Talk:Racism/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 11 |

Archive 12

| Archive 13 →

IMPOSSIBLE TO BE CRITICAL OF ISRAEL

I have to strongly say do not remove this, you can reedit if you belive it is an editorializing, you can bring your view, but you will not ignore this while adding UGANDA. This is really wrong. all USA USA what about Israel? please show a worldview. India i asked to be mentioned and it is in here, now lets continue the debate, again do not delete, you are free to modify and make it correct but do not delete.--Halaqah 15:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC) [edit] Israel this is the section in dispute Israel has been accused of practicing open discrimination to Palestinian people, some argue that there status in no more than second class citizens, they have no rights to vote within the Jewish system and are denied the freedom of movement and settlement afforded to Israeli citizens. Desmond Tutu is a staunch critic of this system and makes parallels to South Africa. ref name=tutuNation>Desmond Tutu and Ian Urbina, Against Israeli apartheid, The Nation 275:4-5, June 27, 2002 (July 15, 2002 issue). Accessed online 28 November 2006.</ref> and has likened Israel's treatment of Palestinians to the treatment of Black South Africans under apartheid. Tutu used the analogy on a Christmas visit to Jerusalem on 25 December 1989, when he said in a Haaretz article that he is a "black South African, and if I were to change the names, a description of what is happening in Gaza and the West Bank could describe events in South Africa." He made similar comments in 2002, speaking of "the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about". There has also been some debate about the treatment of African Jews primarly the Beta Israel who occupy the bottom social economic positions. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  Critics are claiming racism is behind what they say is the Israeli government's establishment of a 400-person monthly quota on immigration from Ethiopia — even for those who qualify under the Law of Return. Ethiopian Jewry activists complain that the quota and what they cite as a lack of humanitarian aid from American Jewish philanthropies are doubly offensive because of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's recent calls for a mass immigration of Jews from Argentina, France, Australia and South Africa.

Palestinians are not citizens of Israel. Tutu is not a reliable source on Israel. Every single country in the worls has some ethnic tensions, but you picked the Jewish state for your harsh criticism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Many would be had they not been forced out at gun point on grounds of RACE (Lod, 1948 for example, 20,000) and Tutu is possibly the most reliable source alive on apartheid, which is a form of racism. Be thankful some zealot hasn't dragged the war of independence and refugees into it. Rcnet 14:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it is relevant that Palestinians are not Israeli citizens. The Israeli government still has a policy towards Palestinians, and it's conceptually possible that that policy is racist. As to Tutu - he is given as an example of the widespread claim that Isreali policy in the occupied territories is analogous to apartheid; he's a reliable source that he did in fact make that claim. VoluntarySlave 04:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

See appeal to authority. Find an expert or a good example of racism in this instance. Another editor has already recommended an author on the subject of institutional racism. Pretend you are a Palestinian. What evidence can you offer to state your case? Quoting Tutu isn't helpful. —Viriditas | Talk 11:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you must think we are silly or something, this site is not your opinion, disuss but dont you dare delete, every day on the news you hear about this conflict now you will have us believe there is no policy against the "palestinian people", So what country are Palestinian people a citizen of? No Desmond Tutu would know about Israel,he has no qualification to make comparisons to SA and Israel. R u comparing the UK to Israel? And you can if you want to add them, by the way USA, UK, UGANDA, are all there, and Uganda is in the past so is Nazi Germany. DONT REMOVE AGAIN as this is vandalism, discuss here. I have said you can improve the article, and correct mistakes. Other editors here have supported the inclusion of Israel. If you see a problem correct it DONT DELETE IT.--Halaqah 21:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No need to SCREAM. You are 30 years too late: Even the UN revoked its bigoted Zionism = Racism resolution. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not intrested in the UN i am intrested in your rude editing policies, i have ask you to hold a discussion before deleting my work. --Halaqah 21:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have ask for a discussion i do not appreciate what i research to be aimlessly deleted maybe you have a point but we will never know if you keep deleting my work and not allowing a dicussion. if you read the article you will see i also discuss racism against African Jews, with sources. so if u were honest you wouldnt be deleting you would be bring your point and we will make adjustments, other people have agreed with this and you are the one reverting all of the time.--Halaqah 21:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No one even has a voice, save yours, i have research it and reedited it and you keep deleting my work. Go and read the WIKI POLICY, this is called vandalism, it is my work you r deleting i am not deleting yours. This is childish. What does the UN have to do with it? This is WIkipedia and we are having a editing conflict i think most people worldwide including desmond tutu and others share this view, yet it isnt allowed. But you can talk about Uganda, is that fair, is that balance. Can i go an delete Uganda ? Why dont you go and delete indian pure political editing, one rule for you another for everyone else. I wish Americans came and deleted the racism there, and what about the UK?--Halaqah 21:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Your entire section was based on Tutu, who is not a reliable source on Israel. Palestinians are not citizens of Israel, and the conflict is not race based. What you are doing here is original research and quote mining. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No it isnt race base, The Falasha arent African, I wonder if racism only refers to race. Do you think European Jews are not part of the same race as Hitler, race, ethnicity it is all racism. see def. Hitler was a racist, he had a rule for one set of people and a rule for his "people", Israel has a rule for Palestinians who i beleive where there before the majority of European jews arrived, and another rule for European Jews. So lets discuss unless now CNN is mis reporting the situation. either way if i am wrong the discussion is for such debates. I am not Palestinian, i dont even know and Israeli or Palestinian people, i just wish they would stop fighting so i dont have to see dead humans on the news everyday. "u will never get peace down the barrel of a gun"--Halaqah 22:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If you were so honest why would you be deleting it, you make dam arguments before deleting material, then i make adjustments or someone else makes adjustments. The African jew issue isnt racism either is it. Read the UK one, it is has opinion of G galloway so go and delete that. The more you do this the worst it becomes, did you get a friend to delete it again? I will have to raise this issue beyond here.--Halaqah 21:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Most honest editor put a POV flag, they cite original research to allow discussion but you just delete.--Halaqah 21:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

U r so blind in your edits you dont even see you are destroying other work, follow the protocol because the issue isnt going anywhere, i dont really care, I am not offending if someone puts my country up there. I am offended if Arab racism towards Jews is discussed, or African racism to anyone is discussed. I am trying to add honesty and balance. Ur trying to control wikipedia to protect something. I am sure this is why the world is in the mess it is in, we cannot speak, we have to watch you be a dictator and just delete my work without a plural discussion, address the fairness of that!--Halaqah 21:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read my posts above. I suggest you deal with your prejudices elsewhere. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I yes i will be adding Sudan next, --Halaqah 22:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Humus Sapiens, can you explain to me why Tutu is not a reliable source on Isreali racism. Aussie King Pin 08:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

He is not a scholar, but a clergyman, politician, and anti-Israeli campaigner. Beit Or 08:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

U c what i mean, is that a good reason, he is not a scholar, so only scholars can be a source on Israeli, I beleive he doesnt need to be a scholar for the content he is lending here, anti-Israli capaigner is a serious POV, you would slander such a great PEACEMAKER to back up your POV. Tutu needs to be heard just like how everyone else is heard in all the other topics on racism. Imagine that Desomond Tutu is antisemitic--Halaqah 10:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You had me at U c.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe the proper process is to leave in Desomond Tutu until the discussion is finish, the more you behave in this way the more crediablity you lose, the more attention it will attract, the more research will be done, and the bigger the section will get, when i first put it, it was only 2 lines. Is Noam Chomsky a suitable critic? Please someone re-edite the desomond tutu bit and discuss its inclusion as i can see the revert wars have begun. No need for explanation just between your editing gang decide.--Halaqah 10:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You are so making my case for a pro-Israel tag team editing gang on wikipedia.--Halaqah 10:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This article has been on my watchlist for a long time, I could care less what you believe. Let me know if you have trouble reading this and I will try my best to help you.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have nada to add, what i will do is allow others into this debate, and i will let other have their say, and allow plurality to bring democracy by outcome. thanks for you time. so if i have issues we will see, let our peers decided.--Halaqah 12:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

First, there are Palestinian Arabs who are citizens of Israel - not all Arabs live in the Occupied Territories, some were born in the state of Israel and have israeli citizenship. Second, I do not see how Tutu is an appropriate source as he is not an expert on Israel/Paelstine. What is wrong with relying on established scholars, especially when there are established scholars who are well-respected for their expertise on Israel who have written about institutionalized racism in Israel? I think anyone who genuinely cares about putting information on this topic in the article should be willing to do the required research. i mentioned one good name to start with, above. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

U r correct but i am unwilling to do this after the whipping i received for even daring to ask a question. Tutu is still relevant as he has made a comparison. But i will allow another editor to continue because i have been clearly marked as disruptive.--Halaqah 13:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

What a disgusting display of censorship by people with a LONG track record of POV defending and removal of criticisms of Israel. Rcnet 14:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I would think that sourcing someone as experienced with rasicism, in the form of apartheid, as Desmond Tutu, would be a very good source. Labeling him as "anti-Israeli" is non-sensical, you can not dismiss an argument based on claiming the other side opposes your side. Nonsense.Rcnet 14:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The more I explore Wiki, the more I am disgusted to find it being used by some to stifle any and all legitimate criticism of Israel under the cover of new antisemitism by the same people across a wide gamut of articles. Halaqah did violate 3RR here, but in my opinion only when ganged up on my users, including Admins, who had no interest in discussing the merits of his contribution and wished to simply remove criticism of Israel. There isn't a country in the world that does suffer from racism, and that includes Israel. Rcnet 15:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. People accuse you of being anti-semetic just because you reveal a jewish state for what it is, racist. Israel continously hides under the wing of the American government in fear of being critisized. I think this should change. A page about racism in Israel should be created. (Ssd175 01:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

Opening sentence needs improvement

The current version of the opening sentence needs work.

Racism is commonly defined as a belief or doctrine where inherent biological differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, with a corollary that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

It is too wordy, grammatically awkward, and doesn't adequately define the topic. Also, the words are almost the same as the ones that appear in the reference. Spylab 14:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

ummm...has anybody noticed that most of the pictures are european ones? why not get some (forgive me for this) auction pictures from the americas?

Medieval Racism

Is there such a thing as medieval racism? Setting aside the terminology, there appear to be no examples in the section that are from the medieval era. Are changes in order?Homagetocatalonia 02:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That section was clearly mis-titled; I've changed it to early-modern, which is broadly the correct historical period (although some of the examples seem to come from the enlightenment), although that makes some of the phrasing a bit confusing, as it now contrasts early-modern with modern racism. VoluntarySlave 04:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Fiji

I've added Fiji, as Racism was one of the reasons cited for the coup. Still a bit of a stub - needs more work. Rcnet 18:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Original research in Israel section

I've moved the following original research to here for further discussion:

Some Israeli politicians and leaders have used negative language when discussing Arabs and Palestinians. In 2004, Yehiel Hazan, an Israeli member of parliament, declared at the Knesset that "The Arabs are worms. You find them everywhere like worms, underground as well as above." and went on to describe them as "murderers" and "terrorists". . Raphael Eitan, former Israel Army Chief, said on 12 April 1983 that Palestinians who endanger cars on the road should be treated aggressively and their freedom of movement should be narrowed until they will be like "drugged cockroaches in a bottle". In 2004, then Deputy Defense Minister Ze'ev Boim asked "What is it about Islam as a whole and the Palestinians in particular? Is it some form of cultural deprivation? Is it some genetic defect? There is something that defies explanation in this continued murderousness." .

Moshe Feiglin, a Likud activist who lives in a West Bank settlement, stated to the New Yorker: “You can’t teach a monkey to speak and you can’t teach an Arab to be democratic. You’re dealing with a culture of thieves and robbers. Muhammad, their prophet, was a robber and a killer and a liar. The Arab destroys everything he touches.” .

We need reliable sources that use these statements as example of racism; it's not up to Wikipedia editors to cherry-pick various quotes and decide for themselves that they constitute racism. Furthermore, finding various offhand quotes from individuals is hardly a way of showing any sort of systemic racism in Israel itself, particularly when you're quoting non-notables like "Moshe Feiglin"; why on earth would we care what he has to say? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair call on these on reflection. I'd like to bring the core issues in to that section - the inherent racism of Right of return law, but there is a strong organized mob pushing a POV unfortunately. Rcnet 18:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You'd have a hard time making a strong argument that Israel's Law of Return is inherently racist, for a number of reasons:

1. At least twenty countries, including many Western democracies such as Finland, Germany, Ireland, Norway, etc., have similar laws;
2. It is supported by the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination articles 1(3) and 1(4); and
3. It would seriously undermine the Palestinian demand for a "Right of Return".

Jayjg ^(talk) 19:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Finland, Germany, Ireland, Norway only allow ethnic Finns, Germans, Irish, Norwegians to immigrate? Certainly not true. How are they similar to Israel's Jew-only laws?

1(3) Your citizenship or naturalization laws don't discriminate against any particular nationality? Suppose I marry an Israeli Jew and want to immigrate. My nationality doesn't matter?

1(4) Your Jewish-only settlements are about equal rights? Wouldn't you agree, the Jews are a bit more equal? Fourtildas 05:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no, the use of this by many countries doesn't make it less racist, by any of them - though Law of return is more sectarian in character. Right of return is a very different case, involving in many cases people who were forcibly evicted from their homes and their property stolen, being allowed to return to where they had lived (Lod etc) - that is not an immigration issue at all. Rcnet 02:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, in the vast majority of cases the "right of return" is asserted for people who have never lived in Israel; at most 100,000 of the 7 million or so "Palestinian refugees". For the rest, it's a demand for preferential racially based immigration, based on some paternal bloodline through their parent, grandparent, great-grandparent, etc. As I said, claims that the Law of Return is racist inevitably implies that the "right of return" is racist as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Uhh, no, anyone who has been Ethnically Cleansed (you probably prefer Transferred), regardless of race, and their immediate heirs has a right of return to their homes. I don't know what the Jewish "rights" are based on - some claim "G_d given", some seem to have some theory of ancestral/racial heritage. I can't find anything on this in WP. (There was some discussion but it has disappeared) Fourtildas 05:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Please someone look into this guys work Ian Lustick as suggested above. i have lost my ablity to be nuetral after yesterdays debate--Halaqah 20:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Israel, Noteworthiness of Desmond Tutu on Apartheid

I have reverted the deletion on Tutu, this is an impeccably qualified source. Rcnet 02:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No he is not. What makes an Anglican cleric and a South African politician an expert on Israel? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality NPOV & experience. With the possible exception of Nelson Mandela he is one of the most highly notable sources as to what is Apartheid having deep personal experience with it. He is not noted for anti-Semitism, as are some members of the clergy. Someone with that level of experience of Apartheid who analyses a foreign situation, as he has, and draws a parallel with his own experiences of Apartheid is noteworthy. I also plan on sourcing Jimmy Carter who has intimate knowledge of Israel through his role as president, and activities afterwards, however I have not yet read the book. Rcnet 07:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

On an issue which involves such serious comparisons, it is difficult to find a noteworthy, yet neutral source on the Israel. A Zionist or anti-Semitic source is of little value due to POV bias, hence under the circumstances Desmond Tutu, a Nobel laureate with no other political/religious agenda on Israel either way and widely acknowledged statesman is a good source. Israel should not be held to a higher or lower standard than any other nation; nor should the validity of criticism of it require a different threshold than any other country or individual mentioned on this page, as that in and of itself is discriminatory. Rcnet 07:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that self-righteous POV stream. You are not original, as this already has been answered (see above): Tutu has some expertise on South Africa, politics and Anglican Church, but not on Israel. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please make sure that any sources you use are both expert sources, and assert governmental racism on the part of Israel. Not what you decide is "racism", but what expert sources have deemed to be racism. After all, the title of this article is "Racism", and we must be very careful to avoid original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

so we can apply this threshold as the user above said, to the rest of this article and it will meet the standard you have just outlinned? I will then have to ask that this standard be extended to everything on this page.Because if it isnt called original research then it is a POV, if it isnt a POV, it is "racist", if it isnt racist then it is "unreliable source."--Halaqah 01:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Answering RfC: I think that Tutu's opinion is relevant to article as he is a very notable individual and he is clearly speaking of Israeli state policies; I disagree with the opinion that he has to be an "expert" in Israel for qualifying as an important voice in the subject. Regarding the UN resolution equating Zionism with racism it should be reinserted but NPOV'ed by adding that this resolution was rejected some years later JRSP 02:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the position of the UN is not by any means any form of vindication or anything, remember these people on Rwanda? UN is a highly flawed body and has very little weight outside of what America backs up. I think readers here shoudnt treat the UN as GOds final decree. Just take a look at the security council. Look how powerless they are now that they contradict the USA and their "friends". Tutu should be added as one writer said it works by argeement so lets count the votes and re add it.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 02:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you should check up on the UN a bit better. "Remember these people on Rwanda" is meaningless rambling. The fact that the UN didn't intervene doesn't mean that an assessment of the situation is right or wrong. You seem somewhat confused as to what the primary task of the UN is -namely regulating the relationships between its member states, NOT dealing with events inside one member state. --84.60.104.27 00:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A different rule for Australia/South Africa/Uganda/Nazi Germany/UK

Please take a look at this: The policy of excluding all non-white people from the Australian continent was the official policy of all governments and all mainstream political parties in Australia from the 1890s to the 1950s, and elements of the policy survived until the 1970s. By official estimates, at least 30,000 the Aboriginal children were removed from their families by Australian government agencies and church missions between approximately 1900 and 1972. There is no refernces and no one the same people who put this up are fighting, why havent they applied the above rules to Australia that they applied to Israel? I have to ask that this section be removed unless crediable sources be cited, as it looks like original research.--Halaqah 01:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Only india has proper references so why dont the same people complain about the standard of the rest of the countries? I hope i havent made a mistake but those discussions dont have refernces so please add them and delete my tag.--Halaqah 01:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Halaqah, other editors have clearly come to a consensus that Israel cannot be racist. This encyclopedia works by consensus... Mostlyharmless 14:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be ridiculous to have an alleged "consensus" that a particular country (Israel in this case) is incapable of being racist in any of its acts, past, present, or future. The consensus is more along the lines of that the current activity of the Israeli government should not be labeled with the term "racism". This doesn't mean that they, or any other country, gets a permanent free pass against ever being labeled by this term should they do something that deserves it. *Dan T.* 15:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think they are making a mockery out of democracy "consensus" I and many above have not agreed on this verdict, so where is the consensus? A consensus among one group of people is has no validity. I think reader here i would be lead to believe the last 20 years of ethnic conflict, the statements of Desmond Tutu, John Pilger are isolated unusable sources.please stop begging the question and deal with facts.--Halaqah 16:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking that the comment of MostlyHarmless is intended to be ironic? --MaplePorter 23:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

South Africa needs more info and a refe

Let me explain, "blatent racism" is a POV, it is clearly an emotional statment, Now you guys know i support this but let us be fair and assume and alien is paying Wiki a visit, they need to know immediately in this article (not somewhere else) what is the source of this accusation, and we need more info and some references, as explained above. and considering who owns the BBC and the politics i think we need more than to simple have BBC said, BBC said Sudans Arabs were killing Africans, BBC is a reflection of western politics.--Halaqah 01:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Lets reopen the Tutu/Israel debate

I vote for the inclusion of tutu's statement on Israel as view to racism as part of Israels policy as racism was part of South Africa's policies. The word consensus was mentioned above so it is time to hear all voices here.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 03:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

this statment was made Halaqah, other editors have clearly come to a consensus that Israel cannot be racist. This encyclopedia works by consensus... Mostlyharmless so in the spirit lets open democracy and plurality.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 03:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Answering RfC: I think that Tutu's opinion is relevant to article as he is a very notable individual and he is clearly speaking of Israeli state policies; I disagree with the opinion that he has to be an "expert" in Israel for qualifying as an important voice in the subject. Regarding the UN resolution equating Zionism with racism it should be reinserted but NPOV'ed by adding that this resolution was rejected some years later JRSP 02:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus that it should be included, which has been aggressively opposed by a group of 3 editors whose primary purpose on wikipedia seems to be ensuring all articles have no criticism of Israel regardless of merits. This section is grossly POV and deliberately includes a tiny, almost irrelevant "placeholder" about a minor issue. What about there being no way for someone to marry a non-Jew in Israel (no civil marriages), or the massive land confiscations based on race, racial profiling at airports - all forms of state sponsored racism. The Israel section is highly one sided. Outright censorship by activist editors POV pushing. Arbitration with a view to removing POV pushers a-la-Zeq may be the only way to go. Otherwise restoring this section will require organization and coordination as this POV gang operate as a team and will otherwise push you into 3RR 89.100.52.30 09:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --MaplePorter 12:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added Some consider the laws within Israeli government concerning the invalidity of Jew and non-Jew marriages as a form of institutionalize racism. [[1]]. Either Racism is wrong all the time or some of the time. But i must add i dont think the marriage law is an easy one because, MOst religious states would be like this, but we can consider it for racism. I know in Sharia a woman Muslim cannot marry a non-Muslim, is this racism, i personally dont think so, but we have to add it for consideration of plurality. P.s. The Ethiopian Jew issue is not a "minor" issue.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 15:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

To discuss the marriage issue, as a form of "racism" was just reverted as "soap Box" is it clear what is going on here?--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 20:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

No one really considers Muslim a race per see which would negate that for consideration, however many Jews do consider themselves a Race, as do many non Jews, so in this Marriage case, the first test for Racism is passed - there is a racial element. However I'm not sure this is noteworthy for inclusion and I just mentioned it in passing. We can't list every form of governmental racism for every country, that would require it's own Wikipedia - we should stick to the most known factual issues, such as the land confiscations which were done racially, and the current system of Apartheid practiced by Israel. 89.100.52.30 21:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Desmond is key in the discussion Apartheid in the Holy Land I wish more people would bring the research as i started this discussion out of sincere observation that it actually didnt even have any single reference to Israel until got it added--can you imagine that. The longest biggest most popular conflict in human history doesnt make it into racism.As one editor said "there is no racism" WOW i wonder if those in Jenin thinks so--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 00:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I quote "My heart aches. I say why are our memories so short. Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment, the home demolitions, in their own history so soon? Have they turned their backs on their profound and noble religious traditions? Have they forgotten that God cares deeply about the downtrodden? " Tutu.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 00:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Tutu is an expert on South Africa and perhaps on Anglican Church. Not on Israel. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

He is an Expert on Racism--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 12:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that the "Heart aches" quote from Tutu is highly relevant and belongs in the article. I think that the argument about marriage is more problematic, because points to Israel as a theocracy, but is not necessarily evidence of racism. --MaplePorter 15:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

However, I think that this may be evidence of racism. --MaplePorter 16:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well we agree so lets include it but it will be taken out immediately by the page watchers, but we need to serious add stuff about the European settlers who take palestinian land. sorry i think tutu would know all about that pattern --dont you?--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 17:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if Tutu were an expert on Israel (and he's not), did Tutu talk about "racism"? No? Oh well, because that's what this article is about, Racism. Tutu's opinions are well-captured in more relevant articles. But you know that, of course, because you copied your insertions from other articles in the first place. Please stop trying to spam as many copied condemnations of Israel as you can into any article you imagine to be even remotely related to the topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Tutu has a string of honorary doctorates as long as your arm. These are a clear indication of the esteem in which he is held by academic institutions around the world. Several of those doctorates are in subjects such as law and civil law. This indicates that those institutions consider him qualified to address issues of justice and right in an international context. Likewise he would not have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize had the prize committee not considered his human rights activism to be of international significance and scope. Human rights have long been considered an international issue and therefore the opinions of international commentators do carry weight with regard to specific situations.

Unfortunately the argument that so-and-so source should not be considered reliable because such-and-such a matter is outside his or her area of expertise is made far too frequently in this corner of wikipedia. Recently, for example, somebody on another talk page tried to make the same argument about Noam Chomsky, dismissing him as a "linguist" and completely ignoring his long and distinguished parallel career as a political analyst. True, there are certainly cases of experts going out of their depth in other fields (such as Willhelm Reich's crackpot physics), but each case must be decided individually and with great care. For instance one might think that a physicist would have nothing authoritative about theology, but individuals such as John Polkinghorne and Alfred North Whitehead have shown this to be false. To say that an acknowledged authority on racism and human rights has nothing to say about issues of racism and human rights as they pertain to a particular state is as absurd as saying that a judge in Canada could not be qualified to conduct a war crimes trial because she was not already an acknowledged expert on Germany or Poland. The principle here is that individuals with more generalised knowledge and facility at certain modes of thought and enquiry are often able to apply those abilities to more specific situations, even if those situations lie outside their own specific field of expertise. Ireneshusband 21:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Jews are a race or not irrelevant

this is the def. of race: Racism is commonly defined as a belief or doctrine where inherent biological differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, with a corollary that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.[1] this then applies to same race racism described as Self-hating jews, the term racism is not limited to narrow definitions of race, because by that same argument there are no races, just human beings. --HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 16:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The topic of the article is Racism. None of the sources you listed referred to Racism. Please review WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

none of the sources refer to Uncle Tom as racism, the title is same race racism, it isnt going to say this is racism, by this argument we would have to delete the entire same race section. being an uncle tome isnt going to be listed as racism it will be called uncle tom .--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 16:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

by the def of the title same race racism the jewish condition is valid, by the def of the section.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 16:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid WP:NOR; it doesn't really matter what some Wikipedia editor put in as the "def of the section", or how you imagine Jews relate to that. Use reliable sources that refer to Racism. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

"Self-loathing Jew" is used synonymously with "self-hating Jew". "Self-hating Jew" has also been compared to the term "Uncle Tom" as used in the African-American community.[2][3] the above is a form of self racism by the def of the article, since the def has not been an issue all topics fitting the def are critical, if the def is an issue then you should challenge that first and not delete sourced work.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 18:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, possibly, but please find sources which describe it as "racism". Jayjg ^(talk) 21:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not see the connection between self-hating Jews and racism. If certain Jews critical of Israel are called self-hating Jews solely because of their political views, then race is not a factor. Halaqah, what you must demonstrate is the racial element in the labeling of certain Jews as self-hating. As of yet I do not see that element. KazakhPol 21:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The topic is called same race racism, according to this def, self-hating jews needs consideration as a form of same race racism. i am going by the def of same race racism. see uncle tom.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 21:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources, Halaqah, sources. Provide them please. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I will leave this one alone, as i have no real passion for it, i just added it to broaden the topic. --HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 00:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter New Book Peace not Aparthied. next sentence discussing Israel and Racism

Well lets see now, Is Jimmy an authority on Israel? Is he anti-Semitic? Is he too old to have an opinion? Is this original research, is it coming from an unreliable website? or personal opinion not factual, or maybe he said Apartheid and not racism so we cannot add it. Please see the new book by Jimmy Carter Jimmy Carter Apartheid in Israel book. I would like to keep it as a NPOV and all the other things so please get involved, as this is an open encyclopedia not the political backyard for the suppression of truth, I think the world is better if we all report honesty and have one rule for everyone, one threshold for all content in the racism section.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 21:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Also see that tutu is crediable enough to be mentioned here. so we can use him, no more whitewashing--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 21:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me help the retort the writer is Sherri Muzher is a Palestinian-American who directs Michigan Media Watch. so the source is corrupted. lets look at the book and the statements of Breyten Breytenbach.I think two SA are the most qualified people to recognize apartheid when they see it. on these grounds their opinions are relevant 100% Let me add The Fateful Triangle: United States, Israel and the Palestinians (Paperback) by Noam Chomsky and author Ilan Pappé Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, i building the case so i am giving the defense time to prepare.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 21:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

How many articles are you going to try to push this POV in? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

please deal with the facts given as opposed to a POV which isnt a pov actually everyting is a POV. It belongs in racism how many articles is that. address the discussion and not editing patterns.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 21:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are the facts:

1. The name of the book is Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid; you added the "Israel and Racism" stuff yourself, Carter doesn't use the term.
2. Carter himself has explicitly stated "I have made it clear that the motivation is not racism..."

Now, please read the policies, and stop wasting our time. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Halaqah: Tutu and other South Africans you mention see every development through the prizm of their South African experience. They are not experts on the country you singled out for target practice, Israel. Chomsky is a linguist and polemicist. Please stop this quote mining and misquoting to support your POV. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry there seems to always be something wrong with anyone you dont like. and watch the civility as "stop wasting "our" time" is a violation here. Official needs to removed as it is discussing actual events in these countries, many countries list here have no legislated policy of racism. I will ask you to bring evidence of legislation in the official body of these governments if you push have official in the title. I have misquoted no one, Carters book is Peace not Apartheid i dont think he was talking about Trinidad or South Africa, which shows it is not a POV but a reality. The POV is yours so lets discuss the facts and drop the accusations okay? We are here to make this article balance and NPOV not protect any kind of racism because a select group on wiki have a pov that there is no racism in Israel.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 00:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Please use on-topic sources. As it is, I had to clean up the material you had inserted, which severely misrepresented the source it used, essentially making things up that were entirely false. For example, Sharon had actually called for a doubling of Ethiopian Jewish immigration; your wording made it seem that he had called for immigration for everywhere except Ethiopia. This kind of editing is very troubling. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)