands at around 1,037,000, about 15% of Israel’s population" and:
  • "In 2001, 1.2 million Arabic people populated the area" [=Israel]...soooo: what is the correct number??
• The text you added states:
  • "the proportion of Arabs increases 3.4% each year" and:
  • "The Muslim population’s average natural rate of increase over the past few years is[]: 3.6%" I assume that you in both cases refer to what is commonly known in English as "Population Growth Rate". If so, we should perhaps change all the different expressions into that one. AND: find what is the correct number; 3.4 or 3.6?
• the text you added states: "This rate of increase is one of the highest in the world, even higher than in neighboring Arab countries". Well, my "Bible" (read: Lonely Planet, 2000 ed.) tells me that both Syria and Jordan have a "Population Growth Rate" =3.4% .....and, to my knowledge, neither country has improved (lowered) the growth rate since 2000. (To my knowledge: only Egypt ...& Lebanon (of the countries in the region) has managed to do something about it). Well; that was a start....Huldra 04:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Started to work on it. will continue. Zeq 09:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I find it a bit, well, scary that the first major item mentioned about the Israeli Arabs is their rate of population growth. Anyway, there is an obvious problem in consistency here talking about the dirtribution of the Arab population and of the Muslim population, and this needs to be either fixed or explained. It seems odd that Nazareth, with its large Christian population, gets a mention primarily as a centre of Muslim population.

As regards Tel-Aviv-Yaffo, is it not a thing that the Palestinian population is concentrated in Jaffa (which is the historic Palestinian town), and should the article perhaps be amended to reflect this?

In relation to population growth, I think the figures quoted for Syria at least are too high, and I'm going to check them out.

In any case, any discussion of population growth should be careful not to draw a facile equivalence between a population with very specific socio-economic characteristics and the general population of that or any other country.

Finally, the section on "Pluralism and Sectoral Identity" seems extremely POV. Palmiro | Talk 15:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you on comparing/not comparing statistics with other countries. Reference to all other countries should just be cut out. After all, this is not done anywhere else on WP. (Can you imagine, eg. giving the statistical data for Canada, and then, for each number given, you would also write how much better/worse it was compared with the USA??). The only other data that are relevant are those data pertaining to the Jewish population of Israel. After all, if both groups are "equal citizens", then those numbers should be compared.

And as I have said elsewhere: the different sections are a complete mess internally (except the "Location", which has become reasonable decent) And some POV-stuff need to be weeded out. But do we agree about the division into sections? Huldra 15:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

In relation to comparisons, I think it's also an important point that Palestinian Israelis are an economically disadvantaged sector, and such sectors very often have higher fertility rates than the population at large. It would be more reasonable to compare them with sociologiocally similar (as far as possible) elements in the Jewish population. There's a hint of underlying hysteria about outbreeding in the way this issue often gets dealt with (well OK, often it's much more than a hint).

As for sections, I agree with what's there at the minute, but I also think we need a section on history and also perhaps one on internally displaced persons and unrecognised villages. Then more information specifically on the Bedouin. Also perhaps a section on politics - I've added to what's there, but there's a lot more readily accessible info on this. I might be able to do something on this. Palmiro | Talk 15:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I wrote before (last under "Beeing bold") that there are still inf. missing; my interest has been the land-issue. (And I´m sorry I didn´t get your edit before I edited -had some computer-problem, I´m not quite sure if I understand how all the edits were made this evening....Anyway, now I´ve rebooted & emptied the buffers; should work ok.) As for the "Population" section: I think we should start with the situation in 1948 (and certainly not start with the Birth Rate.)

Work for Zeq: Now the article states "The researchers predict that by 2020, the Arab population in Israel will have increased to 2 million people and will comprise somewhere between 21% to 24% of Israel's population. According to forecasts, the Muslim population will rise to over 2,000,000 people, or 24-26% of the population within the next 15 years." (And you have copied both sentences into the article) Now, either the number of Muslims is much higher than the number of Arabs (??????) -or one of these sentences should be cut out.

Also for Zeq: In the article: "On average, the proportion of Arabs increases 3.4% each year. The Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics reported that Israeli Muslims have a average natural rate of increase over the past few years that is double that of the Jewish population: 3.6% compared to 1.8%." -see Palmiros question (hidden in the text); I suspect that one of these sentences should be cut out, Regards, Huldra 00:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC) PS: ahem: doen´t you guys like my "hidden" questions /comments...?

Enough is enough: message for Zeq:

I wonder if you read any of our messages for you? I have asked you PLEASE to help "clean-up" all that information -much of it contradictory- you copied into this article. This you have not done. Istead you leave this job to your co-editors (mainly Palmiro and me). If you were not on WP; well, then it could have been understandable. But you are here, editing. And not only editing: you are inserting edits in a very contested manner, indeed, I will not hesitate to call it pure POV-pushing. And this, while the article is mostly a complete mess with all the information you copied into it. I do not know how many hours I have spend on this article, trying to get it readable by:

• deviding it into categories,
• finding and moving info. into their correct category,
• removing information when exactly the same was/is beeing said three or four times,
• pointing out to you in which cases you had given contradictary information,
• adding links and correcting spelling

And what do you do?? I had at least expected you to find out what is correct when you have given contradictary inf. given: eg.: is the Arab/(Muslim?) population estimated to become between 21% to 24% of Israel's population in 2020, OR is it estimated to become 24-26%?? Now, both are "true", courtesy of you. Is the birth rate 3.4%, or 3.6%? Again, now, both are also "true", courtesy of you. The only section which is reasonabe readable now is the "Location"-section, and that is totally thanks to Palmiro and me. (You can thank Palmiro for managing to interpret your wrongly spelled names of cities (e.g.: Ramalah ->Ramleh). Organizing, editing and wikifying text is rarely a very exciting thing to do. I can quite understand that it is much more interesting to insert inf. which suits ones view. I would like to spend my time here doing the same, but quite simply: I´m not selfish enough. And I would like to see WP become fine encyclopedia. Now: this is what I´m going to do: I will revert the "intro section" to the Revision as of 15:53, 16 October 2005. This was the edit before all these edit-wars over this section started. I believe it is reasonbly neutral version (i.e. nobody is perfectly happy with it.....). And: if you edit the least bit of this intro: well, then I´m out of this article. You can clean up your mess, all by yourself (If you don´t get Palmiro ..or others to help you.) But you can rest assured: if you as much as move/remove a single letter of the " Discrimination Against Israeli Arabs"-section, or the "Modifications to Citizenship and Entry law" or "See also" and "External links": then expect it to be reverted. I will not sit by and idly watch you destroy perfectly wellwritten/wellsourced information. And if nothing more is done on this article: well; it will be as if you had not brought the info here at all: it is so confused and contradictory that people will ignore it. (And then go directly to the part that is crystal clear: the "Discrimination"-part. If that is the way you want it; well, so be it. I have better things to do on Wikipedia than fighting such &%$#*@$% as this. Think about it. Huldra 08:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC) (And now I see that you have reinserted all the double inf. I removed from the "Population"-section!! LOL! Why don´t you reinsert all the double inf. we took out from the "Location"-section, too?? Come to think of it: I think I´ll do it myself....- Nobody, and I mean nobody will read these first section the mess they are in now. And that is perfectly ok with me.......they will go straight to the "Discrimination"-section.....Anyway: I will do what I have told you, then it is up to you if you will edit these first sections alone, or not.)

Please see my answer your talk page. In short if things need to be fixed fix them but if you just delete data that does not fit your POV I have no alternative but to reinsert it. let's not get into an edit war. Please restore the data that was removed. Zeq 15:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Problems, another suggestion for Zeq

ZEQ: we have a couple of problems here.

• You deleted some of my additions to the introduction which were grounded on facts which are not only widely known but are cited in this article. When I pointed this out to you and reinserted them, you deleted them again without justifying this. Please don't do this sort of thing.
• Your data is inconsistent. That is why we have been deleting or commenting out bits of it.
• Your presentation of the data is confusing. You mix up references to Arabs and to Muslims, which obviously aren't the same thing.
• You don't seem to have provided any source for some of your data. That means that we can't check back on it and sort out the problems of consistency etc. ourselves. If you have an English (or Arabic, or French) source available for your data on the internet or in a readily available publication, please let us know. That way we could far more easily collaborate on presenting it in a logical, coherent and comprehensible way.
• Even if your sources are in a language nobody here understands, such as (I imagine) Roma, you should still cite them. Also, while you've said that soome date comes from the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, you should really provide a link to the webpage(s) it's from or a page citation from a publication.

Apologies for the bolding, I am trying to point out where our problems lie and how we can try and fix them. One other suggestion: clearly English isn't your native language and you may find the additional effort of trying to write accurate English while at the same time dealing with fairly complicated issues frustrating. If your sources are in Hebrew or some other language none of the editors here understands, you might be able to find someone elsewhere on wikipedia to help you with it. All the best, Palmiro | Talk 17:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Palmiro:

The data is consistent.

The % of arabs in israel is about 19.5. If you add ilegals (another 170,00) (this gets you to 22.5%) and East Jerusalem (residents but not citizens) 270,000 you get to about 26%. Zeq 17:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I provided sources, someone seem to delete them in all thse reverts. Zeq 17:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

To Ynhockey

I realized afterwards that I had an edit conflict with you - I was trying to remove a redundant paragraph and fix some other wording, and didn't realize you had saved to that section also - my apologies... Ramallite ^(talk) 06:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Ethnicities

Might want to look at this ! Ramallite ^(talk) 15:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Palmiro also brought to my attention that I made a mistake, saying the 'most Bedouins are not Muslim', but I still think it's wrong to say Bedouin = Muslim. In my real-life interaction with Bedouins, I have not yet enountered one who claimed to be Muslim. The traditionalist Bedouins follow their own culture, which involves a religion, that isn't Muslim and can in fact be counter-Muslim. But since I'm in the minority, feel free to add that part back. -- Ynhockey || Talk 15:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Zeq has asked me to provide a single example of a non-Muslim Bedouin, and for instance this page mentions that there are 24 'known' Christian ones in Israel. Because the page says that nearly all are Muslim (which is a real revelation), maybe the part should be added back, but it should still not say that Bedouin = Muslim, as this is an incorrect assertion. Also, I appeal to Zeq to be less rude... if you are reading this. -- Ynhockey || Talk 16:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I like your sense of humor. You use the "World Evangelization Research Center" to report that 24 out of 160,000 beduins have converted to Chrstianity (and must have left their bedouin comunity..) anyhow, I will accept your questionable source up to saying that 99.985% of bedouins are muslim. This example show what is wrong with people like you editing wikipedia. Zeq 17:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

You're the one who asked for one non-Muslim, not 1000. Your exact words were: Rev. Bedouins IN ISRAEL IN OUR TIMES are ALL muslims. If you found One refernce to One bedouin who is not muslim we will change it. There is no such person. That page says there are 24 Christians and for all we know, there could be 10,000 seculars. I found it via Google by the way. Can you cite a source that says otherwise? The source that Ramallite provided states that Bedouins are Muslims, and I accept that as proof of the vast majority being Muslim, but it doesn't mean they all are. That's like saying all Persians are Muslim because Iran is an Islamic Republic. -- Ynhockey || Talk 18:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, on the page that I provided in the edit summary, it mentions a Ramallite Christian Bedouin, and the interview is from 1997, yet Zeq asserts that these are not 'modern times'. This is unfortunate. -- Ynhockey || Talk 16:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a tricky matter, evidently. The 1997 article about the Christian bedouin is actually about a guy from Madaba, a mixed Muslim-Christian town in Jordan. This guy is apparently being a little over-dramatic, since I doubt most people in Madaba refer to themselves as "bedouin" although they almost all are of bedouin ancestry (which is what the priest is evidently referring to). Many nomadic tribes (few of them Christian, most of them not) historically travelled in the Middle East region before settling in areas where they are today. As such, there is no reason to believe that nomadic tribes or bedouins that exist today are exclusively Muslim; however, unless there is an actual census done on the Bedouin tribes of the Negev, it is impossible to be sure. I'm not aware of such a census, but am not aware of proof that they are exclusively Muslim either. Just my two agorot! Ramallite ^(talk) 18:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

If anyone wants to change "all" to 99.985% of bedouins are muslim be my guest. Zeq

I think "predominantly Muslim" works, since we can't know and it's unlikely that bedouins today are *exclusively* Muslim. I'll change it back to that if no one objects. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

unlikely as it may sound this is the fact that is not disputed anywhere (except by "World Evangelization Research Center" and some wikipedia editors....) I object. Zeq 04:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

It is not stated anywhere either. It is not disputed that non-Muslim bedouins exist. Plus there is no census that I can find (although it has to be out there) that surveys Israel's bedouins. Therefore, it is entirely possible, but not proven, that some non-Muslim bedouins ended up in the Negev. So unless there is a source to the contrary, I think MPerel is more accurate. Ramallite ^(talk) 04:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• it is not stated because it is common knowledge. I am surprized that you don't know it. If there is ANY record for ANY non- muslim bedouin in Israel pleae show it. otherwise we will have to go with 99.985% Zeq 09:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Please Zeq, if we can show that there is even one non-Muslim Palestinian Bedawi, that means we cannot say "they are all Muslims". "Predominantly Muslim" works. "99.985%" is a precise figure and you know perfectly well that we can't put statistics into articles unless there is a source for them. Palmiro | Talk 12:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Legal and political status section

This contained the highly dubious assertion that " Israel remains one of the few countries in the Middle East where women enjoy equality in rights and personal freedoms, including the right to vote and be elected to local and national office." To the best of my knowledge, all Israel's Arab neighbours as well as Iran and Turkey grant women the right to vote and be elected to political offices. Iraq had a female minister as early as 1958 or 59 (Naziha al-Dulaimi), Syria has had several, including Boutheine Shaaban at the moment; Egypt has had at least one (Mervat Tallawi). So I think that statement was of little value, if not downright misleading, and so have removed it.

I have also added in some info from a previously-reverted version of the introduction section.

Overall, the entire paragraph reads like a piece of information ministry blurb. It needs a thorough looking at. Palmiro | Talk 13:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Nither Iran not Turkey are Arabs. Zeq 04:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The sentence I objected to referred to the Middle East, not the Arab world. If you thik it is true, please list the Middle Eastern countries which deny women the right to vote and be elected to local and national office. I think you will find that you could count them on the fingers of one hand, possible after several amputations, and none of them are neighbours of Israel. Don't reinsert the sentence unless you can prove it correct. Palmiro | Talk 21:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I've copyedited this section a little. The material on the previous careers of the two judges seems of little real relevance and sounds like it was copied from a government press release announcing their appointment. I've commented it out rather than deleting it for the moment in case anyone has strong feelings the other way.

As the "discrimination" section makes clear, there are quite a few areas in which it is at least hotly contested that Arabs enjoy equal rights with Jewish Israelis. I've rephrased the first paragraph of the section to reflet this and deleted the editorialising sentence that introduced the remarks on military service. Palmiro | Talk 13:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Circassians

The article mentions the Circassian communities a couple of times. These people are not ethnically Arab in the generally recognised sense (they're Circassian!), although they could be considered Palestinian (whether they think of themselves as such is another question, I suspect not), but they are Muslim. Are they considered to be Arab in the Israeli government's view of things, among Israeli or Israeli Arab society in general, by themselves? Can someone elucidate? Palmiro | Talk 13:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

From Ramallite's earlier link, I think we can derive that they're not considered Arab by the Israeli MFA. I don't think they consider themselves Palestinian because, like the Druze, they requested to be part of the IDF. The full paragraph from the MFA is:

The Circassians, comprising some 3,000 people concentrated in two northern villages, are Sunni Muslims, although they share neither the Arab origin nor the cultural background of the larger Islamic community. While maintaining a distinct ethnic identity, they participate in Israel's economic and national affairs without assimilating either into Jewish society or into the Muslim community.

I'll try to find another source expanding on the Circassians.

--Ynhockey || Talk 16:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[7] from this page it appears that they are North Caucasian. The 'official' http://www.circassians.org also mentions this, but I still haven't found an article there clearly defining their origins. -- Ynhockey || Talk 16:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the stuff off Ramallite's link, which I can't access. Fropm talking to a couple of Circassians here in damascus, it appears that they are indeed Adyghe, but I don't know whether that applies to the ones we are talking about. Anyway, I suppose all we really need to know for this article is how to relate them to the Israeil Arabs. Palmiro | Talk 21:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I know some Israeli Circassians; they're indeed Adyghe, and do not consider themselves Arab at all. As far as the Israeli government is concerned they're in a category of their own. They speak Arabic and Adyghe, and many of them speak fluent Hebrew as well. Aviad 88.111.174.246 19:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio?

No wonder the tone of so much of the article is somewhat parti pris: a huge chunk of it is simply lifted from this source: [8], which in turn attributes it to the Israeli MFA. Apart from the fact that the Israeli MFA is hardly likely to be a neutral source, what is the copyright status of its material? Can someone check on their website to see if they say? If it isn't directly from them, then this source clearly does claim copyright. Palmiro | Talk 00:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow - you are right - I traced it back to this edit. The JVL website does have a copyright notice at the bottom of their page as you said, but so does the Israel MFA where JVL gets it from. Here are the Israeli MFA copyright terms:

COPYRIGHT: According to the law of copyright in Israel, and pursuant to international treaties, copyright in the office's publications, including those provided by the service, belong to the State of Israel. These rights apply, inter alia, to text. pictures, drawings, maps, audio tracts, video tracts, graphics and program applications (hereinafter: the protected material), unless stated explicitly that the copyright in the protected material belongs to another party. User may make "fair use" of the protected material as set out under law. Such fair use includes quoting from the protected material in a reasonable manner. When quoting from the protected material, User must attribute the source of the quotation, whether it be the office or a third party. User may not alter, modify or in any other fashion change the protected material, and may not do any other act which might diminish the value of the protected material in a manner which would cast aspersion on the creator of the protected material. Subject to the law of copyright, User may not copy, redistribute, retransmit or publish protected material, without the prior written consent of the office.

Sounds like these sections have to go, but the editor who added them has not been cooperative in the past (see Israeli West Bank barrier including his previous and latest edits), so this won't be easy... Ramallite ^(talk) 01:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we should trust the MFA to be a reliable source since a large part of this article's facts were taken from there, but obviously the copyvio will have to go. I think we should be careful about what to delete though, since much of the text was modified since it was pasted into this article. Maybe we could re-word and leave the major ideas as is. But really I'd just hate to see all the edits and discussions put into this article go to waste. I'll propose something more specific tomorrow, seing as it's 3 a.m. now, but I'm sure we can all look deeper into the text and decide for ourselves. -- Ynhockey || Talk 01:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

At the risk of starting a row, I think we absolutely cannot rely on the Israei MFA as a reliable source on issues such as the status of Israeli Arabs, discrimination against them, etc, or as a source of NPOV phrasing regarding their place in Israeli life. The MFA's job is to represent Israel abroad, and that includes making it look good. By contrast, Palestinian-Israeli orgnisations, international reports and many serious books all report that Palestinian citizens of Israel have many causes for complaint against the Israeli government. I think we would be naive to assume that we can take the word of the Israeli foreign ministry as a full and balanced portrayal of these issues.

Conversely, I don't see any reason to doubt its basic factual information about issues such as demography, language, religion, presence of Arab citizens of Israel in the Knesset and Supreme Court (which is readily verifiable in any case). Palmiro | Talk 16:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree of course that sources other than the MFA have to be included for a balanced article. I was simply making the point that, while the MFA might omit Arab-Israeli complaints etc., I don't think it will outright lie about any of these things. Then, the parts that were omitted from the MFA can be put in from other sources. Palestinian and Arab-Israeli organizations have a fair place in this article, especially in terms of complaints. However, it's not even a certain fact that most Arab-Israelis identify themselves as Palestinians. The Bedouins and Druze sure don't, but with the others, it heavily varies from place to place. I was taught basic Arabic by a woman from Taibe who doesn't even want to hear the word 'Palestinian', and for example, the Arab beauty contest winner (I think she is mentioned in this article) claims to be a 'proud Israeli'. On the other hand, many resident of villages close to the Palestinian territories, like Baka al-Gharbiyya, say they are Palestinian and not Israeli. I'll try to find a link, but I've read somewhere on the internet that when polled with a question 'Would you go to live in a Palestinian state if one was created?', only about 30% of polled Israeli Arabs answered 'yes'. Granted, this may be out of economic and other considerations, rather than simple identification, but it still indicated that many Israeli Arabs do not want to have much to do with 'Falastin'. -- Ynhockey || Talk 16:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

OK I haven't been able to find the actual poll, but here is a pro-Israeli site with a reference to it. -- Ynhockey || Talk 16:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Yikes! this is a difficult issue, and not the one I meant to start discussing, but here goes anyway: many Israeli Arabs dislike the term "Israeli Arabs", which they see as a term used by the Israeli state and, for many, denying their Palestinian identity. Most (but not all) of the Druze don't seem to consider themselves to have a Palestinian identity, and in fact don't necessarily identify themselves as arabs either. Whether Arab citizens of Israel regard themselves as Palestinians or not is unlikely to be the main element in their decision-making as to which putative future state they would like to live in (and particularly unlikely to motivate them to want to leave their homes, as implied in the poll question above if that was indeed how it was phrased).

As for the Israeli MFA, again, I don't want to start yet another bad-tempered argument in this area, but if it was the MFA that came up with

• • Arab Israelis are citizens of the Israel with equal rights.
  • Israel remains one of the few countries in the Middle East where women enjoy equality in rights and personal freedoms, including the right to vote and be elected to local and national office.
  • These [medical and educational] advances are particularly striking when comparing Arab citizens of Israel to their brethren living in neighboring countries.

then it clearly has a difficult relationship with reality.

Having worked for a number of ministries in another country, I really wouldn't be to inclined to believe them when they are trying to persuade people! And on sensitive issues like this I'd be inclined to considerable scepticism, not because it's Israel, neither would I take the Turkish MFA on its word about Kurds in SE Anatolia, for example.

I fully sympathise with you by the way on not wanting to lose material that work went into, and I greatly admire your determined efforts to make sense of the article, which was in a truly sorry condition when you started editing and is now pretty coherent. Palmiro | Talk 17:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

We may have lost track of the actual problem here: Parts of this articles are plagiarized from the Israeli MFA article in a manner that is a copyright violation. The MFA site states "User may not alter, modify or in any other fashion change the protected material, and may not do any other act which might diminish the value of the protected material in a manner which would cast aspersion on the creator of the protected material." We obviously can use the MFA as a source for the article (albeit not the only source as you all agree), but lifting out contents against copyright regulations is a problem. Perhaps User:Zeq, who lifted the material out, would be so kind as to re-summarize their contents without having to cut and paste it. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this is the main problem. As for the Israeli government, my view is that we can use it without too much fear for factual issues such as statistics, but need to be very circumspect in relying on it in relation to contentious issues. If the sentences I quoted above are from the MFA not just jewishvirtuallibrary.com (but I can't confirm this) that would make me extremely cautious about their material on this subject. Palmiro | Talk 17:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

If anyone think that this kind of info:

• • Arab Israelis are citizens of the Israel with equal rights.
  • Israel remains one of the few countries in the Middle East where women enjoy equality in rights and personal freedoms, including the right to vote and be elected to local and national office.
  • These [medical and educational] advances are particularly striking when comparing Arab citizens of Israel to their brethren living in neighboring countries.

Is wrong or that using this does not fall under fair use (see [9] please let me know or post the facts that show it is wrong. Thanks. Zeq 09:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

After further check the material is subject to this provision:

"User may make "fair use" of the protected material as set out under law. Such fair use includes quoting from the protected material in a reasonable manner. " [10] so clearly it is not a violation to use the material in the way it is used here. Zeq 09:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree it is not a copyvio. In fact the Israeli government will be delighted to see their propaganda quoted here as fact. --Zero 10:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it quoted in a "reasonable manner" when blocks of it are cut and pasted into this article? Has it been altered/modified? Has the Israeli MFA been acknowledged as the source? Zeq, read the information very carefully. Ramallite ^(talk) 14:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Israel Arab women will continue to enjoy higher freedom in israel than in saui Arabia. Anyhow the section have been removed already. In any case they can be reinsrtd cause it is true and not of any copyright violation. Zeq 14:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, do things like this make Wikipedia look like a reliable source of well-researched neutral information? Palmiro | Talk 17:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Origins and history section added, wikipedia messup footnote snarlup

I have added a new section on "origins and history', which covers much badly-needed ground and is indispensable for an understanding of the subject. However, my footnotes got lost due to one of those increasingly common wikifreezes. Hopefully they are still on a back-up file in the internet cafe i was doing it in. I will head there tomorrow and try to sort it out. In the meantime, I request forbearance. When I recover or (hopefully not) recreate them, I'll also make some remarks here about these edits and their sources. Apologies for the unideal nature of this. Palmiro | Talk 23:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Sources are now added at the bottom of the article. All the orphaned footnotes refer to these sources. The Feron book is by a journalist, written in a journalistic style, but referenced to academic sources, and the tone is clearly sympathetic to the Palestinians/Israeli Arabs. About half the book deals with Israeli Arabs. Kodmani-Darwish is an academic, and the book of an academic standard, but it only contains one short chapter on the Palestinians of Israel. Neither of these are ideal sources to base an article on this topic on, but I don't have anything else available to me at the moment and they include plenty of factual material which coincides with what I've read elsewhere. On the plus side, it is an improvement on the level of citation seen in the article to date. Palmiro | Talk 00:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It's good of you to have added an origins section, but it's very highly POV. I'll try to edit it to the best of my ability tomorrow, although since I don't have any books on Israeli Arabs, it will be more difficult to provide sources. But for instance, I'm pretty sure the 'expropriation of land' is talking about passing over privately owned land to the state, which applied not only to Israeli Arabs but also to Jews, after a law was declared that all land in Isarel is state-owned. -- Ynhockey || Talk 00:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, the fact is that land which had been used by Israeli Arabs ended up being used by Jews. I'm not 100% sure of all the legal details, but in relation to this issue they are readily available on the internet I suspect. Here is another version, from Adalah, an Israeli-Arab civil rights organisation:

Prior to 1948, the Jewish community owned just 6-7% of the land. During the next four decades, 80% of lands owned by Palestinians living in Israel were confiscated and placed at the exclusive disposal of Jewish citizens. Today, 93% of all land in Israel is under direct state control.[11]

Note that this is an organisation which is primarily concerned with taking cases in the Israeli courts system in favour of the rights of Israeli Arabs, and frequently wins them, which suggests that it is both credible and has an interest in maintaining its credibility.

I would really hope that we can establish the citation of sources (and if necessary, description of them as I have done here) as standard practice on this article. Given that this section is pretty fully referenced, I don't think it would be good to make dramatic changes for POV (unless it is a question of POV phrasing, which is another matter) without citing sources. I don;t plan to make edits to other sections without citing sources either (although I may of course turn out to be a hypocrite). Palmiro | Talk 00:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding "Prior to 1948, the Jewish community owned just 6-7% of the land." -- this doesn't mean that the rest was owned by Palestinian Arabs. I don't have the numbers handy right now (they're easy to find, but not from Adalah & Co.), but most of the land was govt-owned, i.e. by the Ottomans and then by the Mandate. After Israel's disengagement from Gaza, Abbas mentioned that the Jewish settlements there took as much as 3% of private Palestinian land. So much for "land grab".

I agree that the newly added material needs NPOVifying. Also I don't understand the reason behind the removal of Dr. Wahid Abd Al-Magid's sourced quote. Humus sapiens 01:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the state-owned land was a significant percentage, but I suspect you will find it was largely in Palestinian use, and isn't any more. How much state-owned land in Israel now is in Palestinian use?

The sourced quote was speculation by an Egyptian which seemed to be added to provide an insinuation that the population growth of Palestinian israelis was a direct threat to the state and perhaps part of a dire plot against it. It was of little relevance to the subject. Palmiro | [[User talk:Palmiro|Talk]] 01:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

In fact, Jews owned 8% of the land, Arabs (both local and non-resident) owned about 21% of the land, and over 70% was state owned. After the war, the Arabs who were left owned 3% of the land. State-owned land was not transferred to private ownership. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The 70% figure is misleading as it includes land held in common by villages rather than individuals and land occupied by individuals under an Ottoman perpetual lease system. Also grazing land used by bedouin. And while you are correct that state-owned land was not transferred to private ownership, it was preferentially made available to Jews. A very large amount was sold to the JNF for the sole use of Jews. Btw, you need a better source. The "Survey of Palestine" report it claims as a source does not contain these numbers. --Zero 10:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Israeli arabs are the only segment in Israel that does not live in highrise buildings. The whole segment lives in detached homes. The jews : some in high rise some in detached homes. Home ownership in the Arab sector is also 100%. This is because their finacial situation compare to an Israeli that just finished the army pennyless is much better. Zeq 08:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

In fact, government spending on housing and related town development for Arab citizens, per capita, is far below the spending on Jewish citizens. This is extremely well documented even in official government statistics. I will add actual figures next time I come across them. --Zero 10:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Every documented fact is welcome. But I will continue to delete "Cherrypicking" of propeganda information. Trying to argue that the only result of the 1948 war is the Palestinian exodus is ridiculos. This article is not the place to deal with such subject . There are other articles that deal with the Palestinian exodus. As a result I will again delete the irelevant sections. This article can not turn to yet another anti-Israel propeganda article. Wikipedia is not the place for POV. You either write relevant, complete or well sourced info OR it will be deleted. Zeq 18:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Zeq, please keep in mind that you are arguing with (and attacking) longtime respected editors who have contributed to WP much much more than you have, and your threats to delete are not civil at all. As you yourself said, you can add to information but not delete well-sourced information. Why don't you be a good sport, and list below the specific sentences you object to and I'm sure the other editors will be happy to respond. I also am not sure you truly understand what the word "propaganda" means because you are throwing it left and right at anybody who disagrees with you. Please try to calm down a little and have a constructive dialogue. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Ramallite, let me assured you I am calmed and even calculated. If you can not see what Marxist style propeganda was added to this article I will try to help you:

• Non veryfiable assertion
• Strong POV
• "pump up the trooops" style of writing (such as "contnue to make advancment..." etc...
• One sided
• Cherrypicking from historical events
• pusshing subjects which are covered in other articls

So respect or non respect to an editor I have a lot of resect to Wikipedia policies and I suggest that now that you are an admin you will help convince yout friend Palmiro to adhere to them as well.

Zeq 06:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

New sections about "zionist forces" to the Syrian wikipedians

You make not like it but there IS a country called Israel. It has been established based on UN resolution as the homeland of the Jewish people (the people not the religion by the same name). If you want to put your anti-zionist propeganda, this is not the place for it. And please if you want to make me laugh out of my chair continue to write in this style of old crussion litrature from the 50s.

There are articles about Palestinians exodus (Nakba) where you can add this info (it is already there) any attempt to turn this page into anti_Israel propeganda will be stopped. Maybe you can work on Democrcay in Syria, the El-Hamma massacre (10 times bigger than Sabra and Shatila) but don't worry you will soon have many internal issues to deal with at home. Read about what Lybia has done and about what saddam Hussain did not do and decide where will Syria is heading ....... Zeq 08:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I certainly don't feel insulted to be called Syrian, but that's by the way. The point about Zionist forces is that before May 1948 the state of Israel didn't exist. Palmiro | Talk 14:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

What about "Israeli forces" or "Israel Defense Forces", the official name? I didn't know it was Khomeini who came up with the name "Tsahal"!! Ramallite ^(talk) 12:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Firstly: your comments starts looking as personal attacs to me. Please stop. (And btw: Palmiro is Irish, and I´m a Scandinavian (& a female: I was just accused of beating my wife!). Not that it should matter. (the nationality, I mean; not the "wife-beating";-))

As for the article: I agree that information about the "absentees" should go into the Nakba-article (where these "absentees" reside outside Israel). However, information about the socalled "present absentees" most certainly belong in this article. People who had their land taken from them under the "present absentees" laws were, to my knowledge, always Israeli Arabs (both Muslim and Christian). The "Nakba"-article is only about the 1948 refugees, and the consequences for those refugees. If you regards facts as "anti_Israel propeganda": well, then.... I´m for the moment at a loss for words. Regards, Huldra 09:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The history of Israeli Arabs from 1948 until now is obviously relevant to this page. Some of Huldra's additions need work, but they belong here without a doubt. --Zero 10:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

eh, actually, it was Palmiro that added them: I´m just reverting ;-) regards, Huldra 10:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The history is needed but it should not just be a propeganda article. Subjects such as Nakba are described elsewhere and we will not duplicate. I suggest you work through this in the Wikipedia way... i.e. discuss what you want to add. If you will continue to do revert wars we will not get very far even if you will try to out number me. I am sure other editors will notice in what you are trying to do in taking over this article and will revert you as well. At some point this revert war will end (most likely when Ba'atists in Syria will be running from the new regime) until then I have enough time on my hands to revert the propeganda. Notice that I did not touched a well researched paragraph on discrimination. I am (even if it does not look to you) a person of reason. As long as you keep to a NPOV, as should the wkipedai guidelines your edits will be accepted. Trying to write BS about "zionist forces" on the 2nd paragrpah of this article will not fly...Zeq 15:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh really? The Palmach was anti-Zionist, was it? I suppose the Irgun were Bundists? Your insinuations are distasteful, by the way. Palmiro | Talk 16:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure, Zeq, now you didn´t remove the "well researched paragraph on discrimination", but you haven´t always felt/behaved like that, have you? Let me remind you: [12]. Perhaps the fact that you in no uncertain terms were told that any removal of this text would always be rv. had something to do with you stopping removing it? Regards Huldra 16:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

This is not an answer as not one argued anything about the Plamach. This is an article about Israeli Arabs. Any one who think that Wikipedia is a place for articles with such words as "The Israeli Arab community continues to grow in confidence." or "This was the direct result of the expropriation of Palestinian-owned land" is simply wrong. Every documented fact is welcome. But I will continue to delete "Cherrypicking" of propeganda information. Trying to argue that the only result of the 1948 war is the Palestinian exodus is ridiculos. This article is not the place to deal with such subject . There are other articles that deal with the Palestinian exodus. As a result I will again delete the irelevant sections. This article can not turn to yet another anti-Israel propeganda article. Wikipedia is not the place for POV. You either write relevant, complete or well sourced info OR it will be deleted. Zeq 18:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Re your placing POV-warnings on every single paragraph, you can't just do that without giving better and more specific reasons than you have so far. Nobody is perfect and there may be some POV issues with parts of these edits but nothing compared to the chunks of text you lifted off the internet. Palmiro | Talk 19:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It was explained several times. sorry it is you who filled the article with this unveryfiable assertions without discussing itt first. Zeq 15:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Martial Law

I'm not sure that "martial law" is a legally correct term for the regime to which Israel Arabs were subjected until 1966. I think that the legal basis was the Emergency regulations rather than a declaration of martial law. I'll change it when I find a citable source. --Zero 10:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Introduction - explanation of changes

"The Druze, who follow the Druze religion", is tautological: the community is religiously defined, although may be seen as some as being something in the line of an ethnic community as well (I'll come up with a quote soon). Is it perhaps worth mentioning here that the Druze don't necessarily identify with the Israeli-Arab community?

Not all Mizrahi Jews were persecuted, and not all of them fled. This should be reflected. Equally, the phrasing seemed to refer only to those members of the Mizrahi communities born in Arab countries and not to those born in Israel and elsewhere to families previously resident in those countries. Unless this is in fact desired, it should be rephrased.Palmiro | Talk 16:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's probably best to mention that many Druze do not consider themselves Arabs, but with the way the intro is organized now, I think it would be cramped if we added that. Maybe we need a section for different sub-groups of Israeli Arabs (i.e. Druze, Bedouins, etc.), where it would outline the distinct qualities of each. -- Ynhockey || [[User talk:Ynhockey|Talk]] 16:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the Druze and the Bedouin could certainly do with more detailed coverage, how exactly to organise that I'm not sure. A more detailed and referenced discussion of political and ethnic identity among Israeli Arabs is also something we could do with. Currently we have a bland statement that some think of themselves as Israelis, some as Palestinians, and some as both. This is better than nothing, but only just. Palmiro | Talk 16:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, is it really the case that all the Mixrahi Jews fled or were expelled following persecution? I'm pretty certain that isn't the case for the Syrian ones, for example. I suspect there are also some from Lebanese origin to whom it certainly wouldn't apply. Many may well also be immigrants from third countries. "Using parallel language as for Palestinian refugees" is a very poor basis on which to phrase it, as the two phenomena were far from being mirror images. Palmiro | Talk 19:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Not all the Palestinians "fled or were expelled" either. The language encompasses the vast majority of experiences for both groups. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think many Palestinian refugees voluntarily emigrated because they preferred to live somewhere else. I suspect that a significant number of Mizrahi Jews did. Palmiro | Talk 20:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, your suspicions are interesting, but they don't really accord with reality as far as I can tell. Both groups were living in difficult circumcstances, and felt it would be better to move elsewhere. Let's try to have some NPOV please. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've re-worded the disputed section previously resident in Arab countries who immigrated to Israel mostly after 1948 being persecuted in their countries of origin to who fled or were expelled from Arab countries, mostly after 1948, or who are the descendants of those refugees. - this language is more concise and now parallels that of the description of Palestinians who left Israel. Also, I've commented out the statement , which would brings the percentage of Arabs in Israel to 21.5% We shouldn't speculate based on these estimates of illegal immigrants, since it is unclear how accurate this number is, how many other illegal immigrants Israel has, and this doesn't include several hundred thousand non-Arab guest workers. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I've changed this to "emigrated or were expelled", which closely follows the wording in the article linked to - Jewish exodus from Arab lands. That article would seem a more logical place to seek wording than a treatment of Nakba: to suggest that the same sort of wording should be used for two different events without any rationale is a bit peculiar. However, it's clearly true that many of these Jews did "flee". Perhaps there is some better way of phrasing it, without sacrificing accuracy. I agree with the commenting out of the speculative sentences about illegal immigrants. Palmiro | Talk 14:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I've restored the "flee" wording; perhaps you missed the section in the linked article titled "Jews flee Arab lands". The events had many similarities, though the exodus of the Arabs was compressed in time and much of it happened during a war. The vast majority of these Jews certainly felt they were fleeing intolerable oppression, persecution, or at least danger in their countries of birth. Highlighting one narrative and downplaying the other is hardly NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

this is rather poor reasoning, for two reasons: first of all, the article isn't about the Jewish exodus from Arab states, which is only mentioned in passing because the Mizrahi Jews are mentioned in order to clarify that they are not considered Israeli Arab, so it is not a question of giving equal weight to "two narratives"; secondly, the question is not one of balance but one of accuracy. If your edit is correct, why is it not reflected in the text of the article referred to? I used the phrasing from the intro there; it looks like you have edited on that article without changing it. The sections on Morocco, Tunisia, Yemen, for example, would hardly lead a neutral reader to think "that sounds like they all fled".Palmiro | Talk 16:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, this article doesn't spend much time at all discussing the Jews who fled Arab lands, so the focus and weight given is correct. However, the narratives of each community must be presented fairly and accurately, even if one is only dealt with in a sentence. Regarding the article you mention, I again point out that it uses the title "Jews flee Arab lands", so your point about it saying "emigrate" makes little sense. Regarding Jews of Morocco, see this: [13]. Regarding Jews of Tunisia, see this: [14]. Regarding Jews of Yemen, see this: [15]. The real issue appears to be with that other article. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The introduction to the article reads "The Jewish exodus from Arab lands is the 20th century emigration, and sometimes expulsion, of Jews..." I think it's generally better practice to quote from the text of an article than from section titles or subheadings. The internet source you're offering hardly seems very reliable - not least to judge by the lumps off it that were (and remain) plagiarised onto this article. If you have anything more reliable available I'd be interested to read it. Palmiro | Talk 16:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

We're talking about this article, not that article, so please focus on the best wording for this article; we can fix up the other article afterwards, if need be. As for the other source, I fail to see why its possible plagiarism into this article makes it unreliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no particular detailed knowledge of the subject, so took wording from that article. I hardly think that was an unreasonable course of action. You appear to have been editying on it for some time without removing the wording I used. Your justification for your wording was that it paralleled the wording used in this article to describe a completely different phenomenon. That is a bizarre rationale. I can't see that a basic description of the events under discussion, which is good enough for the article about them, shouldn't be used here.

Also, if you had read my last comments before replying to them, you would see that it was the nature of the material that was (doubtlessly, though not necessarily from there) plagiarised here that was amongst the reasons I doubted its reliability, not the fact of its being copied here. Palmiro | Talk 17:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

"If you had read my last comments before replying to them"? Until you are willing to abide by the Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith policies, I see little point in continuing dialogue with you. Please let me know if you are willing to re-consider. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Re.: "I fail to see why its possible plagiarism into this article makes it unreliable." As far as I understand English: this can certainly be understood as if the writer assumes that it is a "possible plagiarism" that makes the material unreliable, not the nature of the material. Regards, Huldra 18:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

What I said was "The internet source you're offering hardly seems very reliable - not least to judge by the lumps off it that were (and remain) plagiarised onto this article. " I would think it was clear from that that I was judging it by the content that appeared here and not by the means by which that content arrived. Your previous remark to me "You could read this article itself, or the related articles. " seems to me to be of a similar level of civility and assuming good faith. However, I accept that my remark was somewhat unpleasant, and apologise. Palmiro | Talk 23:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for you apology. And I apologize as well if any of my remarks seemed uncivil. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Perhaps I'm oversensitive. It also seems to me that the fact that we obviously have not just very different political views but very different cultural and educational frames of reference (for example, references to bourgeoisies and proletariats strikes me as utterly normal and unexceptional) clearly makes it a bit harder for us to find common ground. Palmiro | Talk 01:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Demography and popuation growth

As I have said above, I don't think a random remark by an Egyptian commentator is suitable for inclusion in this section, it appears only to insinuate that the growth of the Palestinian population in Israel is a threat, or even part of a conspiracy, against the state. If the article is to discuss the political controversy on this issue in a serious, honest and balanced way, then it should openly discuss the debate in Israel about demographics (or what's been termed Israel's status as a Jewish demographic state). This isn't the way to do it. Palmiro | Talk 19:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, am I the only person who feels that the way this information is presented and prioritised had very nasty undertones? Palmiro | Talk 19:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Odd, it seems rather triumphalist to me, just the opposite of your view. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

POV tags

Either the article should have POV tags on the sections in dispute, or one at the top, but not both. Given the number of tags, I think one at the top would be better. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous deletions

How interesting to see Zeq's prophecies coming true so quickly. Palmiro | Talk 21:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't see Zeq's prophecy, but the anon has been warned. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

They were in an edit summary, something to the effect of "this will be gone soon". Palmiro | Talk 11:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Origin and history changes

Jayjg, why did you revert the changes? I agree they might've been not quite as well worded as the original, but they certainly make the text more relevant. I mean, the entire paragraph:

From 1947 to 1949 armed conflict took place between Jewish forces, Palestinian and other Arab irregulars and, at a later stage, the armies of neighbouring Arab states (see main article 1948 Arab-Israeli War). This resulted in the flight or expulsion of as many as 700,000 Palestinians from what became the State of Israel (see main article: Palestinian Exodus).

actually has nothing to do with Israeli Arabs in its current state. It basically states that 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled - how is this relevant to an article on Israeli Arabs? In other words, those who stayed? I think I made it more relevant by making the paragraph flow into the next (relevant) one; I'll highlight the 'connection words' - as a result of the war, territory fell under Israeli control, from which as many as 700,000 Arabs fled or were expelled. However, 150,000 stayed, were granted citizenship and became known as Israeli Arabs.
Something like that anyway. Why do you feel it's worse than this version? -- Ynhockey || [[User talk:Ynhockey|Talk]] 01:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing

80% of the population was ethnically cleansed, and that's not relevant to the remaining 20%? Of course it is. How long to you think you can talk about the Jewish communities of Europe without mentioning the Holocaust?

Also, the passive-voice attribution of agency to "armed conflict" or "the war" softpedals the Israeli conquest and ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Palestinians didn't leave because of "armed conflict." They left because Jews were executing noncombatants, expelling villagers, and blowing up the villages after them.

Try this: Israeli "clearing operations," including mass killings, direct expulsions and pyschological warfare (threats of rape, etc.) resulted in the flight or expulsion of as many as 700,000 Palestinians from what became the State of Israel.

About the rubbish in this article

I suggest everyone take a good look at the edit summary here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_exodus&diff=28491090&oldid=28489053

The same argument apply to the revent section in this article.

It can be both ways

If this article will turn into the "Nakba and discrimination" article we will also have to inculde symetriacl info in other articles. If we go into "roots and origin" as a top section we will inculde not only events in 1948 but also in 1938 (association with the Nazis) etc...

To Sum up: There ARE already articles about various subjects in wkipedia. If you will push your POV into each and every article on the conflict the whole set of articles will become un readable. So I apeal again to people like Jayjg who care about wikipedia: Either you interduce order into this blatent POV pushing (which is not supported btw, none of it) or you will have chaos not just on this article. The same editing methjods will be used all over the Israel Palestinian conflict.

Zeq 09:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

More work

Anyone who think this kind of lang

"economic development of the population was encouraged and a Palestinian bourgeoisie began to develop on the margin of the Israeli bourgeoisie. From the 1980s on, the community developed its economic and, in particular, industrial potential, but this was inhibited to some extent by state restrictions"

will remain in a non POV article is VERY wrong.

The work will continue. I suggest you look at the start. But if all you want is propeganda your section will be deleted. Jayjg, it is very disppoainting that a future member of the arbitration cometee is among the people who interduced this BS in one of your reverts. Adding these section was vandalising this article and you should, as an admin, guard aginst it.

Zeq 19:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Zeq:

1. Quit your bullying, you have no right to say things like "will be deleted". You have worked on very few articles on WP, and every single one in which you contributed more than 1-2 edits has been involved in edit warring, so try to be more civil. You do not own Wikipedia.
2. Accusing other editors of "adding BS", is a personal attack, and doing so repeatedly makes you disruptive and uncivil, and you may end up getting blocked by a neutral admin.
3. As for your most recent POV tag about the sentence starting with "Israel is not a melting pot"... that sentence is lifted straight from the Israeli government website at the bottom of the page. It is also copyrighted. And I believe that it was you who actually put it in the article.
4. So try to be less disruptive, and instead of being aggressive just point out nicely the sentences that you think are POV and everybody can work on them together.

Ramallite ^(talk) 19:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• I disageree with everything you wrote about me above. When one see BS it can be call BS . This is not an atteck on the person but on the material .Zeq 09:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Zeq, actually I am a current member of the arbitration committee, and the way to deal with the POV issues of this article is to insist on proper citation from reliable sources, and on attribution, or bringing counterviews, rather than simply deleting the material. There are many statements in the sections you object to which are not properly cited or attributed - mark them, refute them, or bring them here for discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Good for you. So why don'y you deal with this ? Look at the language used in these sections ? is not POV ? one sided ? Is it relevant ? does it add value ? Zeq 09:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

"add value"? Hey, that´s a term Marx (and Marxist) use!! Lol! Hey Zeq, are you are Marxist? Regards, Huldra 14:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The sections Zeq objects to contain a level of citation which is quite unusual on Wikipedia, and similar to the levels found in academic works. They are also to reasonable books rather than to advocacy sites that lift their material off the Israeli Ministry for Foreign Affairs. I suggest that there are lots of other articles around Israel and Palestine that deserve this criticism rather more. Palmiro | Talk 21:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

In this case I definitely agree with both Ramallite and Jayjg. And Zeq, remember: if we were to automatically cut out everything that was not properly sourced; then I believe everything you brought into the article would have been cut out at once (as none of it, as I recall, was sourced). Regards, Huldra 20:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Just to make myself clear: it was the cutting out of material I totally agreed with. About any lack of sources: I have not checked enough to say. Regards, Huldra 02:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Demography-article; please follow notation there

There are so many different words floating around in this article, words/expressions which are not defined. E.g.:

• "natural reproduction rate"; I assume this is "crude birth rate", that is: the annual number of live births per thousand people.(?actually, I´m not quite sure what is meant by "natural reproduction rate" )
• "Infant death": use instead: infant mortality rate, defined as the annual number of deaths of children less than 1 year old per thousand live births

All these expressions are defined in the Demography-article, I will strongly advice everybody to follow the notation there. (and then we can wikify the words/expressions" at the same time.) Regards,Huldra 22:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Marxist analysis passed off as fact?

It appears that much of the information being inserted (e.g. about Economic development) is a Marxist analysis being passed off as fact. I'm also concerned that the two sources being used are written in French, making fact checking difficult. I strongly suggest that more mainstream encyclopedic sources be used for this material, as this appears to be a non-verifiable extreme minority opinion. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think either of these are extreme minority opinions. My impression from reading the two books is that they are quite mainstream. Unlike many Wikipedia editors, I have not only cited my sources but described them.

Wikipedia is meant to be an open project, and as such should be open to good faith contributions even from people living in countries where English-language academic books are practically unavailable. I can hardly be the only contributor with access to books in French, either.

What basis do you have for suggesting that the analysis is Marxist? Palmiro | Talk 23:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, this "It appears that much of the information being inserted (e.g. about Economic development) is a Marxist analysis being passed off as fact." makes your almost simultaneous comments to me about assuming good faith seem a little inconsistent. Palmiro | Talk 23:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

"Almost simultaneous"? I made that comment six hours ago. Any economic analysis which divides the world into the proletariat and bourgoisie is obviously Marxist. And I'm not assuming bad faith here; there are still some people who believe Marxist economic analysis is fact. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

"Any economic analysis which divides the world into the proletariat and bourgoisie is obviously Marxist", well, I wouldn´t use the word "obviously" here. Perhaps (or even: quite likely) it is "obvious" in USA/North America, but not in Europe, particularely not in France/among French writers. Regards, Huldra 00:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Jayjg asked me to comment here on the use of French-language sources. There's no policy against using them if nothing else is available, but English-language sources should be prioritized. When a non-English source must be used (because, for example, the same information isn't available from an English source), a translation of the relevant section should be supplied, together with the original language. See WP:V#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English, which is policy. In this case, that would mean quoting the sources in English, and supplying the French alongside it so that readers could decide whether the translation was accurate.

I'm wondering if the first source is worth the trouble, as she's a journalist, and therefore not someone who can be quoted to support an economic analysis. Also, the Marxist language is a bit off-putting. Does that come from the sources or from the editor who inserted it? "It has been suggested ...": did one of the sources suggest this, and if so, which one, and what did s/he say exactly? I'd also say it makes more sense in a passage like this to say: "According to journalist X or historian Y, rather than to use footnotes, which the reader has to hunt for, and even then isn't told who the sources are, or exactly which part of the paragraph is being attributed to them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I got the sources the wrong way round. I've just noticed Jay's edit and it's the second source who's the journalist, which means the latter part of the paragraph is being attributed to her? That can't stand if she's just a reporter. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The writer is a journalist specialising in the Middle East, and the text quoted is from a book about the Palestinians in Israel and the diaspora. The specific element Jayjg objects to is itself referenced to a work by Raja Khalidi, Les Palestiens de l'Interieur, and is not the original idea of Feron. I have added to it information from the Kodjani source (which is where the reference to a Palestinian bourgeoisie came from).

Neither the source quoted, nor the quotes, "divides the world into the proletariat and bourgoisie"; they refer to elements of the population falling into these categories, which are widely used categories of sociological analysis whose use is hardly enough to indicate that a work is Marxist.

If this particular section is causing so many problems and people are convinced that it's objectionable, I won't object to its deletion prior to someone coming up with better sources. However, I would add that the objections to the sources I consider acceptable are the ones I already listed above, in what as far as I can see is a relatively unusual level of openness and adhesion to the spirit of WP:CITE. The level of citation is also more than a lot of articles have. (By the way, I have never seen an academic book that references every single sentence. It's quite normal to reference a single argument from one source with one citation). This being the case, I find the hectoring and unpleasant response I've got particularly depressing.

As far as the verifiability argument goes, having read the link you pointed me to SV, I'm not sure about your interpretation. What I've done is used a book as a source and cited it. I haven't given a quote, which is what what you mention seems to apply to (i.e. provision of both languages). Providing the original material verbatim where a source in English is used doesn't seem to be common practice in WP when English books are referred to, and my reading of the policy doesn't lead me to think that it is required here - forgive me if I'm getting muddled. Palmiro | Talk 23:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

That part of the policy seems to have recently been changed slightly, Palmiro, which has made it less clear. The point of it is that information must be verifiable by English-language speakers. My problem with your edit is: (1) it's not clear what each of the sources is saying, (2) it's not clear what the WP editor is stating as fact, (3) the sources aren't in English, and (4) it's not clear, of at least one of them, that they're appropriate sources. We can't use reporters to provide an economic analysis, unless perhaps the writer specializes in economics, but even then it would be very borderline. If this is a mainstream view, there must be academic, English-language sources who say the same thing.

Which part of the paragraph are you attributing to each of the sources? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

zeroing indent

The predominant feature of the Israeli Arab community's economic development after 1949 was its transformation from a predominantly peasant farming population to, in large degree, a proletarian industrial workforce. **Comment: This was the direct result of the expropriation of Palestinian-owned land. Who is it that maked this claim? - will check precise quotation and uncomment end comment** In addition, other elements of economic development were inhibited by government restrictions ^[16]Kodmani obviously, as cited. It has been suggested that the economic development of the community was marked by distinct stages.feron, citing Raja Khalidi The first period, until 1967, was characterised by this process of proletarianisation and dispossession.ditto, kodmani agrees and the term proletarianisation is from her. I don;t find it particularly Marxist, but it may strike others differently From 1967 on, economic development of the population was encouraged feron affirms this, citing khalidi, as before and a Palestinian bourgeoisie began to develop on the margin of the Israeli bourgeoisie kodmani, p.127 . From the 1980s on, the community developed its economic and, in particular, industrial potential, but this was inhibited to some extent by state restrictions^[17].feron again. This combines the narrative of the two sources, which are consistent with one another, and the relevant footnote cites them both. This is hardly an unusual way of presenting information in an academic context (although certainly the Feron source is not one I would use in this way an academic context, the source she cites sounds credible and one I would be happy to us myself in an academic context - obvoiusly I can;t really say for sure without having seen it - I was using it here for lack of other sources and to add badly-needed information to an article that was full of very bad material, and it compares favourably with sources used in many wikipedia articles in this area). I find it rather unpleasant the way I am being put through the wars here after a good faith attempt at editing and improving this page, and especially when lots of articles in this area are edited with nowhere near this degree of care, including in fact this one which includes a lot of very duboius material whose source has not been explained by the editor with any clarity and yet I and others attempted to deal with that editor in a polite and reasonable way as the talk page above shows at length. Palmiro | Talk 00:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Yes. You are working in Good Faith . Your comment "Zeq seems to be somewhat subdued, so now might be the time! " in this:

User_talk:Huldra#Israeli_Arab_-_again clearly show your good faith. Zeq

That was after my and Huldra's lengthy attempts to discuss your problematic edits ran into the brick wall of your inability or unwillingness to explain the reasoning behind your edits or the sources you used for them. I have no idea why we have such a problem, but your approach to editing and in particular to explaining your reasoning on talk pages is not very easy for me to understand. Palmiro | Talk 19:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Druze, Christians and Muslims

The referene to the Druze as an ethnicity seems a bit dodgy - religious group or religious community seems better, or simply say "The Druze community..."

Not sure if those two people are worth mentioning, unless we can have articles on them. The Druze article, in fact, quotes a serious-looking source which claims that the Druze in Israel do indeed frequently consider themselves Arab. As for the comparison between Druze prospects in Syria, Lebanon, and Israel, this is bound to be tricky and I'm not sure if it's really necessary in this article.

I think the division between the Christians and Muslims is not necessary; it is not of the same order as that between both and the Druze and Bedouin. Even if the Christians and Muslims have different demographic characteristics and, to some extent, political differences (stronger communist support among the Christians I seem to recall, definitely presence of the Islamic movement confined to Muslims) they are really not separate communities (especially not in self-identity) the way the others are. Palmiro | Talk 01:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The druze did not allow any converstion into their religion since the 12 century. So they are by now a distict entnithity. Zeq 05:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a non sequitur. Palmiro | Talk 10:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The Druze are, in fact, Arabs; no one disputes that. They often to not identify themselves as [i]Palestinian[/i] Arabs, or as part of the Palestinian national movement. In fact, they are the closest thing to "Zionist Arabs" you are likely to find. Nevertheless, they are Arabs, as evidenced by the choice of a Druze village for the recent Jewish terror attack that killed four.Rsfarrell

New Sections: "bottom-up"-writing, not "top-down"

In many ways this article suffers from some of the almost chronic "illnesses" I see in articles on WP: a lot of editors add their little (and not so little) pieces of information; and then the overall effect is a mess. In fact: articles here are written in exactly the opposite way we (eh, read: at least I ;-)) normally write articles: normally we would start off with a disposition, ordering/listing sections or chapters. Then we would "fill in" the different sections/chapters. In other words: roughly a "top-down" writing (I´m borrowing the language from computer science here). I wish we could spent som time arranging -and agreeing!-about the different sections we should have in this article, before we got down to the nitty-gritty details about which sentence was adequately sourced or not. My 5-cents worth: why not take "Economic development of the Israeli Arab community" (which I now see that Palmiro has deleted) and merge it at the end of "Work and Economic situation". Likewise: why not merge "Political development and growing confidence" with "Legal and Political Status"? (possibly splitting that again in two: one section on politics and one section on law/legal matter.) But I would definitely not like to see the "Initial measures taken by the Israeli government" moved to the end of the article, (as was done earlier): that seems very illogical.

Also: now all of Palmiros additions are marked as "neutrality of this section is disputed." In all fairness: I think that some of the "old" (=Zeq´s additions) are just as disputed. But now they are not marked. (As if "Pluralism and Sectoral Identity" suddenly became NPOV by Palmiros additions to other parts of the article?) Should we not remove all the "local" "disputed" tags, and place one "disputed" at the start of the article? Regards, Huldra 02:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• The additions of Palmiro, which are just BS maraxists propeganda was a vandalising of this article.
• You are welcome, to dispute, to edit and we will compromise on veryfiable facts even if you or I don't "like" these facts.
• such a clear violation of Wkipedia standrats as was in the "Palmiro additions" will not be accepted and it WILL be deleted.
• I suggest you take a good look at my compromise suggestion (which meged into the top of the article some of the issues you and palmiro added) as a direction for the future of this article. I will not give up, even if you "gang up" on me in a revert war, so i suggest you start looking for a compromise that would make this article fit wikipedia standrds.

Zeq 05:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, Zeq: I have reverted you; not to Palmiros (or mine) old version: but to Ynhockey last version. In your revert you deleted a lot of valuable (and needed) inf. about the Druze. I´m trying to assume good faith here, but I truly cannot understand how you can make such an edit as you just did if you had read what you deleted???

Also: about "Marxist propaganda" can you PLEASE read what is written about this earlier tonight on this talk-page?? (just in case you had missed it....). Words like "proletariat" and "bourgoisie" is about as controversial to a French writer as the words "working-class" and "middle-class" would be to an American (or Israeli?). Having said that, those words should probably be changed, exactly because so many have very specific associations with them, associations which were probably not intended by the writer/author.

And if I were you I really would not speak too loud about adding "verifiable" material, as nothing you added was sourced (and was therefore unverifiable) Regards, Huldra 06:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I have merged the info that was ommited. sorry about that. Everything I write is veryafiable and is not written in a marxist style propeganda. I again suggest that you try to compromise instead of getting to revert war. So far the only side that insist on getting it 100% POV Pushing their way is your side. Wiki is about colaboration and consensus. Zeq 06:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, in fairness, nobody has raised any doubts about the sources of Zeq's information; its source seems to be estanlished beyond doubt even if its copyright status is not entirely clear.

As regards merging sections, I think it is worthwhile having a clear indication of the history of the community, which is what I was trying to give. I'm not sure about having a historical section in each heading. But maybe that could work. As far as politics goes, there is a lot more information readily available I suspect about voting patterns etc, on the internet, but unlikely that I can access it, maybe someone else could have a look. Palmiro | Talk 12:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The current layout is utterly incoherent. If people didn't like the sections I wrote because they used common sociological terminology, that's fine. But they made sense narratively and chronologically as inserted. This doesn't. Palmiro | Talk 12:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

What you wrote does not make sense in the context, in the location, in the source and in the relevancy. It is in all fairness not the tyope of material that should be here. There are few, maybe 1-2 lines that can sumerize what you wanted to say and someone (maybe me. maybe you, maybe slim or others) will eventually sumerize it and remove the fluff. You have to understand that wkipedia is not the place for even one "growing in confidence" let along two.

take this for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurds do you see any "growing in confidence" there ?

Zeq 19:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Zeq: I totally disagree with you. Ofcourse the new addition is relevant. And as I have said in my edit summaries when I have reverted you: I believe you are alone in having that opinion. Having said that, Palmiro, I do wish you had waited a bit until we got Zeqs addition into a better shape, before adding more ;-) Now; it´s all a bit overwhelming.

As for Zeq´s material beeing verifiable: why was the birth rate of 3,4% cut out, while the 3,6% figure kept? Does anybody know? Just asking..

Actually I just thought the part including 3.6 was more coherently written so I left it. I have now updated the figure to 3.3%, which is correct ([18]). -- Ynhockey 02:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Ynhockey; that was very good (that you found the ref.). I just included that link as a "hidden" ref. in the article-text, as I don´t expect anybody will find it here...;-). Four issues:

• First: the 3.3 % is a ref. to "Muslims", while the number for "Arabs" is 3.0. Isn´t that number more relevant? I mean, since this article is about "Israeli Arabs" (and not: "Israeli Muslims") I suggest we change text from "Muslims" to "Arabs", and change number from "3.3" to "3.0".
• Second: Actually, the ref. article say that the annual rate for Jews is 1.4; so the rate in the article should be changed to reflect this, should it not?
• Third: We really should mention the year (2004), that these statistics are given for.
• Fourthly: I would really like to see the notation follow the definitions in the Demography-article, can somebody find out wether "% annual growth" is actually equal (crude) birth rate? (..defined as "the number of childbirths per 1000 persons per year.") If that is the case; then we should definitely use birth rate instead. Well, I think that was it (for this one article-sentence! ;-D) Regards, Huldra 04:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

OK this conversation has kind of gotten off-topic and too tilted to the right ;) so see bottom of the page for reply. -- Ynhockey 05:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Anyway: frankly, I do not know where to start, as the article stands now. Also: I don´t know if I should bother spending much time on thinking about what is best..seeing that it only get reverted, anyway......

Well, I´ll try in a tiny way to attack the main issue: the sections <gasp>. Palmiro: to me it sound unnatural to have a "historical sections" at the beginning of the article about all different issues, and then writing about the very same issues further down, from a present day perspective. Why not, for each section: 1: start with situation in 1948, 2: then the developement; & 3: how it has led to the present situation. (I agree, however, that as it stands now it is impossible: for each section: first present situation....and then the historical developement! )

Let me also suggest a small thing: When there is a main article, say Bedouins or Druze: instead of directly linking from the word, let us write underneath the link to the main article (this is standard practise on e.g. articles on countries, eg., from Israel:

== History ==

''Main article [[History of Israel]]''.

=== Historical roots ===

etc., etc,

which translates to:

rezeroing indent OK, well as I said I think there is room for a historical treatment per se. How do you explain the political development of the community separate from the issues of dispossession, for example? And where do you start with each issue, for example, for land, do you start in 1949? Perhaps it's time to start a redrafting exercise in the more peaceful environs of a user sub-page? I thought about that before adding my Maoist propaganda, but decided on balance not to, but maybe if there are people interested in pursuing it it might work now and it migght be easier to work collaboratively. My real objection though was indeed to the current incoherent structure of following each section with a historical section, which we both seem to agree is odd. However, my own time is pretty limited at the moment. Palmiro | Talk 13:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

History

Main article History of Israel.

Historical roots

etc, etc,

Doesn´t this make it more readable? Eh, well, take a look at the article, and see what I mean. ;-) Regards, Huldra 00:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I made the change per Wikipedia policy (avoid links in page titles), but actually this isn't optimal because it suggests that the link is an article on Israeli Druze/Bedouins, while actually it's about their groups in general. -- Ynhockey || [[User talk:Ynhockey|Talk]] 00:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I see, but perhaps it could be written: "see General article about Druze", or something like that? Also; I see the ref. to the Druze book disappeared in some revert; I placed a note to Zeq asking him to reinsert it/explain why it was cut (see below). This he has not done. On my last version the ref. is still there. Regards, Huldra 01:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Just an example

Can such a senstce ever be proven ? Is it not a marxist propeganda ?:

"The predominant feature of the Israeli Arab community's economic development after 1949 was its transformation from a predominantly peasant farming population to, in large degree, a proletarian industrial workforce. This was the direct result of the expropriation of Palestinian-owned land."

It adds no value to the subject we deal with, all over the world there is industrtialization (and a move to service economy which this sentence ignore completly) it does not deal with the sepcifics of Arab economy (such as non participation of women in the work force) and how in Israel this is changing (some Arab women work).

This sentence about "economy" does only one thing: It talks about "expropriation of Palestinian-owned land" - which is pushing an assertion into the wrong section.

You want to talk about land confiscation ? fine. Use the discrimination section. Bring proof. Israel is a country of laws. It is not the only country in the world in which some desrted lands go to the goverment. Source your assertion and bring the other POV . Only in this way we will be able to move on. Just an example. Zeq 06:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL! You really don´t read what you are reverting, do you??? If you had, you would have seen that the above sentence, indeed the whole section was taken out (by Palmiro, himself, btw.). You will see that section above here, on this page (under the POV-banner), where Palmiro is painstakingly sourcing each sentence. You critisize my "version" ..and give as a reason a sentence which is NOT in my version, but is in yours!! Hey, Zeq: wake up! May I suggest a cold shower? Or perhaps a cup of very strong coffee?? Regards, Huldra 07:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, just finishd the shower. It is good that we are text-only mode and not with webcam. I am glad I made you laugh. Good spirit. Now, If you can do the merge better than me, please do so. I will try to merge the last state of the disputed sections into the current version but if I will fail please correct it in a coloborative way. Zeq 07:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge complete. Please check if we can start to work more from this point as a base or that I have ommited something despite the shower. Now I am going for this coffee you suggested. Thanks. Zeq 07:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I don´t have time to look at it just now, I´m logging out soon and will not be back in a while (hey, I was not supposed to be on WP this week...) The other guys will have to deal with it, regards, Huldra 08:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)PS: I don´t know why, but I always feel strongly for a large double brandy after editing with you.....

I'll be a sport and stop editing this article until you have the time to look at it. See you later.

May I suggest Bojoulet (the 2005 day is today) instead of Brandy ? Zeq 08:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

After editing here, I think I´ll take anything, except Syrian red-wine. Regards, Huldra 11:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Value ?

Another example. This is an encyclopedia.

can someone say what is the encyclopidic value added by this :

"The Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and the outbreak of the first Palestinian Intifada in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip were defining moments for it, helping form the identity many (but by no means all) of its members adopt as being part of the Palestinian people yet part of the Israeli state.The political face of the Israeli Arab community has continued to change"

It sais nothing new about the subject matter (Israeli Arabs) while mentioning events covered elsewhere.

maybe we should narrow this artickle to something like this:

Kurds#Kurds_in_Syria

Zeq 19:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I will wait for few days to any editor/admin who wish to clean up the disputed almost valueless taged sections ("the Palmiro additions" which seem like a marxist propeganda) . If no one will clean them up to Wikipedia standrds all the non-jermain, un supported parts and those that brings no value will be deleted. 06:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

With all respect, Zeq: that is an absurd conclusion to make. To put it bluntly: one reason few edits here at the moment is because you seem to do your best to scare everybody off with your incomprehensible editing. E.g. why on earth have you cut out the Druze ref. book (inserted, I believe, by Ynhockey)?

It was a mistake, during a merge and once you pointed it out I immediatly restored it. Hope this did nor scare anyone off. Zeq 13:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

???? I cannot see that you have reinserted: "*Schenk, Bernadette Druze Identity in the Middle East, in Salibi, Kamal, ed, The Druze: Realities and Perceptions, London, Druze Heritage Foundation, 2005."? See my last version. Regards, Huldra 14:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

It is not very fun to spend time and do carefully researched edits, only to have it cut out by some who at times seem not to read what he is editing anyway. I know this sound harsh, but really; that is the impression I´m left with. (And I know I´m not the only one).

I have the same impression. The addition by Palmiro made this article unreadable and devoided of value. Zeq 13:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

As for the "the Palmiro additions", as you call them: they don´t seem like "marxist propaganda" to me. (And yes; I did infact study Marx, at University (ages and ages ago...). I had to, when I took exams in social science....;-) ) (Having said that: some wording (like: "proletariat" and "bourgoisie") should probably change, since it gives a wrong impression to some people (e.g. Americans) (e.g. could change to "working-class" and "middle-class"?))

Well, bourgeoisie and middle class aren't the same thing, and the distinction has been especially important in the modern history of the middle east, where at least according to some historians the segmentation of the middle class and indeed of the bourgeoisie itself has been an important feature of political and social development. e.g. the stereotypical view of Islamists gaining support from a traditional bazaar bourgeoisie while the intelligentsia supports secular political movements. But certainly proletariat can be rephrased as ""industrial working class". Palmiro | Talk 14:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

ok, here they are used more interchangeable (not much of a bazaar bourgeoisie or Islamist movement here;-)) Anyway: I think the word "proletariat" is more "tainted" (ie has more associated with it) than the word "bourgoisie", anyway. Huldra 15:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

If not marxist than "Leninist" : all those "grow in confidence" and other terms that add absolutly no value to the reader. If what he wanted to say that that Israeli Arabs are sympathetic to the Plaestinian issues why not say it simply ?

Zeq 13:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, now we've established that you don't know what Leninism is either. Wikipedia actually has reasonably good articles on these ideas, why don't you read them? Palmiro | Talk 14:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

If you cut out the new additions, I will make sure I will revert the deletions! I will "patrol" the article, if nothing else. Just to let you know. Regards, Chief police officer (self-appointed...) Huldra 11:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I propse to short them, to try and understand what they are trying to say and make it consise, non-POV and balance them if they do have any strong one sided POV. as they are now they are worthless. If I was only concern about POV I will let them stand (they don't make any readable argument) but I want to have a usefull article. Surly, you do too. Zeq 13:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

It's a shame, given how much talk there's lately been here about Marxism, that nobody seems to know what it is. Palmiro | Talk 11:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

You sure seem to know a lot about it and can maybe help us understand if the section we fondly call "The Palmiro additions" are more Marxists propeganda style or Leninist propeganda style ?

Zeq 13:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Verifyability ?

Plamiro,

Before I start reediting your sections I want to verify that what you wrote there fits the source. Can you provide a link to the source for what you claim in thse sections ? We need to see if indeed the source is so "one sided" or maybe in other ssections (which you did not quote) there are other Point of views. This goes to a core Wikipedia policy of verifyablity since we are not a source (and we don't even have here a translation of that whole source) Thank you. Zeq 13:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The ISBN numbers of the two books function as wikilinks to a special "Book sources" page. Palmiro | Talk 15:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Please follow the policy in Verifiability#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English. Thanks. Zeq 13:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

but this is ENGLISH wiki and people have hard to time to access and read in French. My French is limited, can you post the original in French and I will make an effort Zeq 15:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I have actually posted a query on Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability about the use of foreign language sources, since the policyas being cited was not at all clear to me. Palmiro | Talk 15:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I am by no mean an expert but reading through similar cases what you need to do is provide direct quotes of the material, quotes that are as complete as possible to the subject matter. These quotes can be evaluated and a summary can be made by others and you. Zeq 15:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I still have a major problem with verifyability of these sections. Plamiro are you providing a link to sourceor to translation ? Zeq 07:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

If you like, I will cite and translate some of the relevant material in the next couple of days. The library I found the books in is closed today. Please indicate what exactly you want to know. In the meantime, perhaps you could oblige us by telling us your source for the material you inserted in this edit. Palmiro | Talk 11:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Please discuss changes on sections that have already been agreed upon

Palmiro, we discussed the intro at great length. Many took part inbring it to the way it is and it was discussed. If you want to make changes in this article I suggest you: 1. discuss them first here 2. Focus on the disputed sections. (which if not fixed will be removed)

Thanks, Zeq 16:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The only reason this article is at all readable is because another user went to a considerable amount of trouble to make sense of your contributions, so your hectoring tone is a bit rich. Please cite evidence for your edits indicating that the Druze were not part of the Arab Palestinian population remaining within the 1949 armistice lines, that immigration since 1949 is the origin for a signifiant part of the Arab population of Israel, and that Israeli Arabs family ties are more notably with the Palestinians of the occupied territories than with those exiled from their own villages, who were in many cases members of the same families. I don't recall this idyllic age of collaboration in which you made these edits originally. This is what the introduction looked like not much more than a week ago, and there doesn;t seem to have been massive discussion of it since. Palmiro | Talk 11:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Not true. This article was poorly written when i started with it (only had info about "discrimination") after my additions Huldra requested changes (see talk above) which were addressed. We reached some delicate balance and a failrly non POV article existed. After your addition it afagain become one sided. I suggest you review Wikipedia policy that i put on your talk page: There is no way you can eventually get this article to fit your one sided view . Only non POV article will stay. I strongly suggest that if you want any of your additions to stay for the long run you will:

1. Edit them to become non POV
2. Provide complete source for verifiablity  

Zeq 13:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't really know how to respond to your strategy of mass confusion. Since you haven't answered my questions here and your edit summary is not an adequate justification of your edits, I'm reverting. Palmiro | Talk 13:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I am sure that this is how you want this article to look like:

[19]

But it would not fly. This article was poorly written the way you had a month ago and I will not let you destroy it again to be just another one side article as you intend it to. Focus on fixing your additions. That is my sugggestion. Zeq 13:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I've invited you above to indicate specific problems you have with my additions, or better yet, go off and find reasonable sources that discuss the issue. Making ludicrous claims of Marxist propaganda won't help us, especially when everyone knows that I am in fact an anarcho-syndicalist. Palmiro | Talk 13:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Well excuse me for not seeing the distinction between "anarcho-syndicalist" to "marxist" or other type of comunists. In any case I have started to remove the glarying POV and non verifyable and non important and non jermain to the issue from your additions. This work will continue and you are welcome to take part in it. I suggest you discuss your changes as I have done. BTW, when you have a good point (like ties of israeli arabs not just to west bank but to wider Arab) world I am happy to cooperate with you (in a non-POV way of course) Zeq 14:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Demographics

• 1) I also think that Arab growth rate would be more relevant to the article on the whole, but I think the figure was originally given to illustrate that Muslims are growing at a far faster rate than Jews. Whether this is necessary or not, I don't know.
• 2) Yes of course, I'll change it now. Didn't notice.
• 3) Probably, although CBS compiles yearly statistics and then publishes them in the middle of next year. So, in about summer 2006 we will just look at the 2005 CBS yearbook. But I guess someone not familiar with CBS won't know this.
• 4) I'm fairly sure that annual growth means just that - it takes the population of the previous year, as opposed to the new year, and calculates a percentage. As you can see, the Judea and Samaria growth rate is astronomical (over 5%), which is probably a result of migration. I could be wrong though. I'll look around the CBS website and see if I can find out for sure.

The source can actually be found easily on the CBS website, I think there's an English version. That PDF file will not change next year, it will stay as an archive in the same URL, and new statistics for 2005 will be posted in a different URL, so a new ref will need to be added. However, I don't oppose the ref being on the page in principle.

-- Ynhockey 05:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is a page where you can see all of this year's statistics: [20]. All the real stats are under Tables & Introductions, the rest has pie charts, maps, etc. -- Ynhockey 05:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

"Palestinian elite were no longer present" ??? I don't think so

I have started to deal with the disputed sections since Palmiro refuse to do it. So among others I have removed such nonsense as there is no Palestinian elite inside Israel - this is an insult to many leaders, doctors artists and clerics of the Israeli arab population. They have elite. Some of this elite is also in the elite of Israel (like auther Sayed Kishua and legislator Ahmed Tibi)

Zeq 14:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you should delete material you don't understand. The article was talking about the loss of the political elite who after 1948 were no longer living in the same state as the Israeli Arabs. Ahmad Tibi (who I suspect would be surprised to hear himself described as a member of the Israeli elite) is a tad too young to be of any relevance. Palmiro | Talk 15:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

About Ein Hod

For those who read Hebrew:

13.09.05, 21:42 YNET

אחרי 57 שנות קיום החליטה מדינת ישראל להכיר בכפר עין-חוד, כפר קטן בן כ-200 תושבים המצוי בפארק הכרמל. הכפר יצורף למועצה האזורית חוף הכרמל. שר הפנים: אנחנו מתקנים עוול היסטורי שר הפנים, אופיר פז-פינס, הוציא הבוקר (ג´) לפועל הבטחה ישנה שנתן ראש הממשלה המנוח יצחק רבין לתושבי הכפר הלא-מוכר עין-חוד: השר חתם על צו בו מכירה ישראל לראשונה ביישוב הקטן אשר בפארק הכרמל. מעתה ישתייך הכפר, על מאתיים תושביו, למועצה האזורית חוף הכרמל. הישוב עין חוד שעל הר הכרמל נוסד בשנת 1948 על-ידי פליטים פלסטינים שנמלטו מבתיהם באזור הכרמל. מאז הוקם הכפר ביקשו תושביו את הכרת המדינה אך לא זכו לה. יישובים אחרים שהוקמו בחטף, בלא אישורים ובלא תכניות בנייה מסודרות, היו ברי מזל יותר מעמיתיהם בעין-חוד. גם כאשר הוקם פארק הכרמל, בשנת 1971, סירבו רשויות החוק ונציגי המועצה האזורית להכיר בכפר ולא כללו אותו בתחום המוניציפלי של הפארק. לטענת מקימי הפארק, הכפר נמצא בתוך הפארק ולכן לא הסכימו להכיר בו כישות מוניציפלית נפרדת. לאחרונה הודיעה המועצה האזורית חוף הכרמל למשרד הפנים כי אין לה עוד התנגדות לצרוף עין חוד למועצה כיישוב מוכר מן המניין. כל היישובים הנמנים על המועצה הביעו גם הם נכונות להכיר בעין חוד. כתוצאה מכך, הכיר השר בעין חוד כוועד מקומי, וגבולותיו הם אלו שאושרו במנהל התכנון בדצמבר 2004. הכפרים הלא-מוכרים סובלים מתשתית תכנונית גרועה, מהיעדר שרותים מוניציפליים בסיסיים, מהיעדר כבישים סלולים ומדרכי עפר רבות. לעיתים מצטרף לכך מחסור חמור בבתי ספר וכיתות לימוד. פני מספר שבועות חתם פינס על הכרה בעיר הדרומית אום-בטין שבנגב, אליה החלו לעבור בדואים רבים מהאזור. לפני-כן, בחודש מאי, חתם השר פינס על החזרתם של 11 אלף דונם שטחי אש צה"ליים לידי ישובי ואדי ערה , לאחר שהופקעו מהם בידי המדינה בשנות ה-60´. גם החלטה זו התקבלה לראשונה בתקופת ראש הממשלה רבין. עם החתימה על הצווים והמפות אמר פינס כי "מדובר בתיקון העוול ההיסטורי שנגרם לתושבי עין חוד. אני שמח כי לאחר שנים רבות של הזנחה סוף סוף זוכים התושבים להכרה מוניציפאלית ואיתה למועצה שתדאג לצורכיהם". נוסף על ההכרה בעין-חוד צירף השר פינס לתחומי המועצה האזורית חוף הכרמל את השכונות 11 ו-13 של קיסריה, אשר היוו עד היום חלק מן החברה לפיתוח קיסריה. ההחלטה לצרף את השכונות למועצת חוף הכרמל התקבלה כבר בחודש ינואר 2004, לאחר שוועדת חקירה לגבולות מועצות האזור המליצה לעשות כן. אז הוחלט, כי שתי שכונות אלו יצורפו לחוף הכרמל, אך ימשיכו לקבל את השירותים השונים מן הרשות המנהלת את קיסריה, היא החברה לפיתוח קיסריה.

It is a long text but any hebrew reader can tell you it talks about the govrement fixing past wrong doing and restoring villages like Ein Hod (that was mentioned in Palmiro text). I strgly suggest to everyone to read the full story by looking up the Nkaba article. Zeq 14:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Restoring villages like Ein Hod? Did you even understand what the stuff in the article was? As far as I know, Ein Hod was never destroyed. The locals just weren't allowed back. If that has changed, I'm astonished, to put it mildly, Palmiro | Talk 15:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

We are not in 1948 any more things have changed. get an update: Ein KHod residents are there in Ein KHod and the Palestinians in Israel have a political Elite. Zeq 15:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you please try and relate your comments to either this dialogue or the article, or, better yet, both? There's not much point in me responding to you if your side of the conversation is completely irrelevant to each previous exchange. Palmiro | Talk 18:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Your writing just do not fit reality (and they add no value to a potential reader) that is all: Ein KHod was resettled by it's orginal families many years ago and it was un-recognized but now the goverment fix this and political leadership (that you claimed dispeared) we talked already. Zeq 20:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Non-Jermain date?

This isn't actually very important, but for the life of me I can't figure out what a non-jermain date is. Anyone care to explain? -- Ynhockey 06:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The year 2001 od the date spetember 9 have nothing to do with the issue of this article. Capish ? Zeq 08:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually there's a Wikipedia policy to link dates in the format of [[Month Day]], [[Year]], but I didn't quite do it right. Will do it right this time though. However, I was actually asking about what the word 'Jermain' meant. I thought it was a misspelling, but couldn't find anything similar. -- Ynhockey 09:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

sorry it is spelled : germane

see this Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context and please remove these link per policy Zeq 11:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read the page. It clearly states on 2 occasions that dates should be linked:

• • What should not be linked
    

Plain English words.
Years, decades or centuries, unless they will clearly help the reader to understand the topic. (This is in contrast to full dates—see below.)

• • What should be linked
    

Full dates; i.e., those that include the day, month and year. This allows the auto-formatting function for individual users' date preferences to work. Editors are not required to do this, but some readers prefer it.

Please put more efforts into your research next time.

-- Ynhockey 12:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you ask someone who knows better than me cause obvioulsy I can not convince you. Zeq 13:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV issue: "Modifications to Citizenship and Entry Law"

As a new Wikipedian, I will try to lean on the side of caution in this response regarding what is obviously a sensitive and much-revised entry. However, I would collegially urge that the following passage in the section "Modifications to Citizenship and Entry Law" is a POV which should be balanced by other POV's in the quest for NPOV:

"As the world's only Jewish state, (compared to many Arab, Moslem and Christian states), Israel has the natural right to adopt policies necessary to maintain its unique historic and cultural identity." For NPOV, this should be balanced by perspectives holding that Israeli Jews indeed have the right to their cultural, civil, and national identity in a democratic and binational state -- as do also the Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel, as well as the refugees of the Palestinian exodus or Nakba who wish to exercise the Right of return to their ancestral localities.

Since many Palestinian citizens of Israel (e.g. the National Democratic Assembly or Balad Party), as well as some Israeli Jews, favor a Binational solution in which the equal citizenship and nationality rights of both peoples would be protected regardless of the demographic balance at a given point, this POV should surely be represented in an entry about the Palestinian citizens of Israel. For example, a useful source expressing this alternative view is As'ad Ghanem, "Toward Fulfilling the Right to Be Included: The Arabs' Future in a Binational State," a chapter in his book The Palestinian Arab Minority in Israel, 1948-2000: A Political Study (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2001), pp. 175-200, finding that the Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel "overwhelmingly support the establishment of a binational, Jewish-Arab state, within Israel (inside the Green Line)."

Again, I write this realizing that the "demographic question" in Palestine/Israel is an issue where NPOV balance can be difficult, and necessarily ties in with assorted other controversies. The portion of the article I quoted has a place as one side of the debate, and should be balanced with other viewpoints.

Most appreciatively,

Margo 05:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought the bi-national solution lost all of its support ages ago. Everyone now knows it's not viable, and neither the Palestinian nor the Israeli side want it. Some Arab-Israelis might, but I wouldn't say an 'overwhelming majority', not to mention not all Arab-Israelis consider themselves Palestinian, therefore I think Asad Ghanem's book should be taken with a grain of salt. Having said that, you can add whatever you want to the article, as long as it's accurate information, relevant to the articly, and doesn't have a clear POV tone. -- Ynhockey 07:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The issue here are the policies (laws) of israel about Israel arabs. Not the possible solution to the Israeli-palestinian conflict. so I don't think we need to add more into an already packed article. Zeq 11:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

npov added

The article as it stands now is, IMO, outrageously bad. The basic facts and figures are not in place, while a lot of what I would not hesitate to call POV-pushing is. I´ll start working (again) on the article in a day or three: in the meantime I´ve added a npov tag. (Who removed it, in the first place?) Regards, Huldra 11:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

E.g: what on earth is the paragraph about Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews doing in this article? And in the introduction! Has anybody, inside or outside Israel, ever mixed them up with Israeli arabs? Is such a mix-up a common problem??

.....also: the sentences telling us that Israeli arabs are "full citizens" of the "State of Israel" always makes me wonder: does the State of Israel have any "half" citizens?? 3/4 citizens, perhaps? Does any state have anything but "full citizens"? Then why mention the word "full"? To me, it sounds as if we are stating that a circle is round (suprise, suprise!) Regards, Huldra 13:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

While I agree that the NPOV (or rather, POV) tag should be added, your examples aren't really the reason. I don't know how many would confused Mizrahi Jews with Arabs, but I don't see a reason why there shouldn't be a sentence of clarification - after all, those who would confuse the two do exist, at least within Israel. Notably, there is a sizable amount of old Ashkenazi Jews who refer to Mizrahi Jews as Arabs. As for the second example, maybe it should be re-worded, but I think the person who added it (Zeq?) meant that they are citizens as opposed to 'premanent residents', which is the same only you can't vote or be elected - the status which many Arabs in East Jerusalem have. -- Ynhockey 13:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

On a side note, who removed the part that 'they are not to be confused with Palestinians who live in the West Bank and Gaza Strip'? I've personally talked to dozens of people who confused the two, and it was still removed... It's actually a very common misconception. What's up? -- Ynhockey 14:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Ynhockey: This is all Original Research. Zeq 14:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Will you please point out what exactly you're talking about? -- Ynhockey 14:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

What you wrote for example "there is a sizable amount of old Ashkenazi Jews who refer to Mizrahi Jews as Arabs" is OR. Zeq 15:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is it relevant

When Hamas apeal to the Israeli arab: "You strive to destroy Israel from the inside, we will never forget you and won't stop until we raise the Palestinian flag above the iisraeli cities of Acre, Haifa etc.. (where there is a large Palestinian (israeli Arab population) this is a quote that is important to anyone who want to understand the delicate situation in which Israeli Arabs are in. The world is not black and white. There is not just one side. The Israeli arab population is not made off of more than one view and is subject to many types of manipulation, some of it by hamas retorics and operations. This is one aspect of being an Israeli arab and everyone is welcome to add other aspects. Zeq 15:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

For once I actually agree with Zeq about the section - it's important to mention the Israeli Arab position in relation to terrorism in this article. However, the 2nd paragraph (new one with Hamas) should be re-written, it's pretty difficult to read and understand as it is now. -- Ynhockey 11:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it is an important topic, but Zeq is not trying to present it. He is trying to portray Israeli Arabs as Hamas supporters without the least attempt at balance. In fact Hamas is only supported by a small percentage of Israeli Arabs, and Israeli Arabs have frequently been among the victims of Hamas attacks. These are facts that Zeq is not interested in presenting. --Zero 11:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

No . I am not tyrying to "portray" them as that (or anything else). What I put are quotes about the complex reality they are in including the set of different tyopes of pressure thir complex situation creates. Pressure coming from many sides. Zeq 15:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I accept Ynhockey suggestion and looking for rewording of the Hamas section. Zeq 16:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Unprotecting

I see 0 discussion here. We'll attempt unprotection. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Is nationalOrigin an issue for encyclopedia or is it racism

Zero, in his sarcastic way asked a fair question:

"Can I list all the individual crimes committed by Jews on Jew?"

He deserve an answer:

We are talking in this article about a group of people many people don't know that they even exist:

They are palestinians, Arabs who are citizens or resident of Israel. This group is in a bind of dual loyalty: To their people or their country.

Some of them, choose to use their citizenship to help their people against their country. They do it in growing numbers.

Let us look at it from a different prepective:

Say a jew drafts into the american army - no news. A jew drafts into the Israeli army - no news. An arab drfats into the israeli army and want to be a pilot: [21] - news !

So yes national origin, in some context is worthy of being mentioned in such article.

Let's say a jew was rejected by the israeli air force - would you mention this on Jew ? No.

so it is not the individual act that counts but the context. Zeq 09:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

So why don't you demonstrate that (unlike what it seems) you are not intent on negative stereotyping by adding some positive information about Israeli Arabs? --Zero 10:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

So why don't you emonstrate that yourself, it seems you are so intent on showing they are only discriminated agaist by Israel. Do you really think Israel, the state, has not had a positive infulance on israeli-Arabs ? or on palestinian in the west bank ? How do you think Palestine has become the most democracy oriented of all Arab/Muslim nations ? Zeq 14:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

WOW - wait just a minute - if Palestine is the 'most democracy oriented' it is DESPITE Israel, not because of it. Remember Palestinians could only have elections once Israel withdrew, and now can only have elections when Israel pledges to keep its troops away. And Israel almost stopped the vote because of East Jerusalem, only after Condoleezza Rice called Ehud Olmert were they allowed to proceed. Don't even think about crediting Israel with 'Palestinian democracy'. And speaking of which, you might be interested in this about Israel being the campaign manager for Hamas. Ramallite ^(talk) 14:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

How are you ? I will answer you on your talk page. Zeq 15:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Zeq thinks this article is his private blog to spill his hate-filled bile on. --Zero 13:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Zero continue with personal attacks. I expect an apology. Zeq 13:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

If you suddenly become a good editor, I'll apologise for thinking you are incapable of it. --Zero 13:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Another personall attack by Zero. Zeq 14:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

And this is another one: [22] (see edit summary)

Well, I note that the article on Israel which is where Israeli redirects, doesn't give a list of, say, Palestinians killed by Israelis. And rightly so. Even the article on Israeli Defense Forces doesn't include a list of innocent civilians killed by the IDF. So why on earth do we have to have such a list here? I've taken it out until a more cogent and convincing explanation for its presence can be made than any we've seen here. Palmiro | Talk 13:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Explained above. also please do not move historic facts that are no longer relvant up tio the top of article. The current place for them is a compromise since they don't need to be in the article any more. If you do not want the compromise we can open the issue if to include the "comunist style propeganda" in the article at all ? 14:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

In addition: see the model for laundry list style editing in Israeli_Arab#Discrimination so don't complain about tsuch style unless you want to apply style change across all wikipdia articles. Zeq 14:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense in its context, and none where you have put it. You are yet again being blindly disruptive. Palmiro | Talk 15:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

No. I don't agree with you. we need a mediator Zeq 15:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That is actually not a bad idea. Or we could put it on RfC. Palmiro | Talk 15:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Participation of Israeli Arabs in terror acts against Israeli citizens

This whole section should be removed! -I mean, just the sub-heading! Here we stress in the beginning of the article that Israeli Arabs are "full citizens" of Israel...but somehow that is not the impression the sub-heading leaves us, is it?

Or: if this stays in, then we must of course list all instances (sinces 1948) where Israeli Arabs have been killed by "Israeli citizens"..... we can start with, say:
Arab al-Mawasi massacre (Nov. 1948) : 14 dead
Kafr Qasim massacre (Oct. 1956): 48 dead
Oh, yeas: and to keep things to the same detailed level as this section is now, then of course we will have to mention the names and age of each and every Israeli Arab woman and child killed....and the punishment/sentence (if any!) against the perpretators.

Oh boy, this will become one looooooooong article. Regards, Huldra 06:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Ps: I suggest we cut out all, except perhaps: "israeli security sources said they [still] consider Israeli Arab involvement with terrorism to be the exception rather than the rule. The rule is that the vast majority of Israeli Arabs, regardless of their political viewpoints, see terrorism as the red line." Something like that. And if you want to put the rest in a separate article: go ahead.

Huldra, In the last 5 years there hundreds of cases of involvment of Israeli Arab against their (jewish) fellow citizens. I have the Hebrew list and never bothered to tarnslate it (it is too long and too painfull for me. Most horific terror acts (almost all) have traced to Israeli Arabs who assisted the bombers once inside Israel. This is the tip of the Iceberg of anti Israeli feelings among Arabs . Many in Israel (not including my self) see such acts as high trason and even demand death penalty for "assiting the enemy in time of war". This is all part of the reality. You want too add few historical events from the 50s - go right ahead and add it to relevant historical sections but need to discuss in the article the reality that is shaping up in Israel in reagrds to the muslims in the country and their alligence. Zeq 07:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Zeq: firstly: this article is about (as I understand it) Israeli Arabs since 1948. It is not only (or should not be!) a "snap-shot" of the situation today. Therefore: any killings committed since 1948 are equally relevant. And oh, there are a lot after 1950´s too. Just for a start: the 6 killed in 1976 Land Day demonstration, + 4(?) killed in demonstrations at the start of the 2nd Intifada. I want all their names here! And their age! And the punishment for their killers! (=none).

It is really quite fantastic: you quote the Israeli security sources that Israeli Arab involvement with terrorism is the exception, rather that the rule. Still, you insist on mentioning/bringing into this article, in great detail, examples of these "exceptions"!

I´m not denying the facts of these "exceptions" took place; what I´m against is filling up this article with examples of it. And as I said above: if you want to start a separate article with the examples, fine: do that. Then copy all examples from here into that new article, say: Participation of Israeli Arabs in terror acts against Israeli citizens. And you can translate all the examples from Hebrew, just as you like. But I am going to cut out the examples from this article, if you don´t. This is not an article for listing "exceptions". Regards, Huldra 22:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It is "the excpetion" in the sense that not all of the 100% of arab Israelis do it. But under this we will not listed discrmination as well (not 100% suffer from it). It is a phenomena that is worth mentionaing for anyone who want to understand how Jews and Arabs see each other. I am also agaianst "filling" the article with the hundreds of such examples. 4-5 is enough. Zeq 04:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to agree with Zeq more and more as this discussion page progresses. Here's why:

• Exceptions by nature take more space and effort to note, because the general rule is always straight-forward. In an article about English verbs and their transformation to past (for example), you'll always note that there are irregular verbs (and maybe list them), even though they're a tiny fraction of the overall amount of English verbs. In the same sense, Israeli Arab participation in terrorist acts, while an exception, is important to note. It's also important to note that it's an exception though, which I'm sure Zeq can do, providing the appropriate source.
• Zeq didn't list the names of each victim. What are you talking about?
• The Kfar Kassem massacre and Land Day are probably worth talking about, but only in short because each already has its own article. The article Israeli Arab isn't on its own, but like all Wikipedia articles, is part of a larger network, where you can access more detailed info by going into more detailed articles. Subjects which don't have more detailed articles can be talked about in the main article. In principle, I support making a separate article about Israeli Arab participation in terrorist acts, but I'm not sure we have enough information (unless Zeq can provide it) to write a decent one.
• The title Participation of Israeli Arabs in terror acts against Israeli citizens does not imply that Arabs aren't Israeli citizens, but that the acts of terror were against Israeli citizens in general (and not necessarily Jews). While I don't know each act of terror that Israeli Arabs were involved in, I'm sure that some of them hurt Israeli Arabs too. If you can suggest a better title that will reflect the content in a good way, please do so.

Finally, as I said before, the whole section should possibly be re-worded into a more encyclopedically-written one, but the content should stay because it's an important subject involving Israeli Arabs. Ignoring it would be like not writing about Israel's major wars in the Israel article, because after all, they only lasted a few years combined, and are therefore an exception. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 11:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Let us have some balance here, shall we?

• first, there are a lot of killings of Arab Israelis that do not have their own article on Wikipedia (yet) Some do, (in addition to the ones I have mentioned: October 2000 riots (Israel): 13 killed). ) But a lot do not: eg: another 18 killed in various incidents 2000-2005 +4 killed in an attack in Shefamr in August 2005. In short, as far as I know: a lot more Israeli Arabs have been killed by (Jewish) Israeli citizens than opposite....and are not (yet) mentioned on WP. I can to some extent agree with the importance of the exceptions, BUT: if we are to mention the the attacs by Israeli Arabs, we also have to mention the attacs on them.

I absolutly agree with you. We can add a section about "hate crimes against arabs in Israel" and the attack in shefram would qualify into that section. I think it is the only one but if I am wrong add more. Zeq 18:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

...and could you please explain to me the difference between "hate crimes" and "terror acts"? Huldra 23:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

And if we are to keep a representative view, then this latter section will be much, much, much larger that the "Participation of Israeli Arabs in terror acts against Israeli citizen" section (in order to reflect the numbers). I repeat what I have said above: this will be a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooong article.

• I would of course prefer to list the name of the perpetrators (like Zeq has done)...the problem with that is that they, in the case of attacks on Israeli Arabs, are almost always unknown (to the general public, that is). A typical example is the 13 killed in the October 2000 riots (Israel). To my knowledge, both "The Or Commission" (2003) and "The Lapid Committee," (2004) recommended that there should be investigations into which police-officers were responsible for the killings...but such investigation has never(?) been done (again, this is as far as I know; if you have more updated information please inform me.)

We have an article on the 2000 riots and the orr comission ? if not off course we should have. This is an important aspect (much more than all the anciant history palmiro brought to this article) Zeq 18:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes: October 2000 riots (Israel) and Or Commission. As for "ancient history": as I have said before: this article is for the whole history of Israeli Arabs since 1948. In other words: what happened between, say, 1950-1955 is just as relevant and important as what happened between, say, 2000-2005. Editors taking the effort to bring that "ancient history" into the article should be thanked, (IMO), not critizised. Regards, Huldra 23:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• I again suggest that you cut this out, and put it into a new article, say: Israeli Arabs and terror attacs in Israel? (I´m not sure that is NPOV, though; the words "terror" and "terrorism" are very difficult to use NPOV, in my experience. But I would´t personally object to such a title.) (And there are many much smaller articles on Wikipedia than what this would be.). I hope you do: that will save me from a lot of work! ;-D ....digging up names/dates/references to, for a start, the 20++ Israeli Arabs killed 2000-2005....then all from 1948 to 2000.....I suspect it will run into hundreds.....Regards, Huldra 15:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the section as it now stand is fine and not too big. As I told you I have the complete list in Hebrew and trust me there are hundreds of incidents in which israel arabs (including many from east jerusalem) have participated in terror. This is becoming a critical aspect in Jews-arabs relations in this country. Zeq 18:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, you think it is fine: the article now only mentions crimes commited by Israeli Arabs, and not the ones committed against them!!! I repeat again (and again and again): To get a balance, to accurately reflect violence against civilians: the section on attacs on Israeli Arabs will be much, much larger than the "Participation of Israeli Arabs in terror ..etc" section. Huldra 23:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Ps: the copying of sources in the article is now quite twisted, indeed, almost every single incident (I have checked) is wrongly represented in the article as it stands now (quotes from the article in italics, my pointing out in bold):

• Eg.:"Several Israeli Arabs have been convicted of espionage for Hezbollah."...and then listing references which clearly states that people have only been arrested or charged, NOT convicted, or listing Haaretz articles which have already disappeared: [23]. (Also: using references which say "Two Israeli Arabs have been arrested for helping the terrorist swine who murdered five people " sounds just.... just ever so slightly unencyclopedic?) "Charged":[24] "Not found": [25], "Not found": [26], Not found: [27]

If it sais charged we should say charged (not convicted). Haaretz remove articles within few days so we lost the source. So if you think when I interduced it I was not saying the truth then we will have to remove it (and I will find other examples from the hundreds that occur).

• Eg.:" according to unofficial figures based on sources in the defence establishment, at least 110 Israeli Arabs were detained last year on suspicion of involvement in terrorist activities – a record high, and about three times the number in the previous year." [28] becomes "In 2001, at least 110 Israeli Arabs were detained last year [sic!] on suspicion of involvement in terrorist activities – a record high, and about three times the number in the previous year." Nothing about "unofficial figures", really, is that unimportant? Also: again: note the word "detained"....while what is really relevant is "convicted". (I woun´t even mention the word "copy violation"..)
• "..first Israeli Arab suicide bomber detonated in the Nahariyya train station in Israel killing 5 people and wounding 62." ..but in the ref. given, it says: "Three people were killed and at least ninety wounded when an Israeli Arab committed a suicide bombing attack on a group of soldiers and civilians disembarking a train in the Nahariya station."

If he killed 3 we should change it. I happned to know personally two of those who killed. I think that 2 more died of their wounds.

You better change it, or find a source which says that 5 died. No matter what you think you know: There is the "No original Research" etc..Huldra 23:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• And then a bizarre one: "On October 9, 2005 Three Arab citizens of the State of Israel were convicted Sunday of plotting to blow up the Azrieli Towers in Tel Aviv, and a plot to plant a bomb on railroad tracks near Netanya. The Tel Aviv District Court also convicted the Arabs of attempting to provide assistance to a foreign enemy during time of war. One of the Arabs was convicted of contacting a foreign enemy agent. The three Arabs, Dubian Natzirat, 27; Amir Zivati, 20; and Mugahad Dukan, 19; all from Taibe, admitted their guilt and were convicted under a plea bargain arrangement. [29] [30]

What bizzare about it ? that they wanted to blow a building ? Zeq 18:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess you could say that, but I was actually thinking of that "Mugahad Dukan" and "Moujahed Doukan" became 2 different people. Huldra 23:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

"On January 18, 2006 Court sentences Israeli-Arab to 15-year prison term for planning to plant three explosive devices on railroad tracks near Netanya; accomplice sentenced to eight years in prison [31]. " Alas: Mugahad Dukan, 19; from Taibe is the same person as "Moujahed Doukan, a resident of the Arab-Israeli town of Taibeh" in [32]! I.e.: it is the same case.... Regards, Huldra 15:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)(who has spent far too much time on this, and has to run to do the things I should have done earlier today..)

I think you are correct that seems the same incident. It should not be mentioned twice. Zeq 18:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Zeq: you have had more than a week now, and still you have not cleaned up the mistakes that I pointed out to you above. May I ask: when do you plan to do so? Regards, Huldra 08:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Attack on arabs should be mentioned in this article

Eden_Nathan-Zadah#The_Shfar.27am_attack Zeq 18:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine, that you found this article. Huldra 00:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

So, now we have on WP (at least) 5 articles about massacres on Israeli Arabs:

• Arab al-Mawasi massacre (Nov. 1948) : 14 Israeli Arabs killed
  

This was part of the 1948 war covered extensivly in Wikipedia. Zeq 06:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Kafr Qasim massacre (Oct. 1956): 48 Israeli Arabs killed
  

????? Eh? A 1956 massacre which was part of the 1948 war? Zeq, excuse me for asking, but do you read what you edit before you edit? I swear, sometimes it just doesn´t look like it.

Of cause, if you had put the above comment after the Arab al-Mawasi massacre (Nov. 1948) above, it could have been more understandable, except for the fact that the massacre is not mentioned in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. So please, Zeq: could you link to where on Wikipedia it is "covered extensivly"? Huldra 08:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Zeq: When you move one of your comments: please do not delete it completely. The discussion (like my comment above) will then become totally incomprehensible for any other reader. Instead, strike out what you want to move, then copy the original text to the new position. Thanks. Huldra 23:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

in Arab_al-Mawasi_massacre Zeq 09:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Land Day (March 1976) 6 Israeli Arabs killed
  
• October 2000 riots (Israel): (Oct. 2000) 12 Israeli Arabs killed
  
• The Shfar'am attack: (Aug. 2005) 4 Israeli Arabs killed
  

In addition, there are lots and lots of deaths not mentioned on WP (yet): like what I mentioned above: eg: 18 Arab Israeli killed in various incidents 2000-2005. They will come into this article, unless you take out the above section "Participation of..".(..possible bringing it into a seperate article.)

Also; when Israelis stress the importance of some fellow (Jewish) citizens beeing attacked by Israeli Arabs, and how those "exceptions" form/influence the general attitude in Israel towards Israeli Arabs: yes, I can to some extent understand this. I have no difficulty understanding that even a single attack would lead to increased suspicion towards the the whole community of Israeli Arabs.

But: the attacs/killings the "other way around" have been at least 10 times as many! (To my knowledge). Now, I ask this from you: try for once to put yourself in the shoes of an Israeli Arab: what kind of trust would you have in the Jewish population, seeing again and again and again your fellow Arab Israelis killed?? (...and of course; nobody punished for it, or only symbolically punished.). Think about it. Regards, Huldra 00:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you should add any relevant fact that you can source inan NPOV manner. If you have a record of an Israeli arab killed in 2002 and there is a police report claiming he was in the middle of shooting on cars in the gallilee you should mention that claim. Zeq 06:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Zeq: you have had more than a week now, and still you have not cleaned up the mistakes that I pointed out to you above. May I ask: when do you plan to do so? Regards, Huldra 08:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand what you want. I asked for records of Arabs killed since 2002. Have you provided any ? Zeq 09:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

See above. Huldra 10:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I saw. You did not provide what you claimed. The only relevant link is what I provided you (Shefram attack in 2005) nothing else is after 2002. Zeq 05:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

My "see above" was of course directed to my comment directly above, that is:

Zeq: you have had more than a week now, and still you have not cleaned up the mistakes that I pointed out to you above. May I ask: when do you plan to do so? Regards, Huldra 08:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The mistakes I pointed out to you more than a week earlier were posted at 15:09, 27 January 2006. You never corrected them. Some of the mistakes are still there. Huldra 09:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Enough with the abuse please

I have been very tolrent but enough is enough. This woman (the terrorist) was convicted. The new paper link no longer exist.So I provided a link in English to the day she was charged and two links in Hebrew to the fact she was convicted. Isn't it enough. Why is it that in Enlish Wikipedia everything has tobecome an edit war ?????????? Zeq 05:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

AH, now you are changing the story: your edit-line said: "22:05, 17 February 2006 Zeq (Huldra. Read the text carefully. It is there. If you still have doubts use talk.)" ....and I did indeed read the text very carefully. And the info which you inserted simply was NOT there in the English links. Zeq; when you make a false statements in such a controversial area as this; then I really think it is way, way, WAY over the line to talk about "abuse" when you are reverted! (Or do you think I read hebrew??) Huldra 08:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Huldra, sources don't have to be in English. They should be, whenever possible, but if the only source on an issue worth including is in another language, it's permitted. See WP:V. If you have your doubts, perhaps you could ask someone you know speaks Hebrew to translate, or find someone on the Hebrew Wikipedia. But I can't imagine Zeq would simply invent the conviction. WP:CIV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll be glad to recomens several people who can translate. Zeq 06:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The woman was convicted, and was sentenced to 17 years, as the article states. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete

This entire article should be deleted and rewritten. Not only is it lacking in facts, is highly biased and doesn't define this group of people and its history accurately, but it's also a mishmash of info from opinions to sources no reputable writer would ever cite.

Wikipedia IS NOT the editorial section of a newspaper. It's an encyclopedia. There are lots of facts in the Hebrew section that are not included in this article. The question is, WHY? If any of you out there THINK for a second that your writing is up to par with journalistic standards, think again. This isn't meant as an attack, but is merely constructive criticism.

Articles on Wiki should be balanced, well researched and accurate. Citing some Joe Shmoe's website as a source, who's credibility is questionable, and then claiming that info to be a FACT is ludicrous. Don't kid yourselves and don't insult other people's intelligence with that B.S..

Bias

It seems that when anti jewish facts come up the person claiming them is asked for sources. I have no problem with that. Any claim should be supported with well founded and well researched facts. BUT there are lots of inaccuracies and false claims in the article AGAINST Israeli Arabs that are absolute lies. Now, I ask you, where are your sources for those claims? Don't you think ZEQ that your credibility is reaching a new low everytime you pull this stunt? If you are SO concerned with the truth then why don't you remove these false claims?

Zeq,

Just a reminder that you DON'T own wikipedia. I don't know why you weren't advised to let this article be the minute you ripped that info from the Israeli MFA in clear violation of their copyright laws. You have constantly attacked other members of this forum so you probably wouldn't mind if you were treated the same way, would you? What's fair is fair, right? So here goes it:

You have NO concept of the definition of good writing. No concept of what constitutes a valid argument. No concept of civility or respect for fellow Wikipedians. No concept of neutrality.

I still don't know what qualifications you have to be writing this article, let alone contribute to it to this extent. I use "contribute" loosly, because anyone can cut and paste. If you DO represent the Israeli MFA in any shape or form or if you ARE an employee of the MFA then perhaps you should consider giving this "crusade" of yours a rest. Because, it ain't working and your arguemnts, personal attacks and bias all smell like government propaganda.-Preceding unsigned comment was written by User:Cyclopath

Yea and cyclopath clearly is interested in wikipedia policy. Why can't we all be as convincing writers as him. I especially like his coherant argument in the Baruch Goldstein article [33].- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

What does what I wrote on here have to do with the Baruch Goldstein article? The fact of the matter is that you're resorting to discrediting my credibility instead of debating this current issue in THIS article. It's one of the oldest tricks in the book. Do you have anything intelligent and refreshing to say? This article has been plagued with nothing but personal point of views from the very start and blatant cut and paste copyright violations from Israeli government sources. As if the state of Israel which calls itself over and over a JEWISH state is going to put it's 20% Arab minority in a positive light. WHY do you keep posting lies upon lies upon lies? If you want an article to be neutral then use neutral words. What I've been seeing over and over again is the use of emotionally and politically charged words to describe anti Arab views and THAT is a fact! -Cyclo-

Cyclo: Please read WP:Not . Zeq 18:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)