Talk:Racism in Israel/Archive 3

Compromise proposal

 * Support: The slight downside would be lack of consistency with other articles in the series, however the upside is much more flexibility in inclusion of materials in this articles, and reduced edit warring. Due to the lack of proper definition for "race" there is a trend in the sociological community to use the better defined words "Ethnic discrimination" instead of "Racism". I think that the flexibility, reduced edit warring, and potential for wide consensus, are more important and therefore I support the proposal. If this is not accepted, then I also don't object to the previous article name which was used up to last week. Marokwitz (talk) 06:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No It is inconsistent with the naming of other articles. Discrimination on ethnic grounds is a form of racism according to the internationally-agreed upon definition of racial discrimination contained in the ICERD convention: "the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life." There are 173 contracting state parties to the convention, including Israel. harlan (talk) 07:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment You (and all the yes men/women in the section above) are missing the point. Please read the opening statement again. The issue was not defining the term and what it includes, but whether Wikipedia editors can use a source that does not use the term in order to extract from that a presumption of racism. I seem to recall an article recently being deleted in the wake of a vote where the same editors argued that certain terms {e.g. the word "analogy") were not explicit in the sources.--Yespleazy (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The dictionary definition of racism, as shown above is "belief that one race is superior and/or discrimination on basis of race". The ICERD convention is not a dictionary. Citing it is simply WP:SYNTH.Marokwitz (talk) 08:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment How many separate articles do we need on the Palestinians being sad victimization of Palestinians? Israel and the apartheid analogy is only one other in a whole range of articles about the conflict.Cptnono (talk) 08:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This discussion is not about creating a new article. How is the comment relevant? Marokwitz (talk) 09:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't look at it that way. On second thought: Repetitive article that isn't even needed so changing the title doesn't address the bigger issue. Call it "Palestinians getting screwed with giant dildos" as far as I am concerned . Cptnono (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Cptnono (talk) 09:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * @Gilabrand the only example cited above were military service benefits. The reports of Adalah and Mossawa  both describe discrimination directed against Arabs on that basis as an example of racism. @Markowitz get yourself a legal dictionary. The fact that ethnic discrimination is a form of racism is the majority viewpoint held by 173 states. @Cptnono racism is not a crime against humanity. Apartheid is an aggravated form of state-sponsored racism. harlan (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are aware of reports of Adalah and Mossawa that describe discrimination directed against Arabs on base of military service as an example of racism, then fine - why don't you cite them in the places where proper citations were requested, wouldn't it be much easier than arguing here? Marokwitz (talk) 09:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * @Marokwitz, while I stand by the relevance of a legally agreed definition accepted by Israel, even the Oxford English Dictionary recognizes the extension of racism to ethnic discrimination:
 * "The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. Hence: prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races, esp. those felt to be a threat to one's cultural or racial integrity or economic well-being; the expression of such prejudice in words or actions. Also occas. in extended use, with reference to people of other nationalities."
 * From their corpus attached to the definition: "The French Canadians were treated as bad as the blacks throughout the U.S. at the time... His experiences of racism against French Canadians..was [sic] apparent."--Carwil (talk) 12:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually this confirms that the word "racism" does not necessarily include non racial discrimination. Otherwise, why would they write "in extended use"? Marokwitz (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This line of discussion borders on silly. If editors want to redefine racism to no include ethnic discrimination, go and remove all the material about ethnicities in the article on racism (including the various mentions of antisemitism) and see how far you get. ← George talk 13:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also from the Oxford Dictionary of Law by Elizabeth A. Martin, Jonathan Law:
 * race discrimination *Discrimination on the grounds of colour, race, nationality, or ethnic or national origins.
 * --Carwil (talk) 12:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose Sorry Marokwitz, I'm not sure if you're misreading what others wrote, or if they are confused. Racism is not a type of ethnic discrimination. It's the other way around - ethnic discrimination is a type of racism. ← George talk 09:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with George. I also agree with his suggestion above to discuss this in a wider forum to resolve it for Racism by country articles. I would suggest WikiProject Discrimination.--Carwil (talk) 12:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Fairly obvious attempt to make the title ambiguous for POV reasons. NickCT (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Are you are saying that the title "Ethnic Discrimination in Israel" is "ambiguous", while at the same time saying that when sources use the term "Ethnic Discrimination in Israel", they unambiguously mean "Racism in Israel" ?! Marokwitz (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Discrimination on the basis of one's race or ethnicity is racism, period. Hence sources referring to "Ethnic Discimination in Israel" are very likely referring to racism.
 * "Racism" is simply a more clear, concise and common name for "Ethnic Discrimination". Your goal would appear to be to make the title less clear and concise in order to confuse and mislead readers.  This is what I meant by "make the title ambiguous". NickCT (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose There is no essential difference between the two and I don't see much point in re-changing it to include material already covered by the article name. The beginning argument, that material here had no actual connection to racism and its inclusion was OR, is specious; we have UN reports concluding that all of these issues fall under racial discrimination and the reports rely on the same information that's being challenged. These are not interpretative claims made by editors. The only person to offer an actual argument against including the material was Markowitz, unless the others would like to offer more persuasive comments (beyond political dildonics, flat denials, etc) then I think it's over. Sol (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - This is the third attempt by editors to water-down the title to be less offensive ... it is unseemly to try again so soon after the last rename proposal (one month ago, above in this Talk page) failed.  The word "racism" is a common, well-understood that is widely used in Wikipedia and the world.  Here are some specific reasons why "racism" is the best title:
 * 1) Most similar articles on this topic use the word "Racism" e.g. Racism in the United States and Racism in the Palestinian territories;
 * 2) There is an important footer Navigation Templates Template:Racism topics  and it is titled "Racism"  (not "ethnic  discrimination")
 * 3) "ethnic discrimination" is a WP:Weasel weasel word;
 * 4) Racism is a rather important topic in human discourse, indeed, in human society today, and we should avoid "sweeping it under the rug" by softening the terminology;
 * 5) There is an important sidebar Navigation Template  Template:Discrimination sidebar uses the word "racism" (not "ethnic discrimination")
 * 6) There is a category Category:Racism (but no category "ethnic discrimination");
 * 7) There is an article Racism, but no article "Ethnic discrimination" (the latter redirects to Racism)
 * 8) The term "racism" includes "ethnic discrimination", but not vice versa
 * 9) The recent World Cup's public service slogan was "Say No to Racism".  Not "Say No to Ethnic Discrimination".
 * For all these reasons, the title should include the word "racism" rather than "ethnic discrimination". --Noleander (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose, and reiterate "Racial and ethnic discrimination are the same thing" this is obvious. [In the last half of the 20th century several conflicts around the world were interpreted in racial terms even though their origins were in the ethnic hostilities that have long characterized many human societies (e.g., Arabs and Jews, English and Irish). Britannica concise encyclopedia (In the last half of the 20th century several conflicts around the world were interpreted in racial terms even though their origins were in the ethnic hostilities that have long characterized many human societies (e.g., Arabs and Jews, English and Irish)) read more in article. Read paper by International researcher on definition of race in different countries, European Network Against Racism, UN Convention on Racism, Racial practices in Israel --   Jim Fitzgerald   post  16:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting why you so strongly oppose the rename if you think that racial and ethnic discrimination are the same thing. And the Britannica source says exactly the opposite of what you are claiming - that the conflicts around the world were interpreted in racial terms even though their origins were actually in the ethnic hostilities. If "ethnic" and "racial" are by definition the same, then why would the author even bother to write this sentence ?! Marokwitz (talk) 09:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not think "that racial and ethnic discrimination are the same thing", the sources say that. Secondly, you are wrong, the "ethnic" and "racial" are not same, "racism" and "ethnic discrimination" are same. Do you realise the difference? On Britannica definition, please read the following excerpt:

Ethnic identity is acquired, and ethnic features are learned forms of behaviour. Race, on the other hand, is a form of identity that is perceived as innate and unalterable. In the last half of the 20th century several conflicts around the world were interpreted in racial terms even though their origins were in the ethnic hostilities that have long characterized many human societies (e.g., Arabs and Jews, English and Irish). Racism reflects an acceptance of the deepest forms and degrees of divisiveness and carries the implication that differences among groups are so great that they cannot be transcended.
 * Britannica says that the origins of Arab-Jew racism were in the ethnic hostilities, "origin" does not imply that later it does not change, as in our case, into racism. The author bothered to write the sentence because he reflected the general trend in the last 60 years to apply the term racism in relation to Arab-Jew conflict. In other words, most commentators view the Arab-Jew conflict as racial and not as ethnic.--  Jim Fitzgerald   post  17:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong support per Marokwitz. We should only say what reliable sources say.  We should not put our own spin on this.  The Wikipedia definition of "racial discrimination" (which is not challenged) says "Racial discrimination differentiates between individuals on the basis of real and perceived racial differences..." The discrimination between the Arabs and Jews in the area has nothing whatever to do with race, but with a land conflict that has gone on for well over a hundred years now. The Israelis are rightfully concerned over their security, and most (perhaps not all) discriminatory practices are related to those concerns. the |International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of minorities says specifically that " All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."  "The State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law only in so far as this may be compatible with the nature of these rights and solely for the purpose of promoting the general welfare in a democratic society."   In other words, the leeway that Israel gives the Arab population for its own schools and other social and cultural and economic development may make for unequal schools but they are determining their own destiny within the larger society, as per human rights covenant.  There may also be discrimination for the purpose of promoting the general welfare, such as for example, concerns about security. Racism is an entirely different issue.  KantElope (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * KantElope: I'm confused by your comment.  There are scores of sources that say that there is racism in Israel, directed at Arabs and others (and those sources explicitly use the word "racism").  Are you saying those sources should not be represented in this encyclopedia?  Or are you saying that racism does not include ethnic discrimination?  If you are saying the latter, can you supply a source that says that ethnic discrimination is not a form of racism (because there are dozens of sources that say it is).  --Noleander (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Noleander. No - I am saying is that you must use reliable sources that claim there is racism.  And that it is not correct to use the word "racism" when a source says "discrimination" or to imply or infer that when an author says that there is discrimination, that that is the same thing as racism.  Since "racial discrimination" is different treatment based on real or perceived racial differences, and the issue here is not racial differences but cultural and ethnic ones and conflict over land ownership, it cannot be said to be racial discrimination according to the accepted Wikipedia (and general) definition.  Many Israeli Jews are basically Arab Jews (in fact I think the majority), so to claim that Israelis are racist against Arabs is nonsense, and would be wrong and whoever claims such is expressing a personal opinion.  However if you have RS that say so, I guess it is Wikipedia policy to allow it.  KantElope (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. As I said above, not every discrimination that affects a certain "race" is racism. It has to be either targeted specifically against them or specifically benefit another race for it to be racist (or "racial discrimination", which is the same thing). I gave the example of benefits to people who served in the military. While it does discriminate against Arabs since most of them don't serve in the military, it doesn't discriminate against them specifically, it discriminates against anyone who didn't serve in the military no matter if they're Arab or not. A more ambiguous example would be the budget for special assistance in education we talked about below. It discriminates against Arabs. Is it racist? Some people might think it is, while others might think it isn't. If a source doesn't specifically say it's racist, an editor deciding it is would be OR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

education funding - intentional discrimination or inept management?
Please tell me, the fact that Arab schools receive less funding is intentional discrimination or is there another root cause? Is it systematic government policy, or corruption by local Arab authorities? If the references cannot make this conclusion than this should not be included in discrimination at all. A few years back, it was reported in the news that there were no fire stations in the Arab localities and that emergencies needed the intervention of teams from 'Jewish' stations (though Afula and Carmiel are not pure-Jewish anyway). The reason for that was the fire stations fall into municipal jurisdiction and since many Arab municipalities did (do?) not manage themselves properly, they never built stations or even bothered to apply for assistance. Is this discrimination or racism? No. --Shuki (talk) 07:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The HCJ ruled that the use of national priority areas in determining education budgets discriminated against the country's Arab sector. They took action to fix it. See this for example.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This source by Eyal Benvenisti, "FACIALLY NEUTRAL DISCRIMINATION AND THE ISRAELI SUPREME COURT" and sources that cite it may be useful in general for covering how the legal establishment and the supreme court specifically are trying to address these issues.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Shuki: you ask " is [it] intentional discrimination or is there another root cause?". It is not for us editors to make that decision.  If the sources state that the disparity is based on discrimination, the article needs to reflect those sources.  If other sources say there is another cause (e.g. corruption) then those sources can (and should) be included to provide balance and neutrality.  Do you have some sources that discuss other causes?  --Noleander (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the budgetary discrimination allegations stem from the comparative amounts allocated to predominantly Arab vs. Jewish areas under the Education Ministry. Incompetence/corruption could play into the problems at a local level but don't affect the 1:5 spending gap from the federal government. Sol (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So much for wanting accuracy on your parts. It's clearly irresponsible POV for some reporter to come to the conclusion that if someone is rich and someone else is poor than there is discrimination and leave it as that. Yes, we need WP:V, but as editors here we need to be responsible as well. You bring dry stats not proof of discrimination. --Shuki (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For my part, I only brought sources. What you do with them is up to you guys, use them here or elsewhere e.g. Education in Israel, Human Rights etc or not at all. I'm staying out of the discussions about the scope/title of this article.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We have the same in U.S. Big city black neighborhood schools are not as wealthy as most white neighborhood schools.  But we do not tar the U.S. as "racist" because of this.  It seems a little odd when our own president is Black,  KantElope (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of federal funding, not local. If you find similar material for the US, please add it to that article. If you don't like the sources, please write to Haaretz/UN/HRW. I wish there were no issues to cover in this article but Israel is a country and no country is perfect in regards to minority rights. Sol (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So you are excusing poor and shallow journalism? Part of the issue is that Arab members of Knesset simply do not fight strongly for Arabic language education. Au contraire Sol to your mentioning 'minority rights', we know that Haredim fight very strongly for their school funding, and some would say that they get disproportional increased funding compared to non-religious and national religious. That is not discrimination but priorities in politics. If the Arab MoKs do not have education as a priority, than that is not discrimination. To include a section of discrimination of Arab education it is imperative that WP states 'why', not just make a superficial conclusion that if the funding is different, than there is discrimination. In fact, recently in the news a Bedouin school was joining the Bnei Akiva chain so that they could be managerially rehabilitated, not to get more money.--Shuki (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, broseph, I'm done here. This isn't germane to the sources used or the issue in question. I'd ask why you think the sources have leapt to a "superficial conclusion" but it doesn't really matter. Sol (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The source used in that section talks specifically about the budget for special assistance for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Generalizing from that is a big no-no. I fixed it so it now says exactly what the source does. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty good, nice work. Sol (talk) 03:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. For future reference, it's customary to actually read the sources before removing tags like you did here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "The average per-student allocation in Arab junior high schools amounts to only 20 percent of the average in Jewish junior highs." If you like tags you might enjoy reading about how and when to use them. Sol (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Allocation of what? Of special assistance. That wasn't quite clear from the article, so some kind of tag was certainly appropriate. I didn't put it there, but you removed it without fixing the problem. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * *facepalm*. By all means, ignore policy and argument if they impede your e-crusade. The last word is all Markowitz's! Too slow, mon frere! Sol (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's all mine. Marokwitz (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Sephardi and Mizrahi
The first sentence in this section describes a current phenomenon, while the next sentence as well as the next few paragraphs describe something that happened in the past. Since all the sources provided for the first sentence are offline, could someone provide some quotes so we can see what exactly they were talking about? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I won't have time to gather any quotes for awhile. Some of the sources may be available on Google-Books.  But my recollection was that the sources were generically describing ethnic discrimination against Seph/Miz by the Ashk, not so much focusing on specific incidents.    I seem to recall that some were present tense (at the time the book was written) and some were past tense (focusing on the early decades of the state of Israel).  --Noleander (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Shohat speaks is the present tense. Some examples from the journal article version of "Sephardim in Israel" (Social Text No. 19/20 (Autumn, 1988), pp. 1-35):
 * Although the official melioristic discourse suggests a gradual lessening of the gap between Sephardim and Ashkenazim, in fact the inequalities are more glaring now than they were two generations ago.51 The system continues to reproduce itself, for example, in the differential treatment accorded to present- day European immigrants versus that accorded to veteran Oriental settlers. (21)
 * The largely segregated and unequal educational system in Israel also reproduces the ethnic division of labor through a tracking system which consistently orients Ashkenazi pupils toward prestigious white-collar positions requiring a strong academic preparation while pointing Sephardi pupils toward low-status blue-collar jobs. (21)
 * On whatever level-immigration policy, urban development, labor policy, government subsidies-we find the same pattern of a discrimination which touches even the details of daily life. (22)
 * Hope this helps.--Carwil (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quote. I was looking for something supporting the following "Israeli society in general - and Ashkenazi Jews in particular - have been described as holding discriminatory attitudes towards Jews of Middle Eastern and North African descent, knows as Mizrahi Jews, Sephardic Jews, and Oriental Jews." which is the first sentence of the section. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. How about these:
 * An ideology which blames the Sephardim (and their Third World countries of origin) has been elaborated by the Israeli elite, expressed by politicians, social scientists, educators, writers, and the mass-media. This ideology orchestrates an interlocking series of prejudicial discourses possessing clear colonialist overtones. It is not surprising, in this context, to find the Sephardim compared, by the elite, to other "lower" colonized peoples. (3)
 * Such attitudes have not disappeared; they are still prevalent, expressed by European Jews of the most diverse political orientations. The "liberal" Shulamit Aloni, head of the Citizen's Rights Party and a member of the Knesset, in 1983 denounced Sephardi demonstrators as "barbarous tribal forces" that were "driven like a flock with tom-toms" and chanting like "a savage tribe." (5)
 * The string of examples that follows runs from 1983 to 1986 (her publication date was 1988).--Carwil (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That talks about elites, not "Israeli society in general" (which sounds pretty unlikely, considering over half of Israeli society are Mizrahim. Do they hold discriminatory attitudes towards themselves?). Also, Shohat is an activist, her opinions should be attributed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Shohat is also a cultural studies professor writing in a peer-reviewed journal. I read the sentence as describing elites and numerous institutions, what you might call "society at large", but that's a question of interpretation. Also, our one introductory sentence is cited to some eleven sources. I think it would be prudent to wait to see whether the range of sources supports the sentence as it is now. Consider this quote from Smooha (cited in the note) for example:
 * The Or affair confirmed … subtle and covert racism still lurk in the minds of many Ashkenazim, and that the ethnic problem has remained an open wound in Israeli society.
 * --Carwil (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Smooha quote still doesn't make the sweeping generalization our article does.
 * Anyway, I'm not touching the text yet. Just trying to figure this out. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Israeli Loyalty oath law = 1935 Nurenberg racial laws?
While I understand that the inclusion into the article the below edit in which the sources compare Israel with fascist state, and the Allegence Oath with 1935 Nuremberg racial laws, can be taken by a number of editors as insultive and offensive, I still would like to urge the editors not to take it personal and not to judge it within the terms of anti-semitism. We really have to abide by Wiki rules, rather than trying to exempt it from general rules. The reliable source is there, the statemets made by notable israeli intellegensia and the information is valid as it higlights the harsh critisizm of the law inside of Israel, and the text is written in a neutral terms. Pls see the last para which clarifies a number of concerns raised by several editors.--  Jim Fitzgerald   post  19:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Some opponents have compared the law with 1935 Nuremberg racist laws that targetted German Jews.

In October 2010, over 100 Israeli artists, writers and intellectuals, demonstrated in Tel-Aviv against the loyalty oath, among them Hanna Maron, a famous Israeli actress and theatre personality. During the demonstration, Israeli author Sefi Rachlevsky said "a country that invades the sacred space of the citizen's conscience, and punishes him for opinions and beliefs that are not in line with the authorities … ceases to be a democracy and becomes a fascist state." Another protester, Israeli educational psychologist Prof. Gavriel Solomon clarified :

...some might say 'how can you compare us to Nazis'. I am not talking about the death camps, but about the year 1935. There were no camps yet but there were racist laws. And we are heading forward towards these kinds of laws.


 * The law has been changed. The criticism is no longer relevant. The whole period it was relevant consisted of about one week. See WP:UNDUE.
 * Also, please stop reinserting text that was reverted, even if hidden. You can copy it to the talk page if you want to keep a visible record of it, but there's no reason to put it back in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have still only seen one person say it not "some" as previously discussed.Cptnono (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This has some problems. Regarding the first sentence, as far as I can tell the only person who compared the loyalty oath to the 1935 laws was Gavriel Salomon. He has a wiki article, so maybe his opinion is notable (debatable). The second and third sentences (about the demonstrations) are criticisms of the loyalty oath, but do not label it racist or discriminatory and, therefore, do not belong. You're crossing an WP:SYNTH boundary when you combine "person A says law B is racist" (first sentence) and "person C demonstrated against law B" (second and third sentences) to imply that "person C thinks law B is racist". You then quote Solomon, who is the same academic in the first sentence as far as I can tell, making the quote unnecessary. From your third source, the BBC, it also appears that Nahum Barnea criticized the oath as racist, so his opinion may be notable as well (again, debatable). I would summarize the material as: "Israeli educational psychologist Gavriel Salomon compared the Israeli loyalty oath to antisemitic 1935 Nuremberg laws that targetted German Jews. Israeli journalist Nahum Barnea described the oath as 'really racist.'" I don't think you can say any more than that, unless you have additional sources. The Ha'aretz article does state, however, that "since coming into government Yisrael Beitenu has advanced a long list of 'loyalty' laws, which many consider to be discriminatory against Israel's Arab citizens." You can probably paraphrase that as well, but you have to keep it in context - Ha'aretz is talking about laws advanced by Yisrael Beitenu, which might not exactly match the loyalty oath that ended up passing. ← George talk 02:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What about the fact that these criticisms are of version of a proposed law that was changed a week later? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What was changed about it? I thought the loyalty oath had been approved? ← George talk 11:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See here and the source here.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 12:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all it was only a cabinet vote, that means that it will be proposed in the Knesset as a government sponsored bill (until that happens and it passes a vote in the Knesset, it's not law). Second the proposal was changed to include all new immigrants, which makes the criticism not really relevant anymore. I believe I put all this information in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, as far as I can tell, before it was changed (but after it was approved), the loyalty oath required non-Jews seeking to become citizens to pledge allegiance to Israel as a Jewish state. After the change, the loyalty oath required everyone seeking to become citizens to pledge allegiance to Israel as a Jewish state. The question then is whether those labeling the oath as racist or discriminatory did so because (a) it was required of non-Jews only, or because (b) it was a requirement to pledge allegiance to one specific religion—a religion the applicant might not share. The fact is that we just don't know which of these two types of racism the oaths critics were alleging, and for us to try to decide would be original research. So we shouldn't. We should say that "Person X and Person Y said the oath was racist" (along the lines of my earlier suggestion), then say that "In response, the oath was modified to require Jewish immigrants to also pledge allegiance to Israel as a Jewish state" (or similar), then say who said it was racist after it was changed (or who said the change fixed any issues of discrimination).
 * Btw, while reading about the oath and how it was changed, it also appears that Hadash chairman Mohammed Barakeh described the oath as "mega-racist legislation" prior to the change. As for opinions after it was changed, we can use something like this source: "Balad Chairman Jamal Zahalka added that the proposed change 'changes nothing.' The law, he said, 'Remains racist because it demands Palestinians debased themselves by pledging allegiance to the Jewish state. Obviously, most Jews would have no problem taking the oath, but if another country ever forced Jews to pledge allegiance to Christian or Muslim ideology, they would be accused of being anti-Semitic.'" We should also look if any of those condemning the oath before it was changed reaffirmed their stance after it was changed. ← George talk 12:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt responses to a proposed bill that was changed a week later have enduring notability. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt that its notability will last as well. However, if the proposal passes the Knesset, there will probably be significantly more coverage and criticism of it, which could change things. Long term, I don't think that this topic should warrant more than a paragraph in this article. An article on the oath itself could go into more detail though (if it receives sufficient coverage). ← George talk 12:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Has the bill actually changed? The article talks about writing an addition to the bill but that may require another cabinet vote before the bill is amended. I'm not up on my Israeli legislative procedure, but it doesn't sound like the change has occurred yet. Sol (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, no matter whether the law is changed or to be chnaged, we as wikieditors are not in position to judge on the morality of the law. The paragraph that I have proposed contains facts.--  Jim Fitzgerald   post  14:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

U.S. State Department: Israel is not a tolerant society
Perhaps of relevance to some of the issues covered in the current article (though the wording is couched in terms of discrimination rather than racism):


 * Haaretz - Akiva Eldar - U.S. State Department: Israel is not a tolerant society, 6 November 2009: Report claims Israel discriminates against Muslims, Reform Jews, Christians, women and Bedouin.

   ←   ZScarpia  00:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, so now reform Jews, adherents of Christianity and women are also "races"? Come on. Let's stick to sources who actually say something about racism. Discrimination is evil, and racist discrimination is sickening. But discrimination is not always racial. There are other articles for other types of discrimination. Marokwitz (talk) 06:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The (Haaretz14:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)) article is about discrimination in Israel in general. You say that "discrimination is not always racial". But, obviously, sometimes it is. And perhaps some of the types of discrimination described might be relevant. What, would you say, is a "race" and when does discrimination become "racial"? Would you define Jews, for instance, as a race, or, perhaps, as a number of races? Is antisemitism a form of racism? Could discrimination by Jews against non-Jews be legitimately described as racism?       ←   ZScarpia  13:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If this article is about discrimination in Israel in general, the why not rename it "discrimination in Israel" or, a more neutral name, "Human rights in Israel"? Oops, there is already such an article, isn't there?
 * Regarding your question, when does discrimination become "racial"? The answer is: when the reliable source says so.
 * Regarding your second question: Discrimination against Jews can be racist or non racist. Not all discrimination of Jews is antisemitism. For example, if an observant Jew cannot serve in the Swiss army because there is no Kosher food available, and as a consequence cannot benefit from Swiss army veteran privileges, then no, it's not racism. Possibly it is religious discrimination but not racism. If Qatar decides to fund only mosques and no churches, then it is not racism, it is religious discrimination against Christians. If women are discriminated against in Saudi Arabia, this is not racism, it is gender discrimination.   Marokwitz (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * To clarify, by article I meant the the Haaretz article, not the current Wikipedia article. Note that the Wikipedia article on racism says in its Lead: According to the United Nations conventions, there is no distinction between the term racial discrimination and ethnicity discrimination. Wouldn't you say that the Haaretz article, in part, is describing ethnic discrimination?      ←   ZScarpia  14:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * My opinion doesn't matter, since Wikipedia editors are not free to make such interpretations on what sources say. The UN convention for elimination of all forms of racism does indeed define "ethnic discrimination" as a form of racism, for it's own purposes, but this is not the standard dictionary definition of the word. The standard meaning is discrimination motivated by real or perceived racial differences. I think this has been discussed sufficiently above in this page. I have no objection to redefining the scope of this article to include all forms of ethnic discrimination and not only racism, but this would require renaming the article back to it's previous name. Marokwitz (talk) 14:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The standard definitions of "racism" do include "ethnic discrimination" and "racial discrimination". That conclusion is demonstrated by the consensus of WP editors above.   There are a couple of WP editors that want to pare-down this article, and they try to insist on a more restrictive definition of "racism", but they have not yet provided compelling evidence for the narrower definition.  In addition, the consensus achieved in the many other WP articles on "Racism in ..." (e.g. Racism in the United States) have adopted the broader definition of "racism".   If we want to use the more limited definition for all twenty "Racism in ..." articles, then the discussion should be publicized on all those article's Talk pages.  But we cannot single out one country for special treatment.  --Noleander (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Misleading article
This article is totally misleading as it speaks of racism by both Jews and Arabs as if both were remotely comparable in scope and character. Institutional racism by Jews against Arabs is pitifully undercovered, and some of the examples given of Arab racism against Jews (like the attempt by an MK to create an Arabic-language university) are simply ludicrous. The laws against racial incitement are cited, but no mention whatsoever is made of the fact that they're not applied against Jewish politicians and religious figures who incite to hate. Examples of Cabinet ministers making racist decisions or virulently hateful statements are not provided. All in all, the article gives a wrong impression of two competing hates while failing to convey the idea that it is the dominant group's hate which is overwhelmingly more likely to harm the minoritarian one. It's highly unencyclopedic in both form and content.--The Hasbara Buster (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes Very Misleading
There are many cases in this entry where information is left out so as to skew the bias towards the Palestinian sympathy. For example, on the subject of Zionism#Allegations of racism there is a quote from the Ron Rosenbaum book, "Those Who Forget the Past: The Question of Anti-Semitism." The quote is actually an except from a Portuguese author José Saramago, and the analysis which the beginning of the paragraph alludes to is no where to be found. The resulting effect is an extremely negative portrayal of Zionism as racism from a book which clearly leans in the other direction. I came across numerous examples of this type of bias and feel that this article is by and large not well balanced or maintained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.230.90.151 (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Better sources needed
Reenem: I've reverted some of your recent changes. The material looks like it might be okay, but there were a few issues: So, if you want to re-insert material, could you please make sure every sentence has a good (non-blog) source? Thanks. You did have a couple of good wording/grammar changes, but it was too difficult to tease those out and preserve them. --Noleander (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Using blogs as sources
 * Adding lots of material with no sources at all (e.g. intermarriage)
 * Removing material that was sourced (e.g. Or Inquiry)

Racist Internet comments
Not sure if this is notable enough to mention here, but right-wing Israelis recently made blatantly racist comments on Twitter aimed against Macy Gray. 173.165.239.237 (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Language displays pro-Israel bias
The language style adopted in the article shows a clear bias in favour of Israel. About anti-Arab gang attacks and vandalism, the text always suggests that they're perpetrated by small portions of Jews. Anti-Arab discrimination - for instance, in sport stadiums - is referred to as world-wide phenomenon, thus triviliazing incidences of such prejudice in Israel. Any and all attacks against Arabs are explained away either as isolated incidences driven by desperation, or as being the result of previous provocation by the Arabs attacked (e.g., the case of the Arab who was almost lynch mobbed for listening to loud music in a Jewish city during Yom Kippur day).

When addressing anti-Jewish discrimination on the part of Arabs, however, those scruples are dropped entirely. For instance, some authors' POVs on how dangerous Arab neighborhoods are to Jewish passerbies - that any Jew who dares enter an Arab area will possibly be killed - are presented as facts and no counterview to the assertions is brought about as happens on the sessions of the article dealing with discrimination by Jews. 187.112.8.220 (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've tagged the Incidents session of the Israeli Arab discrimination chapter as failing in being neutral and as presenting numerous broad statements that are unreferenced and biased. Whilst incidents of Jewish aggression against Arabs are always mitigated and explained in a manner that is often sympathetic to Jews - and that includes statements by Israeli Jewish persons and entities that blame Jewish violence on the Arabs targeted - instances of Arab aggression against Jews, on the other hand, are presented as being inherently racist and no Arab or pro-Arab perspective is offered on what moves Israeli Arabs to act vindictively against their Jewish countrymen.Guinsberg (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As explained on your talk page, you have also misused the citation needed template. You will need to remove those when a source is provided. If you are disputing that the source does not contain the information then use the not in citation given template.
 * In regards to the lopsided templates, instead of tagging it it might be better to seek consensus on different wording. Unfortunately, not everything will have a counter argument so neutralizing the wording is the only available option since removing sourced information is obviously not preferred. Furthermore, we are allowed to use sources even if they are from Israel. The sources you have shown concern with are generally considered reliable. Maybe it is lopsided due to reality? I really don;t know but I do know that I will be removing your tags if you do not propose alternate wording, a source with a counter argument, and/or line specific reasoning to remove. Will 24hrs be sufficient for you to track all that down? I would not mind holding off a couple days if you are willing to put in the effort.Cptnono (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip re the citation needed template.
 * As for the lopsided template, I must note that other parts of the article had been tagged as presenting unbalanced opinion prior to my edits. Curiously, it was only the parts of the article dealing with anti-Arab discrimination that were charged with being unbalanced - a further illustration of the phenomem I have pointed out: that the article deals with anti-Arab and anti-Jewish discrimination very differently. Will you remove them, too, and seek consensus on wording? Or will you do that only to my edits re anti-Arab discrimination by Jews?
 * You didn't address any of the concerns I had expressed above. I was not disputing the viability of referencing to any and all Israeli sources. Instead, I was disputing the viability of presenting un-scientific, personal Israeli Jewish opinions on Israeli Jewish violence/prejudice without offering opposing views, that is, views of Arab Palestinians or their advocates re the same issue. Failing to do so will make the article unduly favourable to Israeli views. Likewise, producing an article about an Israeli/Palestinian issue based only on Al Jazeera coverage or op-eds is bound to result in a rather one-sided, anti-Israel work - even though Al Jazeera itself is a renowned, popular news outlet that is also considered reliable on Wikipedia. Considering this, I will not allow any of my edits to be erased unless an objective, convincing reason is offered for that.
 * I must remind you that you erased an edit of mine on a Tel Aviv University poll without giving any reason for that. The poll was conducted by an Israeli university, the source about the study I referenced to was an Israeli news outlet, the edit properly reported the study's results and didn't contain any biased, weasel wording. I fail to understand why you singled that out for removal, and can only interpret such an action as disruptive. Guinsberg (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you do not provide specific reasoning or solutions (that do not include removing sourced content) for each template they will be removed. It is up to you now.
 * And since the other templates do not appear pointy, I am not concerned with them as much. Apologies if that seems crass but it is the truth. While removing the templates you added I will be sure to look into those as well. If a little bit of work on my end is what is needed to get you on board with some collaborative editing then it would be my pleasure. Cptnono (talk) 03:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What power do you have to decide on this article's fate so unilaterally? If I cannot remove edits that I deem unbalanced, neither can you. I have already given my reason for considering certain passages as unbalanced opinion. I see no reason for explaining my objections to each of them individually.
 * And please, explain why you had removed my paragraph about the Tel Aviv University poll. I'm yet to read anything from you about that. 186.212.104.16 (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The other tags might not be pointy to you. But your opinion is no more important than mine. You're not an administrator. You need to discuss your viewpoints instead of trying to impose them as if you possess some higher authority. If you remove my tags, I will remove the others, too. Guinsberg (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually was wrong to remove that poll. If you notice, I did not object to it when you violated 1/rr to reinsert it. I misread the diff and thought it was removal of information like the other edit was.
 * You have raised a concern. It is to vague. Unfortunately, what you request may not be possible as explained to you. So if you are going to add individual tags but not provide individual reasoning then I am going to remove them. The burden should be on you. As I said, if you are willing to play ball and try to improve it then I will be happy to assist. If you are only upset because you do not like what reliable sources say then there is nothing that can be done about it. But if you want to reword it or provide counter arguments then we are only improving the article by addressing it. Cptnono (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: I've looked into the poll itself to verify the numbers. Surprisingly, they are lightly different. It's 46% instead of 49.5% (Arabs should not be entitled to the same rights, p.17), and 52% instead of 56% (Arabs should not be eligible to the Knesset, p.19); it also says the results deviation is up to 4.5%. The poll (in Hebrew) is available here. If no one objects, I'm going to fix the numbers and reference the poll. I have my concerns, however, regarding the fact that it's not in English, that it is only available as a PowerPoint presentation, and that the numbers given by Haaretz are different, technically meaning that all this stuff is barely verifiable. Also, the poll contains 18 questions, 6 of them on racism. Presenting only two numbers out of 6 can be considered as cherry-picking. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Attending to Cptnono's demands
Here are my explanations re the tags I inserted and why I tried to remove a certain paragraph and still believe it should be removed. N1 - "However, Isi Leibler of the Jerusalem Center for Public affairs argues that Israeli Jews are troubled by 'increasingly hostile, even treasonable outbursts by Israeli Arabs against the state' while it is at war with neighboring countries,[11] and are genuinely worried, not racists.[12][unbalanced opinion]" I inserted the unbalanced opinion tag because the excerpt above is a personal, un-scientific opinion by an Israeli Jewish person possibily representing the views of an Israeli Jewish entity. An Israeli Arab, or pro-Arab, entity might have a different opinion on what are the cases of discrimination by Israeli Jews - that it is moved by nationalism, by ethnic or religious bigotry, by sense of superiority, and thus, such a phenomenon - namely, Jewish prejudice and violence - is not, mostly or at all, to be blamed on Arabs.

N2 - "Sam Lehman-Wilzig, Political Communications Professor at Bar-Ilan University, said that rioting is rare and alien to Jewish political society. 'The numbers (of riots) are so low because of our Jewish political culture which encourages protesting, but seriously discourages violent protest,' he said. He argues that the riots were caused since Israelis felt threatened by the 'pressure cooker syndrome' of fighting not just the Palestinians and Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrillas, but also the Israeli Arab population.[108][unbalanced opinion]" Why I had tried to remove the paragraph above from the article, I have already explained to you on your Talk page. The justification for the lopsided tag is the same that I used to explain its removal, and is very similar to that of the excerpt n1: it is a controversial, POV statement that can give ground to significant disagreements. Who said the number of Jewish violent protests is low? And even if it is, who said this is because of Jewish culture's restrictions re violent ways to express oneself? And considering that the person reporting such views is an Israeli Jew, he may be biased. One would also expect a Palestinian or Israeli Arab to explain Arab hostility toward Israel in a self-serving, biased manner - in a manner that differs from the Israeli Jewish opinion. Statements such as that and N1 are nothing but personal views. They should either be counterbalanced by an opposing perspective or be removed entirely. If not, the article's contents will lean to heavily towards Israeli Jewish opinions instead of being neutral.

N3 - "Most Israeli Jews do not try to purchase property in Arab localities or even try to enter them, and face possible violence and murder at the hands of residents if they do.[citation needed]"

Statement lacks citation.

N4 - "According to Steven Plaut, 'Jews cannot move into the Arab areas because they will be murdered if they move there. Every Israeli understands these unwritten 'rules of the game'',[unbalanced opinion] while Arutz Sheva writes that 'it is a well known fact in Israel that Jews who try to live in Arab villages risk their lives, while Arabs freely live in Jewish neighborhoods'.[unbalanced opinion]"

My objection to the above sentences is very similar to the ones I presented to N1 and N2. That's why I was resisting explaining each of the tags I had inserted: because the justifications for most of them are very similar. Is Steven Plaut's words on this subject a fact or a personal opinion? His wikipedia article reports that he's an economy professor. What kind of insight can he provide for this subject - violence against Jews in Arab neighborhoods - that one can expect to be objective? Wikipedia also informs he's been sued for insulting a pro-Palestinian Israeli academic - an insult for which he has been condemned. What sort of objectivity one can expect from him? This article has way too many instances where Israeli Jewish opinions are treated as facts and no Palestinian or Arab or pro-Arab counterview is presented as a way to achieve balance. As for Arutz Sheva, it is, according to its own wikipedia article, an Israeli online news outlet indetified with Religious Zionism. Again: is it an objective source from which to draw objective reporting on Israeli/Arab/Palestinian issues? May I also try and insert into this article views derived from Al Jazeera, Press TV, International Socialist, and so forth, and present them and objective without worrying to maintain balance by introducing opinions from Israeli, Zionist, or Jewish sources? Guinsberg (talk) 01:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The article is a coatrack-festival. If material doesn't have a source you can just remove it. You don't need to tag it or ask anyone. Just delete it. You aren't obliged to clean up other people's mess by looking for sources for the content they have added. The article is covered by discretionary sanctions and editors must comply with them. I've tried to make a start at taking out some of the unsourced content and more obvious silliness.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I full-on agree that if it is not a a source (make sure you check the source a line or two over) then it should go.Cptnono (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * N1: "The writer chairs the Diaspora-Israel relations committee of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, and is a veteran international Jewish leader." It does not need to be "scientific". It needs to be published in RS (as it is) and it is even attributed. The guy has clout. We can use his opinion and research even if it is biased as long as we do not mirror in tone that is not neutral. For the most part, that is done. However, I would remove "However" from the line since it casts doubt on the previous claim. However, that previous claim could use a "balanced opinion" if this line is removed. Modify the line to remove "However" and it is olden. "I don't like it" is not an argument so please make sure not to use it (yes, I note that you did not say that you didn't like it).Cptnono (talk) 03:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * N2: see above. Nothing wrong with using something like that as long as it is attributed. It is also from a scholar so it holds more weight than the one above according to many editors'. That is a very informative line. I think the quote should be reduced to give it less prominence. Of course, the line before it could be deleted which would negate the need for such a line. Reduce the quote or remove both lines?Cptnono (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * N4: Whether he is biased or not, he mirrors an opinion that is prominent enough. Have you considered expanding on this line? The guy is notable (not that it is exactly necessary) and the line is attributed. If you were to find similar information in RS that can be paraphrased without attribution then I would be cool with swapping it out. However, attribution could also be a good thing here since it casts doubts on the guy giving the quote. So find more sources to swap or leave as is?Cptnono (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems you're saying that, even though the quotes I singled out reflect an Israeli POV, given their origin, they are nonetheless source-material. Thanks for clearing that out. I guess, then, that there will be no objections if I made edits drawing from more Palestinian-friendly sources such as Al-Jazeera - which is exactly what I'm going to do the next days. Guinsberg (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Terror attacks
Terrorist attacks on Israelis by Palestinian groups could also be included in this article, depending on how racism is defined. If we consider that all antisemitism (including political antisemitism) is a subset of racism, then they can be considered as examples of racism.Wheatsing (talk) 10:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Discrimination vs Racism
Marokwitz deleted my entry about a parking lot in Jerusalem's Old City being recently set aside for the sole use of Jews. In many countries the use of a public good by a single group which is defined on the basis of ethnicity or religion would be regarded as racist. I had previously added the above information to Israel and the apartheid analogy, and that too was deleted by another user. Marokwitz argued that the word "racism" did not appear in the original source, hence it has no place on this page. It is however relevant for readers to know the extent of such discriminatory practices in Israel, irrespective of whether they are regarded as racist or not. On which page does that information fit? Should there be a separate page headed "Discrimination in Israel"? I note that "Discrimination in Israel" currently redirects to "Racism in Israel". Nescio vos (talk) 10:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. I think you are inaccurately interpreting the article.


 * 1) There is no reliable evidence for racism or discrimination presented in the article, other than vague claims by people who are involved in some real-estate dispute related to the ownership this parking lot.
 * 2) Furthermore from my understanding of the little available information, this is not truly a case of racism - there is one parking lot designated for the "Jewish Quarter residents", and another designated parking lot designated for the "Armenian Quarter Residents", regardless of the actual ethnicity of these residents. So this is more a conflict between city quarters on allocation of parking zones, than a case of racism by authorities. It is not automatically discriminatory to allocate a parking lot to residents of a certain area. It might be discriminatory in some cases, in theory, but you would need to present evidence based directly on what reliable sources say.
 * 3) Furthermore, even if your interpretation of the article was accurate, a controversy covered by a single, very recent source is insufficient for inclusion in this article. I've searched for additional reliable sources and found none. We should give due weight to material according to the coverage in reliable sources, Wikipedia is not a news source, nor a place to post every recent scandal. Marokwitz (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You should at least point out what is informing your points 1 and 2. The source for the removed paragraph states quite clearly that Armenians are feeling discriminated against and that such discrimination is, at least according to some of them, based not on residence, but on ethnicity."'Jews who live in the Muslim Quarter are allowed to park there, but I, who live right on top of the parking lot, am not allowed', said one Armenian interviewed by Haaretz." Guinsberg (talk) 06:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A single unnamed Armenian quoted as feeling discriminated against, is not sufficient evidence for inclusion in an encyclopedic article about Racism in Israel. People say and feel many things, but Wikipedia articles are written based on reliable sources, not the feelings of a single person which was cited in a single newspaper article. Marokwitz (talk) 09:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The article states protests have been made by a number of Armenians -- the feeling of discrimination is not confined to one single person. The above quote I adduced just to dispute your allegation that ethinic discrimination has nothing to do with Jerusalem's city council's decision, that the distinction is made on the basis of residence address. I'm still interested to know where did you get that from. Guinsberg (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is what I understood from the Jewish Quarter Development Company response at the end of the article. They stated that there are separate parking lots for the residents of each quarter. Marokwitz (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * When I read "The quarter's management decided we shouldn't park there; they just got rid of us. Jews who live in the Muslim Quarter are allowed to park there, but I, who live right on top of the parking lot, am not allowed." I certainly see discrimination (if not racism) in there. W\&#124;/haledad (Talk to me) 04:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what you or I "see" in there. WP:NOR prevents us from writing about what we infer from sources. We can only write about what the source says. If the source doesn't describe it as racism, it's original research (synthesis, to be precise) for us to describe it as such. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

JDL picture revisited
I'm tempted to ask... which race is targeted here and is Hebron in Israel? If the second answer is a "no" than is this within the scope of this article?--Kalsermar (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "...is Hebron in Israel?"; really, dear Kalsermar?! You want me to diff here the number times YOU of all people have claimed that Israel has sovereign control over the occupied territories "whether we like it or not"? And yes, I know that time again you have denied the Arabs and Palestians the right to claim "racism" (you really want me to diff that here?), when they are treated like this, but the truth is, that decent people do consider the discrimination of Arabs/Palestinians racism: Racism in the Palestinian territories. The fact that you even have to ask the question, is very telling. The fact that you are on a witch-hunt to get the pictures that show this vile JDL-signed genocidal graffiti removed from Wikipedia around the globe is really deploring but also very telling. W\&#124;/haledad (Talk to me) 06:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

As Hebron is the location of a major Israeli settlement, (see here), of course there is no question that events there are highly relevant to the situation in Israel. And while it may be true that neither Jews nor Arabs constitute a "race" in the strictly biological sense, noone will of course deny that both ethnical groups can be, and have been the victims of racism. Or would anyone claim that Hitlers hatred of Jews had nothing to do with racism? Paul K. (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Paul, but I want to make one small critique: Arabs and Jews are as much of a race as anything else. There is no "strict biological" definition of race and race has no genetic basis.  Race is a social construction, and these groups have certain become as racialized as latinos in America or any other group.  Greg Comlish (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Whaledad, no, but I would like to see a link that places Hebron in Israel.
 * Paul K. the first part of your comment might indeed make this appropriate for this article although I am not convinced. Other people's opinions would be helpful.


 * As for the second part of your comments. If someone is not being targeted for their race, how can they be victims of racism? The UN's equation of racial and ethnic discrimination might qualify this as racism. Here too I would welcome opinions from other editors.--Kalsermar (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This article has already settled the question of whether or not arabs constitute a race and concluded that the sociological construct of race applies to arabs. Now, some might argue that this image really ought to be added to the article on anti-arabism as well, and that's certainly something I am open to.  I can't ever say for sure, but I suspect that if Kalsermar continues to argue that point then I may come to that conclusion.  Greg Comlish (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds almost like a threat. The picture in question would be perfectly suited to Anti Arabism btw as that is exactly where it belongs, with a proper caption of course.--Kalsermar (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * East Jerusalem isn't in Israel either but it appears to be covered by this article. Just like Hebron, it is in the Israeli-occupied territories rather than in Israel. If the inclusion criteria for articles about the State of Israel are based on the notion of Israel as defined by the green line then fine but it would be good to be consistent across Wikipedia. Other articles such as Geography of Israel and Tourism in Israel don't use that approach. Perhaps these mismatches between article titles and content should be addressed and resolved centrally at WP:IPCOLL.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Geography of Israel should not deal with the territories. There is also a difference between East Jerusalem (annexed and considered part of Israel by Israel) and Hebron (not annexed and considered part of a future Palestinian state. A central resolution would indeed be helpful.--Kalsermar (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What Israel considers part of Israel isn't really relevant. Obviously the meaning of the word "Israel" in an article title is in Wikipedia's neutral unattributed narrative voice and therefore can't be defined simply by what Israel considers to be the case since we are governed by Wikipedia policy rather than the Israeli government. East Jerusalem is no more part of Israel than Hebron from Wikipedia's NPOV perspective. They are both over the green line in the occupied territories. If an article includes content about things across the green line it is no longer just about Israel.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 19:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's funny, never knew that NPOV means discounting the view of one of the two involved parties as well as the reality on the ground. What an idealistic world we live in. Things are not as they are but as we'd like them to be! Ignore the facts if that is what it takes.--Kalsermar (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Zionism is racism section
This is the current Zionism is racism section:
 * Some critics of Israel equate Zionism with racism, or describe Zionism itself as racist or discriminatory.[38] In 1975, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 3379, which concluded that "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination."[39][40] During debate on the resolution, U.S. ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan argued that Zionism "clearly is not a form of racism," defining racism as "an ideology... which favors discrimination on the grounds of alleged biological differences."[41] The resolution was revoked by Resolution 46/86 on December 16, 1991. Speaking to the General Assembly, George H. W. Bush said "...to equate Zionism with the intolerable sin of racism is to twist history and forget the terrible plight of Jews in World War II and indeed throughout history."

The text as it currently stands has three issues: it doesn't explain any of the arguments as to why Zionism has been equated with racism (even by reference); nearly everyone referenced in the paragraph doesn't live in Israel, and therefore isn't especially relevant to this article; and it lacks a brief statement of the role of Zionism in Israeli political life (yes, I know that seems obvious, but it's worth saying here). Knowing this is a controversy-filled page, let's try to workshop the text here on talk.--Carwil (talk) 13:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think your first and third points are valid. I'm not sure why the second matters.  People can have meaningful opinions about Zionism and racism even if they don't reside in Israel.  Greg Comlish (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Israel is a typical Middle Eastern country
A minority tribe/ethnic/religious group controls the government and gets special privileges. How is this any different from any other country in the Middle East for the past several thousand years? By not showing the similarities with everybody else in the neighborhood we are violating neutrality. Hcobb (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If a decent source has done a comparative analysis across the region we could include something from that I guess. Perhaps such a source is already in another article like Racism in the Middle East or one of the articles about racism in individual countries in the Middle East. The bulk of the comparative information would belong more in the Racism in the Middle East article though I would have thought. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Discrimination based on etnical group against russian speaking people against
Could someone please use the next sources to describe racism against FSU people ?

the next sources are in english, hebrew and Russian that deal with different types with discrimination based on ethical group


 * physical attacks against FSU people (murder, attacks etc..)


 * UNHCR report
 * UNHCR report
 * UNHCR report
 * russian panthers)
 * Lamerkhav:
 * articale about the russian panthers


 * governed discrimination (marriage)


 * חקר-סקר בירור יהדות עבור משרד הקליטה (resarch)
 * נייר עבודה (מחקר מקיף לשנים 2003-2005) בנושא בירורי יהדות
 * מרוויחים הגדולים מההצעה לנישואים אזרחיים הם דווקא העולים היהודים
 * מאות אלפי עולים יידרשו מעתה להוכיח את יהדותם בפני בית דין רבני לקראת החתונה, באמצעות מסירת פרטים אישיים של בני משפחה והצגת מסמכים ישנים. בתנועה הרפורמית מאיימים
 * search for the jewish mother (hebrew)
 * אחד/שני בני הזוג תושב/י אשדוד והינו/ם עולים חדשים משנת 1989 מברית המועצות - special rules for people origin in former soviet union


 * stereotypes (newspapers)


 * http://www.haaretz.co.il/misc/1.1189880
 * ארכיון וואלה המציג חמישה דפים עם הפניות לכתבות שונות המתייחסות למקרים שונים של אפלייה [ושבעה דפים על גזענות http://tags.walla.co.il/גזענות]
 * http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-2960755,00.html - כתבה על גזענות באשקלון נגד עולים מחבר העמים — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.226.48.129 (talk) 10:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Shame on this article
this article as of 27/april/2012 is a shame as it poses on the same ground the violence of the State, as mentioned in the discussion above,and the reaction of the discriminated people(the arabs). This is shameless you can't subvert the order of the time that places the creation of that abominium that is the state of israel before the violent but justified, if violence can be justified, reaction of arabs. And even if you don't consider that you can't put on the same level single people with the State the by its very nature should defend justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.1.91.168 (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for removal from Racism towards Jews polls section.
This should be removed. It has nothing to do with Racism. The 2008 Index of Arab-Jewish Relations in Israel by the Jewish-Arab Center found that 40.5% of the Arab citizens of Israel denied the Holocaust, up from 28% in 2006.[98][99] This report also states that "In Arab eyes disbelief in the very happening of the Shoah is not hate of Jews (embedded in the denial of the Shoah in the West) but rather a form of protest. Arabs not believing in the event of Shoah intend to express strong objection to the portrayal of the Jews as the ultimate victim and to the underrating of the Palestinians as a victim. They deny Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state that the Shoah gives legitimacy to."[99]. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Malha incident
This account needs to include subsequent police analysis of security cameras at the mall, which indicated that the Arab cleaning crew tried to initiate a violent confrontation with the Jewish soccer fans and chased after them with sticks. I'll try to track down English sources, but editors can Google-translate these sources to corroborate the above:
 * Police video: Arabs hitting, Beitar fans fleeing
 * Lynch at Malha? Jerusalem Police rule out
 * Police: "There was no lynch at Malha Mall"
 * Malha Mall: No pogrom and no lynch
 * Beitar fans: The Arabs planned the brawl—Biosketch (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Arutz Sheva is not a reliable source. Why have you deleted reliable sources and reliably sourced material and replaced it with material based on unreliable sources? Dlv999 (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Biosketch please self revert.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, this edit is highly problematic. For instance, reliable sources (e.g Haaretz, Times of Israel, the Guardian) all agree on "hundreds" of fans, while Arutz Sheva, an unreliable source claims "a few dozen". Your edit gives equal weight to the two claims, stating that between "a few dozen" and "hundreds". Dlv999 (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Dlv999, follow the Arutz Sheva ref. In the first place, it's incorrect to say that Arutz Sheva isn't a reliable source. The degree of its reliability is contingent on the content for which it's being used. For quoting "A spokesman for Israel Police Commissioner Yochanan Danino," it's reliable, and that's all it's being used for. The reason I've deleted the other RSes is because their reports were immediately after the incident and the accounts they presented differ radically from the sources published in April. In cases like this the newer sources supersede the older outdated ones.
 * Dldd, you can't just ask an editor to self-revert. There was a discussion started above yesterday that you ignored and reverted in disregard of. Formulate a valid reason for me self-reverting and I'll consider it with an open mind.—Biosketch (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that doesn't cut it. If reliable sources all agree there were hundreds of fans and one unreliable partisan source claims there were dozens, it is not ok to present both claims with equal weight. Also your claim of radically differing reports does is not supported buy the sources. The later Haaretz report is entirely consistent with its initial report. The later report states that after heavy criticism, the police attempted to downplay the events. But the police's version of events is contradicted in the report by eyewitnesses and security staff from the mall. The later Haaretz report also makes clear that the clip released by the police is insufficient to establish the events: "the lack of broad coverage by the security cameras makes it difficult to see what happened in large sections of the mall. In any case, the clip released by the police covers only about a minute of the half hour of events."Dlv999 (talk) 13:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Biosketch you stated above that this section needed to include later material. That is not what you have done.  You should not have removed RS material, and replaced it in the way you have done.  You should either revert, or add back the removed material, and merge .  We can then discuss the relability of your sources.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:POV
Calling Arutz Sheva an unreliable source is not an honest representation of the RSN discussion in which User:Dlv999 was involved just a couple of months ago. Dlv himself said of A7, "On topics relating to Israeli settlements and settlement activity it is clearly not third party (WP:3PARTY)." The Malha Mall incident doesn't relate to Israeli settlements or settlement activity in the least. More importantly, though, the uninvolved RSN contributor at that discussion had this advice to offer in relation to A7:

If an editor wants to attribute, go ahead and attribute. The point is to take what's ultimately an outdated, one-sided and therefore POV account of the mall incident and rewrite or complement it with content benefiting from a more recent and comprehensive and therefore NPOV perspective. Instead of actually addressing the concerns raised here initially, the revert back to the outdated and one-sided account now enshrines User:Dalai lama ding dong's POV edit. The following information needs to be incorporated into the article in order for it to meet NPOV: Are there any objections to the rewording introduced yesterday that aren't addressed in this comment, or any objections to the arguments formulated here?—Biosketch (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The number of soccer fans involved in the incident is currently given as "several hundred," based on Haaretz. The following sources give much lower numbers and need to be represented: Ynet, GLZ, Walla!, One, Mako, and there is the police spokesman quoted in Arutz Sheva – and that's without listing all the reports that don't quote any number at all, which is another way to NPOVize the article.
 * That the designation "Palestinian Arabs" is meaningful in this context is the POV of one of the two cited sources. It doesn't represent the perspective of RSes generally and needs to be removed or downgraded as far as weight.
 * The description of "Jerusalem's biggest ever ethnic clashes" is sensationalist writing that doesn't appear in any of the sources that report on the event with the benefit of hindsight, indicating it's one journalist's opinion and not something that can be given the kind of weight it's given currently.
 * The Guardian source that makes reference to the police needs to be complemented with the police's actual findings in the matter, as reported in all the RSes that followed the story into April.
 * Nothing in the current version of events mentions the security camera footage showing Arab cleaning workers swinging batons/broomsticks at the soccer fans, but this also is widely reported in the sources that continued covering the story into April.


 * Arutz Sheva is not a reliable source. It is not OK to delete reliable sources and replace them with unreliable ones. I am happy to go to RSN to get a wider community involvement on whether it is suitable in this instance if you so wish.
 * The "hundreds" is not based on "Haaretz" as you claim. It has already been pointed out to you in this discussion that the hundreds is agreed by Haaretz, the Guardian, and the Times of Israel, to them you can also add Ynet, The Independent, The Jewish Chronicle, The JTA, in fact as far as I am, aware, all reliable sources published in English on the topic have agreed that there were "hundreds".
 * Victims of the attacks are described as "Palestinian" by international news media reports including the Guardian and the Independent, so this is certainly a significant view published by RS and should be represented in the article. The purpose of Wikipedia is not simply to describe the Israeli perspective on events so we should take into account how these events have been reported outside Israel.
 * You say the Guardian's report should be "complemented" by the police's findings, but what you actually did was delete the source and the related material, which is not acceptable. The later developments as reported by Haaretz, are that the police attempted to downplay the incident after they had been heavily criticized by the media (which is entirely consistent with the earlier reports which you deleted). The police's version of events is not reported as fact by the RS, nor should it be by Wikipedia. We should follow the RS and describe it as the police attempt to downplay the incident.
 * The Haaretz quote is attributed to Haaretz, Haaretz was the newspaper that initially broke the story, they are an internationally recognized news media and undoubtedly a reliable source, so I am not sure I understand your concerns on this point. It seems odd that your edit removed an attributed quote to an internationally recognized news source but added unattributed material cited to a fringe source.
 * Your edit says that "Originally the press had been critical of the manner in which the Jerusalem police handled the incident", but there is no evidence that any media organisation withdrew its criticism, so that appears to be entirely your own OR. For instance see the Times of Israel report cited in your edit: "Officials and the media had criticized the police’s handling of the event. Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch condemned the police response last week, saying they should have done more to prevent the assault on the Arab employees." I don't get any sense that this criticism has been withdrawn.
 * I am entirely open to addressing any perceived POV issues you have with the current text. But POV issues are not solved by replacing one POV with another, or by deleting reliably sourced material and replacing it with material based on unreliable sources as you did in your previous edit. Dlv999 (talk) 10:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Arutz Sheva is a reliable source, both per Wikipedia's definition of what constitutes a reliable source and per the most recent RSN discussion concerning it. Wikipedia's criteria for reliable news sources are met owing to the reality that A7 has an editorial board. At RSN a single editor tried to argue that it isn't a reliable source and no one supported his position. Initiating an additional RSN to undermine what uninvolved editors had to say and what was agreed upon the last time around could be construed as filibustering, and summarizing an edit that added reliable sources as "adding unreliable sources" is misleading and spurious.
 * Note the dates corresponding to the reports of how many soccer fans were involved in the incident. Most of the sources that use the number hundreds are from March, very soon after the inciden: Ynet, 25 March; Independent, 24 March; Jewish Chronicle, 29 March; JTA, 23 March; Haaretz, 23 March; Guardian, 23 March. Some of these sources actually have the details wrong. They say no arrests were made, for example. We know from more recent sources that the police made several arrests in the weeks following, but the reports in the Guardian and Independent still say otherwise, nor do they report on the footage released after the incident. The more recent sources use different numbers when quantifying the soccer fans involved in the incident. Times of Israel and Haaretz say hundreds; the police say "scores"; Ynet, 4 April, "scores"; JTA, 9 April, "more than a hundred"; Mako, 4 April, "עשרות האוהדים, שקראו קריאות גזעניות" – "the scores of fans, who chanted racist chants." If the formula "mob of fans numbering in t
 * The Haaretz article from 4 April says that fans "allegedly assaulted Arab cleaning personnel." The Ynet article from 3 April says essentially the same thing: "תקפו לכאורה עשרות אוהדי בית"ר פועלי ניקיון ערבים" – "scores of Beitar fans purportedly attacked Arab cleaning workers." Channel 2 as well: "אחר כך, כך נטען, כמה מן האוהדים האלה, המשולהבים, עברו לתקוף כמה עובדים ערבים שעובדים בקניון מלחה והפליאו בהם את מכותיהם" – "After that, allegedly, a number of fans, the impassioned ones, proceeded to attack a number of Arab workers that work at Malha Mall and beat them profusely." Even the Guardian says "several hundred football fans who reportedly launched racially motivated attacks." The current version of the article describes the Arabs as shoppers and the assault as a simple fact – again, based primarily on outdated sources. This needs to be corrected and qualified: the Arab people weren't there shopping and there is an expression of reservation over whether they were attacked.
 * The current version doesn't include the facts reported by Ynet that (a) as part of its investigation, police also questioned Arab cleaning workers as suspects involved in the incident and (b) the soccer fans accused the Arab people of attacking them first before they started with the racist chanting.
 * The designation "Palestinian" is used by a small minority of sources that covered the incident and cannot remain per NPOV, or it needs to be indicated specifically who is calling them that.
 * Lastly, the article says nothing of the Arab people chasing the soccer fans with sticks, which every RS that covered the story in April reported.

Here is a proposed rewrite of the incident that employs the more recent reports or leaves out some of the issues disagreed upon, like quoting the police spokesman. Unless there are specific objections accompanied by constructive suggestions, if we cannot reach an agreement over the use of newer sources in the article, we may as well save ourselves the energy of further disagreements here and initiate an RfC or relocate the discussion to Dispute Resolution.
 * After a soccer game in March 2012, in which Beitar Jerusalem F.C. defeated a rival team at Jerusalem's Teddy Stadium, a group of fans numbering in the hundreds or, according to some reports, the dozens entered the nearby Malha Mall chanting racist slogans and allegedly attacked Arab cleaning workers, whom some reports described as Palestinians. The police was criticized for initially failing to make arrests; it later investigated the incident, issuing restraining orders against 20 soccer fans and questioning several suspects among the cleaning crew seen waving sticks at the fans. —Biosketch (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * the initial sources do say that the 'Arabs' were shoppers, they also refer to Arab cleaning workers who defended them by chasing off the Beitar fans. The fans then returned.  The fact that cleaning workers were intervewed is irrelevant, and it is your OR that they wte suspects. Your rewrite needs a lot of work to make it NPOV. I will attempt to do that.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * you will need to remove the hebrew source or provide a translation.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have the time to go through all of your argumentation right now, but just from a quick look, of the two sources you cite for the "dozens" claim, the JTA states that " more than 100 fans of Beitar Jerusalem stormed from their home base in Teddy Stadium after a game to the nearby Malha Mall, where they chanted racist slurs and some reportedly beat Arab mall workers.", the second is in Hebrew. I am not happy with the insertion of the "dozens" claim as so far all of the numerous reports published in English on the incident agree that there were at least 100 fans involved. Also perhaps we could include the quote from the JTA report that links the incident to the article topic: Dorit Abramowich, coordinator for Shutafut-Sharakah, the Arab-Jewish Coalition for Shared Democracy, says the violence at the mall is indicative of a larger problem.
 * "Israel is in the midst of a racism plague, and the events at the mall are part of an intense series of events in which threats, intimidation and humiliation of Arabs is becoming accepted behavior,” she said. “I am saddened that the police and the leadership of Beitar Jerusalem are not more concerned and seem not to understand that words lead to actions."Dlv999 (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not "his OR" that the cleaning workers were suspects. The last source (ynet) says they were questioned "under warning" which means they were warned the questioning may result in criminal charges. It's part of Israeli law that suspects must be warned. I also suggest you gentlemen watch the video from the Mako source. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Tel Aviv Race riots
Don't have time to add to the article right now but the May 2012 Race riots in south Tel Aviv is notable for the incidents section. Some sources:-

Dlv999 (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * African asylum seekers injured in Tel Aviv race riots
 * Anger, fear in south Tel Aviv after race riots
 * Tel Aviv race riots shock Israel
 * Tel Aviv race riot flags bitter immigration dispute
 * Outrage over attacks on Arabs and migrants after Tel Aviv riot
 * Levinsky park migrants live in fear after Tel Aviv race riots
 * Guards deployed in Tel Aviv after race riots
 * Peace Now: Investigate MKs for incitement to violence

a unique attempt to incorporate a nonwhite group as equal citizens with full rights
"The absorption of the Ethiopians into Israeli society marks a unique attempt to incorporate a nonwhite group as equal citizens with full rights as part of a Western predominantly white country."

Is this a joke? In what predominantly white country has this not been the case? This is hardly unique not to mention Israel is not geographically what is typically referred to western. I'm deleting this nonsense for the time being regardless of a single source stating this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.40.164.20 (talk) 03:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Why, yet again is there no mention
of the issues of Gentiles vs Jews?

[]

[]

[]

[]

Israeli Jewish sources openly talking about anti-Gentile racism present in the religious authority within the state.

Rabbi Aharon Shteinman

There are eight billion people in the world and what are they? Murderers, thieves, brainless people. But who is the essence of the world? Has God created the world for these murderers? For these evil-doers? Non-Jews have no connection to torah. The nations have nothing, no confidence and no good principles.

why is there absolutely no mention of this issue on any wikipedia page related to Jews, Judaism, Israel and racism, etc etc.

incredible... --Savakk (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)Savakk

RfC
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Trying to edit-war 972 mag sources into the article
User:186.212.137.65, Wikipedia considers reliable sources to be such things as books written by scholars, academic journals, news organizations, and so on. 972 is a collection of blogs, and Wikipedia has a policy that excludes blogs from being considered reliable. If you feel otherwise, you can take it up at the reliable sources noticeboard. But as things stand, you risk having your editing privileges suspended because you're in violation of the discretionary sanctions formulated to forestall edit wars such as you're engaging in. Read the sanctions at the top of this page. If you don't revert your edits and no one else reverts them for you within a reasonable time, what'll happen is that your account'll have to be blocked.—Biosketch (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been researching for more sources. I've added two more sources, one from Haaretz and another from the Jerusalem Post, where only 972mag links existed. It shouldn't be hard to find more, as the incidents were reported on some media oulets of repute. The racist nature of the incidents have been highlighted on some media outlets -- The Guardian, for example, has referred to the mob violence as "race riots" -- and thus they fit in well with the rest of the article and are revelant for inclusion. I thank for warning about the policies -- I'm not familiar with them. 186.212.137.65 (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In other words, you're projecting an extraordinary claim made by a single source onto every other source you found that covers the natives-illegals tension and doesn't make that claim. You were directed to WP:OR and WP:SYN, which if you had taken the time to read you'd have understood that the manner in which you're editing the article isn't acceptable here.—Biosketch (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Care to explain why? All I said is that one can also find in sources widely considered reliable the same information for which I had previously used only 972 mag links. There's no projecting, that's a malicious claim. Just read the links. I'm sorry that you don't like that the content is not pro-Israel enough, but the edits don't violate Wikipedia policies. 186.212.137.65 (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I can explain why, but you won't understand. You were warned in simple English that the article is governed by a restriction prohibiting you from making more than a single revert over a 24-hour period, but evidently you don't even understand what that means. I have very little confidence we can establish an intelligent dialog over what it means to project fringe claims made in one source onto other sources that don't make the same claim when you can't abide by a simple and straightforward 1RR restriction.—Biosketch (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute
Hi, I am enquiring about the location of the Neutrality Dispute regarding the "Racism in Sports" section of this page. The tag requests that the tag is not removed until the dispute has been resolved, but does not provide the location of the dispute. I have looked on the Talk page and can find nothing—the section is well-cited and it seems like the tag should be removed.--Soulparadox (talk) 04:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion petered out after User:Dlv999 said there was agreement among all the English sources that the number of Beitar fans was at least a hundred. I've modified what my proposal was at the time to accommodate what he perceived as being problematic about it. If there aren't any more objections, you can remove the Template:POV-section.—Biosketch (talk) 09:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the prompt response and I will leave the tag up for at least a week to allow for further discussion. Also, it might be worthwhile clarifying whether any arrests were eventually made.--Soulparadox (talk) 09:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Do Secular Israelis count?
http://www.haaretz.com/business/real-estate/secular-israelis-snapping-up-homes-in-town-planned-for-ultra-orthodox.premium-1.472817?localLinksEnabled=false


 * Does this go here or is there another article for jew on jew discrimination? Hcobb (talk) 11:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A lot of secular Jews certainly resent ultra-Orthodox Jews or feel awk around. I wouldn't say that article constitutes discrimination though. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Jethro  B  15:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This was an attempt to exclude them from subsidized housing. Hcobb (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this a matter of race or one of religion? I believe I would be referred to as a "Ashkenazi atheist" in Israel, where my race would be a non-issue but my faithlessness would be a cause of some friction. If the issue is proven notable, a new article Religious discrimination in Israel might be in order. I also wonder if this is a topic which might be a welcome sidebar in Discrimination against atheists. ClaudeReigns (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Error in the section "Between Jewish Groups"
This was originally written and sent to wikiepdia's email, and I am copying it here. Thanks in advence for reading. Hello, I would like to report an error of misleading information on the Wikipedia Article "Racism In Israel" - "Between Jewish Groups" It is stated there that the Ashkenazi Jews are racist against the Sefaradi Jews and that the Sefaradi Jews are often considered inferior because they are not white. THIS IS NOT TRUE AT ALL. I have been living in Israel all of my life, for 18 years now, and I have seen the following facts: -The Sefaradi Jews are the largest group in Israel. They are considered superior because of their strength. -The Racist war goes both ways. Which means the Sefaradi Jews also mock and control others. -Groups that are especially being mocked (and not the Sefaradi jews as stated) are the russian and ethiopian Jews. Russian jews are being mocked because of their different language, are being called alcoholics, sissys, girls are considered whores, smelly, disgusting etc. Ethiopian Jews are being called smelly, disgusting, stupid, criminals, primitive. Also the Ashkenazi Jews are being mocked, are referred to as sissys, feminine (as an insult), geeks, gays, etc. The Safaradi Jews are certainly not the poor group who is always made fun of and never fights back. It is mainly the opposite. The Olim Hadashim (New arrivals, mostly from Ethiopia and the Soviet Union) are considered to be the weak ones who are being mocked, mostly be the Sefaradi group. In Israel, unlike in the rest of the world, racism is not "the darker you are the more inferior you are", it is "the stronger and more aggressive you are the more superior you are". It is not a question of color, it is the question of how aggressive and dominant your culture is.

It is very insulting to read that the Ashkenazis, who are the ones who suffer from racism here in Israel, are considered to be racist towards the Sefaradi. PLEASE, change it. I couldn't change it because I have no idea how to write a formal Wikipedia article so I contacted you to change those lies.

I have seen many people suffer from the Sefardi Jews mocking them for being weak and silent. And now I read something that has no connection to reality. I am begging you to take my message seriously. It is a very important matter to me, being blamed for something I am suffering from myself. I am from Moldova (It is in Europe but I have soviet roots and my family speaks russian) thus I am considered both Russin and Ashkenazi, and I can assure you, that the racism towards us is much bigger than ours, especially from Sefaradi Jews. They outnumber us and are much more popular and dominant here in Israel. The Israeli culture mostly comes from Sefaradi Jews.

Thank you for the attention.
 * No problem. Welcome! What I would do as a newcomer, if I believed a fact was not being represented in an article, is first find sources for the fact, evaluate if they are reliable WP:RS, see if they are verifiable WP:V, and then either show them to another editor (if you don't like to code) or put them in the article yourself (if you do). I would be glad to help you. Do you know of a book or magazine or newspaper article which describes the situation you are talking about? ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The lede needs work
The statement "Racism against Arabs in Israel has also been claimed in personal attitudes, the media, education, immigration rights, housing,[4] social life and legal policies" lacks clarity in construction and fails to mention recurrent citations of the meme "Death to Arabs" (mavet la avarim). Seems like an important statement when summarizing racism towards Arabs in Israel if it's noted 9 times in the article. ClaudeReigns (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just figured out what has made the phrasing so awkward. There is some academic consensus around the idea that race is a useless term for discussion of relations, and that "ethnic relations" is in some circles preferred as a more constructive symbology. Which is why the seemingly fringe-y source in the first section can claim that Israel doesn't have racism, it has ethnic tension. I still don't buy it. I'm inclined to say something direct in the lede to the effect that Jews and Arabs in Israel have had problems getting along and it becomes evident when...(list). ClaudeReigns (talk) 11:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Recommend amending last sentence of lede
Rather than state a long list of related and unrelated things is claimed, summarize the clearest evidence of the article and explain why this is so. "There is some dispute as to whether or not conflict between Jews and Arabs in Israel can be considered racism per se. However, discriminatory Israeli policies and sometimes hateful personal attitudes towards Arabs reflect subtextually that many Israeli Jews perceive an existential threat from their Arab neighbors." I think this is both fair, evidence based, and takes no sides. I also think it is much clearer language. I would be interested to hear reactions and comments. ClaudeReigns (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Question
Cultural Marxists usually recognize the "right" of Ashkenazim in western countries to have higher incomes than most of the population although no explanation is ever given for why, no one ever seeks the improvement of non-Ashkenazi income in relation to Ashkenazim, no one ever complains that too much of the ivy league is dominated by Ashkenazis, ect. Why then, do they expect Sephardo-oriental Jews to have incomes that are the same as the Ashkenazim? Seems like a double standard here. John Kaine (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Talk pages are for suggesting changes to the article based on what reliable sources have to say about the subject. Which part of the article are you referring to specifically, what changes are you suggesting specifically and which reliable published source is the basis of your comment ? If you are not referring to the article and your comment is a personal view, please read WP:TALK and then delete your comment because it doesn't belong here. Or I can delete it for you. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 19:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am referring the the section "between Jewish groups," specifically the accusations of racism against Sephardi Jews by Ashkenazim and referring to the "gaps" in a similar way that gaps are refereed to when discussing the American White-Black "gaps." I'm wondering about the people who wrote this article, what justification do they have for this? It is the way the article is written rather than the "reliable sources" it has that is the problem. The article about Racism in America does not have information on the Ashkenazi-gentile gap even though a bajillion reliable sources could be produced showing it, because of the certain ideology I mentioned previously. I'm just wondering whether the double standard can be justified and I'd like to see the point addressed.John Kaine (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Damage control flies in the face of everything ever written
I usually avoid these kinds of topics because we all know the politics and the damage control. It is a shame because it violates Wikipedia policy in so many ways. Using an article for these agendas. You can randomly go to google anything and search Racism in Israel and what you will find is not "claims", you will find more than a minor issue with racism (esp with Arabs and Ethiopians), but here we have a total white wash, the second line is saying Israel has policies against racism. Yet Racism in the United States or any other country has in this tone. and there are admins watching this page (who should uphold Wiki standards). Racism in Israeli is documented by most (non-Zionist) as institutional and equivalent to Apartheid South Africa, yet this article does not reflect the plethora of dissenting opinions towards the Jewish State (yes that is the name). Apart from USA, there are so many books on this issue it shocking someone actually could write a lead like this. You have sterilization of Ethiopians and then I read "Some scholars say it is nothing special"--Inayity (talk) 07:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. This article is too fickle to be of much use. It's as if it's trying to say "yeah there is some racism, or maybe even quite a bit, buuuut if you think of it this way (list of statements) or hear the opinions of these people (list of names and quotes) then its not really that bad at all...." Patwinkle (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)