Talk:Racism in Israel/Archive 4

What about Ethiopian immigrants, Racism in Israel, Depo provera
Well I am an person of Asian origin and some Jewish orgin and Ethiopian people have not parties like Mizrahi to stand up for them, the point of view is written in European perspective and not Jewish Ethiopian perspective or Asian Jewish perspective. If I would write something in a view that would be for Jewish Ethiopian perspective. How can Asians be vandalism if it is freedom of neutral of speech, because I feel everytime when someone ads information it would be an European origine and their point of view. Can someone see that these point of views are Asian Jewish point of views for Ethiopian immigrants with neutral point of views. Don't you think Asian like me are more honest to write about Ethiopian immigrants and discrimination, must be of two point of views. Every Asian can see the Ethiopian immigrant discrmination topic and why should it be vandalism when it is helping the Ethipian women who have used the forbidden drug. Can someone maybe think once that what has rewritten is the real and the article should be how I have written and not like theirs. Can someone believe on Asian perspective. These are very neutral point of views and how can that be an act of vandalism, someone support me, think about the Ethiopian Jewish women who are suffering in Israel because of the Depo provera. Jewish doctors of Ashkenazi and Spehardic are ashamed, their acting on forbidden deeds who have given the drug to the Ethiopian women, you can't alow it to be written on a European Jewish side but only on a Ethiopian Jewish side or Asian, Asian Jewish side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.86.118 (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, your edits to the page were not helpful. Perhaps if you make a few small suggestions about how to improve the article, we can improve it together. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Racism in Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20011216035313/http://www.haaretzdaily.com:80/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?contrassID=3&itemNo=96428&listSrc=Y&sbSubContrassID=0&subContrassID=1 to http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=96428&contrassID=3&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090831132745/http://www.mfa.gov.il:80/mfa/mfaarchive/2000_2009/2000/2/israel%20government%20action%20in%20the%20arab%20sector%20-%20febr to http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2000/2/Israel%20Government%20Action%20in%20the%20Arab%20Sector%20-%20Febr

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Racism in Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121026012140/http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1014706.htm to http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1014706.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Link rot had already set in before url was archived. Worldbruce (talk) 05:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely no mention of the Ethiopian blood donation controversy?
When Ethiopian-born Jewish parliament member Pnina Tamano-Shata wanted to donate blood, she "was told that Israelis of Ethiopian origin were not allowed to donate for fear of spreading HIV". All this article contains on this bizarre matter is a depressingly short fragment that spends 90% of its words in defence of the practice by the ADL (because Ethiopians have more HIV and whatnot) rather than describing it. What is that all about? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Depo Provera prescription controversy
The first sentence of the article from The Independent:
 * Israel has admitted for the first time that it has been giving Ethiopian Jewish immigrants birth-control injections, often without their knowledge or consent.

"Without their consent" = "forcibly". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The independent article is sourced with Haaretz article which says "Health Ministry director general instructs all gynecologists in Israel's four health maintenance organizations not to inject women with long-acting contraceptive Depo-Provera if they do not understand ramifications of treatment." The sentence which I question is the following; I"n 2013, the Israeli government admitted it forcibly injected birth control to Ethiopian Jews." There is a huge difference between receiving treatment while "not understanding the ramifications of treatment" and forcefully injecting birth control which means that Israeli government acknowledged that it forcibly (by using force) injected birth control to Ethiopian Jews. The term "forcibly" I do find any official Israeli document. I nowhere find  that the government of Israel admitted forcibly  injecting Ethiopian Jews. The Telegraph article on same Haaretz publication says "Haaretz says the Ethiopian women were "coaxed" or "strongly convinced" to have the Depo-Provera shot, not forced. The idea that they were given it without their knowledge springs from the testimony of a few women who simply said "they weren't aware the shots were birth control"; that could be down to these individual women's lack of understanding or confusion, says Haaretz, since "the vast majority of the Ethiopian women who received Depo-Provera were aware it was birth control and received it willingly". However, even if they received treatment without knowledge or  understanding  ramifications, this is very much different from being forcibly  injected. If the Israeli government accepted responsibility for forcibly  injecting Ethiopians, (which does not seems to be the case) certainly such document should be added in references.--Tritomex (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken. The Independent article quotes the Haaretz article, but it's not "sourced" to it. There are facts in the Independent article that are not in the Haaretz article, such as the quote from Sharona Eliahu Chai.
 * You're also jive. In your edit summary, you wrote "I red [sic] all 3 sources and nowhere it says that Israeli government ADMITTED it FORCIBLY injected birth control."
 * The fact is, there was a source, quoted above, that says in its first sentence that the Israeli government admitted it forcibly injected birth control. What do we do on Wikipedia when there are conflicting sources? We report what the various sources say. We do not engage in original research, such as "I nowhere find that the government of Israel admitted forcibly injecting Ethiopian Jews." — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Just as an FYI, I argued that forced population control by race is a form of segregation. I am currently being overruled. So, if anyone else is interested in voicing their opinion, I invite them to visit here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Racial_segregation#Israel_doubtful.2C_some_cases_onlyTrinacrialucente (talk) 06:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You do realize that they didn't sterilize them... they gave them birth control. And because of fear of dengue and malaria in africa, not because they are black. --Monochrome _ Monitor  12:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have reliable sources for that reasoning? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The 1948 De Facto Constitution Guaranteed Civil Rights Regardless of Race
It specifically says the Declaration "will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex." — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoetheMoe25 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * So what? Do countries necessarily follow their constitutions? The American constitution guaranteed liberty, but millions of Africans were held as slaves. You're engaging in prohibited original research, and as I wrote in my edit summary, you're violating WP:LEAD. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, for proper context this Constitutional equality provision should be mentioned early in the article. Motsebboh (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz, I suggest you be a man and keep your child-like ranting to yourself. The American Constitution did not guarantee freedom from slavery until 1865 and legislation was passed to abolish the African slave trade in 1808. Not to be prejudice at all, but even your username hints at anti-Israel bias.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

After reading that message you sent to my user page, I now laugh at how much of a hypocrite you are. Apparently, you can't keep cool either. The text clearly states protection based on race, sex and religion. Though I can't prove this claim, maybe protection of religion was the reason why godless Moshe Dayan didn't tear down the Rock of the Dome when he captured it during the Six-Day War. The Black Power movement is lost. Grow up.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * What the fuck are you ranting about, JoetheShmoe? I'm talking about a Wikipedia policy called WP:No original research, which you violated by your addition of material sourced to a primary text. You also violated our WP:LEAD guideline. Would you care to address the substance of my message instead of making personal attacks? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

LOL. Please feed me more laughter from your hypocritical nonsense. You are clearly promoting propaganda and it needs to stop.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 02:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The first sentence of articles is supposed to summarise the content, not make a declaration. About the above, since you quoted the Israeli Declaration of Independence, Malik might have been better off quoting the American Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." and wondering how that was compatible with the slave trade. The fact that the US Constitution that followed even had clauses in support of the slave trade proves Malik's point, and so does the 18 years of military government imposed on Israeli Arabs. Zerotalk 02:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Zero000, but those are two entirely different Declarations of Independence you are sourcing. Israel doesn't have a de jure constitution and the 1948 Declaration is in fact the nation's de facto Constitution.. Despite Supreme Court decisions, Article 1 of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty and of the Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation enforce it further. I suggest you also keep your bias to yourself as well. You cannot save the dying New Left.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually it is the Basic Laws and not the DofI that are usually called the de-facto constitution of Israel, and as proof of that the High Court always gives the Basic Laws higher status. (I note that the source you gave agrees with me.) Another fact that disturbs your case is that almost all countries on Earth have constitutions that guarantee freedom from discrimination etc., including all Arab countries. The fact that such a statement exists says nothing at all about how well it is adhered to.  Jordan: "Jordanians are equal before the law, and whatever difference may exist amongst them in race, language or religion, no differentiation shall be made in their rights and duties." Lebanon: "All Lebanese are equal before the law. They equally enjoy civil and political rights and equally are bound by public obligations and duties without any distinction." Syria: "Citizens shall be equal in rights and duties without discrimination among them on grounds of sex, origin, language, religion or creed".  Egypt: "Citizens are equal before the law, possess equal rights and public duties, and may not be discriminated against on the basis of religion, belief, sex, origin, race, color, language, disability, social class, political or geographical affiliation, or for any other reason." Iraq: "Iraqis are equal before the law without discrimination based on gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, origin, color, religion, sect, belief or opinion, or economic or social status." For example. Zerotalk 03:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

LOL. It says "a series of decisions the Supreme Court ruled that the Proclamation of Independence does not have the validity of a constitutional law, and that it is not a supreme law, in light of which laws and regulations that contradict it are nullified. Nevertheless, article 1 of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty and of the Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation relates to the principles mentioned in the Proclamation of Independence as a normative source."
 * Amazing, you skipped right over the words "does not have the validity of a constitutional law" that disprove your point. The High Court cites the Basic Laws first and only refers to the DofI (and also to Jewish law) for general principles when legislation isn't clear on some point. I have read many judgments.  Anyway, the mention of the DofI in two Basic Laws dates from an amendment made in 1994. Zerotalk 03:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Did you not see that I typed "de facto" and stated "it does not have a de jure Constitution?" With regards to your reference of the nation's Basic Laws, I clearly typed that "Article 1 of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty and of the Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation enforce it further." It's time for the New Left to accept that they are now the Old Left.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Intra-Jewish racism: Racism between Jews
You forgot to mention a section about racism against Russian Jews. Sokuya (talk) 13:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

First photo
Why does the first photo show a picture of anti-racism when this is an article about racism? It's sort of misleading in that it portrays Israel as inherently anti-racist. Also, there is nothing in the article that mentions the photo, so it is a bit strange. Furthermore, there are no equivalent photos like that in the Racism in America article, or the Racism in Russia article. The photo's positioning seems odd, and if it must be kept, I suggest it be placed in another section of the article.Thanks. because the purpose of writing about racism is anti-racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.45.183 (talk) 10:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Racism is often a two way street
The first paragraph says: "More specifically in the Israeli context, however, racism in Israel refers to racism directed against Israeli Arabs by Israeli Jews"

This sets quite a biased tone toward the topic at the outset.

In my experience, being a member of the Chinese ethnic minority in modern New Zealand, I have experienced some racism and a similar statement could be said of New Zealand too, between its Caucasian majority and its ethnic minorities.

On the other hand, my grandparents and my uncles spent much time trying to pressure us into marrying someone Chinese. BTW, they weren't successful.

However the opening sentence obfuscates the fact that there is likely to be racism on the part of the minorities toward the Jewish majority.

I'd find it hard to believe that the ethnic minorities in Israel hold no prejudices or biases against Jews.

For example, does no Arab Israeli believe in the Blood Libel, that Jews control world media, the world economic system and that Jews are the ultimate enemy of humanity?

Therefore this sentence should be deleted in the interests of neutrality. I'm not saying there is no Israeli racism but equally I'm pretty sure that Racism in the Israeli context is definitely not just about racism toward minorities held or carried out by Jews. To imply that minorities don't have their own forms of racism is just not credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genghis7777 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It's a shame you stopped reading the second paragraph mid-sentence. In its entirety, it says:
 * More specifically in the Israeli context, however, racism in Israel refers to racism directed against Israeli Arabs by Israeli Jews, intra-Jewish racism between the various Jewish ethnic divisions (in particular against Ethiopian Jews, historic and current racism towards Mizrahi Jews and Jews of color), and racism on the part of Israeli Arabs against Israeli Jews.
 * This article attempts to address the variety of forms of racism that exist in Israel, not just anti-Arab racism. A glance at the table of contents would have shown you that. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Bibliography:

Sheen, David. "Black Lives Do Not Matter in Israel." GCC News | Al Jazeera. March 29, 2018. Accessed October 02, 2018. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/black-lives-matter-israel-180329061234932.html.

Melamed, Abraham. The Image of the Black in Jewish Culture: A History of the Other. London: Routledge Curzon, 2003.

Goldenberg, David M. The Curse of Ham. Princeton; Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2003.

Ben‐Eliezer, Uri. "Becoming a Black Jew: Cultural Racism and Anti‐racism in Contemporary Israel." Social Identities10, no. 2 (January 24, 2007): 245-66. Accessed October 2, 2018. doi:10.1080/1350463042000227371. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RockyDennistheMenace (talk • contribs) 23:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Needs Nation-state Bill Section
This article needs to be updated with a section on the newly passed Basic Law/Nation-state Bill. Being a Basic Law, this bill has the force of what in the United States would be referred to as a "Constitutional Amendment". This bill needs its own section because it marks a major milestone in the transformation of Israel's ethno-religious caste system. This Basic Law could be the only major constitutional development needed to change the Israeli system from a nominally equal system with Jewish privileges encoded by an informal, de facto regime based on institutional practices and individuals' attitudes, to a de jure system inscribed in Israel's legal foundation. It further demotes non-Jewish Israelis' legal status; authorizes the formation of segregated, Jewish-only communities; downgrades non-Hebrew languages; prioritizes "Israel’s Jewish nature over its democratic one". 2605:6000:E581:B00:F430:C2B3:FAC4:3BCC (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC) [] [] [] []
 * After a cursory read of the article, the absence of any mention of the Nationality Law and the fact that, in Israel, nationality and citizenship aren't the same was one omission I noticed. The other is the absence of any mention of the long history of anti-miscegenation activity by groups such as Lehava and Yad L’Achim.     ←   ZScarpia  16:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Where is the section about antipolonism in Israel?
As we know, there were many attacks on Polish tourists in Israel in recent years. Vast majority of these attacks was becuause of Polish ethnicity of the victims. Also, blaming Poles for the Holocaust which is a lie, and basic hate against Polish culture in Israel is overwhelming. This requires a section. 31.182.200.250 (talk) 13:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit request - typo (s)
In the section "Police brutality":
 * "Prime MInister" should be corrected to "Prime Minister".

Also, the victim's name is given as "[Damas] Pakedeh", but by the end of section there are two mentions of "Pakado" - should be explained and/or corrected if these are two different transcriptions of name of the same person - which is not quite clear from the current wording of the article.--90.179.120.43 (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Done! Thanks for reporting it. Zerotalk 01:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2020
Could someone revert this? It looks like someone self-promoting his own article. Those attacks are not motivated by racism, according to given sources, but pure vandalism, religious bigotry, satanism and crime in general. By putting this article in "See also" section, it gives the impression than racist Arabs are attacking synagogues, which is not the case according to article.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging, who may wish to respond. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you ., as Antisemitism in Israel redirects here, I added Timeline of attacks against synagogues in Israel here too. I had done so as the article had been tagged as an orphan. Chesdovi (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The see also section is for links that shouldn't be the article but relate to it. I wouldn't revert. 's talk page! 00:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Article merge
With the ongoing deletion of Israel and Islamophobia, I propose that article be merged into this article. Please show consensus. —184.145.29.17 (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)