Talk:Arab citizens of Israel/Archive 1

message: As far as I know some Israel-Arabs serve in the IDF, though they are not drafted. Jayjg 17:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point - and it turns out the Bedouin aren't actually drafted, though the Druze are. - Mustafaa 21:28, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Israeli Bedouin are not included in the compulsory army service act, but they can volunteer if they wish to serve. A few of them are accepted as volunteers to the IDF every year, though the vast majority do not serve. 212.179.238.155 00:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Israeli Arabs in the IDF

message: "bizarrely in the latter case" - is that really NPOV?
Actually, I suspect I was wrong.  I vaguely remember seeing some book treat them as separate, but I can't find any corroboration, and it would be a very strange thing to do. - Mustafaa 16:04, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "bizarrely in the latter case"? 

message: It seems that this whole article was placed here for the section about discrimination.
Isn't there anything else to say about israeli Arabs except a brief introduction and dive itno examples of discrimination ?
Maybe it is the whole identity of the Israeli arabs that is defined by their wish to be described as victims ? I don't think so. There is much more aspects of their lives that are not mentioned here. See the African Americans article and you will start to get an idea how a NPOV article should look like.
Either someone can do a much better job writing about this complex subject or this whole article should be removed. 
Zeq 19:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is plenty of information in the Hebrew version of this article. I suppose some of it can be translated into English. I'm afraid my English is simply not good enough. 212.179.229.188 02:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From these three sentences at any rate, your English sounds quite fine. Why not make an attempt at translation, put it on the talk page here, and other users can refine it? Palmiro | Talk 19:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The section in question was created by User:Alberuni, while banned, and then inserted by User:Yuber.  Of course the whole purpose is to POV the article. Jayjg (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course the article is inadequate, but there is nothing POV about the section in question, though the facts it includes may be inconvenient to the promotion of certain points of view. Palmiro | Talk 18:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Overweighting one aspect of a complex situation inevitably introduces POV; that was the whole point of adding the information.  I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say "the facts it includes may be inconvenient to the promotion of certain points of view" - it seems deliberately vague, yet insinuates something rather negative and conspiratorial at the same time. Jayjg (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: If it is "overweighting one aspect of a complex situation", may I suggest that the best way of dealing with that would be to introduce adequate coverage of the other aspects? I don;t think it is in itself introducing too much detail on this aspect for an encyclopedia article on the topic. Palmiro | Talk 19:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If???? The article tells us almost nothing about Israeli Arabs, and 3/4 of it is devoted to a description of discrimination against them, without any balance even in that.  If the encyclopedia article happened to be "Discrimination against Israeli Arabs", you might be on firmer ground, but this article is simply a farce. Jayjg (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  One big POV 

message: Which of them are not Palestinian Arabs? Palmiro | Talk 19:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Druze are arguable, as are Bedouins. Also, the introduction of the term POVs the discussion that follows. Jayjg (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see on what basis you argue that the Druze or Bedouin aren't Palestinian Arabs. They are Arabs from Palestine, which seems an adequate reason for using the term. Could you please elaborate? As for the discussion that follows, it is about self-identication, which is a somewhat different issue, and if we can't describe them as Palestinian Arabs on that basis, it would seem equally dubious to call them Israeli Arabs. Palmiro | Talk 14:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

text: You could read this article itself, or the related articles.  Bedouin are a distinct ethnic group from other Arabs, as are Druze, and self-identify as such.  Israeli-Arab is simply a statement of citizenship, Arabs who are citizens of Israel; Palestinian, on the other hand, is a statement of self-identity. Jayjg (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds rather like an updated version of Golda Meir's infamous jibe. I note your suggestion that I should read the article and related articles, and assure you that I've already done so. Palmiro | Talk 14:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palestinian Arabs? 

message: Some parts which made this article one sided were removed. Zeq 09:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zeq, the information you took out appeared to be accurate and from a reliable source, and highly salient to the topic. Discrimination is one of the main features of the life of Palestinian citizens of Israel. If you have an equally reliable source for information about discrimination in favour of Palestinian Israelis, or something else that you feel would balance the article, by all means balance the article by adding that in, not by taking things out. An anonymous user above suggested that the Hebrew article would be a good source of additional information. Why don't you look there (I presume you have Hebrew?) and if they were right and there is useful stuff there, make a rough translation of it and post it here? Then we can work on adding it into the article (provided of course that it is accurate, NPOV and verifiable). Palmiro | Talk 14:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The accuracy is not the issue. Cherrypicking just the info that demonstrate one POV is non neutral.
This whole article is now lacking many aspects and as such it only exist here to complain about discrimination. As such this whole article (or all the one sided info in it) should and will be deleted unless someone will take the time to write it in a NPOV way. Zeq 18:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, if you're well aware of what the article is lacking, why not add information (accurate, NPOV, verifiable information) to make up the lack? Or respond to my suggestion above? Palmiro | Talk 19:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Working on a more detailed article. Until it is ready removing one sided data.
If you want this article to exist it must be NPOV. Zeq 04:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I have reinserted an unjustified delete of perfectly sourced and relevant material. To  Zeq: it is considered very bad form to delete anything from an article without at least coping it into the "talk-space".  Having said that: I think you are on a much more constructive path when you add material, that when you cut it out. As for the material you have added; mostly ok, it seems, but a bit "bulky"? -some information comes twice. And it needs to be "wikified", of course. I´ll go through the article and insert my commens as invisible text (behind a <!- ): you must look at the "edit" verison to find them. Huldra 16:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Of course, even with the material that  Zeq added: there are still areas that are completely uncovered. I´m thinking particularely about the land-issue. However, I think we should all consentrate on getting the latest additions of text up in "ship-shape" before we think of adding more; I will, at least. Huldra 16:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Being bold 

message: I wonder if you read any of our messages for you? I have asked you PLEASE to help "clean-up" all that information -much of it contradictory- you copied into this article. This you have not done. Istead you leave this job to your co-editors (mainly Palmiro and me). If you were not on WP; well, then it could have been understandable. But you are here, editing. And not only editing: you are inserting edits in a very contested manner, indeed, I will not hesitate to call it pure POV-pushing. And this, while the article is mostly a complete mess with all the information you copied into it. I do not know how many hours I have spend on this article, trying to get  it readable by: 
*deviding it into categories, 
*finding and moving info. into their correct category, 
*removing information when exactly the same was/is beeing said three or four times, 
*pointing out to you in which cases you had given contradictary information,
*adding links and correcting spelling
And what do you do?? I had at least expected you to find out what is correct when you have given contradictary inf. given: eg.: is the Arab/(Muslim?) population estimated to become between 21% to 24% of Israel's population in  2020, OR is it estimated to become 24-26%?? Now, both are "true", courtesy of you. Is the birth rate 3.4%, or 3.6%? Again, now, both are also "true", courtesy of you.
The only section which is reasonabe readable now is the "Location"-section, and that is totally thanks to Palmiro and me. (You can thank Palmiro for managing to interpret your wrongly spelled names of cities (e.g.: Ramalah ->Ramleh). 
Organizing, editing and wikifying text is rarely  a very exciting thing to do. I can quite understand that it is much more interesting to insert inf. which suits ones view. I would like to spend my time here doing the same, but quite simply: I´m not selfish enough. And I would like to see WP become fine encyclopedia. 
Now: this is what I´m going to do: I will revert the "intro section" to the  Revision as of 15:53, 16 October 2005. This was the edit before all these edit-wars over this section started. I believe it is reasonbly neutral version (i.e. nobody is perfectly happy with it.....).  And: if you edit the least bit of this intro: well, then I´m out of this article. You can clean up your mess, all by yourself (If you don´t get Palmiro ..or others to help you.) But you can rest assured: if you as much as move/remove  a single letter of the " Discrimination Against Israeli Arabs"-section,  or the "Modifications to Citizenship and Entry law"  or "See also" and "External links": then expect it to be reverted. I will not sit by and idly watch you destroy perfectly wellwritten/wellsourced information. And if nothing more is done on this article: well; it will be as if you had not brought the info here at all: it is so confused and contradictory that people will ignore it. (And then go directly to the part that is crystal clear: the "Discrimination"-part. If that is the way you want it; well, so be it. I have better things to do on Wikipedia than fighting such &%$#*@$% as this.
Think about it. Huldra 08:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Enough is enough: message for [[User:Zeq|Zeq]]:''' 

message: ZEQ: we have a couple of problems here. 
*You deleted some of my additions to the introduction which were grounded on facts which are not only widely known but are cited in this article. When I pointed this out to you and reinserted them, you deleted them again without justifying this. Please don't do this sort of thing.
*Your data is inconsistent. That is why we have been deleting or commenting out bits of it. 
*Your presentation of the data is confusing. You mix up references to Arabs and to Muslims, which obviously aren't the same thing.
*You don't seem to have provided any source for some of your data. That means that we can't check back on it and sort out the problems of consistency etc. ourselves. If you have an English (or Arabic, or French) source available for your data on the internet or in a readily available publication, please let us know. That way we could far more easily collaborate on presenting it in a logical, coherent and comprehensible way.
*Even if your sources are in a language nobody here understands, such as (I imagine) Roma, you should still cite them. Also, while you've said that soome date comes from the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, you should really provide a link to the webpage(s) it's from or a page citation from a publication.
Apologies for the bolding, I am trying to point out where our problems lie and how we can try and fix them.
One other suggestion: clearly English isn't your native language and you may find the additional effort of trying to write accurate English while at the same time dealing with fairly complicated issues frustrating. If your sources are in Hebrew or some other language none of the editors here understands, you might be able to find someone elsewhere on wikipedia to help you with it. All the best, Palmiro | Talk 17:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems, another suggestion for Zeq

message: I realized afterwards that I had an edit conflict with you - I was trying to remove a redundant paragraph and fix some other wording, and didn't realize you had saved to that section also - my apologies... Ramallite (talk) 06:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Ynhockey 

message: I'm not sure that "martial law" is a legally correct term for the regime to which Israel Arabs were subjected until 1966.  I think that the legal basis was the Emergency regulations rather than a declaration of martial law.  I'll change it when I find a citable source.  --Zero 10:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martial Law 

message: As I have said above, I don't think a random remark by an Egyptian commentator is suitable for inclusion in this section, it appears only to insinuate that the growth of the Palestinian population in Israel is a threat, or even part of a conspiracy, against the state.  If the article is to discuss  the political controversy on this issue in a serious, honest and balanced way, then it should openly discuss the debate in Israel about demographics (or what's been termed Israel's status as a Jewish demographic state). This isn't the way to do it. Palmiro | Talk 19:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, am I the only person who feels that the way this information is presented and prioritised had very nasty undertones? Palmiro | Talk 19:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Odd, it seems rather triumphalist to me, just the opposite of your view. Jayjg (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demography and popuation growth 

message: Either the article should have POV tags on the sections in dispute, or one at the top, but not both.  Given the number of tags, I think one at the top would be better. Jayjg (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tags 

message: How interesting to see Zeq's prophecies coming true so quickly. Palmiro | Talk 21:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see Zeq's prophecy, but the anon has been warned. Jayjg (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They were in an edit summary, something to the effect of "this will be gone soon". Palmiro | Talk 11:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous deletions 

message: Jayjg, why did you revert the changes? I agree they might've been not quite as well worded as the original, but they certainly make the text more relevant. I mean, the entire paragraph:
:From 1947 to 1949 armed conflict took place between Jewish forces, Palestinian and other Arab irregulars and, at a later stage, the armies of neighbouring Arab states (see main article 1948 Arab-Israeli War). This resulted in the flight or expulsion of as many as 700,000 Palestinians from what became the State of Israel (see main article: Palestinian Exodus).
actually has nothing to do with Israeli Arabs in its current state. It basically states that 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled - how is this relevant to an article on Israeli Arabs? In other words, those who stayed? I think I made it more relevant by making the paragraph flow into the next (relevant) one; I'll highlight the 'connection words' - as a result of the war, territory fell under Israeli control, from which as many as 700,000 Arabs fled or were expelled. However, 150,000 stayed, were granted citizenship and became known as Israeli Arabs.Something like that anyway. Why do you feel it's worse than this version? -- Ynhockey || Talk 01:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin and history changes

message: I suggest everyone take a good look at the edit summary here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_exodus&diff=28491090&oldid=28489053
The same argument apply to the revent section in this article.
It can be both ways
If this article will turn into the "Nakba and discrimination" article we will also have to inculde symetriacl info in other articles. If we go into "roots and origin" as a top section we will inculde not only events in 1948 but also in 1938 (association with the Nazis) etc...
To Sum up: There ARE already articles about various subjects in wkipedia. If you will push your POV into each and every article on the conflict the whole set of articles will become un readable. So I apeal again to people like Jayjg who care about wikipedia: Either you interduce order into this blatent POV pushing (which is not supported btw, none of it) or you will have chaos not just on this article. The same editing methjods will be used all over the Israel Palestinian conflict.
Zeq 09:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the rubbish in this article 

message: There are so many different words floating around in this article, words/expressions which are not defined. E.g.:
*"natural reproduction rate"; I assume this is "crude birth rate", that is: the annual number of live births per thousand people.(?actually, I´m not quite sure what is meant by "natural reproduction rate" )
*"Infant death": use instead: infant mortality rate, defined as the annual number of deaths of children less than 1 year old per thousand live births
All these expressions are defined in the Demography-article, I will strongly advice everybody to follow the notation there. (and then we can wikify the words/expressions" at the same time.) Regards,Huldra 22:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Demography]]-article; please follow notation there 

message: The referene to the Druze as an ethnicity seems a bit dodgy - religious group or religious community seems better, or simply say "The Druze community..."
Not sure if those two people are worth mentioning, unless we can have articles on them. The Druze article, in fact, quotes a serious-looking source which claims that the Druze in Israel do indeed frequently consider themselves Arab. As for the comparison between Druze prospects in Syria, Lebanon, and Israel, this is bound to be tricky and I'm not sure if it's really necessary in this article. 
I think the division between the Christians and Muslims is not necessary; it is not of the same order as that between both and the Druze and Bedouin. Even if the Christians and Muslims have different demographic characteristics and, to some extent, political differences (stronger communist support among the Christians I seem to recall, definitely presence of the Islamic movement confined to Muslims) they are really not separate communities (especially not in self-identity) the way the others are. Palmiro | Talk 01:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The druze did not allow any converstion into their religion since the 12 century. So they are by now a distict entnithity. Zeq 05:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a non sequitur. Palmiro | Talk 10:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Druze, Christians and Muslims 

message: :Main article History of Israel.
=== Historical roots ===
etc, etc,
:::::Doesn´t this make it more readable? Eh, well, take a look at the article, and see what I mean. ;-) Regards, Huldra 00:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the change per Wikipedia policy (avoid links in page titles), but actually this isn't optimal because it suggests that the link is an article on Israeli Druze/Bedouins, while actually it's about their groups in general. -- Ynhockey || Talk 00:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I see, but perhaps it could be written: "see General article about Druze", or something like that? Also; I see the ref. to the Druze book disappeared in some revert; I placed a note  to Zeq asking him to reinsert it/explain why it was cut (see below). This he has not done. On my last version  the ref. is still there. Regards, Huldra 01:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: etc, etc,
:::::Doesn´t this make it more readable? Eh, well, take a look at the article, and see what I mean. ;-) Regards, Huldra 00:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the change per Wikipedia policy (avoid links in page titles), but actually this isn't optimal because it suggests that the link is an article on Israeli Druze/Bedouins, while actually it's about their groups in general. -- Ynhockey || Talk 00:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I see, but perhaps it could be written: "see General article about Druze", or something like that? Also; I see the ref. to the Druze book disappeared in some revert; I placed a note  to Zeq asking him to reinsert it/explain why it was cut (see below). This he has not done. On my last version  the ref. is still there. Regards, Huldra 01:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical roots 

message: Plamiro,
Before I start reediting your sections I want to verify that what you wrote there fits the source.
Can you provide a link to the source for what you claim in thse sections ? We need to see if indeed the source is so "one sided" or maybe in other ssections (which you did not quote) there are other Point of views. This goes to a core Wikipedia policy of verifyablity since we are not a source (and we don't even have here a translation of that whole source) Thank you. Zeq 13:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The ISBN numbers of the two books function as wikilinks to a special "Book sources" page. Palmiro | Talk 15:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  but this is ENGLISH wiki and people have hard to time to access and read in French. My French is limited, can you post the original in French and I will make an effort Zeq 15:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I have actually posted a query on Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability about the use of foreign language sources, since the policyas being cited was not at all clear to me. Palmiro | Talk 15:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am by no mean an expert but reading through similar cases what you need to do is provide direct quotes of the material, quotes that are as complete as possible to the subject matter. These quotes can be evaluated and a summary can be made by others and you. Zeq 15:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I still have a major problem with verifyability of these sections. Plamiro are you providing a link to sourceor to translation ? Zeq 07:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you like, I will cite and translate some of the relevant material in the next couple of days. The library I found the books in is closed today. Please indicate what exactly you want to know. In the meantime, perhaps you could oblige us by telling us your source for the material you inserted in this edit. Palmiro | Talk 11:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifyability ? 

message: Palmiro, we discussed the intro at great length. Many took part inbring it to the way it is and it was discussed.
If you want to make changes in this article I suggest you:
1. discuss them first here
2. Focus on the disputed sections. (which if not fixed will be removed)
Thanks,
Zeq 16:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason this article is at all readable is because another user went to a considerable amount of trouble to make sense of your contributions, so your hectoring tone is a bit rich. Please cite evidence for your edits indicating that the Druze were not part of the Arab Palestinian population remaining within the 1949 armistice lines, that immigration since 1949 is the origin for a signifiant part of the Arab population of Israel, and that Israeli Arabs family ties are more notably with the Palestinians of the occupied territories than with those exiled from their own villages, who were in many cases members of the same families. I don't recall this idyllic age of collaboration in which you made these edits originally. This is what the introduction looked like not much more than a week ago, and there doesn;t seem to have been massive discussion of it since. Palmiro | Talk 11:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not true. This article was poorly written when i started with it (only had info about "discrimination") after my additions Huldra requested changes (see talk above) which were addressed. We reached some delicate balance and a failrly non POV article existed.  After your addition it afagain become one sided. I suggest you review Wikipedia policy that i put on your talk page: There is no way you can eventually get this article to fit your one sided view . Only non POV article will stay. I  strongly  suggest that if you want any of your additions to stay for the long run you will:
 1. Edit them to become non POV
 2. Provide complete source for verifiablity  
Zeq 13:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am sure that this is how you want this article to look like:
But it would not fly. This article was poorly written the way you had a month ago and I will not let you destroy it again to be just another one side article as you intend it to. Focus on fixing your additions. That is my sugggestion. Zeq 13:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I've invited you above to indicate specific problems you have with my additions, or better yet, go off and find reasonable sources that discuss the issue. Making ludicrous claims of Marxist propaganda won't help us, especially when everyone knows that I am in fact an anarcho-syndicalist. Palmiro | Talk 13:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well excuse me for not seeing the distinction between "anarcho-syndicalist" to "marxist" or other type of comunists. In any case I have started to remove the  glarying POV and non verifyable and non important and non jermain to the issue from your additions. This work will continue and you are welcome to take part in it. I suggest you discuss your changes as I have done. BTW, when you have a good point (like ties of israeli arabs not just to west bank but to wider Arab) world I am happy to cooperate with you (in a  non-POV way of course) Zeq 14:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please discuss changes on sections that have already been agreed upon 

message: *1) I also think that Arab growth rate would be more relevant to the article on the whole, but I think the figure was originally given to illustrate that Muslims are growing at a far faster rate than Jews. Whether this is necessary or not, I don't know.
*2) Yes of course, I'll change it now. Didn't notice.
*3) Probably, although CBS compiles yearly statistics and then publishes them in the middle of next year. So, in about summer 2006 we will just look at the 2005 CBS yearbook. But I guess someone not familiar with CBS won't know this.
*4) I'm fairly sure that annual growth means just that - it takes the population of the previous year, as opposed to the new year, and calculates a percentage. As you can see, the Judea and Samaria growth rate is astronomical (over 5%), which is probably a result of migration. I could be wrong though. I'll look around the CBS website and see if I can find out for sure.
The source can actually be found easily on the CBS website, I think there's an English version. That PDF file will not change next year, it will stay as an archive in the same URL, and new statistics for 2005 will be posted in a different URL, so a new ref will need to be added. However, I don't oppose the ref being on the page in principle. 
-- Ynhockey 05:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographics

message: I have started to deal with the disputed sections since Palmiro refuse to do it. So among others I have removed such nonsense as there is no Palestinian elite inside Israel - this is an insult to many leaders, doctors artists and clerics of the Israeli arab population. They have elite. Some of this elite is also in the elite of Israel (like auther Sayed Kishua and legislator Ahmed Tibi)
Zeq 14:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Palestinian elite were no longer present" ??? I don't think so 

message: For those who read Hebrew:
13.09.05, 21:42 YNET 
אחרי 57 שנות קיום החליטה מדינת ישראל להכיר בכפר עין-חוד, כפר קטן בן כ-200 תושבים המצוי בפארק הכרמל. הכפר יצורף למועצה האזורית חוף הכרמל. שר הפנים: אנחנו מתקנים עוול היסטורי שר הפנים, אופיר
פז-פינס, הוציא הבוקר (ג´) לפועל הבטחה ישנה שנתן ראש הממשלה המנוח יצחק רבין לתושבי הכפר הלא-מוכר עין-חוד: השר חתם על צו בו מכירה ישראל לראשונה ביישוב הקטן אשר בפארק הכרמל. מעתה ישתייך הכפר, על מאתיים תושביו, למועצה האזורית חוף הכרמל. הישוב עין חוד שעל הר הכרמל נוסד בשנת 1948 על-ידי פליטים פלסטינים שנמלטו מבתיהם באזור הכרמל. מאז הוקם הכפר ביקשו תושביו את הכרת המדינה אך לא זכו לה. יישובים אחרים שהוקמו בחטף, בלא אישורים ובלא תכניות בנייה מסודרות, היו ברי מזל יותר מעמיתיהם בעין-חוד. גם כאשר הוקם פארק הכרמל, בשנת 1971, סירבו רשויות החוק ונציגי המועצה האזורית להכיר בכפר ולא כללו אותו בתחום המוניציפלי של הפארק. לטענת מקימי הפארק, הכפר נמצא בתוך הפארק ולכן לא הסכימו להכיר בו כישות מוניציפלית נפרדת. לאחרונה הודיעה המועצה האזורית חוף הכרמל למשרד הפנים כי אין לה עוד התנגדות לצרוף עין חוד למועצה כיישוב מוכר מן המניין. כל היישובים הנמנים על המועצה הביעו גם הם נכונות להכיר בעין חוד. כתוצאה מכך, הכיר השר בעין חוד כוועד מקומי, וגבולותיו הם אלו שאושרו במנהל התכנון בדצמבר 2004. הכפרים הלא-מוכרים סובלים מתשתית תכנונית גרועה, מהיעדר שרותים מוניציפליים בסיסיים, מהיעדר כבישים סלולים ומדרכי עפר רבות. לעיתים מצטרף לכך מחסור חמור בבתי ספר וכיתות לימוד. פני מספר שבועות חתם פינס על הכרה בעיר הדרומית אום-בטין שבנגב, אליה החלו לעבור בדואים רבים מהאזור. לפני-כן, בחודש מאי, חתם השר פינס על החזרתם של 11 אלף דונם שטחי אש צה"ליים לידי ישובי ואדי ערה , לאחר שהופקעו מהם בידי המדינה בשנות ה-60´. גם החלטה זו התקבלה לראשונה בתקופת ראש הממשלה רבין. עם החתימה על הצווים והמפות אמר פינס כי "מדובר בתיקון העוול ההיסטורי שנגרם לתושבי עין חוד. אני שמח כי לאחר שנים רבות של הזנחה סוף סוף זוכים התושבים להכרה מוניציפאלית ואיתה למועצה שתדאג לצורכיהם". נוסף על ההכרה בעין-חוד צירף השר פינס לתחומי המועצה האזורית חוף הכרמל את השכונות 11 ו-13 של קיסריה, אשר היוו עד היום חלק מן החברה לפיתוח קיסריה. ההחלטה לצרף את השכונות למועצת חוף הכרמל התקבלה כבר בחודש ינואר 2004, לאחר שוועדת חקירה לגבולות מועצות האזור המליצה לעשות כן. אז הוחלט, כי שתי שכונות אלו יצורפו לחוף הכרמל, אך ימשיכו לקבל את השירותים השונים מן הרשות המנהלת את קיסריה, היא החברה לפיתוח קיסריה.
It is a long text but any hebrew reader can tell you it talks about the govrement fixing past wrong doing and restoring villages like Ein Hod (that was mentioned in Palmiro text). I strgly suggest to everyone to read the full story by looking up the Nkaba article. Zeq 14:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  We are not in 1948 any more things have changed. get an update: Ein KHod residents are there in Ein KHod and the Palestinians in Israel  have  a political Elite. Zeq 15:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please try and relate your comments to either this dialogue or the article, or, better yet, both? There's not much point in me responding to you if your side of the conversation is completely irrelevant to each previous exchange. Palmiro | Talk 18:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your writing just do not fit reality (and they add no value to a potential reader) that is all: Ein KHod was resettled by it's orginal families many years ago and it was un-recognized but now the goverment fix this and political leadership (that you claimed dispeared) we talked already.  Zeq 20:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Ein Hod 

message: As a new Wikipedian, I will try to lean on the side of caution in
this response regarding what is obviously a sensitive and
much-revised entry. However, I would collegially urge that the
following passage in the section "Modifications to Citizenship and
Entry Law" is a POV which should be balanced by other POV's in the
quest for NPOV:
"As the world's only Jewish state, (compared to many Arab, Moslem 
and Christian states), Israel has the natural right to adopt 
policies necessary to maintain its unique historic and cultural 
identity." 
For NPOV, this should be balanced by perspectives holding that
Israeli Jews indeed have the right to their cultural, civil, and
national identity in a democratic and binational state -- as do 
also the Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel, as well as the 
refugees of the Palestinian exodus or Nakba who wish to 
exercise the Right of return to their ancestral localities.
Since many Palestinian citizens of Israel (e.g. the National
Democratic Assembly or Balad Party), as well as some Israeli
Jews, favor a Binational solution in which the equal 
citizenship and nationality rights of both peoples would be 
protected regardless of the demographic balance at a given point, 
this POV should surely be represented in an entry about the 
Palestinian citizens of Israel. 
For example, a useful source expressing this alternative view is
As'ad Ghanem, "Toward Fulfilling the Right to Be Included: The 
Arabs' Future in a Binational State," a chapter in his book The
Palestinian Arab Minority in Israel, 1948-2000: A Political 
Study (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2001), 
pp. 175-200, finding that the Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel 
"overwhelmingly support the establishment of a binational, 
Jewish-Arab state, within Israel (inside the Green Line)."
Again, I write this realizing that the "demographic question" in
Palestine/Israel is an issue where NPOV balance can be difficult, 
and necessarily ties in with assorted other controversies. The 
portion of the article I quoted has a place as one side of the 
debate, and should be balanced with other viewpoints.
Most appreciatively,
Margo 05:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the bi-national solution lost all of its support ages ago. Everyone now knows it's not viable, and neither the Palestinian nor the Israeli side want it. Some Arab-Israelis might, but I wouldn't say an 'overwhelming majority', not to mention not all Arab-Israelis consider themselves Palestinian, therefore I think Asad Ghanem's book should be taken with a grain of salt. Having said that, you can add whatever you want to the article, as long as it's accurate information, relevant to the articly, and doesn't have a clear POV tone. -- Ynhockey 07:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV issue: "Modifications to Citizenship and Entry Law" 

message: The article as it stands now is, IMO, outrageously bad. The basic facts and figures are not in place, while a lot of what I would not hesitate to call POV-pushing is. I´ll start working (again) on the article in a day or three: in the meantime I´ve added  a  npov tag. (Who removed it, in the first place?) Regards, Huldra 11:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that the NPOV (or rather, POV) tag should be added, your examples aren't really the reason. I don't know how many would confused Mizrahi Jews with Arabs, but I don't see a reason why there shouldn't be a sentence of clarification - after all, those who would confuse the two do exist, at least within Israel. Notably, there is a sizable amount of old Ashkenazi Jews who refer to Mizrahi Jews as Arabs. As for the second example, maybe it should be re-worded, but I think the person who added it (Zeq?) meant that they are citizens as opposed to 'premanent residents', which is the same only you can't vote or be elected - the status which many Arabs in East Jerusalem have. -- Ynhockey 13:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: On a side note, who removed the part that 'they are not to be confused with Palestinians who live in the West Bank and Gaza Strip'? I've personally talked to dozens of people who confused the two, and it was still removed... It's actually a very common misconception. What's up? -- Ynhockey 14:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Will you please point out what exactly you're talking about? -- Ynhockey 14:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  What you wrote for example "there is a sizable amount of old Ashkenazi Jews who refer to Mizrahi Jews as Arabs" is OR. Zeq 15:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:   npov added 

message: When Hamas apeal to the Israeli arab: "You strive to destroy Israel from the inside, we will never forget you and won't stop until we raise the Palestinian flag above the iisraeli cities of Acre, Haifa etc.. (where there is a large Palestinian (israeli Arab population) this is a quote that is important to anyone who want to understand the delicate situation in which Israeli Arabs are in.   The world is not black and white. There is not just one side. The Israeli arab population is not made off of more than one view and is subject to many types of manipulation, some of it by hamas retorics and operations. This is one aspect of being an Israeli arab and everyone is welcome to add other aspects. Zeq 15:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For once I actually agree with Zeq about the section - it's important to mention the Israeli Arab position in relation to terrorism in this article. However, the 2nd paragraph (new one with Hamas) should be re-written, it's pretty difficult to read and understand as it is now. -- Ynhockey 11:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that it is an important topic, but Zeq is not trying to present it.  He is trying to portray Israeli Arabs as Hamas supporters without the least attempt at balance.  In fact Hamas is only supported by a small percentage of Israeli Arabs, and Israeli Arabs have frequently been among the victims of Hamas attacks.  These are facts that Zeq is not interested in presenting.  --Zero 11:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  No . I am not tyrying to "portray" them as that (or anything else). What I put are quotes about the complex reality they are in including the set of different tyopes of pressure thir complex situation creates. Pressure coming from many sides. Zeq 15:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I accept Ynhockey suggestion and looking for rewording of the Hamas section. Zeq 16:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is it relevant 

message: I see 0 discussion here. We'll attempt unprotection. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotecting 

message: I have been very tolrent but enough is enough. This woman (the terrorist) was convicted. The new paper link no longer exist.So I provided a link in English to the day she was charged and two links in Hebrew to the fact she was convicted. Isn't it enough. Why is it that in Enlish Wikipedia everything has tobecome an edit war ??????????  Zeq 05:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AH, now you are changing the story: your edit-line said: "22:05, 17 February 2006 Zeq (Huldra. Read the text carefully. It is there. If you still have doubts use talk.)" ....and I did indeed read the text very</I> carefully. And the info which you inserted simply was NOT there in the English links. Zeq; when you make a false statements in such a controversial area as this; then I really think it is way, way, WAY over the line to talk about "abuse" when you are reverted! (Or do you think I read hebrew??) Huldra 08:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huldra, sources don't have to be in English. They should be, whenever possible, but if the only source on an issue worth including is in another language, it's permitted. See WP:V. If you have your doubts, perhaps you could ask someone you know speaks Hebrew to translate, or find someone on the Hebrew Wikipedia. But I can't imagine Zeq would simply invent the conviction. WP:CIV. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be glad to recomens several people who can translate. Zeq 06:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The woman was convicted, and was sentenced to 17 years, as the article states. Jayjg (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enough with the abuse please 

message: Just a reminder that you DON'T own wikipedia. I don't know why you weren't advised to let this article be the minute you ripped that info from the Israeli MFA in clear violation of their copyright laws. 
You have constantly attacked other members of this forum so you probably wouldn't mind if you were treated the same way, would you? What's fair is fair, right? So here goes it: 
You have NO concept of the definition of good writing. 
No concept of what constitutes a valid argument. 
No concept of civility or respect for fellow Wikipedians. 
No concept of neutrality. 
I still don't know what qualifications you have to be writing this article, let alone contribute to it to this extent. I use "contribute" loosly, because anyone can cut and paste. If you DO represent the Israeli MFA in any shape or form or if you ARE an employee of the MFA then perhaps you should consider giving this "crusade" of yours a rest. Because, it ain't working and your arguemnts, personal attacks and bias all smell like government propaganda.-Preceding unsigned comment was written by User:Cyclopath
Yea and cyclopath clearly is interested in wikipedia policy.  Why can't we all be as convincing writers as him.  I especially like his coherant argument in the Baruch Goldstein article .- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zeq,