Misplaced Pages

Talk:Arab citizens of Israel: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:00, 31 July 2008 editLamaLoLeshLa (talk | contribs)6,086 edits →Deletion of Contesting Discrimination Section← Previous edit Revision as of 06:56, 1 August 2008 edit undoPalestineRemembered (talk | contribs)5,038 edits →Deletion of Contesting Discrimination SectionNext edit →
Line 281: Line 281:


::I'm one of those who doesn't like deletions. I'd just agree with Okedem that whatever of substance that can be preserved, should. I agree that CAMERA's arguments here, as many other places, are pretty unsubstantial and could be deleted. ] (]) 22:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC) ::I'm one of those who doesn't like deletions. I'd just agree with Okedem that whatever of substance that can be preserved, should. I agree that CAMERA's arguments here, as many other places, are pretty unsubstantial and could be deleted. ] (]) 22:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Bard comes across as a serious propagandist with a particular interest in denial. His contains such gems as ''MYTH: "Settlements are an obstacle to peace."'' He should try and persuade Condoleeza Rice of that. CAMERA's single-mindedness and attitude to integrity doesn't need further discussion, there's been an RfC on it and other action. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:56, 1 August 2008

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconEthnic groups Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIsrael High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPalestine High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconArab world
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives
Index
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Expand : Muslims, Christians sub-sections: Please add a little about institutions, history, and towns
  • Verify : Please add reliable sources for all of the information (do not delete info please, look for verification)



Allegations of Discrimination

Oneworld25 and I appear to be in the early stages of a revert war, and I wanted to prevent such a war from occurring. So let's discuss:

I believe that Bard's refutation of allegations of discrimination in Israel should remain in the article. The argument against this (if I understand correctly) is that information is redundant, because the article states elsewhere that Arabs have the right to vote in Israel. In the first place, I do not think it is terrible to include this information twice (although best avoided if possible). In the second place, if this information is to be included anywhere it should be in this section, which is the most relevant in the article. In the third place, I haven't found any other section in the article that states that Arabs in Israel have the right to vote. The possible exception to this is in the intro, which states that Arab residents of East Jerusalem are allowed to vote in municipal elections. This is a far cry from what Bard articulates. Thoughts? Screen stalker (talk) 03:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not against mention being made of Israeli Arabs having the right to vote, but I am against this quote because:-

1. Is he a reliable source?
2. It does not refute the idea of discrimination against Israeli Arabs, since in Israel and a lot of other countries there can be subtle and not-so subtle discrimination by various means.
3. Actually, women do have the right to vote in some other places in the Middle East, including the PA (and it is the Israelis who have deprived them of this right). However, even if it was true that Israeli Arab women were the only women in the Middle East with the right to vote, this would be not at all inconsistent with there being a high level of discrimination against Israeli Arabs. PatGallacher (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
"and it is the Israelis who have deprived them of this right" - ya right ..... Zeq (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
That is correct. Israel has refused to accept the election of Hamas and is backing the coup in the West Bank. Hamas achieved a higher vote among women than men, because women tend to be more religous than men. PatGallacher (talk) 10:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The whole discussion about Palestinians is irrelevant, because this article is about Israeli Arabs, not Palestinians.
  1. Yes, he is a reliable source, and he represents a side of the argument that is critically lacking in this article (this section in particular).
  2. I don't understand what you mean by this point. So because there might still be discrimination in Israel, we shouldn't place a source in there that helps clarify the question of discrimination? My goal in including this source wasn't to show that there isn't discrimination against Arabs in Israel (only someone who is truly naive believes that). It was to help provide another side of the story for the reader, so that they can get a broader view of what the situation on the ground is like for Israeli Arabs. No single quotation can encompass all the facets of potential discrimination.
  3. Bard doesn't say that Israel is the only place in which Arab women can vote in the Middle East. He only says it is one of the few where they can. Insofar as I am aware, that is true. Screen stalker (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Okedem can you please provide the source for the following: "While formally equal according to Israeli law..." According to whom are the Arabs equal under Israeli law? You need a reliable source saying that, and I've asked for one twice already.Bless sins (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That's sort of like asking someone to prove he doesn't have a sister...
Laws are normally written as applying to all people, or all citizens (see some example in Basic Laws of Israel; You can look at other Israeli laws and see the same). The opposite claim would require proof, not this simple claim.
Through a short search, I've come across these links - BBC News saying: "Israeli law demands equal rights for all its citizens but many Israeli Arabs say in Israel, some citizens are more equal than others." (saying in effect there is discrimination, as opposed to the equal legal situation), this one, another one, another about access to land, etc. I'm not arguing for the quality of these sources right now, just pointing them out. But do consider the problem of sourcing positive claim, which should be, in this case, presumed true. okedem (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The reason I asked you was in the light of Israeli laws like Law of return which discriminates against non-Jews. Also since Arabs (except Druze) aren't required to serve in the military then they are also unequal in this respect (whether this inequality is a preferred or disadvantaged state for Arabs has been debated).Bless sins (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The Law of Return has no bearing on citizens, only people who wish to become citizens (it's like saying poor people in Canada don't have the same rights, since poor foreigners can't get citizenship, or can, but with great difficulty). We're talking about citizens, not immigration policies (many nation states give preference to one ethnic group in immigration, by the way).
Army - first, most Bedouins also serve in the army. I don't think there's any point in counting the army thing as equality or inequality. Arabs have the choice to serve, if they'd want to, for some odd reason. So if we write it as anything, it'll be "Jews are discriminated against, by having to serve in army for two to three years". We're talking about rights and liberties, equality in the eyes of the law, not a specific duty that other people have to fulfill. okedem (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Arabs have the option to serve in the military if they wish. Also, you'll notice that Bard acknowledges that The sole legal distinction between Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel is that the latter are not required to serve in the Israeli army. So what you are saying has no bearing on his reliability (actually, it supports the thesis that what he says is true). Screen stalker (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Bless Sins is right. A reliable source that supports the statement that begins "While formally equal under the law..." is in fact required to support its inclusion. This is a contentious statement and it requires a source. Does anyone have one? Thanks. Tiamut 00:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, Okedem, you statement that "this article is about Israeli Arabs, not Palestinians," is misleading. As the sources in the article show, most Arab citizens of Israel don't like being called "Israeli Arabs" and most of them identify as Palestinian by nationality. So this article is in fact about a population, the majority of whom identify as Palestinian, who are citizens of Israel. Tiamut 00:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Tiamut, I don't think I was unclear before, but let me clarify - for lack of a better definition, when I say Palestinians, I mean NOT Israeli-citizens, but residents of Gaza and the West Bank, citizens of the PA. All claims regarding their status don't belong in this article. This article is only about the Arab citizens of Israel, regardless of how they define themselves (Palestinian, Israeli, whatever - it doesn't matter here). okedem (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Phyllis Bennis Quote

Regarding this quote (in "Legal and political status"):

Phyllis Bennis, a Middle East analyst, has stated:
"All Israeli citizens, including Palestinians, have the right to vote in elections for members of the Knesset (parliament) and for the prime minister. But not all rights are citizenship rights. Other rights are defined as nationality rights, and are reserved for Jews only. If you are a Jew, you have exclusive use of land, privileged access to private and public employment, special educational loans, home mortgages, preferences for admission to universities, and many other things.

These claims are either false, or misleadingly inaccurate. Let's tackle them one by one:

  • "exclusive use of land" - The only issue here is the JNF lands, privately held lands, purchased with money donated by world Jewry, intended for use by Jews. After the creation of the state, the ILA (Israel Land Administration) was granted the right to handle all of the land, JNF and state-lands. The state land allotment is equal, and nationality has no bearing on it. This is the place to explain that most of the lands in Israel are not privately owned, but leased from the state, usually for 99 years. Only a few percent of land is privately owned (excluding JNF land), mostly by Arabs. The JNF lands (some 13%) did pose a problem, as the JNF charter only allows it to lease land to Jews. This caused several legal proceedings, where the Supreme Court ruled that the practice is unlawful (the issue is that the land is administered by ILA, a government entity. If the lands were administered by JNF they would not be under the court jurisdiction in this case, as JNF is a private organization. The recent solution is such - if an Israeli-Arab wishes to lease some land, anywhere, held by the JNF, he is allowed to do so, and the land is transferred to the state (ILA), which compensates the JNF with an equal area of land elsewhere, in areas not-intended for building (mostly forests, as the JNF does a whole lot of forestation work in Israel).
  • "privileged access to private and public employment" - There are cases of discrimination in the private sector, as can be found in pretty much any country. Such action is illegal, though hard to prove in court. Same goes for the public sector. The commonest way of this is requiring military service, which sometimes makes sense (when it's a security company), but often doesn't. See below for details about such requirements, and why they discriminate against a wide range of people, including many Jews. The situation is improving, as detailed in our article, but is still wanting.
  • "special educational loans, home mortgages" - Misleading. Peoples who served in the army can, sometimes, get some loans for education, and might have an easier time getting good rates on government subsidized home mortgages (though those have fallen out of favor, as the commercial mortgages are highly competitive). These "perks" are unrelated to nationality. They are dependent on army service, 2 to 3 years of a person's life, with laughable pay ($100 a month, plus $150 per month to be used only after discharge, under some conditions, like using it to pay for college). Arabs can, and some do, join the army (like Beduin), and so enjoy those privileges. Many Jews don't serve in the army, like the Ultra-Orthodox Jews; and many others who get an exemption on medical grounds, both true and fake, and pacifists, who are also exempt. Just like Arabs who don't serve in the military, all those Jews don't get any of said benefits. And let me tell you, as someone who did serve in the army for 3 years - all those "perks" are next to worthless, their economic value being completely negligible compared to 3 more years of being able to work and earn a living, or being able to start academic studies 3 years earlier. By the way, some steps have been taken to institute a "civilian service", in which young people who can't or won't serve in the army, could serve some time helping the community (like helping in hospitals, etc), and this would "count" as military service for the few relevant benefits. The idea has encountered both support and resistance from the Israeli-Arab community, and serious resistance from the Jewish Ultra-Orthodox community.
  • "preferences for admission to universities" - simply untrue. Admission is based on matriculation exam scores and the psychometric test (similar to the SATs); note that both of those are given in Arabic alongside Hebrew. Sometimes specific exams are required, like in Architecture or Medicine. Nationality or military service do not enter this equation. Perhaps she is confused by a different issue - I believe one or two universities give partial preference in dorm allocation to people who served in the army (a few more "points" in the rating of the student's eligibility for dorms). The rational for this being, again, to try and help compensate people for the time they put in, given that people who didn't serve could have spent the time working and saving up, or are young enough to stay at home, if they wish. Personally, I think this is not the way to go, but it has nothing to do with admission. The vast majority of students don't live in dorms anyway, and again - many Jews don't serve in the army.
  • "and many other things" - well, can't really say anything about that, but it leaves the reader thinking there are actually more, when there are no details to back it up.

I hope I explained the problems clearly. I ask that this quote be removed, as it is misleading and highly inaccurate. okedem (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Addition: The Roselle Tekiner quote that immediately follows is also misleading. First off, it only says that some rights are withheld, but doesn't expand upon that - discriminating practices or laws should be detailed in this article (and they are), letting the readers get the info for themselves. Furthermore, following the link for that source (of Roselle Tekiner) shows she completely misunderstood the land situation in Israel, claiming "Israel's Two-Tiered Citizenship Law Bars Non-Jews From 93 Percent of Its Lands". It's a common misconception, as can be read here. As I said, only JNF lands posed a problem for Arabs, and those are just 13%, which are privately held (by the JNF). As I detailed, that situation has been resolved, finally. okedem (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Okedem, please provide sources that express the viewpoints you have expressed here. Per WP:NPOV we don't remove POVs that are sourced to reliable sources. Phyllis Bennis is a reliable, though partisan, source. The way to balance out the section, if you feel it needs to be balanced out, would be to add other POVs that challenge what Bennis says. Extended posting of your opinion of what is wrong with a particular quote aren't necessary or helpful and come off as WP:SOAP when they don't invoke any sources. Thanks. Tiamut 00:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
PS Palestine Facts does is definitely not a reliable source. It doesn't list its authors or their expertise so we cannot judge the validity of the information provided there. So please don't link to them as a way of supporting your arguments. Thanks. Tiamut 00:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Tiamut, honestly, are you claiming what I said above isn't true? Can you point to the specific examples in the subject? I have taken to time to explain, in detail, the facts here. Are you claiming I'm misrepresenting reality? Can you cite real, specific, sources for the analyst's claims? Let me make this even more specific - are you saying that her claim, that "93 percent of Israel's land can only be leased or owned by Jews or Jewish agencies"? (). Are you claiming that Jews have "preferences for admission to universities"? You live in Israel, you know that those claims are simply false. One can make truthful claims about discrimination in Israel, but those are simply untrue.
Regardless of the veracity of the quotes, they are wholly unnecessary here. Instead of telling our readers some "analyst" says there's discrimination, we should give the specifics of any such discrimination, with good sources, and let the reader draw his conclusions. The article does a good job, I think, of detailing the facts of this subject, and these quotes serve no purpose. okedem (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

GA

Has anyone considered nominating this article for GA status?Bless sins (talk) 06:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the first encounter I've had with the possibility of nominating an article as a GA article. Do you really think this is good enough? Screen stalker (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion it needs a great deal of work. Concerns over the JNF land issue and urban planning, the unrecognized villages, and relations with Palestinians elsewhere - three of the most central issues impacting daily life for Arabs in Israel, are absent, and must be filled in somehow. Refcahman (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Political parties

Something rubs me the wrong way with regard to the "Political parties" section. Actually, a few things rub me the wrong way:

  1. "Arabs on the Move" says that Arab political parties that attracted the majority of the Arab vote, garnering 75% in 2003 and still 70% in 2006. It doesn't say that the rest of the vote went to Zionist parties. But the article says that in the 2006 elections 30% of the Arab vote went to such parties, up from 25% in 2003. This is Synthesis of the information presented, since we can't know for sure that the rest voted for Zionist parties. They may have voted for Arab Parties which were not represented in the Knesset (because they failed to obtain the threshold) or for non-Zionist, non-Arab parties.
  2. I've never heard of "Open Democracy." Could someone who is familiar with it tell me more about it? It may very well be that it is a reliable source, but I'd like to know for sure.
  3. "The Arab Vote in the Israeli Elections" seems to me to be a source of questionable interpretation abilities. It calls Meretz a Zionist party, which means that it is including non-Zionist parties in the list of "Zionist parties." This is further evidenced by the fact that all parties which identify themselves as Arab are listed as non-Zionist, and all parties that do not identify themselves as Arab are listed as Zionist (which is why the two groups add up to 100%). Surely not every non-Arab political party in Israel is Zionist? Screen stalker (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll answer some of these issues later; but on Meretz, it is undeniably a Zionist party. It is a constituent part of the World Zionist Organisation, it is represented on the Zionist executive. This is not a value judgement, or original research/synthesis; it is a simple statement of fact.
I will try to clarify the question of the Arab vote. I have seen and read Open Democracy before, not sure how reliable it is. This may deoend on the reliability of the individual contributor. RolandR (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I certainly won't object to Open Democracy as a reliable source. It seems to be at least satisfactory in its credibility. If we could find the same information elsewhere, however, that would be preferable.
I am still concerned regarding point #1: the fact that x-many Arabs voted for the three Arab parties mentioned does not mean that the rest voted for Zionist parties. Screen stalker (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Meretz, I reviewed the article to which you linked. It is true that that article calls Meretz a member of the WZO, but both of the sources cited were dead links. Do you know of an up-to-date, reliable source that says this? Screen stalker (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Look at Meretz's own web site: "The realization of Zionism will be implemented through Israel's transformation into a place that is attractive to immigrants and from which emigration is minimal"; "Ours is a twofold goal: to encourage all types of Jewish culture in the Jewish communities while simultaneously deepening the commitment to Zionism and to Israel". On the Meretz-USA site, you can read "The World Union of Meretz, to which Meretz USA belongs, is an alliance of similarly-minded groups throughout the world. It is particularly effective as a tool for the Meretz groups to work together within the World Zionist Organization and other world-wide Zionist bodies.". There is a lot more, both on these websites and the various sites of the WZO. RolandR (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Alright, you've persuaded me that Meretz is a Zionist party. I am still unconvinced, however, that the 70% and 75% statistic is not synthesis. Screen stalker (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

POV- terms, etc.

I am a new user. My understanding is that facts can be changed, but wiki is not for expressing personal opinions. I had tagged this page with the category 'Palestinians' and it has been removed. I imagine this has happened many times before. Thus, it might as well be opened as a topic of discussion so that we can attempt some kind of consensus here. From my perspective, the people who determine what they are called are the people themselves. While sure, I know some Arab citizens of Israel call themselves Arab Israelis, I do not know a single one who would not say that s/he is also Palestinian. Currently, this page is listed under the 'Arab Israeli' category, a term offensive to many Arabs in Israel. So to be fair it should be listed under 'Palestinians' as well, a term offensive to many Israelis.Refcahman (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. This article is categorized under "Palestinian people", and has been for a long time. okedem (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic and Religious Groupings section

Today, upon re-organizing this section as much as I could (pure clean-up and few additions or subtractions), I 'discovered' that the descriptions of each population is limited to:

1. Their birth rates
2. Their military service

It is vital that these sections, especially the Muslim and Christian sections, not limit their definition to such a very narrow scope. What is greatly needed:

1. A few sentences about Muslim and Christian locales/a BRIEF history
2. A few sentences about prominent Muslim and Christian community figures and institutions

Without this information, clearly this section purely presents the definition of Muslims and Christians in Israel from a State demographic/military perspective, with hardly any mention of the perspective of Muslims and Christians about their communities. I am not very informed about the above 2 points (those in need of insertion). I invite those who do know, to add the missing context. Thanks, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I went ahead and re-organized here (as elsewhere), so that the military question has its own section. It is easier to follow now and covers some of the major issues raised, now, whereas before it was embedded everywhere and actually became too heavy a theme in defining Arab identity in Israel, I think. I think you will see that the headings I've added throughout the entry as a whole should help guide future additions to this entry - when I started tonight the demographic and legal sections seemed like more of a hodgepodge of unorganized info under broad headings.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Population Administration

This edit requires some clarification, I think. First off, the "Population Administration" is mostly a book-keeping administration, with little to no executive power. Why should anyone care about it, in this context?

Second, "known to be tough on non-Jews residing in Israel" really needs some more data. What does that mean? "Tough"? Doing what, exactly? What powers does he have, and where has he used them? Without some details, this is next to meaningless.

Besides, that's not what the source says. It doesn't talk about "Jews" vs. "Non-Jews", but of Ganot's treatment of foreigners, both foreign workers and Palestinians, saying nothing about Arab Citizens of Israel (who are the subjects of this article). okedem (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and have reverted the edit for now. The article doesn't talk about Arab Israelis at all, only about foreign workers. Also it doesn't directly say that 'Ganot is tough on foreigners', so the statement is 100% WP:OR. I'm not sure how the user who made the edit came to the conclusion he did, but they are not correct and at the most, the paragraph should be re-written (although as you said, I'm not sure why it's even relevant here). -- Ynhockey 18:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
In that same paragraph there's another piece of OR, or interpretation: "...played an active role in pushing for the passage of the Citizenship Law to curb the growth of Arab families." - no one's "curbing" the growth of Arab families. It makes it seem as though the law takes away citizenship from Arab families if they're too large or something. That law just prevents Palestinians from gaining citizenship by marriage, due to the security risks (and one can also claim it's due to the "demographic threat"). In other words, it changes regulations of how foreigners can gain citizenship in Israel. It has nothing to do with growth. An Arab family, like a Jewish one, can grow as large as it wants to. okedem (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. In any case, a long time ago I noticed this article was a mess, and set out to copyedit it, with a couple dozen edits (I think) which effectively converted it into a properly-formatted decent article, although it had little content then. The article has been expanding since, and now it's many times larger than it was then; and, unfortunately, most of the contributors have apparently been trying to display Arab Israelis as a discriminated and persecuted indiginous minority (serious POV). If I have time this week, I'll try to copyedit the article again, although it will be much harder this time. I encourage other editors to try to do the same. -- Ynhockey 22:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Okedem, point taken - I have pared down the info on the heads of the Population Admin -the only important info is who they are, not the surrounding language. They are definitely linked to the question of Arab citizens - by mentioning them briefly next to the Koenig report, I show how they are linked.

YHockney, while you have a right to your opinion, I hope that your evaluation that editors who are including info on discrimination are POV-pushing does not lead you to POV-push that there is no discrimination. I hope that rather than quickly deleting info, you will simply edit it.Thanks.

This was such a minor point, I hope it doesn't become a long topic of discussion. I acknowledge it was not the best addition I've ever made. So long as we all work to refine what's there rather than omit or negate particular perspectives, it's good that we're all here to follow up on each other. Best,LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

At first I just, as I said, pared it down, but upon re-reading it really didn't make any sense. So instead I went back and added more support. Thank you for your feedback about the weakness of the addition before, you were on target.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Jews as arabs

1st ref was a dead link. 2nd did not attest to claims. Ori (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

In general, that claim is extremely unacceptable among Jews immigrated from arab countries and descendents Ori (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I would also take out the par. starting with "Yemenite Jews and certain specific communities... Jewish are accounted for as Arabs". You do not grasp the full meaning of the Dichotomy Ori (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
You are right of course- most Jews from Arab countries would very much abhor being called Arabs and see Jewishness and Arabness as a dichotomy. However, other Jews from Arab countries are very willing to be called Arabs and do not see Jewishness and Arabness as a dichotomy. I believe the statement was - "some," not "all," or even "most."LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Legal and political status

Under "Legal status guaranteed in Israeli law" we have the phrase "Citizenship is implicitly linked to military service in Israel." - this requires clarification. How is it linked, implicitly or otherwise? I mean, a large part of the population (Arabs, Hardeim, and some secular Jews) doesn't serve in the army, and yet vote and have the same legal status etc. So - what does this sentence actually mean?

Under "De jure vs. de facto legal status" we have a quote by MAR, saying Arabs citizens in Israel "suffer political discrimination based on decades of social exclusion." I have two issues with this - first off, MAR is a terrible source. I don't remember where we had a discussion about it, perhaps in Talk:Israel, but it was found to have a whole lot of blatant errors, whole lies and half-truths, and we decided not to use it there. There are much better source for these issues. Second, the use of quotes this way is very problematic. You see, you essentially say "someone said there's discrimination", but you never say what it is. I wrote about a similar issue on this talk page, under "Phyllis Bennis Quote". That quote was much worse, but the point remains the same - if there's discrimination (I know there is), write about it, not about other people saying there's discrimination. That way, the reader gets real information, instead of a vague impression, created by our specific choice of words, or the phrasing the source we chose decided to use. okedem (talk) 06:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

POI I did not insert the MAR quote, just moved it from elsewhere in the article. I don't know MAR, and am not attached to the quote - there are plenty of other sources which say the same thing, better. I will try to find a better source.
"Citizenship is implicitly linked to military service in Israel." - you're right, it does need clarification. It might be better to say that equal citizenship in the sense of equal opportunity is linked to military service, since education and housing loans, etc. are linked to military service. This can be better written, of course. There are many sources for this, but I would need to find a good citation. Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
POI?
Please - find the actual details, not just general quotes. They usually give a very distorted picture, and fail to convey actual information. The housing loans, for instance, are actually useless today, with commercial loans offering better rates (and those loans are only for a not too large part of the cost of the house/apartment). Education loans barely exist at all, and even when they do - they're very small. These very minor financial benefits pale in comparison to giving away 3 years at basically no pay, and that needs to be clear - meaning, if you're an 18 year old Arab citizen, if you spend those same 3 years working, even at minimum wage, you'll save up way more than any of those benefits are worth. Alternatively, you can start studying for your degree 3 years earlier, and get to the job market earlier, having 3 additional work-years in your life.
My advice - try to find detailed sources on discrimination in jobs, usually by private employers, though the public sector does that too. That's something that really does happen, and really means something, unlike nearly non-existent education loans. okedem (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
(POI means "Point of Information", meant to be less aggressive than FYI can sometimes be.)LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
The point is not to detail the impact of discrimination quantitatively, or to argue that Arabs are economically disadvantaged for lack of government support. That info goes elsewhere. The point is to clarify that their legal status differs because of these provisions. You're right, housing and ed. loans have become negligible in the past decade, so the magnitude of the economic impact is not great. It's more of a legal issue.
I agree with you, giving three years is quite a sacrifice for Jewish kids. However, the situation of Arabs in Israel re: military service cannot be compared to that of Jews. I could say more, but why get into it right here right now.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Still, under "De jure vs. de facto legal status" you present these quotes, but don't give any details, and so the reader has no idea what you actually mean, or how severe any discrimination really is. I think we should either present the details, or avoid such quotes. okedem (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think that title even makes sense to me - legal status is de jure. "De facto legal status" seems like a contradiction. okedem (talk) 07:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, you're right of course: I changed it to citizenship status. Am working on replacing the quote. As far as getting facts vs. quotes, I understand what you mena but it won't be instantaneous. I actually spent a billion hours more here today than I should have.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 08:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
You've been putting a whole lot of effort into this, I know. Don't think I'm criticizing you... okedem (talk) 08:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Another point - "Another party currently banned under this law is the right-wing Jewish Kach party." - actually, that's the only party ever actually forbidden from running to the Knesset, AFAIK. In fact, the text above it doesn't mention any party currently forbidden, only the overturned Election Committee decision regarding Balad. okedem (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Cabinet - under "Arab figures in political, judicial and military positions" we have "No other Arab has been included in a Prime Minister's cabinet" - saying "cabinet" - do we just mean the ministers? Because if so, then Majadele is also in the cabinet. If we mean the narrower meaning used in Israel, I don't even know if Tarif was in the narrow cabinet.
"or invited to join any political coalition." - well, here we definitely have Majadele. He is mentioned in the next paragraph ("Knesset"), though that seems out of place there. okedem (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Your courtesy is appreciated, and also, points taken, I should have been more careful on nights like this one, when I probably make a thousand edits and start to overstate things. Re: this last point, I certainly would not have been offended if you just wanted to make the correction, since it was clearly an out-of-date assertion. Best,LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Yea, I just didn't really understand what you were getting at, and didn't want to cause edit conflicts, seeing how many edits you make to this article right now... okedem (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

JNF section

I think the JNF section should be removed. Here's why:

  1. The section is currently presented in a highly biased matter, for example, right at the start it says that the JNF's decision to give lands only to Jews is a salient example of discrimination. Who established this? TheGuardian? The author should note that WP:RS does not cancel out WP:NPOV and the facts should be presented as they are without taking sides.
  2. Further down, the section cites a Haaretz opinion editorial (op-ed), to blatantly claim that the JNF is racist, period. That's a serious violation of several major Misplaced Pages policies, among other things.
The source I cited called the JNF racist; the entry did not do so. While you may boil at the name Haaretz chose for its editorial, the editorial otherwise has relevant, important facts in it. We do cite such editorials on Wiki.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. The main reason to delete the prose, instead of re-writing it, is that if there's no proof that it relates directly to Israeli Arabs, then there's no reason to have it in the article. So far, I cannot see proof in any of the sources that indeed JNF is a racist anti-Arab organization - all of the presented sources make allegations, but it would be quite difficult to prove this (probably impsossible, because the JNF is not racist).

I welcome more opinions, and hopefully we can delete this anti-JNF hate propaganda. -- Ynhockey 16:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC

I have to agree. JNF lands are private lands, purchased and paid for in full using donations from Jews around the world, with the specific purpose of buying land of Jews in Israel (Palestine, originally). Private property can be leased to who ever the owner wants. This simple point is not even mentioned.
"In 2007, the JNF responded with a preemptive bypass of the High Court and Mazuz, with a bill" - JNF does not bypass anyone, and can't write bills. The Knesset is the only one who can do that, and it does what it wishes, whether it's to the benefit of some bodies or not.
And after all that rant about racism, the most important development in this, the solution to the issue, isn't even mentioned! (Land exchange - when ILA leases JNF land to Arabs, it takes control over that land, and gives JNF alternate property, elsewhere, in areas not destined for development, like forests).
If we want to present the JNF issue fairly, that's fine. But this paragraph is terrible (sorry, I know you mean well, LamaLoLeshLa). okedem (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I have changed the section title again, to "Arab perceptions of citizenship status." One cannot argue with the inclusion of such as section as this, I think, in an entry called "Arab citizens of Israel." I do not think the section should be deleted, obviously, but as far as your other points, go ahead and make the edits you see fit, I won't argue, though I may tweak.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Any edits I make will necessary remove all of the anti-JNF hate propaganda. I'm sure that you won't agree to this, so instead of edit-warring, why not reach a consensus and then it won't matter who makes the edit. -- Ynhockey 17:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Well I'm not going to give up on having a section on the JNF here - it's one of the key points for Arabs in Israel. Also, a good deal of the paragraph doesn't 'smear' the JNF, it simply states the facts around the court cases, etc. However, feel free to add countering perspectives such as, "others say...." or "the JNF argues..." or, "the JNF charter does not explicitly argue against sale of land to Arabs, but rather, specifies that the land should be reserved for Jewish uses...." I didn't know what you meant, Okedem, about the solution - why not insert it? Give it a try, before considering deleting the section (which yes, I will resist with great tenacity), add the counterpoints you feel are necessary, and maybe at the end you won't feel the same way. I think this issues greatly deserves inclusion and that it is highly possible to get it into a form we can all agree on.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
As I know this is something Arab-Israelis feel strongly about, and is one of the major topics in the discussion, I do feel it deserves mention. Just not like this. okedem (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to check out for now and finally get actual non-virtual work done. I'll be back and curious to see what you come up with. Regards,LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I've a complete rewrite of that section. Before it dealt too much with the legal disputes and the animosity from both sides, now it just details the facts. okedem (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks okedem! The new version is much better, especially because it introduces the context first and the accusations later. I have reworded the context a little to clarify that the JNF is not a government-owned organization. -- Ynhockey 19:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it looks pretty good now too. See, that wasn't so painful.Thanks for taking the time, Okedem.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the law proposal bit, as explained in the summary. Failed proposals are nearly meaningless, and add little to the article.
"As of 2008, according to the law the ILA is legally bound" - firstly, you've got repetition here ("according to the law", "legally bound"), but are you sure that's right? I don't think anyone changed the law for this, it might just be a government directive or something like that. okedem (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I wanted this to be over but upon closer inspection I must add, my dear Okedem: The article you cited did not indicate that the 2007 decision was a lasting one nor that it was active in 2008. Indeed, according to the source, the decision was for three months only and is already expired! Thus, to present it as a lasting solution, to imply that the matter has been resolved, is quite misleading, don't you think?
This is what you wrote:
As of 2008, the ILA does lease JNF land to Arab citizens" That's really not what the reference said. Thus I left your additions there but was obliged to edit for accuracy. I may have to reduce/remove the phrasing (per your own argument: "Failed proposals (or expired agreements) are nearly meaningless, and add little to the article") unless you can give a better source which shows that the ILA currently leases land to Arabs, on paper and in reality. Best,21:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I used the text from the JNF article, and got that source from there. As far as I know, the situation hasn't changed. This article, by the way, contains lots of details, one of them being that the land swap thing was done for a long time, and only in 2004 did the ILA stop leasing JNF lands to Arabs. I'll try to find a source regarding the situation today. okedem (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The 2005 decision that you mentioned in your earlier edit, did in fact suggest severence or limitation of the JNF-ILA relationship, however I don't have time to find a citation that says so. More recently, Ayalon has promoted such a move, so I added that in. It seems like a highly relevant point to mention.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Length of article

After the recent flurry of changes, the article has grown considerably. Currently, the article has 88 thousands characters of readable prose (excluding refs etc.), or 14 thousand words. While it certainly deserves the attention, it's becoming very long, which seriously damages its readability. While I understand the desire to add every detail, we also need to be reasonably concise. Please keep that in mind while editing. okedem (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This is true. However before, the article failed to address some central issues so we have to take that into account. After the JNF entry, I can't think of much else that's conspicuously missing. At present I think it is pretty read-able, but yes, much more info and it will cease to be.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, so many changes, thanks LamaLoLeshLa! I think the length is fine, personally. I'd been gone a while and came back to finally add in a section on the JNF, and now I don't have to do anything.Refcahman (talk) 00:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

TOClimit

Revealing my ignorance about some technicalities here, I'd like to ask if anyone could add {{TOClimit}} to the table of contents so that it is not so damn long. Best,LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Flow of article

Before we remove all the unnecessary content from this article, I propose a simple solution to the most immediate flow/readability problems: let's remove all the templates on the right except the one at the very top. That means removing the 'Arabs', 'Government of Israel' and 'Palestinians' templates (and more if I missed them). These templates are not really necessary in any article and seriously clutter up the page. -- Ynhockey 20:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I read your suggestion and thought, hmmm, interesting idea - then when I took a look, I had the opposite reaction, that we should remove the one at the very top (as, with the table of contents, it creates a big gap after the intro), and keep most of the others. You're right that there are quite a lot of them.

I personally was not about to start cutting things out - I think all of it belongs. I can't imagine adding anything else and the only edits I was about to make were to reduce obvious repetition. Okedem is right that things can be edited precisely so that entries are more concise, without deleting anything. (I am very guilty of the long addition, I realize.)LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the lead section will be improved (in flow) if the top template is removed. It will mostly stay the same, only have a couple lines less. This is not a great change compared to the enormous space that could be saved by removing the other templates. Right-hand topic templates were popular on Misplaced Pages back in the day, but today such templates usually go at the bottom and we have relevant bottom templates for all those topics, I believe (and if we don't, they should be created). -- Ynhockey 21:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Putting them at the bottom sounds about right. I don't think they are all there as yet. I do not know how to transform a right-hand template, do you?LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I could create them, yes. I think I'll do it another day though. Meanwhile, you might want to practice in the sandbox and come up with something yourself :) {{Israel Defense Forces}} is a good example template to start with. -- Ynhockey 17:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"Other political organizations" subsection

These are indeed significant organizations - simply because they are outside the 'system'/State does not mean they are irrelevant, and they do deserve mention in the article. However, the detail included here may not be necessary, and maybe they should be moved to a separate article of their own? Rather than deleting them from the annals of wikipedia, they could be described on this page in perhaps in a sentence, and then we/I could make a page about them with an intro paragraph explaining their relevance, linked from this section. Feedback?LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I support creating an article List of Arab political organizations in Israel. -- Ynhockey 20:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ynhockey's suggestion that we create a list of Arab political organizations in Israel. I would also say that it might be a good idea to mention some of these organizations somewhere else in the article. For example, the history section has a discussion of the Islamic Movement.--Oneworld25 (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit for conciseness, don't cut

My two cents re: editing style: Especially on a page so rich with so many different types of information and editors of so many different perspectives, we should all first do our best to edit out extras while maintaining the message. If even after editing out the fluff we find that the information distilled is not of historic importance, then delete. (For instance, rather than deleting Abna al-balad, Taayush and the RCUV, they could have been listed in a sentence or short paragraph). LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

blue ID

to my best of knowledge, blue ID means israeli citizenship, implying said person was an arab citizen of israel. the fact that he lives in a disputed area doesn't matter - compare vis druze in the golan heights that took the ID - they're israeli arabs. permanent residence certification means you don't have/want a blue ID. MiS-Saath (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

and of further merit is the influence this case is going to have (or already has) regarding arab citizens of israel, and regardless of the actual citizenship status of the terrorist. already calls are being made to restrict travel of blue-id-carrying arabs within israel. it's meaningful and relevant to the article even thus. MiS-Saath (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you are confusing some points. In the past, the Palestinian permanent residents of East Jerusalem carried orange IDs. A few years ago this was changed, and they received blue IDs, like citizens. However, their status is still that of permanent residents, not citizens, and that's what their ID says (the text in it). They don't hold Israeli citizenship, and cannot vote in the Israeli general elections. They are eligible to vote in the Palestinian Authority elections, and in the Jerusalem municipal elections, though they rarely participate in either.
The Druze of the Golan were offered citizenship, and those who accepted are full fledged citizens.
Point being - the color of the ID is not a measure of anything. It's just an identity card.
The calls of travel restrictions are, again, only for the East Jerusalem Arabs, being in the special status of having permanent residence with blue ID, and enjoying free travel in Israel, yet being foreign citizens (Jordanian, or some status of the PA). okedem (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Request regarding sources

Hello,

I saw a book by Ilan Pappé was used as a source. I ask that we refrain from doing so. Pappé is a highly controversial political activist (and see his article for more details), and his books cannot be trusted to be neutral in any way. He has, on multiple occasions, revealed that even if the facts don't really fit the story he wrote, that's good enough. What matters is that "the message". His view is of equally valid "narratives", eschewing facts, and focusing on unsubstantiated stories and fabricated tales, like the so-called "Tantura massacre", which never took place.

This is a propaganda agent, not a real researcher or historian. I'm sure we can find real sources, and avoid such obvious POV pushers. okedem (talk) 07:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well.... I cited Pappe and Morris (as I'm sure you noticed). Thing is, Pappe is a rather hated scholar in some circles (and loved in others, of course), but he is a scholar nonetheless. His work is printed by academic presses (i.e. Routledge, Cambridge, etc.), he is not some guy writing on the internet. I don't know if the fact that he is heavily critiqued means he cannot be cited. So too is Daniel Pipes heavily critiqued, yet he is cited all over the place. Honestly, I don't really care if he's cited here since the info is backed up further with a Morris citation, but on principle, I don't know if I can agree with you on this one, Okedem. Feedback? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't say anything about Pipes, I don't know him. I do know Pappe shows a complete aversion for facts - he simply doesn't like them or find them useful. He seems to make things up to suit the story he's trying to tell. Using him makes us look bad. He's a political activist - expressed support for Hamas, initiated the annual "Israeli Right of return conferences", and supports boycotts of Israel, including an academic boycott. (He supported this, by the view, while still a Professor at the University of Haifa, and receiving government money. A political activist and a hypocrite.) Pushing an agenda this way makes it perfectly clear he's not a real scholar, but one using the academic process to suit the message he's trying to push. This kind of person cherry picks facts, and ignores conflicting evidence, all to tell "the right story". okedem (talk) 07:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
That's interesting. The prestigious University of Exeter writes of him: "Professor Ilan Pappé is one of the world's leading historians of the Middle East, with a distinctive view of Arab-Israeli relations. Among the publications relating to these themes are: Britain and the Arab-Israeli Conflict (1988), The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict (1992), The Modern History of Palestine: One Land Two Peoples (2003) and The Modern Middle East (2005). He is the fulcrum of a group of historians and political scientists at the Cornwall Campus working on 20th century ethno-politics. He has published extensively on the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict and his experiences have resulted in some very incisive thought on what it is to be a historian and the methodology of historical enquiry". But I'm sure that Okedem is a greater expert than this university on academic reliability. RolandR (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Of course that's what they say - they hired him. However, I maintain that such obviously political figures should not be used for anything other than their own articles. He doesn't care if the facts don't match his story. He uses whatever he can find, and whatever he can fabricate, to support the narrative he's trying to push:
"I am not as interested in what happened as in how people see what's happened." "I admit that my ideology influences my historical writings...", "Indeed the struggle is about ideology, not about facts. Who knows what facts are? We try to convince as many people as we can that our interpretation of the facts is the correct one, and we do it because of ideological reasons, not because we are truthseekers." ("An Interview of Ilan Pappé," Baudouin Loos, Le Soir ,Nov. 29, 1999)
"The debate between us is on one level between historians who believe they are purely objective reconstructers of the past, like Morris, and those who claim that they are subjective human beings striving to tell their own version of the past, like myself." (“Benny Morris’s Lies About My Book,” Ilan Pappé, Response to Morris’ critique of Pappé’s book, “A History of Palestine” published in the New Republic, March 22, 2004, History News Network, April 5, 2004)
A historian who doesn't care for the truth, but tell his "own version of the past", is a hack.
And adding to that his political activism makes his completely useless for any kind of factual discussion. okedem (talk) 09:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If you actually know what history is, as this man admits with honesty, it is telling your interpretation of the sources and the facts. In essence history is always written from an angle, and cannot be written otherwise, the goal is not to write it otherwise, but to provide a strong argument from the angle that you view it from. You are a hypocrite if you say anything else (at least If you have written anything on wikipedia about the past, and I assume you have). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.52.67 (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, what you're saying seems like post-modernist drivel. Facts are facts. They don't change, no matter who's writing them, or from what perspective you're looking. Motives are mostly open to speculation and interpretation, but the facts of what actually happened - aren't. Some people don't understand that, and unfortunately, they have infiltrated the academic history circles. okedem (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Contesting Discrimination Section

I know that many editors on this page are not crazy about the deletion of entire sections, however, I have deleted the entire Contesting Discrimination section. This is because I find that both the Bard and CAMERA references do not bring any new information into the article. Bard states that Israel is one of the few places in the Middle East where women can vote, however, it is already stated in the article that Arab Citizens of Israel can vote so I don't see why his quote is necessary. Furthermore, I'm not even sure Bard's assertion is true. The CAMERA reference states that Arabs get more rights than Jews because they don't have to serve in the military. The article already mentions that Arabs don't have to serve in the military, it is up to the reader to decide for themselves if this means they get more rights than Jewish Citizens. I will move the Israeli government source about housing segregation to the section on spatial distribution.--Oneworld25 (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Bard also talks about the military thing, and I do think his quote should be there ("The sole legal distinction between Jewish and Arab citizens..."). The voting right quote is indeed not useful, and the CAMERA quote redundant. If you can incorporate the two useful quotes (Bard and the housing) elsewhere (in the "Recognition of discrimination" part, I assume), I don't oppose the deletion of the rest of that section. okedem (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm one of those who doesn't like deletions. I'd just agree with Okedem that whatever of substance that can be preserved, should. I agree that CAMERA's arguments here, as many other places, are pretty unsubstantial and could be deleted. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Bard comes across as a serious propagandist with a particular interest in denial. His "Myths and Facts" contains such gems as MYTH: "Settlements are an obstacle to peace." He should try and persuade Condoleeza Rice of that. CAMERA's single-mindedness and attitude to integrity doesn't need further discussion, there's been an RfC on it and other action. PR 06:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Categories: