Talk:Racism in Israel/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

From the entry on Israel in the Encyclopedia of the World's Nations and Cultures

Encyclopedia of the World's Nations and Cultures - edited by George Thomas Kurian - Facts on File - 2007 - ISBN: 0-8160-6307-9.

From the entry on Israel:

Ethnic Composition: Israeli Jews are among the most ethnocentric people in the world; the culture, politics, society, language, and religion revolve around their identity as a separate ethnic group.

Human Rights: Human rights in Israel present a mixed picture. Israel is a parliamentary democracy that guarantees civil, political, and religious rights to all citizens irrespective of race, religion, and gender. However, in the occupied territories there is a large and hostile minority group that is underrepresented in government and whose only outlets for grievances have been demonstrations and terrorism at home and abroad. There is a cycle of violence and repression in the country, with the Jewish majority not shunning the most brutal means to subdue the Arabs and the latter in turn resorting to indiscriminate terrorism to make their voice heard around the world.

(Oxford English Dictionary: ethnocentric - Regarding one's own race or ethnic group as of supreme importance; ethnocentred - Reflecting the interests or perspective of a particular ethnic group or of ethnic groups in general.)

    ←   ZScarpia   13:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Ovadia Yosef, former chief rabbi of Israel and spiritual leader of Israel's leading ultra-Orthodox party, Shas

Haaretz - Shas spiritual leader: Abbas and Palestinians should perish, 29 August 2010: Army Radio reports Rabbi Ovadia Yosef denounces Palestinians as bitter enemies of Israel ahead of upcoming direct peace talks.

Haaretz - Erekat: Israeli religious figure urging genocide of Palestinians, 29 August 2010: Netanyahu distances himself from remarks by Shas spiritual leader who said earlier that all Palestinians should perish.

    ←   ZScarpia   18:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

A) ...and? your point of view suggestion of racism is? B) Quoting Saeb Erakat who himself is branded as racist? want a source for that?Ip82166 (talk) 10:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

B'tselem report on "Human Rights in the Occupied Territories"

B'tselem - Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, 1 January 2009 to 30 April 2010:

Page 5: By its nature, the settlement enterprise discriminates between two populations living in the same geographic area and under the same sovereignty. An individual’s rights and benefits are determined by his or her nationality, with Palestinians suffering discrimination in a wide range of spheres, from the criminal justice system to freedom of movement and access to water, to the ability to build a house in accordance with fair criteria.

    ←   ZScarpia   18:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

So you are going to delete the discrimination in Israel page now? Or you are double-posting the POV by radical b'tezelm? any b`tzelem peace movement on the Arab side? Nope!Ip82166 (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ovadia Yosef referred only to terrorists not to any Arabs

zsarpia and ip621, you should know that R. Ovadia Yosef has already explained and declared on Arab press (including on Kuwaiti media) that he meant only terrorists not all Arabs. [1] there is a link to the interview in Arabic there.Stud1989 (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yemenite kidnapping = anti-Religious case

Someone deleted this section. The sources clearly explain the relation between this topic and racism or ethnic discrimination. If an editor thinks this section is in appropriate for this article, I can provide quotes from the sources. Or do we think more sources are necessary? --Noleander (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

To facilitate debate on this topic, can you please help by quoting the relevant passage here? Marokwitz (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Noleander, I am tracing back-to-back, you have already been told that it was an anti-religious usuue by so many sources, but you pick and choose that link that can be adjusted to your anti-Israel slant.Ip82166 (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Marokwitz: Yes, some quotes would be useful to come to consensus. Here are some. --Noleander (talk) 06:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Blue-Ribbon Babies and Labors of Love: Race, Class, and Gender in U.S. Adoption Practice, Christine Ward Gailey, University of Texas Press, 2010

"In Israel, ethno-racial divides have created a widespread belief, upheld by some birth mother-adult child reunions, that hundreds of Yemeni infancts had been kidnapped for adoption by Israeli couples. Many Yemeni refugee children had been declared dead or disappeared in the refugee camps after the migration of some 50,000 Yemeni Jews to Israel in 1948-1949. It appears tfrom a national inquiry in the late 1990s that a network of doctors and clinics were involved in the adoptions." (page 154)

• Grenberg, Joel, The Babies from Yemen: An Enduring Mystery", New York Times, Sept 2, 1997.

"Those who believe the theory contend that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Yemenite babies who were reported to have died or to have disappeared after their parents came to Israel were actually kidnapped and given or sold for adoption to European-born Israelis and American Jews. The controversy over the Israeli establishment's treatment of the 50,000 Yemenite Jewish immigrants, most of whom were airlifted to Israel in 1949 and 1950, has festered for years. It has stoked deep-seated feelings of resentment among the country's Sephardic Jews of Middle Eastern and North African origin. ... Other Yemenite Jewish advocates put the numbers at between 1,000 and more than 2,000. They assert that the European-born Ashkenazic Israeli establishment looked down at the new immigrants and their traditional ways and felt free to take their children for adoption by childless European Jewish couples... Mr. Levitan agreed that there was a patronizing attitude toward the immgrants. In some cases the Yemenites' religious studies were restricted and their traditional side-curls were cut to remake them into modern, secular Israelis. ... The concept was absorption through modernization, by inculcating the values of Western society, Mr. Levitan said. The parents were treated like primitive people who didn't know what was good for them, who aren't capable of taking care of their own kids. There was disregard for the parents, an unwillingness to make the effort to investigate, but not a conspiracy."

• Shoha, Ella, Taboo memories, diasporic voices, Duke University Press, 2006,

"..Yemenis .. fell prey to doctors, nurses, and social workers, most of them on the state payroll. ... The act of kidnapping was not simply a result of financial interests ot increase the state's revenues,; it was also a result of a deeply ingrained belief in the inferiority of Jews from Arab and Muslim countries, seen as careless breeders with little sense of responsibility... In this intersection of race, gender, and class, the displaced Jews from Muslim countries became victims of the logic of progress.." page 349.

• Madmoni-Gerber, Shoshana, Israeli media and the framing of internal conflict: the Yemenite babies affair, Macmillan, 2009 -

the entire book is about racism against Yemenite and Mizrahi jews in Israel, focusing on the kidnappings.

• Gordon, Linda, The great Arizona orphan abduction, Harvard University Press, 1999, p 310:

"In Israel, Ashkenazi (European) Jewish women, with the help of doctors, stole babies born to Sephardic Yemeni Jewish mothers from the hospitals; the mothers were told that the babies had died. Here is a phenomenon that is racist yet lacks even the kind of racial justification evident in 1904 Arizona." (page 310)

• Yuval-Davis, Nira, Gender & nation, SAGE, 1997,

"Public investigations are taking place in Israel at the moment concerning accusations that hundreds of Yemeni Jewish babies were abducted from their mothers who were told they were dead and they were given for adoption to Ashkenzi middle class families. Breaking up communites and families and separating children from their parents would often be central to practices of forced assimilationism. Such policies disempower the minorities and can reinforce their locaiton in subjugated positionings." (p 54)

• Kanaaneh, Rhoda Ann, Birthing the nation: strategies of Palestinian women in Israel, University of California Press, 2002,

"[regarding the] disappearance of Yemenite Jewish babies in the 1950s, whom many Yemenites believe were kidnaped and given to childless European Jewish parents to adopt, the author suggests that something similar may have happened to Palestinian children who went missing during the 1948 war. Here Palestinians and Yemenite Jews are united in their subjugation to the Ashkenazi Jewish establishment through their lost children". (page 164).

The sources clearly indicate a racial or ethnic basis for the alleged kidnappings. I suppose an argument could be made that the alleged kidnappings had nothing to do with ethnicity or race, and were simply opportunistic events that took advantage of an unusual situation. If sources are available to present that latter viewpoint, we can include that to balance or mitigate the racial aspect. --Noleander (talk) 06:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of Source Selection and NPOV

Noleander, you have done a serious research work, but it is flawed to the core. That's not how academic research works. Why did you choose to cherrypick the sources who treat this conspiracy theory as true and bash Israel, in contrast to the vast majority of sources which treat the issue as a largely discredited conspiracy theory? Why did you choose to ignore the fact that the claims were checked by an independent inquiry committee and proven to be incorrect in 2001, and only 56 cases out of 1003 missing children are still a mystery? Are you not familiar with the Wikipedia requirement to give all sides of the debate? Why are you leaving "balancing" work to others, while during your extensive research you could have easily brought sources refuting the claims too? I'm not trying to personally attack you, and I apologize if it sounds so, but I am asking since it seems you are doing so systematically, not only in this case. I'm sure you are acting in good faith, but the result is that you are forcing me and other editors to work to "balance" the articles you contribute to in order to maintain neutral point of view. Frankly I would much rather do more interesting things but you are forcing me to find counter-sources against my will. I thank you for giving me that barnstar, but still I find your conduct on these matters disturbing. And by the way, I know that my opinion does't matter, but taking children for adoption for "racist" reasons is truly a wacky idea, if people were racist why would they choose to adopt children of an "inferior" race? The vast majority of sources does NOT attribute this controversy to race, rather to anti-religious coertion, as was written earlier in this talk page. I refer all interested editors to WP:DUE which clearly states that neutrality requires that each article to fairly represents significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Fringe viewpoints should not be given the same prominence as the mainstream one (which in this case is that this is NOT related to racism and the allegations of organized kidnapping are FALSE) Marokwitz (talk) 08:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Black Hebrew Immigration

ip82166: you deleted the Black Hebrew Immigration section. Do you think it is not related to Israel? Or not related to racism? --Noleander (talk)

Nothing is so "sure" on this page, claims is enough, black-hebrews-israelites have been rejected on talk page, not yet a consensus for this. It is not related to racism in Israel, it is related to immigration for non-Jews.Ip82166 (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The sources allege that the rejection of the immigration was due to racist motives. If, in your opinion, the sources are wrong about the motivation, we need to find some sources that say so (e.g. "the motivation was based on the genuine belief that the BHI were not Jews, and the denial had nothing to do with their race") and add that balancing information into the section. --Noleander (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The sources also state that it is not a racist issue, as well as the fact that tens of thousands of 'blacks' from Ethiopia have immigrated over the past 30 years (besides the fact that Israel actually went to get them). Frankly, this is a speculation section and WP:UNDUE . There is already a page on Black Hebrews. Is it possible to condense to 2-4 lines? --Shuki (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree the current (last?) version is a bit large. It originally was only a few sentences. I would concur with a much briefer section. --Noleander (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The original by Noleander version failed to mention (I wonder why) that the independent human rights group headed by Bayard Rustin concluded that it was not based on racism, that they have been granted permanent resident status, and that other scholars concluded that the claims of racism were baseless. I think the current version with this material should be kept. Or perhaps we should start a new section called "baseless allegations of racism in Israel" (just joking). Marokwitz (talk) 07:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Since this discussion seems to be about the level of detail, I've restored a mid-sized version of the section. I don't have a strong opinion about whether it should be larger or smaller, so I would have no objection to changing its level of detail either way. --Noleander (talk) 09:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't care what version of black hebrew you are trying to push your POV agenda, your source is not too reliable either, not every non-Jewish immigrant that is rejected is on the basis of race.Ip82166 (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ip82166: You need to provide some rational reasons, based on WP policies. For example: do you think the material is not related to racism? or not related to Israel? Or do you think the material, as presented, has undue weight? Please be more specific. --Noleander (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Neither Mizrahim nor Black Hebrews are of any relevance here

Black Hebrews are not Jews. As such do not belong into Israel, Israel did a huge gesture by accepting them, How about that? An essay by someone historian or not, is not suffice to include it here.

Sensational journalism is not encyclopedic

What on earth is this talk about Mizrahim and racism? what race do Mizrahim belong to? (Mizrahi Jews or 'Edot Hamizrah' -communities of the east- are of different customs and tradition than those of Ashkenazi [2] [3]) Just because some journalists sensationalize with some provocative language, doesn't mean it's encyclopedic. Like that ynet link - that talk about "genetics," which was of course only to hype the headline, not an accurate true fact.Laras 123 (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The first footnote in the "Sephardi and Mizrahi (Middle Eastern)" section has about ten sources that describe the alleged racism/discrimination. Most of those sources are not "journaliists". Take a look at those sources, then perhaps you could re-phrase your concerns. --Noleander (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Editwar (Black Hebrew)

Noleander, please stop with the crappy material of black-hebrews, they weren't rejected because of race, you were already told that they are not perceived as Jews, While your injection of Mizrahi (Sefardi) into racialism is still contested, the black-hebrews - are even less of a case, at all.RS101 (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If you refer to the prior discussion about the Black Hebrew section, several questions were posed that you declined to answer. Can you answer them now? --Noleander (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you answer what the last user above (laras) asked you? And you failed answering the last portion of this [4] too.RS101 (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure. (1) Laras asked "What on earth is this talk about Mizrahim and racism?". The answer is: Several reliable sources claim that there is racial discrimination (often using the word 'racism') by Azk. Jews directed at Mizrahi Jews in Israel. The sources are listed in the "Mizrahi" section of the article. (2) I cannot find the second question .. can you re-type it here? --Noleander (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, she's right, mizrahim-sefardics ate not a race, (I hope it's a "she") but above the text about Mizrahi she wrote about black hebrews as well. The other links are by users that argue that it's an immigration issue, not race base yet again, that black hebrews are not accepted as Jews. Please explain why Israel should even accept this group claiming to be "hebrews", even if they were to be "white".RS101 (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, turning to the Black Hebrew section, the sources are Forman, Seth, Blacks in the Jewish Mind: A Crisis of Liberalism, p. 14-15, and Branch, Taylor "Blacks and Jews: The Uncivil War", in Bridges and Boundaries: African Americans and American Jews (Salzman, Ed), 1992. Branch alleges that Israel was discriminatory and racist because it denied admission to Black Hebrews due to their race. Forman is the secondary source that discusses Branch's allegations (and doesnt agree with them, by the way). You ask me to "[p]lease explain why Israel should even accept this group..." ... I think you may not understand the WP policies on material in articles: The articles reflect what reliable sources say, not what editors like me or you think. --Noleander (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Beyond the RSs which consider discrimination against Mizrahim as racism, isn't the title of the article "Racism and ethnic discrimination..."? I'm super-confused by the logic which says Mizrahi/ Sephardim/Middle Eastern Jews are not an ethnic group. Or is that not the point, RS101?--Carwil (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The sources view the discrimination (which all agree exists) in more-or-less two different ways: (a) as class-based (based on country of origin and/or culture and/or religious tradition); or (b) race/ethnicity based. Because of the latter sources, it is appropriate material for this article. However, the article should also include material from the class-based sources, so readers get the fullest picture. The article already has both sources/viewpoints. The underlying issue here is: there is a tag-team of about 4 SPA editors that have been repeatedly attempting to remove the material, and they keep bringing up the same arguments over and over again. I think there is some WP "failure to get the point" essay that applies. --Noleander (talk) 02:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

carwill, when you will remove the 'racism' part in the title, you can start making a case.Laras 123 (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Tell me we're not here to play word games. Compare Race and ethnicity in the United States; now by your logic, everything that is not both a race and an ethnicity should be removed from that article. Please don't make it any more difficult to assume good faith.--Carwil (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Since there has been no reason provided as to why the sources for the B.H. section are unreliable or otherwise insufficient, I'm restoring the section. RS101: If you still object to the section, before deleting it, could you please explain here what you think of the Branch & Taylor sources; and also cite a specific WP policy that makes you think that section should not be in the article. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

RS101: Do you have some reason why the B.H. section should not be included? if so, please explain here, and provide WP polices (not your personal opinions). --Noleander (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

What do new sections have to do with article's subject?

RS101: you added 3 new sections to the article:

Open democratic society

Self criticism

Equal democracy for all

I don't see any mention of racism or ethnic discrimination in them. Can you clarify how the sources relate them to racism? (and please don't bother mentioning your own opinion: its the words of the sources that count). Also, there is already a section in the article named "Efforts against racism and discrimination". Can you look at that? I think maybe that is the section you want to improve or expand? If you are really interested in material about "equality" and "democracy" (where the sources do not specifically mention racism) it should go into another article such as Human rights in Israel or Israel. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Noleander, since you try to with your own opinions to cherry pick sources make Israel all racist and discrimnatory, I can undersnand that rs101 wants to show the 'other side of the coin' some balancing needs to be added. You also failed to make a case that black hebrews.Laras 123 (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS and WP:V. Editors do not need to "make a case" based on our personal opinions. Instead, editors present sources that are relevant to the topic of the article. Sources have been presented on the Black Hebrew material. The sources are reliable and accurate. What is your specific concern with the sources? Do you think the sources are not reliable? Do you think the material is not within the scope of the article? Why? (And, when replying, remember that your answers should rely on sources: your personal opinions on the racism topic are not relevant). --Noleander (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Your entire -section creation- basing of rejection of black hebrews is on one essay by some so called historian. weak! Moreover, you are the one that has to provide some real r.s. stating that black hebrews are accepted as Jews, at all, first of all.Laras 123 (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you identify a WP policy that says that there must be 2 or more historians supporting material before it can be included? (And regarding your second point: the material is not suggesting that the BH were Jews - it is simply addressing alleged racism). --Noleander (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

REMINDER: this section of the Talk page is about 3 sections that were added to the article that, apparently, have no relation to racism or ethnic discrimination. Those sections will be removed unless an editor can supply sources that connect the material to racism or ethnic discrimination. --Noleander (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I just rephrased and made it clear how it relates to the page about "discrimination" or rather equality.

You can't have it both ways, add and maintain material not related to racism but to pure discrimination yet object to material showing the opposite, the overall equality. For example, the latest added link about Ethiopians that talks about discrimination, where's the support that it's race based and not cultural based? On a side note, (your general) pushing inflammatory highly controversial material creates objection, I hope you understand what I mean, not only on this page.RS101 (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that is not good enough. Material about equality and democracy belong in the Israel or Human rights in Israel articles. This article is for material about racism and ethnic discrimination. (Regarding the Ethiopian material: if there is some that is not related to race-based discrimination, please start a new section in this Talk page to discuss it). Let me make a suggestion: Why dont you find sources that discuss how Israel has laws and programs to combat racism and ethnic discrimination? Or maybe find some statistics and reports that show that the incidents of racism is low? That material would be great for this article, and would achieve the goals it appears you are striving for. --Noleander (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Your material is mostly about disctimination not about so called racism, which makes it the case to have it on, Is your page not related to discrimination? maybe we should push to remove Mizrachi section as well.RS101 (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

RS101: I cannot understand what you are saying. This section in the Talk page is about the new sections on "Democracy" etc. The sources in them need to mention "racism" or "ethnic discrimination". I looked at some sources, and did not see any relation to either. Can you provide some quotations from those sources (that is: type some quotes here in the Talk page from the sources) that demonstrate the connection? If you cannot, the sections will be removed. Also, you added a new section on "Arabs as 1st class citizens". There is already a section in this article on that topic: It is called "Opposing views". Would you please move that "1st class citizen" material into that existing section? Please try to be more careful with your edits in the future. Also, I draw your attention to WP:Battleground and WP:Civility policies. --Noleander (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Equality for all in the soirces (such the quote by Jimmy Carter) is exactly related to your suggestion of in-equality, anyway, Here's a one example from the LA Times

Yes, Israel's a democracy, May 2010, J. DayahYes, Israel's a democracy

The Arab Israeli lawmaker who accused the Jewish state of having 'racist' and 'fascist' policies enjoys rights and freedoms he wouldn't find anywhere else in the Middle East. May 27, 2010|Jacob Dayan

The Jewish state of Israel is a diverse nation that has absorbed people from more than 140 countries. Among its population are about 1.5 million Arabs, including Israeli Knesset member Ahmad Tibi, who in a May 23 Times interview lashed out at Israel, using inflammatory words like "racist" and "fascist." As is his style, Tibi failed to back up his white-hot rhetoric with hard facts.

[5]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by RS101 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

RS101: could you provide some details on this source: Where is it from? Who is the author of the content (I know it was in the LA times, but who wrote it)? Can you provide a hyperlink here to the source? --Noleander (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

RS101: I moved your new sections so they are now adjacent to the similar, pre-existing material that other editors added before you. There were several sections that contained material to the effect "There is no or little racism in Israel" . I think that is an excellent topic to include in this article, and I have no objection to it (provided the sources relate it to racism or ethnicity). However, the material in there needs lot of work: grammar; more encyclopedic phrasing; grouping material in a logical sequence so it flows; more academic/scholarly sources. --Noleander (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Beta Israel material deleted

Laras123: you deleted material on Beta Israel. What is your concern about that material? And please don't reply with your personal opinions, but focus on the sources instead. --Noleander (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Not the enitre section was deleted, but the newly added material based primarily unreliable source such as a blog.Laras 123 (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

There are three sources. What do you think of each of them? --Noleander (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

To Laras123, only the blog site should be removedRS101 (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No consensus on Black Hebrews

Noleander (and your supporter), please stop editwarring. As it has been said, you failed to show that they are Jews in order to be included into the law of return. one obscure essay in the 1970's by somebody (who?) is not enough.RS101 (talk) 01:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

RS101: you are making several mistakes. Please slow down and consider. (1) there is already a section above in this Talk page on the BH section ... creating a new section confuses editors and makes it hard to centralize the discussion. (2) there is no need to be so uncivil, relax and use logic and reason. (3) You say " you failed to show that they are Jews " but (as I've pointed out to you twice before) editor's own opinions are not relevant. Please refer to WP policies WP:V and WP:OR: it is what sources say that count. I ask you, for the fourth time (you never answer): What is the problem with the sources that are used in the BH section? Please be specific, and relate the problem to WP policies. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

noleander, Did you google/found anything that shows that B.H. are precieved as Jews in Israel?

The sources are Forman, Seth, Blacks in the Jewish Mind: A Crisis of Liberalism, p. 14-15, and Branch, Taylor "Blacks and Jews: The Uncivil War", in Bridges and Boundaries: African Americans and American Jews (Salzman, Ed), 1992. Branch alleges that Israel was discriminatory and racist because it denied admission to Black Hebrews due to their race. Forman is the secondary source that discusses Branch's allegations (and doesnt agree with them, by the way). The Forman source does discuss the contention that the BH are considered by Israel to not be Jews. The sources clearly discuss a topic that relates to racism in Israel (although it is true that some sources claim there is no racism involved). As editors, it is not our job to take sides or decide which soruce is "true". The BH section already includes material that does discuss the other viewpoint (that no racism was involved) so readers get the full picture. What WP policy do you rely on to exclude the material from the article? --Noleander (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Another gross inaccuracy: US State dept. does NOT say there's racism

Here's the full quote, where does it say that there's racism in Israel???

The Basic Law prohibits the candidacy of any party or individual who denies the Jewish character and democratic existence of the State of Israel, incites racism, or supports in action or speech the armed struggle of enemy states or terror organizations. Prior to the 2003 election, there were efforts to disqualify Arab candidates under the provisions of this law; however, they were overturned by the Supreme Court. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41723.htm

I think the article's referring to the sections documenting decreased government spending on Arab citizens, limited opportunities, land sale issues etc. Sol 19:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sol Goldstone (talk • contribs)

Sol Goldstone, Laras 123, Noleander!

Noleander's text: Nevertheless, organizations such as Amnesty International, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), and the United States Department of State[3] have published reports that document racism and discrimination directed towards racial and ethnic groups in Israel.

I have looked at the quote you added, the State Deaportrment didn't say it documented it it only cites that "according to Mossawa..."

From the State Departhment the part that includes the term racism: According to a report by Mossawa, racist violence against Arab citizens has increased, and the Government has not done enough to prevent this problem...

Can you merge them? or that "The State Deaprtment" quotes Mossawa? Because according to your misrepresenting text it looks as if there are 3 different sources claiming racism.RS101 (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we are misleading anyone by using the verb "published" for a collation of data the State Department used to come to the conclusion that "The Government did little to reduce institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the country's Arab citizens." Sol (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Race of the Jews ?

Just a random, off the point comment : When the article states : "The absorption of the Ethiopian Jews into Israeli society has been cited as a unique attempt to incorporate a nonwhite group as equal citizens with full rights as part of a Western predominantly white country,[4] and represents an ambitious attempt to deny the significance of race.[4]" ----- It implies the Jews (as opposed to the Ethiopians, or others) are white and this implication is wrong and leads to many people assuming this is true. Since Jews originally came from the Middle East, before they got to Europe in the so-called "diaspora" as they say, how then can they be white if they were originally Middle Eastern/Israeli ? Even those that look white have relatives who look more Middle Eastern, therefore even white looking Jews are NOT white. But then again, maybe I'm just color-blind and the editers of Wikipedia are correct. This untruthful section of the article should be removed if the wikipedia editers dont like it being modified to suggest the truth by those such as myself.

In the words of the anthropological introduction to the issue, Racism created (and creates) races, not the other way around. Races are social constructs, ways of interpreting biological and cultural features of people into distinct categories which biologically aren't there. The definition of white people has excluded and included the Jews (and Slavs, and Italians, and Germans, and French people) over time. See Historical definitions of race. There is no pre-social definition of race. There are a number of strands of racism, which travel well from culture to culture, and might encourage people regardless of biology to look down on arriving darker-skinned people from Africa, regardless of their own ancestry.

That said, on this page, we're addressing racism and/or ethnic discrimination, so feel free to think of Ashkenazi-Ethiopian Jew tensions as ethnic instead of racial, if it make you feel better about "the truth."--Carwil (talk) 02:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Communication (Noleander)?

I don't get your behaviour, you ask something, you get a response, you answer only parts that you prefer to answer, but in general you keep repeating and ask others to repeat over and over again with threats (and repeated actions) of editwars. Example, I told you that 'equality' is related to discrtomination, you rejected it, I had to repeat my self again than you ask me for a quote (what for?) but in any case I gave you one example.

I think the issue of black h. was repeated many times (please don't ask for repetitions) and you so far failed to show how it relates to "racism in Israel" and not to one general umbrella of all 'non-Jewish immigration' in the law of return. Let me rephrase it, Do the non-Jewish Black Hebrews want to return (???) to the land of The Jews?RS101 (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The source for the BH material is from Seth Forman, Blacks in the Jewish Mind: A Crisis of Liberalism, pages 14-15: "In the mid 1980's Taylor Branch claims, three thousand members of a sect of Black Jews from Chicago under the leadership of Ben-Ami Carter were denied citizenship under the Israeli Law of Return because of anti-Black sentiment among Israelis. But the athenticity of Carter's claim that he and his followers were indeed Jewish is open to investigation .... Branch's imputation that Carter and his followers were not given immediate citizenship because they were Black seems baseless." It is plain that this is addressing alleged anti-Black discrimination by the government of Israel, and therefore falls within this article's purview. The allegation is disputed, of course, and that should be mentioned in the article (and is already mentioned in the BH section that we are discussing). See WP:Truth for why the truthfullness of the allegation is not relevant. As for your question: "Do the non-Jewish Black Hebrews want to return (???) to the land of The Jews?" - I have no opinion on that matter. Question for you: Do you think this source is not reliable (see WP:Reliable sources)? Or is there some other WP policy that makes you want to exclude the material? --Noleander (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Since this source is reliable, and the material is within the scope of this article, and there are no more open areas of discussion, I'm restoring the material. --Noleander (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

POV tag

What is the specific shortcoming of the article that caused the POV tags? It appears that the early versions of the article were indeed lacking some "balancing" material, but balancing material has been added to all sections. In addition, there is an entire section dedicated to equality and non-discrimination:

4 Opposing views

4.1 Equal democracy for all

4.2 Open democratic society

4.3 Self criticism

4.4 Efforts against racism and discrimination

4.5 Affirmative Action

If you think the POV tag is still warranted, please be specific and identify individual sections, and give examples of terminology or material that appears to violate the POV policy. --Noleander (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Seeing no reply, I'm removing the tags. If an editor wishes to restore a tag, please add a section here in the Talk page explaining the specific shortcoming of the article, ideally with a suggestion how to remedy the problem. --Noleander (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Add footer Nav Template

I propose to add the Template:Racism topics navigation template to the bottom of this article. Any comments? --Noleander (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Since there is no objection, I'll add it. --Noleander (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Land leasing & ownership

The U.S. state dept report mentions some discrimination related to land ownership & leasing. It is also described in Arab citizens of Israel#Property ownership and housing. One of the several sources that alleges discrimination is [6]. The topic seems to be well-covered in Arab citizens of Israel, but it should also be mentioned in this article. --Noleander (talk) 13:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Salamaat: Why did you delete the Land ownership section? Do you think it is not related to Israel? Or not related to ethnic discrimination? --Noleander (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Seeing no reply after four days, restoring the well-sourced section. --Noleander (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The US State Dep. does NOT call it "racism."RS101 (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Page protection

I've protected the page for three days. I hope all parties who have been edit-warring will come to some consensus, or begin dispute resolution, before that period ends. If necessary, try an RfC. Repeatedly inserting and removing the same text is not acceptable. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll attempt a dialog for the sixth time. Every preceding instance (see Talk page above), I pose some questions designed to build consensus and move towards compromise, and no response is received. But I'll try again. --Noleander (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Noleander, you are wrong, Black Hebrews are not considered Jews, you have failed to show that they are considered as such by most Israelis.RS101 (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Black Hebrew sources

I think the sources are reliable, and the material is within the scope of the article. Here is one typcial source:

Seth Forman, Blacks in the Jewish Mind: A Crisis of Liberalism, pages 14-15: "In the mid 1980's Taylor Branch claims, three thousand members of a sect of Black Jews from Chicago under the leadership of Ben-Ami Carter were denied citizenship under the Israeli Law of Return because of anti-Black sentiment among Israelis. But the athenticity of Carter's claim that he and his followers were indeed Jewish is open to investigation .... Branch's imputation that Carter and his followers were not given immediate citizenship because they were Black seems baseless."

It is plain that this is addressing alleged anti-Black discrimination by the government of Israel, and therefore falls within this article's purview. Other sources that explicitly discuss allegations of racism in relation to Black Hebrews include:

• Black Zion: African American religious encounters with Judaism, Yvonne Patricia Chireau, p 74
• Jet magazine [7]
• In the Trenches: Selected Speeches and Writings of an American Jewish Activist, Volume 2, David A. Harris, page 171
• Culture and customs of Israel, Rebecca L. Torstrick, page 41

The allegation is disputed, of course, and that should be mentioned in the article (and is already mentioned in the BH section that we are discussing). See WP:Truth for why the truthfullness of the allegation is not relevant. Questions for editors that wish to exclude this material: Do you think these source is not reliable (see WP:Reliable sources)? Or is there some other WP policy that makes you want to exclude the material? Or is the issue simply that the material is too verbose and the WP:Undue policy indicates that it should be shortened? --Noleander (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Seeing no reply after four days, restoring that well-sourced section, with the inclusion of additional sources. --Noleander (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

RS101: I see you still don't think this material belongs in the article. Could you explain what your concerns are, and cite the WP policies that are applicable? Do you think these source is not reliable (see WP:Reliable sources)? Or is there some other WP policy that makes you want to exclude the material? Or is the issue simply that the material is too verbose and the WP:Undue policy indicates that it should be shortened? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Noleander, you are wrong, Black Hebrews are not considered Jews, you have failed to show that they are considered as such by most Israelis.RS101 (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion on the matter, and mine, is not relevant. See WP:Truth. We have to present what the sources say. Do you think the sources are not reliable? Have you even read the sources? Please be specific, and cite a WP policy. Also, see WP:Disruptive and WP:ICAN'THEARYOU. --Noleander (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Controversial issues (POV)

There are a few issuers unresolved here, the establishement of Sefardim (Oriental) as a "race" is most uphalling. Did you know that there are Europeans who migrated to Egypt a few generations ago and now are considered "Sefradim/Mizrachi Jews?" You Noleander fail to diffrenciate between genuine racism and "racism as an epithet."RS101 (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

For the tenth time: your opinion on the matter is not relevant. Have you read the sources? Do you think the material in the article is not accurately reflecting what the sources say? Or do you think the sources are not reliable? --Noleander (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

RS101, as far as I know this article avoids positing a decision on whether discrimination against Sephardim/Mizrahim constitutes racism or constitutes ethnic discrimination. Either way, it belongs on the page. We can defer to RS on the terminology quite easily.

The broader issue, which you seem to not get, is that race and racism are social constructs. "Racial" biological difference isn't just sitting out there, its attributed to biology by people who believe that certain groups of people are biological inferior. Something that might previously have been an ethnic or religious difference can be transformed by a society into a "racial" difference (that, for instance, is what happened in the 19th century with the rise of racial antisemitism in Europe). That's the anthropological perspective.

From a legal point of view, the defining international document, the ICERD doesn't bother to untangle racism and ethnic discrimination, because there's no clear line between the two.

It's perfectly appropriate to cite RSs on the "ethnic" or "racial" nature of anti-Sephardim/Mizrahim discrimination. Just go ahead and do that, but don't pretend that means it should be removed from this page, which is about both.--Carwil (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Title change without discussion

Resident Anthro: Would you like to discuss the merits of the two titles before changing? Please take note of the message box at the top of the Talk page: "significant changes should be discussed on the Talk page before making them". Also, you should review the Talk page archives, since the title has been discussed extensively before. Thanks. As for the two titles: "Racial" is a weasel word. "Racism" is a plainer word, and it is used in many other articles such as Racism in the United States and Racism in the Palestinian territories. What is your reason for using a different word for Israel? --Noleander (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

If We are talking about "Racism and Ethnic discrimination" is a redundant statement as it describes Discimination twice. Racial and Ethnic discrimination is not redundant statement as it combines the two into a in flat out discrimination of Racial and ethnic groups. I though it was a trivial grammar mistake thus did not see a need to hassle with Requested move The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I see why you made the change. However, there was extensive (and painful  :-) debate about the title a couple of months ago, and it settled on "Racism and ...", so do you have any objection to going back to that, pending more detailed discussion (especially regarding uniformity with other similar articles in WP)? --Noleander (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I Am always open to WP:BRD, I am not opposed to the old title exceppt I found it to be a redundant statement thus merely tried to stream the phrase together. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the {{db-move}}, but if there is even a little bit of uncertainty over the correct title of this page, it would be better to start a requested move discussion. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it was mere courtesey as I made a bold move he want it reverted, thus we move it back and I can start the process the Right way through a RM The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Article moved back per this discussion and the request by ResidentAnthropologist. Off the cuff and for what it's worth, I think RA's logic for the other name was compelling.--Kubigula (talk) 04:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct name: Racism epithets on Israel

Markowitz is right, It should be renamed "Racism epithets on Israel." The writer of this article has no basis for his point of View in calling the Yemenite case into racism.Mostiessin (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Should Black Hebrew immigration controversy be included in Racism and ethnic discrimination in Israel?

Black Hebrew Israelites alleged that the government of Israel was racist because it denied them permission to immigrate. Should that material (supported by sources indicated below) be included in the Racism and ethnic discrimination in Israel article? Noleander (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Include - The charges of racism are documented abundantly by several reliable sources, including:

• Black Zion: African American religious encounters with Judaism, Yvonne Patricia Chireau, p 74
• Jet magazine [8]
• In the Trenches: Selected Speeches and Writings of an American Jewish Activist, Volume 2, David A. Harris, page 171
• Culture and customs of Israel, Rebecca L. Torstrick, page 41
• Seth Forman, Blacks in the Jewish Mind: A Crisis of Liberalism, pages 14-15:

Here is a typical quote from one of the sources (Forman): "In the mid 1980's Taylor Branch claims, three thousand members of a sect of Black Jews from Chicago under the leadership of Ben-Ami Carter were denied citizenship under the Israeli Law of Return because of anti-Black sentiment among Israelis. But the athenticity of Carter's claim that he and his followers were indeed Jewish is open to investigation .... Branch's imputation that Carter and his followers were not given immediate citizenship because they were Black seems baseless."

The allegation of racism is disputed, of course, and that should be mentioned in the article. See WP:Truth for why the truthfullness of the allegation is not relevant. --Noleander (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The enire subject to be included - is more than disputed.Lawsmass (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I cannot understand what you mean. Can you re-word that? Have you read the sources? --Noleander (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment I have moved this "Racism and ethnic discrimination in Israel" since its more accurate title, that aside black hebrew israelites should definitley be included The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless there are some rational arguments why the material should be excluded, the two "include" !votes above seem sensible. The material has five sources that associate racism with the way Israel allegedly treated the Black Hebrews. If you want to supply an argument against inclusion, please cite WP policy and relate it to the sources. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Seeing no rational arguments against the material, I'm restoring it. As discussed above, it may be a bit large, perhaps violating WP:Undue weight guideline; and I have no objection to it being reduced in size. --Noleander (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Order of the lead

I've moved this text downwards:

Israel has one of the broadest anti-discrimination laws of any country. The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, marital status, or sexual orientation. The law also prohibits discrimination by both government and nongovernment entities on the basis of race, religion, political beliefs, and age, and prohibits incitement to racism.

The reason is that laws against X are not as important as the incidence of X, on a page about X. Moreover, a law against a given crime don't imply that crime is not committed (in fact, if a given crime was never committed, why have a law in the first place). So, no more nevertheless. Compare, for example Rape in the United States. Or even Lynching in the United States, which is quite rare now, but doesn't have a defensive statement about its illegality (it was always illegal to murder people) in the lead.--Carwil (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Round 2

Marokwitz and I have been exchanging notes over the order of the lead. My main reasons for caring about it are state above. Here's the lead as it stands now:

A: Racism and ethnic discrimination in Israel includes racism, discrimination and bias against Israeli Arabs, against Mizrahi and other Jewish groups, and against Jews as a whole. Israel government officials and others have denied some instances of racism and discrimination.

B: The Israeli government and many groups within Israel have undertaken efforts to combat discrimination. Israel has one of the broadest anti-discrimination laws of any country, which prohibits discrimination by both government and nongovernment entities on the basis of race, religion, and political beliefs and prohibits incitement to racism.

C: Organizations such as Amnesty International, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), the Israeli government-appointed Or Commission, and the United States Department of State have published reports that document racism and discrimination directed towards racial and ethnic groups in Israel. Ethiopian Jews have faced discrimination and other difficulties. However, their absorption into Israeli society, has also been cited as a unique attempt to incorporate a nonwhite group as equal citizens with full rights as part of a Western predominantly white country.

Now Marokwitz, your last edit makes sense in so far as it unifies the two related sentences in the second paragraph. But here's the overall order after your edit:

A: Discrimination defined. Discrimination denied.

B: Anti-descrimination summarized. Anti-descrimination described.

C: Discrimination "against racial and ethnic groups" summarized. Discrimination against Ethiopian Jews described and counter-described.

This brings me back to the point above: We need to summarize and describe discrimination first, since this article is about discrimination, not about whether Israel is good or bad with respect to discrimination. My ideal would switch paragraphs B and C, but a minimum (maybe consensus building, let me know) move would be to put the summary of charges of discrimination in paragraph A, between the definition and the denial. A second, necessary but unrelated, effort would provide some description of racism against Israeli Arabs/'48 Palestinians and a description of antisemitism inside Israel in paragraph C.--Carwil (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point. This article is about racism and ethnic discrimination in Israel or lack thereof, and this certainly includes efforts to combat them. I think the current order makes a lot of sense, since it explains that discrimination is illegal in Israel, yet instances of discrimination still exist. Putting it in the reverse order and alternating between pro's and con's of Israel every sentence will sound a lot like a punch-counter punch style paragraph that is discouraged in Wikipedia - see Wikipedia:Avoid thread mode. My opinion only. Marokwitz (talk)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Racism in Israel. Jafeluv (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Racism and ethnic discrimination in Israel → Racial and ethnic discrimination in Israel — Racism and Ethnic discrimination" is a redundant statement as it describes Discimination twice. Racial and Ethnic discrimination is not redundant statement as it combines the two into a in flat out discrimination of Racial and ethnic groups. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Racial and ethnic discrimination are the same thing. The concept of race is a human invention, primarily aimed at justifying discrimination. Because there is no scientific way to distinguish race vs ethnicity, all neutral authorities DO NOT distinguish between racial discrimination (aka racism) and ethnic discrimination (see Racism article). If your goal is to make the title non-redundant, simple, and sensible, the best title is "Racism in Israel". --Noleander (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral, but commenting: This justification seems unconvincing to me: Racism and Ethnic Discrimination isn't more or less redundant than Racial and Ethnic Discrimination, and neither is really a "statement." One just has a noun and two adjectives, and one has two adjectives describing the same noun. Compare the phrases: Pharmacies and book stores and Drug and book stores. Is one better? Who cares? It may (or may not) matter to someone that there is a series of other articles, which includes this one, called Racism by country, rather than Racial discrimination by country. Have fun discussing, but try not to get heated over something that doesn't obviously matter either way. Cheers! --Carwil (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Could we just change it to "Racism in Israel" to keep it in line with the other Racism/ethnic discrimination articles? I don't care much either way but that seems simplest. Sol (talk) 05:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur with "Racism in Israel". In fact, that was the original title, but it was considered to "harsh". All leading authorities equate racism with ethnic discrimination (see Racism article) so repeating "Racism" and "ethnic discrimination" in the title is redundant. --Noleander (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I really do not get why this article is not just called "Racism in Israel." Its just needless verbosity and probably doesn't even suit the interest of any POV although someone might have thought erroneously that it does! —K. the Surveyor (talk) 05:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Very mature discussion but debating the merits of the concept of Race is off topic The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally I fail to see how Racism should be included at all. As race is socially constructed and divides people into groups vary differently cross culturally. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC) There are scores of academic, reliable sources that describe "racism" (their word, not mine) in Israel. Are you saying that material should not be included in the encyclopedia? Or it should, but we should soften the term? --Noleander (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC) No only that for most purposes its a useless term due to the socially constructed nature of Race. Conceptions of what constitutes a Race or how to divide who is what race has is different in every culture. I recall for example a rather famous example where to african groups divided thier neighbors across the river as a different race yet any westerner would constitute them as "black." Brazilian Culture has no concept what so ever of "Race" what so ever. So merely pointing out the western bias in the term. I was not disputing wether there was discrimination on Racial groups. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Okay, I hear what you are saying. But then we should turn to the conventions established in WP (see bulleted list below). The word "racism" is used for ethnic discrimination everywhere in WP: categories, articles, sidebars, footer templates, .. you name it. That term was arrived at over the past decade in numerous consensus-building efforts. It doesn't seem right for 3 or 4 editors here, in this Talk page, to strike out in our own direction. --Noleander (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC) ResidentAnthropologist, you will see me vigorously defending the social construction of race and racism on this and other talk pages. I think we'd likely agree that racism creates races, rather than the other way around. But that's far from making "racism" a useless term, since people believe in the social construction of race, attribute superiority to their (socially constructed) racial status, and create legal standards based on it. Religion, is socially constructed too, of course, but that doesn't make it and the wide variety of terms it has created (like saints or blasphemy) any less "useful" for understanding society. Also, despite its western roots, racism has a way of traveling across cultures and integrating with local prejudices (one of the best historical examples was Imperial Japanese racial theory); unfortunately that travel around the world hasn't stopped.--Carwil (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC) I apologize for digressing, I have strong opinions on this subject, As most people around the anthropological field do. I am not advocating we ban the term racism or purge from wikipedia such terms. I am going to collapse this as it seems to be a good and reasonable discussion with solid informed people however debating the merits of Race is not consturcitve for this Requested move. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - For several reasons:

1. Most similar articles on this topic use the word "Racism" e.g. Racism in the United States and Racism in the Palestinian territories;
2. There is an important footer Navigation Templates Template:Racism topics and it is titled "Racism" (not "racial discrimination")
3. "racial discrimination" is a WP:Weasel weasel word;
4. Racism is a rather important topic in human discourse, indeed, in human society today, and we should avoid "sweeping it under the rug" by softening the terminology;
5. There is an important sidebar Navigation Template Template:Discrimination sidebar uses the word "racism" (not "racial discrimination")
6. There is a category Category:Racism (but no cateory "Racial discrimination");
7. There is an article Racism, but no article "Racial discrimination" (the latter redirects to Racism)

For all these reasons, the title should include the word "racism" rather than "racial discrimination". --Noleander (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with ResidentAnthropologist, per grammar.Salamaat (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Salamaat: This is not a vote, and WP is not a democracy. Decisions are made based on sensible, rational arguments that refer to WP policies. What do you think of the seven issues I raise in my posting above? --Noleander (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Grammar is a legitimate argument, though i agree he is an interesting user The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. "Racism in Israel" would be cleaner and more consistent with other similar articles. However, if that is too controversial, then this propsal is better than the current title, which sounds like it's trying to cover two separate subjects.--Kubigula (talk) 01:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I can't see any reason why "Racism in Israel" should be inherently more controversial than in relation to anywhere else, as the above comment suggests, but the proposed change is at least grammatically more coherent. There are arguably distinctions between 'race' and 'ethnicity', though both are cultural constructs, but nit-picking over the difference seems unnecessary in a context like this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support rename to Racial and ethnic discrimination in Israel, per The Resident Anthropologist, and Oppose rename to Racism in Israel. This article is not about racism, it documents also other forms of discrimination based on non-racial motives. If the article is renamed to remove "Ethnic" then a large portion of it's content (for example everything related to discrimination based on religion) will have to be removed. An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion). Marokwitz (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Authorities do not distinguish between racism and ethnic discrimination. Do you have any sources that make the distinction? What material in this article do you think is not racism? (to the contrary: every section in this article has sources that describe it as "racism" using that word). --Noleander (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - the WP consensus process stipulates that decisions are not made by majority vote, but rather are made based on reasoning, within a context of dialog. Would one of the "support" editors please respond to the seven points listed above under "oppose"? --Noleander (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Move to "Racism in Israel". I don't understand why it isn't at that title already. Quantpole (talk) 13:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

"Racism in Israel" was the original title. There were editors that thought that was inappropriate, so several months ago, a proposal was made to rename it to "Ethnic discrimination in Israel", and a compromise resulted in current title, "Racism and ethnic discrimination in Israel". -- Noleander (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that in common language people regard racism as being in any way different to "ethnic discrimination". The current title is also at odds with how the rest of these sorts of articles are named (with the exception of Japan, which should probably be moved). Quantpole (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Racism is defined to include all forms of race-based and ethnicity-based bigotry. The proposal to use the word "discrimination" as a substitute for "racism" in this article title is a euphemism and a weasel-word (WP:Weasel words). The Japan article Ethnic issues in Japan, has a laughable title, and someone needs to propose a re-name (I don't have time right now) to bring it inline with Racism in the United States, Racism in the United Kingdom, and Racism in the Palestinian territories. --Noleander (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Noleander—one article's title does not provide a precedent or a template for the form that another article's title should take. Each article is an independent entity. It is an incorrect notion that the existence of one title suggests that another article's title should follow suit. Each article's existence/nonexistence/chosen title is an individual and independent editorial task, requiring decisions pertinent to just the one article under consideration. Bus stop (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I generally disagree with your notion. I think it's important to a logical and readable encyclopedia to have internal consistency in titles. Otherwise, why bother having WP:MOSTITLE. Now, that's not to say there can't be good editorial reasons to have different titles for the same type of article, but the presumption should be in favor of internal consistency.--Kubigula (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Kubigula—where you [9] and Noleander [10] see "similar articles" I see dissimilar articles. It isn't clear to me why you are mentioning WP:MOSTITLE. Bus stop (talk) 11:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Certainly oppose the original proposal - not all racism (indeed, not all the racism described in this article) involves discrimination. Would be moderately happy with the more consise title "Racism in Israel".--Kotniski (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Racism in Israel per Noleander. —K. the Surveyor (talk) 05:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rubin and sloppy insertions

I've deleted the whole series of references to Barry Rubin's "An All-Purpose Paradigm: The West’s Absurd Claims of Israeli Racism" which appears to be a blog posting, circulated through several blog networks. WP:RS makes clear that self-published sources, which aren't fact-checked, are only reliable to describe the source's own views, not the actions of others.

Putting that aside, Marokwitz, who added the post might have thought better before using this source. The edits included adding blithe statements like the following:

• "Barry Rubin, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, argued that Israeli media never use racial stereotypes or epithets,"
• "A leader of the Islamist movement in Israel was criticized for saying that it was 'a disgrace' that a black Israeli soldier could ask for the identity document of an Arab Muslim."

Adding the first suggests a google, paste, and paraphrase strategy which doesn't pass through any minimal test of reasonability. No stereotypes? There's only a university press book about them: Stereotypes and prejudice in conflict: Representations of Arabs in Israeli Jewish society by Daniel Bar-Tal, Yona Teichman. Summarizing the research on the issue, the book finds, "In general, studies show that Palestinians were consistently negatively stereotyped by the mass media and often delegitimized" (145). It's not that Marokwitz had to find this quote, it's that inserting an almost hyperbolically strong claim without looking for opposing evidence is irresponsible.

In the second case, common sense suggests a non-racist explanation for this act: the idea that black Israelis ought to have solidarity against racism. In any case, we have a case of a telephone game of description: Marokwitz doesn't name the leader because neither does Rubin. This makes verifiability impossible. Having had the ocassion to chase down such chains of description here on Wikipedia, I find they're often exaggerations, mischaracterizations, or just plain unfounded. It would be much more helpful if editors did this work themselves, and provided the articles with specific verifiable claims, rather than repeating critiques of anonymous figures as somehow encyclopedic.

Marokwitz, I don't think you've done something offensively wrong, but making different choices in the future would make editing easier for everyone.--Carwil (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Carwil: your edits appear to be reasonable and appropriate. If you have time, could you look at the intro paragraphs to the "Between Jewish groups" section ... I think the sources are generally okay, but the text was altered by an editor that was not a native speaker of English, so it does not read well, and in some places is downright misleading. --Noleander (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Further example cruft

1 Any idea why the following citation is included? I've edited it a bit to make it readable.

Journalist Politician Yehuda Ben-Meir described Arab Knesset members who "talk incessantly about the Palestinian people's rights, including their own state" but who "refuse to acknowledge Israel as the state of the Jewish people and deny the very existence of a Jewish people as a nation with national rights" as racist.[79]

Per WP:RS, "When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may be a strong factor in determining reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint than the opinions of others. When using opinion pieces it is necessary to attribute the information to the author, and not to assert it as fact." Do we have any evidence that politican Yehuda Ben Meir is some kind of racism expert? Or that his opinion is exceptionally important to Israeli discourse? If not, I'm cutting this in a few days.--Carwil (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"the number of black babies in the country"

This is quoted from the Russian news site RT. Probably an infelicity in translation. I doubt the Israeli government really said they have a goal of reducing "the number of black babies in the country". Tijfo098 (talk) 06:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Gross disparities in education of Jews and Arabs "not racism"???

Marokwitz, really, I'm stunned that a section on the separate and unequal education system was removed "because of the new name" by you. Please explain.--Carwil (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The article was recently renamed, removing discrimination not based on racism from the scope. I don't think this was a good change, but whatever. There is a separate article about human rights in Israel discussing other forms of discrimination and it already has a mention of the educational disparities. If there are reliable sources saying that there is discrimination in education based on racism then I would not object to mentioning it here. Otherwise, on what basis are we including it in an article about racism? Marokwitz (talk) 13:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Your answer suggests we are not living in the same semantic world with regard to the meaning of racism. Perhaps you could explain a little more clearly how Arab-Jew school segregation is unrelated to "racism"?

Since Israel is a full party to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, why don't we stick with their definition:

Article 1 of the Convention defines "racial discrimination" as "...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."

As far as I know the article title was moved in part to recognize the lack of meaningful distinction between "racism" and "racial discrimination", and indeed between "racial discrimination" and "ethnic discrimination."

However, even if you saw Arab-Jew school segregation as "ethnic discrimination" and not as "racial discrimination," wouldn't that mean you would blank the whole article? Like I said, I don't understand the boundary you are trying to draw here.--Carwil (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

For facts to qualify for mention in this article, you must bring sources that specifically link them to "racism". Using a definition from one source in order to prove that another source is talking about "racism" is WP:SYNTH. The boundary I am trying to draw here is sticking to what reliable sources say, and nothing else. Again, I have no objection for inclusion of these topics in this article as long as the cited sources link it to "Racism in Israel". Marokwitz (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The issues raised here are discussed in the report "Israel's Implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination: Institutional Discrimination affecting Persons without 'Jewish Nationality'" filed to the Commission that governs the CERD mentioned above. Its cover page is here and its contents are here. Numerous aspects, including education and land ownership, of life are described in this text as arenas of institutional discrimination prohibited by the convention on the elimination of all forms of racism.

Now, can you stop your deleting spree and perhaps tag things which need connecting citations instead? I'll fill in some connections through this report or others in coming days.--Carwil (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think I am in a deleting spree? As I said, I have no objection for material to be inserted in the coming days based on proper sourcing addressing the above concerns. Marokwitz (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Marokwitz: All definitions of "racism" include racial discrimination and ethnic discrimination. Therefore, I have restored the "Land ownership" and "Education" sections, because the sources describe racial discrimination in those topics. If you have some reliable sources that define "racism" so as to exclude racial/ethnic discrimination, then please provide those sources (but even then, that would only supply another viewpoint for inclusion in this article, and would not justify deletion of material relating to ethnic/racial discrimination). --Noleander (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

No, as you remember the previous name of the article was a compromise in order to keep other forms of discrimination in the article. Racism is defined as "the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races". Discrimination and racism are not the same thing, otherwise, the current article would be simply a content fork of "Human rights in Israel" which deals with discrimination. The sources provided do not claim that the motive of the discrimination is racist. Unless better sources are used, these sections are unacceptable. I am tagging these sections until this dispute is resolved. Marokwitz (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

What source are you using for your definition of racism? All the definitions I see include discrimination (in addition to the belief of superiority that you mention). Would you suggest that the "Racial discrimination" section be removed from the racism article? BTW: the word "discrimination" occurs 58 times in the racism article. --Noleander (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

As a completely neutral outsider, I would say that I would expect information on racial discrimination in a country to be included in a broad and full exposition of the subject of "racism" in that country - I believe it was on that understanding that the article was renamed. We don't have to be hyperstrict in interpreting the scope of articles based on their titles. Similarly I would expect to see information about efforts to counter racism, positive discrimination and so on. --Kotniski (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I do think this article should cover discrimination on racist grounds. I never said otherwise. But in such controversial issues we do need to be hyperstrict. There is no reason to create a contnent fork of Human Rights in Israel. This article is about racism, and it should use sources talking specifically about racism. If such sources cannot found, then the discrimination can be for any number of non racist reasons, and this breaks Wikipedia's verifiability rules. Segregation of schools on religious basis, is usually not racist (for example there are Jewish schools in the USA and nobody says this is "racism"). As I said before, I have no objection for the material to be included if reliable sources are found saying that the discrimination is of racist origin. One editor already volunteered to find better sources. I also have no objection to renaming the article to include it's original scope, which would enable the content to be kept. But I do object to branding a country as racist on topics where reliable sources are not found to verify this. Marokwitz (talk) 05:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The sources are discussing the gaps between Arab and Jewish schools, not between Muslim/Christian and Jewish schools or regional differences. That seems pretty solid. Sol (talk) 05:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Whether it is true or not doesn't matter. Read WP:V. We are not at liberty to interpret sources. If there is institutional discrimination based on racism, despite the fact that this is illegal in Israel , it should be easy enough to find sources saying so. Marokwitz (talk) 06:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Marokwitz: All definitions of "racism" that I can find include "discrimination based on race or ethnicity". You seem to be saying that material can only be in this article if the source uses the exact word "racism" or "racist". But WP has no such requirement: instead we use the common English meaning of the word "racism", therefore the sources merely have to describe some kind of racial discrimination. In fact, the sources don't even have to use the word "discrimination": if it is apparent from the source's wording that unfair and unequal treatment of two ethnicities is involved, that meets the definition of racism. --Noleander (talk) 06:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No, this is not part of the dictionary definition of the word. Various dictionaries use "the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races", "the belief that race is a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race", "Prejudice or discrimination based on an individual's race; can be expressed individually or through institutional power and authority", "The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes; The belief that one race is superior to all others; Prejudice or discrimination based upon race". Not all discrimination is "racist". If every discrimination was racist then this article would be a content fork. The land owned by the Jewish National Fund was purchased privately by Jewish donors for the purpose of settling Jews in Israel, nothing related to "superiority" of a certain race, and the segregation of schools in Israel is based on religion, not race. It is very controversial to link these things to racism without citing any backing sources and with no care to bringing both sides of the debate. Marokwitz (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Page 5. Sol (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This was already mentioned earlier, feel free to cite it in the article , and attribute it in a proper way. Marokwitz (talk) 06:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it has. And it (and other related documents from the same hearing) go into depth about why exactly Israeli educational inequality is racial discrimination. If you don't consider "racial discrimination" equivalent to racism and beyond the scope of this article then you may wish to go the OR board and see what they have to say on the subject. I could be completely wrong but I think this sub-section is well with in the scope of the article. Sol (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Sol, I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself before it is clear, again, I racial discrimination is a form of racism, no doubt about it. My simple request was to base the article on proper sources referring directly to the topic racism instead of the ones presently used which mention only discrimination without attributing the discrimination to racism. Once proper reliable sources are used, then I don't have any objection for including these topics. Marokwitz (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, hmm, I'll just say what I see in the document that leads me to believe it's solid enough and you can tell me what I may be missing.

"The Committee notes with deep concern that separate “sectors” are maintained for

Jewish and Arab persons, in particular in the areas of housing and education,and that according to some information, such separation results in unequal treatment and funding. The Committee recommends that the State party assess the extent to which the maintenance of separate Arab and Jewish “sectors” may amount to racial segregation." from COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

@Shuki:I think the issue is just that predominantly Arab schools get less funding regardless of how or why they are predominantly Arab. Sol (talk) 06:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a nice academic discussion to nowhere. Is there state-sanctioned racism in the education system? Are kids segregated? Are non-Jews forbidden from 'Jewish' schools? Are Jewish kids restricted from non-Jewish Arab schools? Granted there are poor schools around the world but are kids restricted to these poor schools or can they be enrolled elsewhere. From the article, there also seems to be missing a simple fact that parents have the right to move anywhere and send their kids to the schools in the region, and that many, if not most, Arab and Jewish parents want to send their kids to the schools best suited to their culture and religion. Shuki 21:24, 18 November 2010

Note to discussion participants

Note: My concerns were not answered so far, and better citations were not inserted to the article. In lines of what Noleander has recently written in a different article, material about incidents of discrimination is only appropriate for this article if (1) the sources connect the described discrimination to racism; and (2) it meets a certain level of significance. For now, the sections remain tagged. However if nobody volunteers to improve these sections, they must be eventually deleted, since WP:V and WP:NPOV on such delicate matters are non negotiable. Marokwitz (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

That's ok. I think the general consensus is that the section belongs here. I've added the UN report to the paragraph which I think makes it very clear that this is discussed by RS in the context of a racial discrimination problem. And how is this now WP:NPOV related? Sol (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I said quite clearly that I am favor of keeping the section on condition that proper sources are used. And the section contained unbalanced opinions, therefore NPOV. Marokwitz (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

New section about employment

I reverted the new bold edit per WP:BRD, for discussion here.

The recently added section about employment is a continuation of the trend of transforming this article into a POV fork of Human rights in Israel.

Giving privileges to veterans, such as discounted housing loans, is not noted by the given sources to be a form of racism. Jews who don't serve in the army, such as Haredi sector, do not receive these privileges either. Same applies to the rest of the content of the new section. As per the previous section, you must use reliable sources saying that this is racist discrimination, you cannot just assume a motive for the discrimination. If you cannot substantiate a racist motive, this belongs in the article about Human rights in Israel, not here. And even if sources are found, you are expected to present it as a balanced view, bringing both sides of the argument. Until this issue is resolved, the contribution has been reverted. Marokwitz (talk) 06:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the sources explicitly identify the employment issues as discrimination based on race. The sources clearly state that persons of Arab ethnicity are discriminated against. The word "racism" is not used, but of course there is no requirement for that: instead we use sensible interpretation of the plain English meanings. Here is another source: U.S. State Dept report which discusses discrimination associated with military benefits, and the discussion is placed under the heading "racial/ethnic minorities". As was discussed above, discrimination based on race is an essential form of racism. Since this is a subarticle of Human Rights in Israel, some overlap is natural and expected. However, the subarticle (this article) should have more detail than the parent article, which should only have a summary. Are you suggesting that the sources are describing discrimination based on religion? --Noleander (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

PS: I do concur that more balancing material should be included .. I seem to recall that there are some sources that say that the exemption from military service is desirable. I'll see if I can track that down. --Noleander (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The cited sources say nothing about racism as grounds for discrimination in employment. Please find other sources saying so directly and add them to the article to base the claims; I am tagging the section until this dispute is resolved. Do not consider this dispute resolved until proper sources directly referring to racism as grounds for discrimination in employment are added. Marokwitz (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Marokwitz: The sources clearly state that Arab ethnicity is the source of the discrimination. Do you suggest that is not a form of racism? --Noleander (talk) 05:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The sources cited before I removed them included claims of discrimination based on serving in the army and security concerns. Not racism. Did you actually read them? And I'm not suggesting anything, just sticking to the sources. "Discrimination of Arabs" can be on basis of race, language, religion, security concerns, participation in army service, patriotism, socioeconomic status, class, culture etc. You can't just decide that "racism is synonymous" with one of the above, and the dictionary definitions definitely do not support your claim. If any form of discrimination is racism then this article is nothing more than a POV fork of "Human Rights in Israel". Based on the criteria that you mentioned in another article, material about incidents of discrimination is only appropriate for this article if (1) the sources connect the described discrimination to racism; and (2) it meets a certain level of significance. Alternatively, rename the article back to it's former name that was a compromise reached in order to keep more flexibility in content inclusion. Marokwitz (talk) 05:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, we seem to be going around in circles, so I've started an RfC to get more fresh viewpoints. --Noleander (talk) 06:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Oath of allegiance

The source linking the Israeli proposed "Oath of allegiance" to racism is one person Gavriel Solomon, voicing his opinion during a demonstration against the law. This doesn't seem to be the widespread view; an Oath of allegiance is required as a condition for citizenship by many countries. This is a request for additional sources linking the topics to be added, otherwise this section is given undue weight. Marokwitz (talk) 07:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Here you are:

• "The sole purpose of this law is to target Israeli Arabs and proves that [Foreign Minister Avigdor] Lieberman has become the spiritual father of the government," … "The racism in Israel has set itself as a precedent in the international arena," [Balad party leader MK Jamal] Zahalka said, adding that no other country in the world would demand its citizens to declare ideological loyalty.
• Chairman of the Hadash party, MK Mohammed Barakeh, lambasted Netanyahu for "kicking of the season of racist legislation that he is leading himself." "The addition to the Citizenship Law is entirely racist and transparent, and will clearly find the majority needed with the help of Lieberman and [Defense Minister Ehud] Barak," he said. "The book of laws in Israel has long turned into a guidebook for the most discriminatory and racist regime in the world and in history."

Above quotes from "Loyalty oath proves Israel is racist, say Israeli Arab leaders," Ha'aretz, 7 October 2010.

• Writing in today's Haaretz, liberal commentator Gideon Levy said: "Remember this day. It's the day Israel changes its character ... From now on, we will be living in a new, officially approved, ethnocratic, theocratic, nationalistic and racist country." (quoted here)

While I appreciate you bringing the request here, it would have been fairly simple for you to carry out this search as well. Cheers.--Carwil (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Carwil, please see Oath of citizenship. Is it racism for countries to demand this or do we start a fork about 'allegations of racism'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuki (talk • contribs)

If the US oath of citizenship included the phrase that the US is "a white Anglo-Saxon democratic country" then yes that would be racist to require someone swear to that oath to become a citizen. But our personal views are not relevant here, sources have been provided equating this oath with racism by the state. nableezy - 20:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

If you think about it, that's a general rejection of the entire concept of a "Jewish state", not of the oath of allegiance. In any case, your personal opinions are irrelevant. The article is still unduly referenced. I will fix it. Marokwitz (talk) 05:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I havent made any comments about my personal opinions, but yes they are irrelevant. As are yours. nableezy - 16:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The allegations of racism stem largely from the requirement of the oath for non-Jews only. Sol (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Editor OR and fringe polemicists do not satisfy Wikipedia's content requirements. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources have been provided so it is not "editor OR". Would you care to say who is a "fringe polemicist"? nableezy - 16:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The main point to accuse the oath for racism is that it requires to pledge the allegence to the Israel as "a Jewish state". One should not be confused, "Jewish" is ethnicity, "Israeli" is name that refers to state of having a citizenship of Israel. So, the goal of the law is to demand non-Jews to be loyal to Jews, not to Israel or its citizens.[11] I do not know any other country whose laws oblige national minorities to be loyal to the majority group.[12] It is clearly a racist law [13], a number of opponents of the law compared it with 1935 Nuremberg racist laws.[14]-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 16:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I think you are misquoting, it is an oath of allegiance to the state of Israel as a "Jewish and democratic state", i.e. "Nation state of the Jewish nation AND a democratic state with equality to all citizens". Nothing racist about the oath, unless you also think that the idea of a Jewish nation state is itself racist. But of course our opinions are irrelevant, so end of discussion. It's a stupid move, but not racism. Marokwitz (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the oath is immaterial to the race dimensions here; it could be an oath to prefer chocolate ice cream and, if applied only to non-Jews, it would still have the same problem. We aren't interpreting if we think it's racist or not, that's what the sources do. Sol (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Including the opinion of one guy (while making it plural) is absurd. I understand that it is a cute comparison but that doesn't mean it should receive extra attention here. Editors should resist the urge to add the most emotive claims even whe it sounds like a good way to make a point.Cptnono (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Stephan Lendman is not notable. I am removing his opinion from the article as biased with no grounds whatsoever That so called opinion is also antisemitic according European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights expressed in its working definition for antisemitism --Mbz1 (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Some commentators find the statement "Jewish and democratic state" very ironic and incompatible like if to say "Christian and democratic state" or "white and democratic", ethnocracy is not democracy, Oren Yiftachel from Ben Gurion University said "Its primary goal is to maintain one ethnic group's dominance over another."[15].-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 19:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, Lendman is Jewish, as well as 100 Jewish academics, artists and intellegensia which called the oath law as Nazi law.[16] -- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 19:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Those 100 people participated in a demonstration. They didn't all compare it to Nazi laws. It's not like they signed a petition. Only one guy is quoted as making the actual reference to 1935. Not to mention, their main objection was that the proposed law (didn't actually get voted in) was supposed to apply only to non-Jews. That was changed as the article notes. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) fitzgerald there are plenty antisemitic Jews around the world including but not limited to wikipedia and Israel. Your edit summary is unacceptable and besides there's nothing in the article about Nuremberg low. Please avoid writing such pointy summaries.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed about Nuremberg Laws of 1935. Opponent-academics exacly are trying to combat anti-semitism by strongly opposing to racially motivated laws.-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post

Nevertheless, there is nothing about "100 Jewish academics comparing this to 1935 laws" in the source. Sometimes avoiding soapboxing isn't an easy task, but reading helps. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

pro-Nazi inclusors, please be careful about WP:V instead of just including every little mention into the article. --Shuki (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• All we actually have here is an article that is headlined in a particular way, yet the article does not support the headline. The article says at best, concerning the Law "which many consider discriminatory." As someone said earlier, discriminatory is not the same thing as racist. Only one person in the article mentions racism (in connection with the Nuremberg laws), and says "And we are heading forward towards these kinds of laws." To head toward something is not to be there. The comparison was made to fascism throughout the article. "Racism" was mentioned only once. No one actually even said what the headline claims. It is in error. KantElope (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• "pro-Nazi inclusors"...facepalm. Funny but probably not tremendously helpful Shuki. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Does discrimination against Arabs constitute ethnic discrimination?

Should material be included in this article if the sources describe discrimination against Arabs, but the sources do not explicitly use the words 'racism', 'racial' or 'racist'? --Noleander (talk) 06:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yes - Racism, under all definitions, includes ethnic discrimination and racial discrimination. When sources use the words "racism against Arabs" or "racial discrimination against Arabs" such material is clearly appropriate for this article. But other sources discuss discrimination against Arabs in Israel, without explicitly using the words "racism" or "racial discrimination". Arabs are an ethnic group: to quote from Arabs article: "Arab people or Arabs are an ethnic group". What other sort of discrimination could the sources be contemplating, if not ethnic discrimination? If they were discussing a religion-based discrimination, they would have written "discrimination against Muslims". To insist that the sources use the exact wording "racial discrimination" is absurd and would exclude much valuable, relevant material from this article. --Noleander (talk) 06:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• No. Not all forms of discrimination are 'racism'. Discrimination can be on basis of race, language, religion, security concerns, participation in army service, patriotism, socioeconomic status, class, culture, etc. The threshold for inclusion of examples of discrimination in this article about 'Racism in Israel', as in all other 'Racism' articles should be (1) sources connect the described discrimination to racism; and (2) it meets a certain level of significance.

  Comment 1: Dictionary definitions of "racism": "the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races", "the belief that race is a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race", "Prejudice or discrimination based on an individual's race; can be expressed individually or through institutional power and authority", "The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes; The belief that one race is superior to all others; Prejudice or discrimination based upon race". Not all discrimination is "racist".

  Comment 2: If every form of discrimination was racist then this article would be a content fork of Human rights in Israel.

  Comment 3: If we want to include this material in the scope of the article, then it is always possible to rename it back to it's original name (used until last week) that provides a wider scope and less potential for disagreement: "Racism and ethnic discrimination in Israel". Marokwitz (talk) 07:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

  Comment 4: Just an example for the poor content that the this RfC owner is trying to incorrectly include in the article: "Because Arabs do not serve in the Army, they cannot receive benefits that are given to Army veterans". Is this racism? The sources don't say so. What about Druze Arabs and Bedouin Arabs who do, in fact, serve in the Army? Don't they receive the benefits or are they suddenly a different "race" than other Arabs? What about Haredi Jews who don't serve in the Army? Do they receive the Army veteran benefits since they are of the Jewish superior race? No. Very controversial to call it racism without a proper source isn't it? Marokwitz (talk) 08:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Marokwitz: Your comment #3 makes it clear that you concur that the disputed material (Education, Employment, etc) is ethnic discrimination. But, ethnic discrimination is a form of racism. I'm confused. Or are you saying that ethnic discrimination is not a form of racism? --Noleander (talk) 07:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. From the "Ethnicity" article: The term 'ethnic' popularly connotes '[race]' in Britain, only less precisely, and with a lighter value load. In North America, by contrast, '[race]' most commonly means color, and 'ethnics' are the descendents of relatively recent immigrants from non-English-speaking countries.... Within the social sciences, however, the usage has become more generalized to all human groups that explicitly regard themselves and are regarded by others as culturally distinctive.... Among the first to bring the term "ethnic group" into social studies was the German sociologist Max Weber, who defined it as: [T]hose human groups that entertain a subjective belief in their common descent because of similarities of physical type or of customs or both, or because of memories of colonization and migration; this belief must be important for group formation; furthermore it does not matter whether an objective blood relationship exists. ... Before Weber, race and ethnicity were often seen as two aspects of the same thing. Around 1900 and before the essentialist primordialist understanding of ethnicity was predominant, cultural differences between peoples were seen as being the result of inherited traits and tendencies. .... With Weber's introduction of ethnicity as a social construct, race and ethnicity were divided from each other. Marokwitz (talk) 08:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you mis-read my question. Your reply does not address either "ethnic discrimination" or "racism". In any case, it appears from your comment #3 that your are upset that the article was renamed, and you are retaliating by spamming the article with tags. Wouldn't the better course of action be to propose an article re-name rather than adding tags to the article? --Noleander (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you better retract your personal attack and lack of AGF immediately if you want me to discuss anything with you. I guess you understand the weakness of your arguments if you had to resort to such cheap accusations. In fact, I'm not upset about the rename. It's simply a decision to change the scope of this article to be similar to other 'racism in' ... articles, so I really don't care one way or the other, as long as this article discusses only the topic it should and is not a WP:COATRACK for other topics, or a POV fork of Human rights in Israel. I explained this quite clearly in the rename dicussion above, " If the article is renamed to remove "Ethnic" then a large portion of it's content ... will have to be removed. An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion)." Marokwitz (talk) 08:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Marokwitz, if you wouldn't mind reading Racism in the United States, I think you would find that the series has the broader definition (racism includes ethnic discrimination) in mind.--Carwil (talk) 11:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yes There are really two issues here: One is a pedantic sourcing issue: does source X use the word "racism" or does it merely talk about subordination of/discrimination against/bad treatment of Arabs (or equally Mizrahim). Applied to the US context, this would mean that articles that referred to treatment of blacks as "Jim Crow," apartheid-like, etc. are not "about racism." This is a wikilegalistic position which has no real connection with the reality of the issue.

The second is somewhat more substantive. Is there some divide we can make between racial discrimination and ethnic discrimination? As it happens, the body of law on the issue has chosen not to make this distinction, from the CERD on down. Nor do other article in the racism by country series such as Racism in the United States, Racism in Russia, and (very briefly) Racism in Italy.

This question gets murkier because as naturally identified entities, races don't exist but are instead produced by racism in the minds of its adherents. This question comes up with regard to antisemitism itself (Are "Semites," originally a "linguistic stock," the same race as Europeans?). I doubt that Wikipedia could definitively answer these questions.

Side point about the name: Marokwitz is arguing that Racism against Arabs in Israel and Ethnic discrimination against Arabs in Israel belong in separate articles. Or Marokwitz is arguing opportunistically that Ethnic discrimination against Arabs in Israel should be flushed now that the article name has changed to the standard name used on Wikipedia. As someone who steered clear of the naming dispute, I believe the central issue is how best to cover topics like Racism/Ethnic discrimination against Arabs in Israel, and the obvious answer seems to be in a single article, not two. If the ridiculous hyper-defensiveness that characterizes articles on Israel and Palestine means that the only way to do so is to extend the title back to its awkward, longer construction, than so be it.--Carwil (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

If it is not common for sources to make the distinction, then why not change the article name to one that doesn't make the distinction, and solve the problem? I didn't object to that. What I do object is to branding a country which has very strict laws against racism, as racist, when the sources are actually not attributing the discrimination to racist motives, or are saying that the discrimination is based on other things (one example that was given, military service). The fact that this is the "Standard name used in Wikipedia" doesn't mean that we are somehow exempt from basic Wikipedia policies. Marokwitz (talk) 12:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue is clearly laid out so far by three involved editors, and hope the RfC will bring some other folks in. I would ask you, Marokwitz, to respond to the legal standard of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, to which Israel is a party. Otherwise, I'm eager for outside input. (And also, I was never attached to the name change.)--Carwil (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination is not a dictionary. I quoted the dictionary definitions of the word "racism" above, read them. And I am also very open to a name change, which was the original compromise for the same dispute. Marokwitz (talk) 13:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

And a dictionary is not the final word on definitions. For a summary of the evolving definition of racism, see Yang, Ethnic studies: Issues and approaches pp. 144-46 for a summary of the evolving common meaning. Key points: essentially the dictionary you presented was in dictionaries from the mid-1940s. "Racial prejudice or discrimination were not emphasized." Following research in the late 1940s and 1950s, and increased interest in the topic, "the meaning of racism was widened to include racial prejudice and discrimination." In the late 1960s, an institutional dimension was added. The 1970 US Commission on Civil Rights solidified a four-part definition of racism as "a combination of racist ideology, racial prejudice, racial discrimination, and institutional discrimination. The notion of racism commonly used in American society today is largely based on the understanding of racism in that report." Institutional racism's definition, by its original theorist, is “the collective failure of an organization to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their color, culture, or ethnic origin.” Just FYI.--Carwil (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, obviously. To suggest otherwise is pure pedantry. nableezy - 14:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Yes; the arguments have been covered. Sol (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yes The internationally agreed upon definition of racism is contained in the ICERD. The competent treaty body, the CERD panel of experts, have addressed numerous concerns about forms of discrimination against Arabs in their observations on the implementation of the ICERD convention. harlan (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• No

There is discrimination. On the contrary - Arabs get much more than their poor tax-paying desrves. The level of tax paying in Arab local authorities is so low that the government has to finance all services.

Racism involves discrimination against people on the basis of race. Arabs cannot enter security-sensitive aspects of life, but this has nothing to do with race but with their clear and openly declared loyalty to the enemies of the state of israel, and their clear and openly declared their chalenge of israel's right to exist.

Is the Palestinian law, that prohibits and punishes by death all sale of land to israelis, also considred racism? I believe it is not! Bbeehvh 18:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. If only someone could come up with a word for treating an ethnic group differently because of their presumed intentions . . .I think the Druze and Arab Jews would also like to have a word with you. Sol (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with "treating differently because of intentions". The ownership of land became a tool in the war between the nations. Thus, discriminating against Jews is not racism but national defense. The same holds for Israel.

You just said "Arabs cannot enter security-sensitive aspects . . . this has nothing to do with race but with their clear and openly declared loyalty to the enemies of the state of israel" which is ethnic discrimination, per se. And is the law against Israelis or is it against Jews? If it's against Jews than yes, it's ethnic discrimination. This defense is sounding like "It's ok because they do the same thing to us" except in this case the target group is also Israeli. Sol (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• No There's no racism in Israel at all. That article should not have been written.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• No If the source does not explicitly use the words 'racism', 'racial' or 'racists', then any use of that material to presume racism is original research. What is this, another of Wikipedia's famous attempts to declare the earth flat on the basis of "consensus"?--Yespleazy (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Yes. The word 'discrimination' is a generalised word used to describe all instances of injustice, including racism. Bbeehvh, have all arabs declared loyalty to enemy states and challenged Israel's right to exist? And who are these enemy states? -- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 17:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• No (for the most part) Editor's opinions and conclusions not reflected in the sources are not acceptable. If something is called racist and worthy of inclusion then it will be mentioned in the sources so there shouldn't be any problem. This article is not about al injustice. Just a specific form of injustice. I can see some leeway with the terms "discrimination" and "bigotry" (often racist in nature) with common sense being used. However, if editors cannot be trusted to use common sense then that should be removed as a possibility.Cptnono (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• No While the definition of racism includes ethnic discrimination and racial discrimination, and while "discrimination" is sometimes used to refer to racism, the definition of discrimination does not necessarily include racism. Therefore if racism is intended to be alleged, as a part of the definition, it needs to be specifically declared as such. It is not an issue of pedantry, but of appropriate and correct use of the English language. It also permits us to actually use what the sources say, and not to intrude with our own prejudices. KantElope (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Yes The original question was whether or not anti-Arab discrimination constitutes racism. Much as I hate the terrible misnomer racism, because we're all Homo sapien, it is used to cover ethnic discrimination as well. The only caveat is that the source would have to be clearly talking about anti-Arab discrimination, not just implying it. I'm not sure how one could keep a straight face arguing that anti-Jewish discrimination (anti-Semitism, another terrible misnomer) is racism, while anti-Arab discrimination is not. ← George ^talk 22:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• If it's specifically against Arabs, it's racism, otherwise it's just discrimination. See the example above about benefits for people who served in the military. Is that racism? While most Arabs don't serve in the military and can't get these benefits, other people who also don't serve in the military don't get them, while Arabs who do serve in the military are entitled to these benefits. I'm sure you could find a source that says this discriminates against Arabs and if this RfC is passed any editor could call it racism without a source specifically calling it that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• The example above confused me a bit. Are (some) Arabs prohibited from serving in the IDF because they are Arab? Or do they choose to not serve because they disapprove of the IDF? If they are prohibited because they are Arab (even if it's not all Arabs), then it would be racist. If they just choose not to serve (which is my understanding), then that case would not be racism. Again, I was just commenting on the original question - whether anti-Arab discrimination is racism. One still has to show that material being added is anti-Arab discrimination. ← George ^talk 22:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• The example shows this can not be left to the discretion of editors. If a source calls it racism, then that's fine. But if a source calls it discrimination an editor can't just change that to racism because they think that's what it is. That's OR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• The problem is that whoever would try to add it would have to show that it was, in fact, discrimination. If sources say that the IDF is discriminatory against Arabs, then that would be enough to label it racist. However, the source would have to say that pretty clearly, and if editors challenged that the source didn't say that there was discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity, then there would have to be a discussion on that particular change. We surely can't create an all encompassing rule for these cases, but if someone has a source that said "X discriminated against Y because of Y's ethnicity", that would broadly fall under the label of racism. Let me try my own example: A disproportionately large number of prisoners in America are African American. Assume that a source says that they make up 40% of the prison population while making up only 18% of the country's population (I'm making these numbers up). Based on a source that said only that, we could not say that the U.S. prison system is racist. However, If the source went further, saying that the inconsistency was due to discrimination by police departments across America, then we could include it under a broader label of "Racism by police officers". ← George ^talk 22:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy, I would agree with what you're saying about how a source is used, but not whether it should be used. It would be OR if source A says policy B is ethnic discrimination to then say "Source A says B is racist." However, it would be perfectly appropriate to include it here in the sentence "Source A says B constitutes ethnic discrimination."--Carwil (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

As Marokwitz suggested above, if we return the name of the article to what it was last week, then all this wouldn't even be an issue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That is not logical. If the title "Racism and ethnic discrimination in Israel" encompasses the Education and Employment material, then you are agreeing that those topics constitute ethnic discrimination. Yet all definitions of racism include "ethnic discrimination". I've got a dozen reliable definitions of racism that say so. I'm waiting for a "No" editor to provide a source that states that ethnic discrimination is not "racism" (and, no, you cannot provide just the first sentence out of a multi-sentence definition). --Noleander (talk) 05:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I already quoted the dictionary definitions above. All defined racism as the belief that some races are superior, and discrimination on racial basis. No dictionary definition that I found included the words "ethnic discrimination". You can easily verify that I didn't leave out parts of the definition. Can you provide a definition from some dictionary (which is the proper source for defining the standard meaning of words) that defines the word "racism" and includes the words "ethnic discrimination"? 06:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure who I'm replying to (and too lazy to check), but if you look at the article on Racism it makes it clear that ethnic discrimination is also considered racism. ← George ^talk 10:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Titling issues would probably be best discussed at some venue that covers all such "Racism in (country)" articles. Maybe they should all be renamed "Racial and ethnic discrimination in (country)", or I would prefer just "Discrimination in (country)", but it should be consistent across all such articles. Not sure where such a proposal would be best made though. Maybe one of the WikiProjects? ← George ^talk 00:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur with George. We need some consistency across the articles. Israel should not get special treatment. All the racism articles (Racism in the United States, Racism in the United Kingdom, etc) use the normal definition of "racism" which includes "ethnic discrimination". If someone wants to change the definition of racism within WP, it should be done at a higher-level forum than this Talk page. --Noleander (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to take it to a higher-level forum, but as an RfC on Politics, government, and law list, this is a perfect place to make such a decision. Marokwitz (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yes - Don't think there is any difference between "racial discrimination" and "racism". NickCT (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• No Some discrimination is actually necessary and common in all liberal democracies. Schools may be restricted in acceptance policies to applicants who exceed a certain level of academic preparation and competency. Universities set more or less rigorous standards for applicant admissions based on academic records, residency and other personal criteria. Religious schools teach their own religion and properly admit people of their own religion. Companies set criteria for hiring that privilege better training or experience. Gated communities set criteria for admissibility, which may not be racial/ethnic/group-oriented but might include requirements that there be no criminal record, financial solvency, etc. In Israel's case, of course, there is a special problem, oddly enough not mentioned in this article, in that Israeli Arabs share kinship, history, religion and sometimes ideology with the self-declared enemies of Israel round about it, so the proper comparison and context would be to the treatment of such problematic minorities in liberal democracies in wartime. There are further problems with the article. It appears to be a "fork" of the "Israel and the Apartheid Analogy" article. It is largely redundant, repeats a great deal of what is asserted there, and should be deleted. Or, perhaps better, the whole "apartheid" article should be deleted as a doublet of this one (and the "apartheid" claim made a section in this article?). Both "racism" here and "apartheid" there are defined so loosely that the terms cover all the same sorts of vaguenesses. E.g., both are said to apply to religious, educational, and all other forms of alleged discrimination, so it appears we are dealing in both cases with mere curse words of no determinate content, ripe for propaganda use.Tempered (talk) 08:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• No Concur with Tempered, et al.--Metallurgist (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, of course. "Racial discrimination is racism" is all but a tautology (there's a reason "racial discrimination" redirects to "racism"), and we apply it to every other article, including articles about anti-Jewish discrimination - why should an article on Israel be different? (Also, Tempered's assertion that denying a place in a school to students because they are Arab is no worse than denying it to them because they are stupid is plainly ridiculous as well as racist, and I'm sorry to see that someone has taken it seriously. Not that it actually has any bearing on this RfC - "it's justified" doesn't erase "it's discrimination.") Roscelese (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Question

Noleander, can you please explain your edit in this diff? The edit summary you wrote "Remove section that did not address racism directed at Arabs". I wonder, if one source says "Arabs are full citizens who enjoy equal rights", this is irrelevant to "Racism in Israel" since it "did not address racism", but when another source says "Arabs are not full citizens and do not enjoy equal rights" this suddenly is relevant to "Racism in Israel"? I'm confused. Maybe you should consider a self-revert? Marokwitz (talk) 09:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed that material because it said "There is no discrimination in politics". The material was accurate and, I think, well-sourced. But this is an article about racism and discrimination. Material that says "there is no discrimination" should only be included as rebuttal, or for balance. For example, if there were material that said "Arabs are discriminated against in politics because of XYZ ..", then it would be appropriate to include material that says "No, they are not discriminated against ...". --Noleander (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)