Talk:Arab citizens of Israel/Archive 3

message: In the context of the complete destruction of an unrecognised Bedouin village a week or two ago, it is a relief to learn in this article just how wonderful life is for them.  But maybe we need a little work on those sources!
* "Many Bedouin citizens hold family ties with Bedouin in Sinai (Egypt),  Sudan and Saudi Arabia and most reject calling themselves Palestinians."
:: -- Alas that web page does not use any of the words "Sinai", "Sudan", "Saudi" or "Palestinian" at all, so it can't be used as a source for any of these claims.  We shouldn't use an Israeli government source for contentious questions anyway, but only as a source for the Israeli government position on the subject. --Zerotalk 10:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  -- (Consider just the Bedouin for now.) Alas, neither of these sources suffice for this claim.  The first one (the same Israeli government article noted as incorrectly cited above) says the Bedouin "feel an exaggerated sense of deprivation" (sounds warm, doesn't it?) and then argues that the Bedouin are wonderfully well off even if they claim they aren't.  The second one mentions that Bedouin often serve in the army, then it says "'The military rule over Israeli Arabs is over, but there are still confiscations of our land, especially the land owned by Bedouin in the Negev,' says Samih al-Kasim, editor of a Nazareth newspaper and one of the Arab world's leading poets. 'And there are still Arab `refugees' inside Israel today -- over 40 of our villages remain unrecognized. The plans to `Judaize the Galilee,' the warnings of a `demographic problem' in the Haifa area -- how can we see this as anything but racism?'".  What was that about warm relations? --Zerotalk 10:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Amoruso,  You wrote The plans to Judaize the Galilee  and issues of demographics is not racism, it's Zionism. It's a difference you may not wish to understand, but for Jews it's a matter of survival and a necessity.  Please do explain to us what this difference is... Abu ali 16:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "us"? You can read the articles on Zionism and Racism. There are no similarities. Amoruso 19:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Zionism is definitely not equivalent to racism, and this is why the plan to "Judaize" the Galilee has been subject to quite a lot of criticism in Israel. Generally speaking, it failed anyway (save some successful projects, like the city of Karmiel). The hilly part of the Galilee is still predominately Arab, and cities like Nazareth Illit eventually became Jewish-Arab mixed cities. Nonetheless, the Galilee is definitely Israeli. The Arabs there have become part of the Israeli society in this way or another. drork 22:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bedouin 

message: In this edit . shamir1 inerts a link to an article in http://freeisraelnow.blogspot.com/ which claims that Palestinian Arab Muslims first class citizens in Israel whereas Israeli Jews are second class citizens. Is freeisraelnow.blogspot.com a WP:RS. Is the claim made encyclopediac and WP:NPOV? Does the link belong in this article? Abu ali 10:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No of course it doesn't.  --Zerotalk 11:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it does not belong here. gidonb 15:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  freeisraelnow a [[WP:RS]]? 

message: Shalom friends. As you know I am quite new to Wikipedia and am trying to understand the polices of this place. My good friend Isarig recently added an edit  adding a citition from www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org regarding a "terrorist attack" in 1956. What is www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org? Is it a WP:RS and why? And isn't "terrorist" a WP:WTA (e.g. ) or does WP:WTA only apply to Irgun and Lehi actions? Abu ali 08:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Abu ali, the Jewish Virtual Library may be as reliable as it gets. Many of their articles come from a long list of sources. Others are directly copied from others, such as news sites or the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. They have a large amount of documents, official documents, pertaining to Jewish history and Israel (old and new), some (like I said) direct from sources like the U.S. State Department. It provides many important documents, transcripts, and discussions. The 1956 attack was probably found on the website of the Israeli Ministry, where they are identified as terrorists. It would be helpful if someone could find what group the terrorists belonged to, if they even did. The Irgun and Lehi also participated in terrorist actions prior to independence. Like most democratic governments, Israel dismantled them and they no longer exist. Israel continues to ban even membership to certain radical groups, something even the U.S. does not do. --Shamir1 07:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I did a google seach for the phrase "Terrorists killed three Druze guards at Ein Ofarim, in the Arava region" entered by Shamir1 and found an exact word for word match on www.likud.nl []. Does WP:NPOV mean that Wikipedia will be filled by copy and paste edits from propogandist sites such as the Dutch branch of the Likud? If so who needs Wikipedia? Why not just redirect Wikipedia's home page to www.likud.nl? Abu ali 11:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org is impecibly referenced, a good source for Wikipedia, completely conforming to WP:RS.  Elizmr 11:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's strange how you call it impecibly referenced when the page used as a source in this example does not have any references at all.  In general the Jewish Virtual Library has material from lots of sources, ranging from excellent to atrocious.  So it is not possible to classify it either as always reliable or always unreliable.  On the Druze guards, one important missing piece of information is who the guards were. If they were soldiers, then this was a military attack. --Zerotalk 11:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe the question was about JVL as a source generally Elizmr 12:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally and specifically. I also asked about the use of the words Terrorist. Issarig clearly knows about the WP:WTA policy as you can see in his edit . Should it apply here? I would also like to ask what people think about copy and pasting whole sentences from other web sites. Presumably it is OK if the site is Likud, but copyright violation otherwise. Abu ali 16:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems much more likely that the likud site (among other word-for-word matches) copied it from JVL. Zero raises a valid point that deserves some research, though I have been unsuccessful thus far. TewfikTalk 08:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  is www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org a [[WP:RS]]? and [[WP:WTA]] 

message: Hello,
About the dispute on the word "indigenous". The source clearly uses the word " indigenous/minority groups'" to describe the Palestinian youth. The article is also categorized under "indigenous groups". It's sourced, to an RS. What's the problem?
:The problem is that the word indigenous is a POV. (try it with "non-indigenous" and it will become perfectly clear to you.) If a RS makes a POV claim, it needs to be presented as such (i.e- a claim by a partisan, not a fact), with balancing, opposing POVs. What I suggest, is that instead of turning this single sentence into yet another 'he said she said' argument, we leave the word "minority", which is undisputed, and the sentence still makes the same point. Isarig 17:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "All editors and all sources have biases. A bias is a prejudice...for one particular point of view [POV] or ideology." You can't runaway from bias or POV. Also, the source in question is not "partisan" but published by the American Behavioral Scientist. IF you have an opposing viewpoit then feel free to add it.Bless sins 21:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it makes the same point , why are you so desperate to change it? There is ample evidence that Palestinians are indigenous beyond its mention in this particular Israeli academic study. The UN regularly refers to Palestinians as indigneous (See: , . They were there before Israel was established, and there are still some of them there now. What's your evidence that they are not? Tiamut 20:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Then we need to make clear that this is how they define themselves. To accept and promote their claims as neutral is against NPOV. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But we have a reliable and non-partisan source saying that they are "indigenous". Humus Sapiens, if you have a sourced alternate POV suggesting that the Arabs are not "indigenous" then we have every reason to attribute this. Else, we don't.Bless sins 04:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a reliable source, but not a non-partisan one. But in any case, since this is a disputed fact, it is POV, and has to be presented as such. DO you really want to drag Peters' (and others) claims here? Why not keep the sentence as is, w/o that word. How is the point being made lessened by it? Isarig 04:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you've an alternate POV present it. BUt don't such supress the existing ones. BTW, the source is a scientific one, not partisan.Bless sins 04:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bless sins, you only show that you misunderstand basic NPOV. Please stop this childish edit war and review our policies. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no doubt that the Palestinians see themselves as "indigenous", but so do the Jews. Describing the relationships between Jews and Arabs as between an "indigenous" minority and a (implicitly non indigenous) majority implies that we are in a colonial situation where the Jews are outsiders who took the land from the original owners. I know that is what many uninformed people think, but this is just a POV, and a false one by the way. Benjil 09:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an article about "Arab citizens of Israel", so the issue of whether Jews see themselves as indigenous to Palestine is irrelevant here. The non-partisan scientific source cited describes Palestinians as "indigenous", the statement is not disputed -- or at least, no-one has been so foolish as to try to dispute it here -- and there is absolutely no reason except political bias to insist on its removal. RolandR 13:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  When you write "indigenous minority vs majority" you imply that the majority is not indigenous. If not, you just don't need to write it at all. Why do you want "indigenous" to be there at all if not to say exactly that: the Jews are not the indigenous people ? Benjil 13:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is making any claims to the status of Jews re:their indigineity in the article. The article is about Arab citizens of Israel who are recognized to be indigenous by the UN and in DNA research (
). That Arabs self-identify as indigenous is an important necessary precondition for them to be accorded that status, but it is not proof that the view is POV with no basis in fact (as Humus Sapiens seems to be implying). That some Jews (primarily Sephardic) are also indigenous to Palestine (as indicated by the DNA studies cited), is not really relevant to this article. Tiamut 17:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really understand the relevance of the DNA study. And from what I know, DNA studies showed that most Jews, ashkenazic, sepharadic or whatever (but Ethiopians) had the same origins and that they were correlated closely to Middle Eastern people, Kurds in particular.  Anyway, denies the right of Israeli Arabs to say that they are indigenous, we just say that the article needs to say "they self-identify as " and not "they are". Benjil 18:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Genetic information only tells us that there is a genetic connection; it isn't a commentary on who is indigenous etc. That some people have that view can be (and is) expressed in the text, but it is unfair and nonneutral to present that as an unqualified objective fact. TewfikTalk 17:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, after much reflection on ths issue, I have to say that its unfair and nonneutral to deny that fact and hide this information from readers. The only major opposition I have seen to this term is from Zionists, who have a specific interest in denying that it is true, because they believe that only Jews are entitled to a special connection to the land of Palestine/Israel. Well, too bad. It is true. The people we are talking about were there before Israel was created and they are still there even after a colonizing government force came in and set up shop here. They identify as indigenous. A DNA study cited above specifically does say they are indigenous: "According to historical records part, or perhaps the majority, of the Moslem Arabs in this country descended from local inhabitants, mainly Christians and Jews, who had converted after the Islamic conquest in the seventh century AD (Shaban 1971; Mc Graw Donner 1981). These local inhabitants, in turn, were descendants of the core population that had lived in the area for several centuries,
some even since prehistorical times (Gil 1992)." Note the DNA study cites historians that make the same claim based on historical records. The UN says so. Everyone says so, except for Joan Peters, Daniel Pipes and others of their ilk who deny that Palestinians even exist as a people. Not one source has been provided backing your assertions, outside of the sadly discredited non-scholar, plaigarist Joan Peters. We have provided many. This time, it's not gonna fly. If you want to add a footnote mentioning that a minority made up largely of pro-Israel advocates denies that this is true, I am all for it. But the term should stay exactly where it is. Tiamut 18:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you have a *big* problem understanding the argument here. Nobody says that the Israeli Arabs should not be allowed to say they are indigenous, and nobody even argue that they are not, that's not even the point. The point is to say that's how they view themselves, and not state it the way the sentence is written, implying that the majority is not indigenous. Anyway, thank you for revealing your not-so-hidden agenda. Wikipedia is not a place for propaganda. If you are not able to understand that other opinion exist and that yours is not the absolute truth, we are going to have a problem. Benjil 20:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Wikipedia is not a place for propaganda, and your continued attempts to remove the fact that Palestinians are (not just claim to be) indigenous to Palestine is unacceptable, politically-motivated, POV pushing. It is analogous to the attempts to physically remove those Palestinians still living in Palestine, and cannot be accepted in Wikipedia. The several sources we provide state for a fact that Palestinians are indigenous to Palestine, and you have provided no evidence -- not even a disputed propaganda source -- tto establish anything else. RolandR 21:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well - exactly the contrary. Nobody even started arguing that the Palestinians are not indigenous. Nobody but you and Tiamut spoke about that. This is not the point. The point is that the simple fact of stressing that they are indigenous is saying that the Jews are not - and that is precisely what Tiamut wants to say here. If not, why do you even stress that they are indigenous ? In an article about the Druze minority in Lebanon, would you write about "the indigenous minority" and the muslim majority ? Of course not. In fact, we should remove completely any reference to this subject as this is totally irrelevant and POV pushing as you say (just read Tiamut before me, this is pretty clear). Benjil 08:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Hello Benjil. If a contrary opinion, that Arabs are not indigenous, really exists then present it and we'll include it also in the article. That would be in accordance with NPOV "all significant published points of view are to be presented".Bless sins 21:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Benjil's right. We'll simply present it neutrally. <<-armon->> 01:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course "indigenous" is a POV claim that implies that Jews are foreigners and "settlers". In addition, note the repeated attempts to slip in a rallying cry against "majority ruling authorities elsewhere in the world." Don't expect this to stick. ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If the majority ruling authorities part bothers you, I am not against removing it, but I fail to see how stating that Arabs are indigenous undermines Jewish indigineity. As pointed out above, DNA studies that support Arab indiginiety also support Jewish indiegineity proving those two are not mutually exclusive. I really don't understand the problem here. My last edit included the minority viewpoint that Arabs are not indigenous. Why keep changing it to make it seem that Arab are the only ones who think so, when that is patently false? That's what is called POV pushing. Tiamut 12:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Once again, you fail to see the point. Nobody claimed here that the Arabs are not indigenous, that is not part of the discussion. You are the one who keep bringing that. Stating that Arabs are indigenous is totally irrelevant (this is not an article about immigration) unless you want to say something else - that the Jews are not. That's what transpire from this sentence. That's why we will continue to change it. Benjil 13:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That's enough Benjil. You changed this formulation: "The relationship of Arab citizens to the State of Israel is often fraught with tension. This tension can be regarded in the context of relations between indigenous/minority populations and state authorities elsewhere in the world , though their indigeneity has been challenged by some pro-Israel advocates." to this:
"The relationship of Arab citizens to the State of Israel is often fraught with tension. This tension can be regarded in the context of relations between minority populations and state authorities elsewhere in the world ." There are a number of problems here. First of all, the acedemic source cited calls this population "indigenous" , not a minority. Second, I tried tol accomodate the other POVs in my edit and take out the majority ruling reference that Humus found so offensive. You have just totally deleted what I think was a very fair NPOV compromise and removed indigenous despite its being properly source and discussed here. Please self-revert. Failing that, I'm sure someone else will eventually correct your rampant POV pushing. Tiamut 13:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isarig! What the F man! It is not a POV that Palestinians are indigenous. They are participants in the UN working group on indigenous peoples. . I don't think that people who only think of themselves as indigenous qualify for that. Again, you have provided no sources for your view that Palestinians are not indigenous, outside the discredited Joan Peters book. I think my formulation above therefore fairly represents the evidence we currently have available. I ask you to self-revert. I also ask that you stop reverting other edits unrelated to this dispute in the intermediate version of articles before your revert. Tiamut 16:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You miss the point Elizmr. "The Arab population in Israel meets most if not all parameters of indigeneity that were set by
Jose Martinez-Cobo, the Special Rapporteur to the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities,4 whose definition of an indigenous people is to date the most accepted and well known. Martinez-Cobo’s main parameters are: priority in time;
voluntary perpetuation of their cultural distinctiveness; self-identification as indigenous; and experience of subjugation, marginalization, dispossession, exclusion, and discrimination by the
dominant society. Furthermore, an accepted notion in the treatment of indigenous communities is that indigeneity establishes conditionality between the existence of a group of people and
their bond to a specific place."  Additionally, the criteria to establish indigeneity at Wikipedia is as follows: "an indigenous people may be identified as such, where notable independent reference(s) can be found that the group's indigenous identity is either asserted or recognised as being indigenous, or some other cognate term, by either: some government, regulatory body, law or protocol, which may be either sub-national, national or trans-national; and/or some body, NGO or other organisation, involved with indigenous affairs and recognised as an accredited participant, intermediary or representative in some legal, negotiative, national or international regulatory or rights-based process; and/or some academic and peer-reviewed literature or publication; and/or some representative body of the indigenous society itself, where that representation is made in respect of a claim or issue to a government or governmentally-supported organisation (eg the UN, African Union)." Now, thus far, I have provided a citation to UN woking group on indigenous peoples which included representatives from Palestine. I provided two academic citations that speak directly to indigeneity, I provided the document where Palestinians in Israel declare themselves indigenous, I have provided DNA studies that ocnclude that "Arab-Israelis" are indigenous. And I now provide this: , an example of a Palestinian legal group in Israel that held a working table on indigenous land rights. All of this goes far past the criteria necessary to establish indigeneity. Please, for once, couldn't all you Zionists just fairly concede the point. I added the opposite POV, even though it is minority view. Why can't you givv3e a fiathful representation to the majority view. Tiamut 16:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Tiamut, I find your remark directed towards, "you zionists" inappropriate since I know you consider it to be a huge insult--there is no need for insults here. What you are describing and giving undue weight to is a politically driven attempt to describe Jews as foreigners and colonizers.   By the the UN standards you cite here, Jews are indigenous to Israel.  Priority in time--3000 years should be enough; voluntary perpetuation of  cultural distinctiveness, ok I think Jews have that since we've held onto our culture for 3K years+;  self-identification as indigenous--we have considered Jerusalem our homeland since the Babylonian Exhile--please pick up any prayerbook etc from any time in history and read through the am prayers for a quick example,  and the experience of subjugation, marginalization, dispossession, exclusion, and discrimination by the dominant society--we have that in spades.  Please see www.jimena.org for some information about how the Jews who stayed in the Middle East after the original exhiles were treated.  Many peoples have a homeland in the middle east--not just Arabs.  Elizmr 17:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You did lie, I'm just being honest. You said I provided no sources to back that claim when I have provided over 7, and it is you that have provided a grand total of 0. You therefore totally mischaracterized your revert. And a total mischaracterization, is a lie.  Tiamut 17:29, 26 February 2007 (UT
sophsitry? rant?  lie?  come on.  I'm just encouraging you to stop using Wikipedia as a soapbox to lend legitimacy to politically motivated new definitions.  And to characterize a group of editors as "you zionists" is acutally insulting since it implies that our edits are ideologically driven rather than based on the truth.   Elizmr 18:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: indigenous

message: What follows is the criteria for identifying indigenous peoples per the Wikipedia Category:Indigenous peoples, and after each caveat, I have provided the sources that cite Palestinians as indigenous in this regard.
 
"...an indigenous people may be identified as such, where notable independent reference(s) can be found that the group's indigenous identity is either asserted or recognised as being indigenous, or some other cognate term, by either: some government, regulatory body, law or protocol, which may be either sub-national, national or trans-national; (see:  and/or some body, NGO or other organisation, involved with indigenous affairs and recognised as an accredited participant, intermediary or representative in some legal, negotiative, national or international regulatory or rights-based process; (see: and/or some academic and peer-reviewed literature or publication; 
) 
and/or some representative body of the indigenous society itself, where that representation is made in respect of a claim or issue to a government or governmentally-supported organisation (eg the UN, African Union)." (see: 
 )
On this basis, I submit that Palestinians undeniably qualify for inclusion into the Category:Indigenous peoples, and therefore submit that this information should be included in the article as fact, while representing the opposing minority view held largely among pro-Israeli advocates (as determined by the only source provided by them: From Time Immemorial). Tiamut 19:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a proposal, not any WP policy or guideline, and even it states "Where there is (independent) contention about identifying any particular group as an indigenous people, the contention should be noted in the relevant article". Isarig 00:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So why resist attributing the contention to its source: Joan Peters From Time Immemorial explicitly? Tiamut 17:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review of arguments for the inclusion of Palestinians (both in Israel and in occupied territories) into the Category Indigenous People & therefore, for the inclusion of this information as fact into this article

message: The early Zionist writer Ahad Ha'Am famously wrote several articles describing the situation of the Arabs resident in Palestine at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries. The most important of these, "The Truth from Eretz Israel", written after his first visit to Palestine in 1891, is not easily available in English. I've just downloaded it in Hebrew, and will read it carefully over the next few days. While I can state with certaintity that the word "indigenous" does not appear (since he wrote in Hebrew), it is clear that even then, several years before Herzl called the First Zionist Congress, Ahad Ha'Am was aware of the existence of a settled Arab community in Palestine who would not accept being supplanted by European settlers, whatever ideology they professed and however justified they felt their enterprise to be. In The Origins of Zionism (Oxford University Press, 1980), Israeli political scientist David Vital quotes from the essay, presumably in his own translation: 
"particularly the town dwellers among them, do see and understand what we are about, but they keep their own counsel and pretend to innocence because they see no future danger to themselves in anything we do; on the contrary, they exploit us, as best they can, try to extract the greatest possible profit from the new guests, and laugh at us behind our backs. The peasants are glad enough to have Jewish settlements set up among them because they are well paid for their labour and, as experience shows, prosper steadily from year to year. The great landlords are equally glad to have us because we pay them prices they had never dreamt of for stony and sandy soil. But if there ever comes a time when we have developed our life in Eretz-Israel to the point where we shall be encroaching upon them in a greater or lesser degree, [then we should not expect them] to yield their place easily". (Vital, pp195-6)
If this is not a description of an indigenous community, with social stratification and a strong attachment to the land, then I don't know what is.
In 2006, the Yale Israel Journal published a paper by Joshua Krug, "Image and Encounter:The Zionists and the Arabs between 1882 and 1908". Krug, reportedly  a leader of the Hillel group at Yale, and from the evidence of the paper a follower of Ahad Ha'Am, clearly sees the indigenous status of Palestinians, at the beginning of the twentieth century, as axiomatic; He writes: "it is necessary to examine those crucial, first encounters between Zionist settlers and indigenous Palestinian Arabs. Between the years of 882 and 1908, how did Jewish newcomers perceive the indigenous population of Palestine and how did the indigenous population perceive the Zionists?". Sub-headings in the paper include "Early Interactions between Zionist Immigrants and Indigenous Arabs" and "Zionist Perceptions of the ndigenous Arabs". In all, the word "indigenous" appears 14 times in the article, in relation to Palestinians in Palestine 100 years ago.
It is absurd to maintain this childish pretence that the Palestinians are somehow not indigenous to Palestine. RolandR 01:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is questioning the existance of Arab communities in Palestine in the late 19c or early 20th C. But you are confused (as is, apparently, Mr. Krug)  about the meanign of "Indigenous". The Arabs are not "Indigenous" to this region, they conquered it and settled it. They did this many many years ago, but that does not make them "Indigenous". And if we're going to go by what Ehad Ha'am saw  back in 1891, surely we could make just as strong a case for Jews being indigenous, unless we are going to selectievly edit out his comments on the Jewish communities of Jerusalem, Zefat and Tiberias. Isarig 02:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: See, Jews are not indigenous to the Land of Israel or anywhere. Everywhere and forever, they are settlers. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well you are all wrong. First there is no "race". Then, as already proven and explained here, most Jews share a common origin. Jews and Arabs are related but Sefaradi and Oriental Jews are not Arabs - they just lived in Arab countries - and are genetically closer to Ashkenazi Jews than to Arabs. The Palestinians, of course, are not the descendant of the Sea People and other people living here in the antiquity, but a mix of several Arab people who arrived at different times. Benjil 07:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are obviously very confused. You mix ethnicity, citizenship, religion etc... Jews are a people - mainly because that is how they define themselves. In fact, that is the *only* definition of a people: a community that sees itself as such. The fact is that Jews share a common ancestry (as genetic studies prove it) but that is not even important. Regarding the actual Palestinians, they are mostly descendants of all kind of people who immigrated in the last centuries. Some families may have older roots to the land. It is of course also of no importance. Benjil 08:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not confused unless who is a jew is confused, or Arab is confused, or the research below is confused. Still what happened to the native people of Israel, did they blow into the sea? Genetic study shows that teh Lemba of Southern Africa have more Jewish genes than any European or Arab Jew, so i think in summing the Palestinian people are natives to that land, have been in that land as long as Biblical times. Its like the White South African telling the Bantu, u r not native to this land, you came from another place. It is critical to the crisis, and it is critical to this article, native people of Palestine are the Palestinian people. European jews are settlers in Israel, just like the settlers in America and South Africa. see reserach below.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 11:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are no "Jewish genes". The Lemba have a lot of "Cohen genes" - and this concept is widely criticized. What happened to the native people of Israel ? Well these are the Jews, just read a book about Jewish history. I remind you that the "Palestinian people" is a creation of the last decades. Nobody ever heard of a "Palestinian people" before 1948 (or even before 1967) - in particular because there was no "Palestine" and never has been. Benjil 11:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on Palestinians as indigenous 

message: Phoenicia was an ancient civilization whose heartland spread along the coastal plains of what is now Lebanon/Palestine. Recent DNA (Y chromosome) studies conducted by the National Geographic Magazine on the bones of ancient Phoenicians and living people from Lebanon, Palestine and elsewhere in the Mediterranean prove that both Muslims and Christians from those areas carry the same ancient Phoenician genetic material. Phoenicians are refered to as Lebanon's epic heritage.
this is  fact!!--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 00:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: People of the sea

message: The links section is too long and I've suggested some cuts. They are listed below:
Landmark Survey of Israelis, Israeli-Arabs, & Palestinians: Dead Link
In honor of Eid ul-Fitr: The Chief of Staff Visits Bedouin Representatives: nothing more than an IDF press release 
lectures, reports, news, maps, Books, documentaries a site mainly in German, many contributions in English]: It's a good site but it doesn't have much on Israeli-Arabs
Organisation of Israeli Arab workers and unemployed: Links to a site that only has image placeholders
Arabs And Israelis Share Shelters; Arab animosity toward Islamic fascism: links to a weblog that does not mention Arab-Israelis
'Israeli by choice' may be sent back to Palestinian Authority: is not a news story about an Arab citizen of Israel, 
Letter from an Israeli Druze: This is a letter that deals with the boycott of Israeli Universities and does not discuss the status of Israel's Palestinian/Arab citizens. 
--Oneworld25 01:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: Hey Isarig. I noticed you keep reinserting this listing: 
*July2005: Five persons were killed and 30 were injured in a suicide bombimg in Netanya. On March 1st, 2007, 3 Israeli citizens, 2 of them Arabs, were convicted of manslaughter in this incident, for helping get the suicide bomber to the site of the bombing by illegally smuggling him in their car from the West Bank into Israel.3 Israelis convicted of manslaughter for transporting suicide bomber 
I added that info the section above on Intercommunal Relations where the scope and depth of the involvement of Arab citizens of Israel is explored in greater detail. I would like to remove it from the casualty listings because it is aiding and abetting, and not direct carrying out of the attack. Are you suggesting that we expand the definition to include those aiding and abetting in murders of an ideological nature? Wouldn't that make for a very big list? Tiamut 17:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These people were convected of killing, not of aiding and abetting. there is no difference, in the eyes of the law as well as in terms of moral responsibility, between the person who assembles a bomb, and the person who plants it, and the person who sets the timer. They are all equally guilty, once convicted. I don't think the list of those convicted of killing would be very long. Isarig 20:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the first time people are convicted of manslaughter for illegally transporting Palestinians. It's not even clear that they were ideologically-motivated killings (as per the sub-section heading). In fact, the article clearly states that two of the three convicted could not turn down the "business opportunity". . Are you sure you want to insist on its inclusion in this particular section? Tiamut 21:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a first time for everything, so I don't really see what that objection is all about, but if you feel that strongly about it, I'm ok with you moving it to a different section. Isarig 21:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the entire set of lists of one kind or another that follows from the heading "Intercommunal relations" really should be deleted as unencyclopaedic. Palmiro | Talk 21:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate you being flexible about this Isarig and in light of Palmiro's suggestion, perhaps we could consider a way to present the information in this section differently. I will try working on a prose version that incorporates links to the articles and events listed. I'll post it here before adding it and if others want to have a go at it as well, that would be good too. Tiamut 21:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I am going to add this proposal to the article, seeing as there are no objections, and that there was a reuest to remove the "list" format. Here goes. Tiamut 14:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualty listings (what does and does not belong?)

message: Someone wants to insert this:  "Certain perks are available to Arab citizens that are not available to Jews on the same terms. For example, the city of Jerusalem gives Arab residents free professional advice to assist with the house permit process and structural regulations. Jerusalem Houses"  That source is quite amazing.  Look at the graph that seems to show that in Jerusalem  Arab houses were demolished less often than Jewish houses.  Since everyone knows that the number of Arab houses demolished is far greater than the number of Jewish houses demolished, see for example the official counts published by B'tselem , something smells here.  The source of the odor is easily identified. Look at the caption of the graph: "Illegal Structures demolished by the Jerusalem Municipality as a Precent of Demolition Orders Issued, by Sector".  According to this measure, 1 house demolished after 1 order is worse than 99 houses demolished after 100 orders!  What a crock!  Sites displaying such blatant dishonesty are way below the "reliable source" threshold. --Zerotalk 11:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lying with statistics 

message: http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/564/754.html (translation in http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archives/010379.shtml) Zeq 20:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new and important source : Ben Dror Yemini on israeli arabs !!!! 

message: I've added a very incomplete section on history of Palestinian/Arab citizens since the 6 day war. I think there is a lot of info under the poorly organized political development sections that could be transferred to this section, so as to more easily put these political developments in historical perspective. --Oneworld25 17:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition of 1967-Present in History Section

message: Tiamut, the intro is very general. Adding such a sentence would allow others to include that a) the allegations are false, b) that Israel's treatment of Arab citizens is remarkable considering Arab identification with Israel's enemies (see Benny Morris), or that c) other issues such as Arab assistance with terrorist acts or Arab hostility/discrimination toward Jewish Israelis.
As for the Druze part, too many points are cherry-picked. According to a Druze Israeli, the man who heads the "Pact of Free Druze" represents the smallest portion of Druze in Israel. Too much minority POV is given and misrepresents the Druze population. So just say it how it is. Are we writing all of Azzam Azzam's comments about Israel? Or Ayoob Kara, both of whom certainly represently a larger part of the Druze community. --Shamir1 22:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence in the intro provides balance to a section pretty much lifted from the Israel article page that leaves the reader with the false impression that things are just peachy keen for Arabs in Israel. They're not. And that forms a significant part of the article and should be represented in the intro per WP:LEAD. One sentence isn't undue weight I don't think. 
Further, the quote from the Druze representative isn't long and it presents a first-hand description of Druze identity as being Palestinian and Arab as well, from a elected party member from a major Arab party in Israel Balad. I don't see how it's cherry-picking. Its a significant viewpoint from a Druze political representative. I don't know who Ayoob Kara and I think I have heard the word "traitor" and Azzam Azzam in the same sentence, but otherwise don't really know anything about him either. If you find important quotes from them and you think they are notable sources for the subject, by all means, compose something, source it, put it in, and see what happens. Tiamut 23:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you provide me with a reliable source that claims that your opinion of what Druze identity is, is the norm? I placed a fact needed tag on the sentence that claims that Druze do not identify as Arabs months ago, and no one has as yet filled it in. It would be nice for you to provide some sources for your position. I have for mine and the source is reliable (Ha'aretz), the person making the statement is an elected political leader in Israel from the Druze community (certainly notable). So I don't really see how your position is valid. Tiamut 16:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiamut's edits 

message: What's up with the ethnicity template? What reliable source states that "Arab citizens of Israel" form an ethnic group? As far as I know, the ethnicity of all Arab citizens is "Arab" and/or "Palestinian" Can someone please explain how this addition is not WP:OR? Tiamut 15:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arab citizens of Israel are an ethnic group?!?

message: For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all  infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 17:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "related groups" info removed from infobox 

message: When a Palestinian, who is not an Israeli citizen, travels abroad, what type of passport does he or she carry?  What, if any, citizenship do they hold? mdkarazim 22:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a very complicated matter. Israel issues "laissez-passez" documents to non-nationals, so some of them carry an Israeli laissez-passez instead of a national passport. Since 1994, the Palestinian Authority issues passports to Palestinians living in its jurisdiction and reports to Israel (Israeli authorities can sometimes prohibit issuing a Palestinian passport to a certain person). Nonetheless, the Palestinian passports are not recognized in many countries. Palestinians from the West Bank used to have a Jordanian citizenship, but since Jordan broke its ties with the WB in 1988, many of them lost it. If a Palestinian managed to retain his Jordanian citizenship he'd probably travel with a Jordanian passport. DrorK 06:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passport for Palestinians 

message: A small number of editors keep trying to link to the home demolitions article in relation to Bedouin house building. However, it does not appear that the article being linked to has anything to do with the issue in question. The Israeli house demolitions article discusses House demolition as a counter-insurgency tactic, not destruction of Bedouin homes that have been built without permits. Linking to that article in this context would be as relevant as linking to it when describing Israeli destruction of illegal Israeli settlements. Jayjg (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link to House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is relevant. Part of Israel's war against its Arab subjects is systematic denial of building permits to Arabs. But even an Arab needs somewhere to live. So many Arabs are forced to build without the required permits. These houses which account for the majority of homes in the Arab sector are subject to the continual threat of demolition. Jay compares this with the demolition of illegal Israeli settlements. The difference is that most Israeli settlement homes are given legal permission after they have been built, and their demolition is a rare occurance, whereas the demolition of Arab homes is routine, wholesale and a key instrument of Israeli government policy to the Arabs. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that this is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox or an internet discussion group. Your grievances against the real or imagined evils of Zionists do not belong here, and linking to an article which dos not discuss the issues of Bedouin homes that have been built without permits is disruptive to the project. Please stop it. Isarig 00:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The issue of Bedouin houses built in the Negev is quite separate from those of Palestinians built in East Jerusalem. If the House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article ever contains material about demolitions of Bedouin homes, then the link will become relevant. Not every house demolition in Israel is part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Jayjg (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to home demolitions article in case of Beduins 

message: The web site ( http://www.pademographics.com/ ) whose study was cited in footnote 134 is faulty. It is based on a study that concluded that the Population of the West Bank and Gaza was over-counted by One Million (which was also done by the same people) and the study is very speculative, looking at year to year differences of as little as .04% as a declining trend and vice versa. The Website also appears to count the Palestinian citizens of East Jerusalem as already being part of Israel's population. The agenda of this website is to annex parts of the west bank to Israel, but grant the residents Israeli citizenship, and it purpose is to show how that can be done without compromising the Jewish Majority, and it appears to fudge a lot of numbers to do so. The website is largely the work of Bennett Zimmerman, sometimes with one or two assistants listed. I believe using this website as a source is problematic, not only because of credibility, but also because the article fails to put the study's results in context. Basically, this guy says that the population of the West Bank and Gaza is only 2.49 million, which is quite hard to fathom, considering that its well-established that Gaza has at least around 1.2 million people alone. 
CIA world factbook says 1,482,405 (July 2007 est.) for Gaza https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gz.html#People
and 2,535,927 in the West Bank
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/we.html#People
20 July 2007
: This study on the contrary is mush more serious than the official numbers and in fact most of its conclusions have been accepted - even some by the Palestinian Statistics Office. This study counts the Arab population of Jerusalem as part of Israel's population because it is counted as part of Israel's population by Israel. The political agenda of the searchers is to be noted but the only point important is if the facts are true or not, and they are. The CIA world factbook is full of errors and mistakes (mysteriously, it gives 6.4 millions habitants for Israel instead of 7.1). It should be noted that the IDF own estimation of the Palestinian population is also much lower than the official one (around 3 millions). This is a serious study that needs to be taken into account. Benjil 08:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Last Paragraph of "Demographic Threat" Section

message: Someone reinserted the following under the heading "Participation of Israeli Arabs in terror acts against Israeli citizens": 
Since 2001, a growing number  of Israeli Arabs have participated in terror acts against Israeli civilians: On September 9, 2001 was the first (and only) Israeli Arab suicide bomber attack, on a group of soldiers and civilians disembarking a train in the Nahariya station, killing 3 people and wounding at least 90. 
Over the next few years, Israeli Arabs and residents of East Jerusalem took part in many attacks and assisted Palestinian suicide bombers reach cities in Israel. Several Israeli Arabs have been convicted of espionage for Hezbollah.,,, In 2001, at least 110 Israeli Arabs were detained on suspicion of involvement in terrorist activities – a record high, and about three times the number in the previous year. Despite those events, Israeli security sources said they still consider Israeli Arab involvement with terrorism to be the exception rather than the rule. The rule is that the vast majority of Israeli Arabs, regardless of their political viewpoints, see terrorism as the red line.
On March 9, 2004, an Israeli Arab woman, Lina Jarbuni, 29, of Arrabeh in the Galilee, was sentenced to 17 years in prison by the Haifa district court for helping members of the Islamic Jihad who had been planning to carry out terror attacks inside Israel. Jarbuni helped one of them obtain an Israeli ID card, rented an apartment in Israel, and also opened a bank account on behalf of the man and an accomplice. She was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder, contact with a foreign agent, and helping the enemy at a time of war.    
On October 9, 2005, three Israeli Arab men were convicted of plotting to blow up the Azrieli Towers in Tel Aviv, and a plot to plant a bomb on railroad tracks near Netanya. The Tel Aviv District Court also convicted them of attempting to provide assistance to a foreign enemy during time of war. One of the Arabs was convicted of contacting a foreign enemy agent. The three, Dubian Natzirat, 27; Amir Zivati, 20; and Mugahad Dukan, 19; all from Taibe, admitted their guilt and were convicted under a plea bargain arrangement.  
On December 12, 2005, Hamas sent a greeting to the "Arabs of 1948" (i.e Israeli Arabs) on their help to Hamas using a video that was translated to English on Hamas web site.
On March 13, 2006, Tel Aviv District Court sentenced Lenin Altouri, 24, from the Israeli Arab village of Kassem, to 16 years in prison, after he was convicted of being in contact with a foreign agent with the intention to betray the country. Altouri was convicted of plotting to aid Hamas kidnap soldiers and transfer them to Hebron or Ramallah.
On August 25, 2007 An organization of Israeli Arab accepted reposnsibilty for the killing by knife of an Israeli elderly man near his home in israel 
Part of this information is already covered in the section on intercommunal relations. It's placement in the middle of the article under a large heading gives the topic undue weight and is rather repetitive and redundant. If you would like to see certain parts of it reinserted, please enter it in the appropriate section. And keep in mind WP:UNDUE. This is marginal minority phenomenon in Arab society in Israel. Tiamut 14:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Zeq, have you read the article in its entirety? I ask because this material is already there, is a more succint version in the section entitled "Intercommunal relations". Your view that this is an extremely important issue which requires its own section is unconvincing, particularly since one could argue that the killing of Arab citizens of Israel by Israeli security forces and police, as was the case on Land Day or during the October 2000 events is equally important. Both of these examples of intercommunal violence are listed in the section I have directed you to. I would further stress that only one Arab citizen out of 1.2 million has actually carried out a suicide bombing and only less than 50 have been involved in aiding and abetting in such crimes. It is WP:UNDUE to list every example of such collaboration and devote an entire section to the issue. I am removing your re-addition of this material and ask that you refrain from reinserting it. Please re-read the article and add any information you feel is absolutely necessary to include to the section of Intercommunal relations and keep in mind WP:NPOV and the need for representation of the killing of Arabs by Jews since this is just as common, if not more common. Tiamut 16:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reinsertion of material

message: There is a sentence in the article that states that Arabs have suffered discrimination by Palestinians in the West Bank. However, the source used as a reference describes an isolated incident during the Second Lebanon War. However, the article makes it look like a widespread problem. I deleted the sentence but it has since been reverted. I think the issue should be discussed on the talk page. Oneworld25 05:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Palestinian Discrimination against Israeli Arabs

message: Roland in his revert asked that I show that there is more than one case and there is a trend. here is some mire data: - it needs to be added to the article since there is justification to show the trend. Zeq 16:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A sI already explained to you above, this material is already covered in the section on intercommunal relations. It does not need restating in other sections; such additions are WP:UNDUE and your formulation remain [[WP:OR]. Tiamut 08:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert