Talk:Arab citizens of Israel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4

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



Contents


[edit] Allegations of Discrimination

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Phyllis Bennis Quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okedem, please provide sources that express the viewpoints you have expressed here. Per WP:NPOV we don't remove POVs that are sourced to reliable sources. Phyllis Bennis is a reliable, though partisan, source. The way to balance out the section, if you feel it needs to be balanced out, would be to add other POVs that challenge what Bennis says. Extended posting of your opinion of what is wrong with a particular quote aren't necessary or helpful and come off as WP:SOAP when they don't invoke any sources. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 00:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
PS Palestine Facts does is definitely not a reliable source. It doesn't list its authors or their expertise so we cannot judge the validity of the information provided there. So please don't link to them as a way of supporting your arguments. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 00:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Tiamut, honestly, are you claiming what I said above isn't true? Can you point to the specific examples in the subject? I have taken to time to explain, in detail, the facts here. Are you claiming I'm misrepresenting reality? Can you cite real, specific, sources for the analyst's claims? Let me make this even more specific - are you saying that her claim, that "93 percent of Israel's land can only be leased or owned by Jews or Jewish agencies"? ([1]). Are you claiming that Jews have "preferences for admission to universities"? You live in Israel, you know that those claims are simply false. One can make truthful claims about discrimination in Israel, but those are simply untrue.
Regardless of the veracity of the quotes, they are wholly unnecessary here. Instead of telling our readers some "analyst" says there's discrimination, we should give the specifics of any such discrimination, with good sources, and let the reader draw his conclusions. The article does a good job, I think, of detailing the facts of this subject, and these quotes serve no purpose. okedem (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA

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

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

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

[edit] Political parties

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

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

[edit] POV- terms, etc.

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

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

[edit] Ethnic and Religious Groupings section

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

1. Their birth rates
2. Their military service

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

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

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

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