Talk:Racism in Israel: Difference between revisions

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 August 2010. The result of the discussion was keep.

Discrimination Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Israel Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Wikipedia. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Wikipedia requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Wikipedia requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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

Atlantic Free Press - Jonathan Cook - Lieberman and The Ethnic Cleansing of Israel, 19 January 2007.

An article on Israel, parts of which deal with what is described by Jonathan Cook as racism:

... Recent polls also reveal how fashionable racism has become in Israel. A survey conducted last year showed that 68 per cent of Israeli Jews do not want to live next to a Palestinian citizen (and rarely have to, as segregation is largely enforced by the authorities), and 46 per cent would not want an Arab to visit their home.

... A poll of students that was published last week suggests that racism is even stronger among young Jews. Three-quarters believed Palestinian citizens are uneducated, uncivilised and unclean, and a third are frightened of them. Richard Kupermintz of Haifa University, who conducted the survey more than two years ago, believes the responses would be even more extreme today.

... But the right is deeply unhappy at Majadele’s inclusion in the cabinet. Lieberman called Peretz unfit to be defence minister for making the appointment and demanded that Majadele pledge loyalty to Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. Lieberman’s party colleagues referred to the appointment as a “lethal blow to Zionism”. A few Labor and Meretz MKs denounced these comments as racist.

... Meanwhile, Jewish MKs have been allowed to make the most outrageous racist statements against Palestinian citizens, mostly unchallenged. Former cabinet minister Effi Eitam, for example, said back in September: “The vast majority of West Bank Arabs must be deported ... We will have to make an additional decision, banning Israeli Arabs from the political system … We have cultivated a fifth column, a group of traitors of the first degree.” He was “warned” by the Attorney-General over his comments (though he has expressed similar views several times before), but remained unrepetant, calling the warning an attempt to “silence” him. The leader of the opposition and former prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, the most popular politician in Israel according to polls, gave voice to equally racist sentiments this month when he stated that child allowance cuts he imposed as finance minister in 2002 had had a “positive” demographic effect by reducing the birth rate of Palestinian citizens.

    ←   ZScarpia   19:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's already inside the poll section, though by another source.Colourfully (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The poll may be mentioned, but none of the rest is. Nor is the source currently used.     ←   ZScarpia   12:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article has been re-named rapidly, several times, without proper discussion or consensus. The names used so far are:

• Racism in Israel
• Ethnic and racial discrimination in Israel
• Societal discrimination in Israel
• Ethnic discrimination in Israel

and a fifth candidate that has been mentioned is

• Racial discrimination in Israel

The original article name was "Racism in Israel". There was consensus, I believe, for the re-name to "Ethnic and racial discrimination in Israel". There was not consensus for the subsequent re-names. I will move the article back to one of the original two names that did contain the word "racial", so we can begin a proper discussion. Please do not rename without consensus. -Noleander (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts on the name: I object to the omission of the word "racial" or "race" in the title, since I think some forms of discrimination covered in the article are not merely "ethnic": such as discrimination against Black Hebrew Israelites (which was recently deleted from the article without discussion, by the way). Also, it appears that Jewish-Arab and Arab-Jewish discrimination (based on Google) are more widely described as "racism" than "ethnic discrimination". Also, I think the word "ethnic" is a weasel-word in this context. Another option, although I do not endorse it, is to split the article into two articles "Race-based" and "ethnicity-based" discrimination. --Noleander (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there was discussion above and the consensus between all participants on the name "Ethnic discrimination in Israel" (including yourself - you previously said you are OK with this name). That participants that agreed on that name were me, you, Unomi, and Sean.hoyland. You said that Ethnic includes also Racial. Why did you choose rename again after we settled on an agreed name, and without discussion? Marokwitz (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not agree with "Ethnic discrimination in Israel" ... I mentioned it (and perhaps my wording was not clear, so I can see how you may think I endorsed it) - and I said "some readers may think "ethnic" alone only may include semitic ethnicities; or perhaps may not include skin-color based discrimination)". I deliberately re-named the article to "Ethnic and racial discrimination in Israel" as a middle-ground that seemed to cover all the concerns of various editors. But if that title is not satisfactory, we can go back to the orginal title "racism in Israel". In any case, do you have any statistics that show that Arab-Jew discrimination (in either direction) is more commonly referred to as "ethnic discrimination" rather than racism? --Noleander (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I extensively read materials on this topic, and most reliable sources simply say "Discrimination" and don't qualify it as "Ethnic" or "Racial". Marokwitz (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination in Israel? The article jumps around, from racism allegedly against Jews, and racism allegedly against Arabs, and then Jew-on-Jew hatred, then blacks, etc..etc...If we keep "Racism in Israel" then the bloated sections about education/zionism should go. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marokwitz: There are quite a few sources that use the word "racism". If we look along the spectrum of possible names for the article (racist - racism - racial - ethnic) the suggestion for "Racial and ethnic .." or "Ethnic and racial ..." is (1) a good compromise; (2) broader, and (3) more accurate. For example, there are a few sections (including two which were deleted, I'll go ahead and restore them) that dont really fit under the title "ethnic discriminiation":

• (a) Black Hebrew Israelites ;
• (b) the Yemenite baby-kidnapping incident.
• (c) the "Attacks" section (describing attacks by Arabs on Jews).

I think "Ethnic discrimination" would be a good title if the article were only about the discrimination between Jewish groups, but is anyone proposing a content fork for this article? If not, we need a broader title. In any case, the article was originally title "Racism in Israel" and there was not consensus to change it to "Ethnic discrimination .." --Noleander (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current title is general enough to encompass discrimination on all grounds (Religious, class-based, racial etc). I see no reason why this article should elaborate on all the different reasons for discrimination when we can use the more general term and let the article cover all the different aspects. Otherwise we will end with absurd title such as "Religious, class-based and racist ethnic discrimination in Israel". I'm sure some editors will be more than delighted with the above title, but here we do things based on consensus. Marokwitz (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there was no consensus for the "Ethnic discrimination" title. --Noleander (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the discussion above, this appears to be is the title nearest to consensus. Marokwitz (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could do an RfC to get more input from other editors? --Noleander (talk) 14:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've renamed it to a title that is closer to the original "Racism in Israel" but also includes the "ethnic discrimination" aspect. The big problem with the "Ethnic discrimination" title (besides that it is a white-wash) is that it excludes material (already in the article) like racist attacks, which are not "discrimination". Another example is the material about Holocaust denial: that may be racism, but it is certainly not "ethnic discrimination". We need a title that encompasses all the material. Regarding your comment about the "absurd title" "Religious, class-based and racist ethnic discrimination in Israel - that is a non-sequitur: no one has proposed any material for this article based on religious discrimination or class-based discrimination. ALL material in this article is race-based discrimination according to the sources (yes, I understand that some editors disagree with the sources on some of the material: but we follow the sources, not the editors). Another option is to do a WP:Content fork and break the article into two articles: one for ethnic discrimination between Jewish groups; and a second article for racism ... but that would probably be meaningless since a Merger proposal would inevitably follow, and succeed. Finally, it is far, far more important that the title be accurate than it be short. --Noleander (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you name it "discrimination" (solely), the inner-Jewish-groups you include, can then stay on.Ip82166 (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have re-put the word racism, the entire section of Sephardim aught to be removed. Regardless of some links suggesting the term, the entire section then become s POV.RS101 (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We must use the interpretation given by the sources, not by WP editors. If the sources describe it as racism (and they do) it is within the scope of this article. Also, the title encompasses both "racism" and "ethnic discrimination" and the sephardic discrimination is widely considered to fall under the latter umbrella, so the racism question is moot in this example. --Noleander (talk) 06:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to add a new section on Israel's policies of deporting children of immigrant workers. Sources include Latino Migrants in the Jewish State: Undocumented Lives in Israel by Barak Kalir, and Foreign workers in Israel: global perspectives by Israel Drori, as well as recent news coverage. Comments? --Noleander (talk) 06:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While you are on that topic, you ought to be able to find material on discrimination against Thais, Filipinos, and other Asians in general: not just against the immigrant workers' children, but against the workers themselves. So far this article has been unnecessarily limited to Jewish subgroups, Arabs, and blacks, but it's essential that all the demographic groups in Israel be represented. Quigley (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable, provided Reliable Sources are available on the topic. Can you identify any sources on that? --Noleander (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noleander, please make a distinction between 'regular' immigration policies of a sovereign country and actual racism. If you are going to merely use the article to bash Israel, then you are actually doing a disservice to any actual racism that will be lost in the messy article. I suggest you go to other 'racism' articles and see what is legitimate there. --Shuki (talk) 07:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Shuki. Immigration policy does not equal racism or discrimination. We must be extra careful in this area. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a pure immigration issue, unrelated to ethnic bias or racism. Not every rhetoric using the word "racism" is serious enough for encyclopedic reference. Do you have any serious scholarly source saying that the deportation is motivated by racism? If so, can you provide exact references ? Marokwitz (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources indicate that racism is involved in the deportation issue. If there are sources that indicate otherwise (e.g. the immigration policy is simply related to labor issues or whatever) those can be included for balance. But if the sources say there is a racism (or ethnic discrimination) aspect to the policy, then it falls within the scope of the article. I do agree that WP:Reliable sources are required on this topic, and it should not be in the article if Reliable Sources do not directly link the deportation policy to racism/ethnic discrimination. And none of the above would be an argument for exclusion of material about the similar, but distinct, topic of ordinary discrimination (not related to deportation) directed at Thais, Philipinos, etc. --Noleander (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, so is Black Hebrew Israelites issue pure immigration policy. Since we talk about ¨hate crimes¨... PHAS-Palestinian Crimes against Christian Arabs... "In such an environment, Christian Arabs have found themselves victims of prejudice and hate crimes. Tens of thousands of Palestinian Christians have left ... incidently, Black Hebrews Israelites don't belong in Israel, they are not Jews, If I would claim I am Jewish do I belong in Israel? and if I am rejected are they racists? Of course not! Also regarding the inflammatory tone of this editor, I would like to know what is "jewish discrimination" and what is Christian discrimination or Muslim and Hindu discrimination?Stud1989 (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well Stud, let's hold a mirror up to your statement. How would you view it if, say, someone said that Jews don't "belong" in Russia because they're not Russian or in the US because they're not Aryan?     ←   ZScarpia   13:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is aleady that Law of return issue Hey ZScarpia, Thank you not for trying to fatten up this bigoted page against Israel but stud is right, since Noleandeer has alrerady made a section of "law of return" exclusively for Jews, all your words are already included, once! in fact it is already twice on this page: Zionism as "racism" and the Law of return section which both have the same idea of criticizing the refuge-for-Jews policy as "racist."Ip82166 (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haaretz - Noam Ben Ze'ev - Those noisy barbarians, 23 August 2010: Dov Lior, the chief rabbi of Hebron, doesn't want Jews to take on boogie-woogie from the jungle.

According to Lior: There are some honorable people among the goyim. A few, but they exist. I think that even in Hebron there are a few who are human beings - which doesn't mean I'm saying they shouldn't all be sent to Saudi Arabia. They should all be sent to Saudi Arabia!

    ←   ZScarpia   12:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another inflammatory piece?Ip82166 (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's your WP:POINT? --Shuki (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as my point is concerned, the clue is in the title: I'm trying to contribute material to the article. This article is about Racism and ethnic discrimination in Israel isn't it? Now, what is your point? WP:POINT directs to the guideline whose title says: Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Are you trying to say that I'm disrupting Wikipedia?     ←   ZScarpia   14:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categorically yes. You are using the talk page as a repository of news clippings. If you have something to add to the main article, please do so. Please also differentiate between actions of the state, government officials, and individuals, speculation, random quotes, etc... Do you want to start with Rabbi Dov Lior? How do you suggest we add this information and where (if it is even worth adding). Cheers. --Shuki (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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