Talk:Mizrahi Jews/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Nice revert war...

Hi guys, I seem to have walked into a revert war here, and in my typical nosy style I thought I'd butt in.

As pro-israeli as I am (I'm not jewish just if anyone feels it matters), I have to ask what the relevance of a list of alleged atrocities against jews in arab nations has to do with this article? This article should discuss what a Mizrahi Jew is, and any particular features about them worth noting. If you feel it necessary to point out they are largely migrating to Israel due to perceived oppression, that's fine too, but to turn the article into little more than a list of alleged atrocities (not that I deny for a second they happened) is just irrelevant and extremely NPOV. Basically, the "In Yemen", "In Egypt" "In Iraq" paragraphs are redundant, it's already stated above that many fled persecution following the creation of Israel, a list of claimed atrocities adds nothing to the knowledge of what is a Mizrahi Jew, and only serves to vilify one side of the Israeli/Arab debate, which is really not what Wikipedia is for, no matter how much you think the vilification is or is not deserved. Plasma 15:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think it's pretty relevant to the history of each of these Mizrahi groups, don't you? But I'm tired of fighting, particularly here. Jayjg 16:01, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Problems with the latest edits

  • Arab riots and pogroms against Mizrahi Jews are not a "consequence" of the creation of Israel, but a "reaction" to it. Killing native Jews is not a "something that logically or naturally follows" from the creation of Israel, but is a "response to a stimulus", specifically the creation of Israel. Please see dictionary definitions of these words.
  • Also note, I have left in the creation of the Arab refugees as one of the reasons for the rioting, even though it is demonstrably false, since the riots etc. started long before there were any Arab refugees. While the complaints today are about the refugees, back then it was all about Israel, the refugees hardly registered.
  • The Mizrahi refugee situation started in 1948, but there were still large Mizrahi communities around in the mid 50s, including those in Iran, Iraq, Egypt, and arguably in Morocco and Algeria. Events in the 50s and 60s, most notably the Egyptian expulsion, led to a continued emigration of refugees. The emigration was largely over by the late 60s, except for those Jews trapped in Syria. Your edits made it seem like the emigration all happened around the 1948 war, which it didn't.
  • Please stop creating 65 word sentences, and one sentence paragraphs. This is simply bad form, and extremely difficult to read.
  • A thousand Mizrahi communities do not remain; rather, perhaps a dozen remain, none with more than 200 Jews. Your edit changed the meaning entirely to indicate that 1000 communities remain, when in fact it is at most 1000 Mizrahi Jews who remain in Arab and Muslim lands. And since these Jews are coming to Israel at a rate of 10 or 20 a year, the emigration is indeed a "trickle".
  • As has been pointed out, this is an article about Mizrahi Jews, not the Arab-Israeli conflict. Statistics about the Palestinian refugees, while entirely appropriate for the many Israeli and Palestinian articles they are quoted in, do not belong in this article, which is about Mizrahi Jews. Jayjg 18:18, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Once again, I call on you to provide the sources for figure accounting for only less than 1,000 individual Mizrahi left in Arab lands. The Moroccan goverment itself admits to being home to more than six thousand. Those in Syria, which indeed are "trapped" (more like hostages actually) also number between 4,000 and 5,000 individuals. Even in the article on Jewish refugees the second point clearly states;

  • 1948-1955 The exodus of Jews from the Arab and Muslim Middle East and North Africa. The population of Jewish communities there (some more than 2,500 years old) was reduced from about 900,000 to less than 8,000 today. The State of Israel absorbed approximately 600,000 of the refugees, many of whom were temporarily settled in tent cities called Maabarot, their population was eventually absorbed into the Israeli society and the last Maabarah was dismantled in 1958.

Even this 8,000 figure is an underestimation by a couple more thousand. Added to this deflated 8,000 one must realise that it doesn't count those still left in Turkey, since although it is a Muslim state, it isn't technically an Arab nation. And remember that only a few months ago a bomb was detonated outside a synagogue in Instanbul against their Jewish community, hence logic dictates that a Turkish Jewish community must obviously exists for there to be attempts against it. The 8,000 also doesn't include the few hundred Jews left in Iran, which is Muslim, but like Turkey, is not technically an Arab nation.

Until the time where you reveal your sources I have reverted your figures attributing the current Mizrahi population in Arab lands from less than 1,000 to the 8,000 estimate on the Jewish refugees stated on that article. Al-Andalus 10:48, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See my comments about Morroccan Jews below, who are arguably not Mizrahi. And Turkish Jews are certainly not Mizrahi, Turkish Jews were Sepharadi - in fact, Turkey held the primary Sepharadi population after the expulsion. Jayjg 16:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just realised your arguement in regards to my edit;

Today, of the few thousand remaining Mizrahi communities still residing in Arab countries, a slow flow of emigration to Israel continues and is actively encouraged by the Jewish state.

Here it was obviously my mistake to include the word communities, as indeed the wording would suggest that thousdans of communities still reside in Arab lands. Again, I reiterate, the inclusion of the word "communities" was an oversight and entirely my mistake.

But now you've seen I'm humble enough to get off my pedestal and admit where I'm wrong. Let's see if you can do likewise. Al-Andalus 10:48, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mizrahi Jews still living in Arab/Muslim countries

Mizrahi Jews are Jews from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Egypt. Jews from Morocco are more Sephardi than Mizrahi, as Morocco absorbed many of the Sephardi Jews after the expulsion, to the extent that they maintained a unique identity, so it's hard to say that the Jews left in Morocco are Mizrahim: "In certain areas, where the Sephardic immigration was weak, Sephardim assimilated into the predominantly Mizrahi communities, taking on all Mizrahi traditions and retaining just a hint of Sephardic heritage--such as Spanish-sounding names. In countries such as Morocco, however, Spanish and Portuguese Jews came in droves, and the Sephardic community set up its own synagogues and schools, remaining separate from the Mizrahi community." [1] Jayjg 03:42, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Use of the word "native"

My objection to your use of the word native was that it made it seem that the Palestinian Arabs were native to the surrounding Arab lands (e.g. Syria, Egypt, Morocco, etc.) that the Jews fled from. I assume you intended to say they were native to Palestine. Your wording didn't say that. Anyway, I never liked the word "native" and I've removed it from both descriptions. Jayjg 19:59, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)


How does your dislike of the word matter? Is this not meant to be an unbiased encyclopaedia? I can only assume that you wish not to grant the status of native to an Arab Palestinian to the lands that now conform the modern state of Israel. With this agenda you are even willing to depose of the right to the native title owed to those Jews indigenous to Arab lands.

Arab Palestinian refugees are native to the lands now known as Israel, and Mizrahi Jews are natives to the lands of their former residence. There is not getting around that, whether it is to your liking or not. Both peoples are refugees, and the Jewish refugees from Arab nations were indeed created after the Arab refugees were formed by the creation of the Jewish State.

Furthermore, the word native is not dubious in its context. It is clearly does not imply the Arabs (Palestinians) it is talking about are native to all the Arab lands from which the Mizrahim were expelled (Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Iran). It specifically states that the other Arab nations retaliated in retribution to their brethren being deposed of their ancestral lands, not because those other Arabs were the ones being evicted. You’ve fabricated a supposed ambiguous context in my wording, where none exists, to excuse your removal of text, which you found not in agreement to your personal opinions. Al-Andalus 20:40, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your assumption is completely incorrect. Rather, my objections to your edit are for the following reasions:
  • Your original wording using the word "native" implied that Palestinians were native to North Africa, Egypt, Syria etc., which is the exact opposite of what you meant.
  • The word "refugee" generally implies native of some sort or another, so it is redundant at best, argumentative at worst.
  • Native itself is an ambiguous term; are Arabs native to North Africa, or are Berbers? Are the English natives of England, or are the Celts? Are the Spanish natives of Spain, or are the Basques?
  • The intent of your statements are not clear, in part because of your non-native use of English, but in particular because of your use of incredibly long sentences.
In summary, I am not debating that Palestinians are "native" (whatever that means) to Palestine; rather, I am trying to word the article in the clearest way possible. Jayjg 20:54, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)


First of all; HOW DARE YOU??? My command of the English language is perhaps better than yours. For your information (of which you have little of) I am a fluent NATIVE English-speaking third-generation Australian. You are very good at making assumptions, and quite stubborn to abandon them and your opinions, once you've settled on them. The very dispute regarding this article is in fact a prime example of that arrogance.

Secondly, you know VERY WELL that your arguement to exclude content is for various other reasons. This article is about Mizrahi Jews and the fact that they are indigenous to the Middle East, unlike the Asheknazim and Sephardim that now comprise the Israeli majority, and that as such, they are native to those lands in which they resided prior to their expulsion and migration to Israel.

The addition of the Palestinian exchange of refugees is only mentioned to illustrate why these Arab Jews came to be in Israel in the first place and that they are indeed special and quite distinct from those other foreign Jews now residing in the Middle East (Israel).

My intent is not to exemplify the Palestinian experience on an article about Jews. Honestly, take this from a Jew. Al-Andalus 21:34, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • You have failed to answer my questions about what "native" means above.
  • Please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith; my reasons are exactly and only the ones I have stated.
  • Regardless of your native language, your wording is nearly incomprehensible. Honestly, who creates two (!!) 65 word sentences, each as single paragraphs, and uses the word "retrogression" to mean "retribution", and imagines it is readable or comprehensible?
  • Is a Sephardi Jew whose ancestors moved to Morocco or Algeria in the 12th century "indigenous" or not? What does "indigenous" mean anyway, didn't the ancestors of the Sephardim and Ashkenazim also come from the Middle East? Is an Iraqi or Persian Jew, whose ancestors were expelled by the Babylonians and who lived outside Israel for 2,500 years somehow now "native" to Israel and "special", whereas a Ashkenazi Jew whose ancestors were expelled by the Romans and have lived outside Israel for 1,900 "foreign" and "non-special"?
Please consider these points and respond to these questions. Jayjg 22:02, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It seems, these questions were posed to Al-Andalus here 5 months ago but weren't answered and I notice that s/he still continues to replace neutral wording countries of birth with a POV term native homelands. This went on far too long, please stop. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:23, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Found article

It might be worth adding this link:

It's from an anti-occupation site, and I know how everyone's a bit jumpy about POV on that issue, so I thought I'd mention it here first. —Ashley Y 03:22, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

Well, that's one woman's POV. Jayjg | (Talk) 03:50, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Muslim and Christian Arab societies?

Which Christian Arab societies are you referring to? Jayjg (talk) 22:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Um, ok, now you've changed it. Any evidence that the people attacking Jews were Christians? Jayjg (talk) 22:42, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've changed it to more neutral language, since we don't know the religiouns of the rioters, nor even that they were all Arabs. Jayjg (talk) 23:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The neutral language you've used is better. In any case, the Christian Arabs who were violent against their local Jews were the Maronite Catholics from Lebanon. Many of these Lebanese Christians are still as hostile towards Jews and Israel as their fellow Lebanese Muslim compatriots. Obviously there also exist Coptic Christians in Egypt, but i am still looking into their reaction at that time towards Jews and the creation of the Jewish state. Al-Andalus 21:24, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Iranian Jews

How many Iranian Jews are there today? —Ashley Y 07:20, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

11,000. Good point, they're not covered in the article, I'll add them. Jayjg (talk) 15:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Racism toward the Mizrahim

Should anything be mentioned about the racism that the Mizrahim faced (and still face) in modern Israel for being "Araboid" Middle Easterners, or as the first prime minister of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, once stated them: avaki adam (Hebrew; "less than human").

It is well know that some Mizrahim have been the subject of racial slurs, and there also exist recent docummented reports of attacks on Mizrahim by some radical Euro-Israeli Jews who have either mistaken them for Palestinians (as is in most cases) or were deliberately targetted because of their racial stock. Al-Andalus 05:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wow, why am I not surprised that you want to promote this notion? For a change why don't you focus on something more relevant, like their origins, history, their persecution in Muslim lands, or how they were flown to Israel in special airlifts, or on famous Mizrahi Jews, like Moshe Katsav, the current President of Israel? Jayjg (talk) 16:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Finally I caught your attention! Though it is a fact they do face discrimination, I do think that more focus should be put on "their origins, history," as you NOW say. However, you CONSTANTLY revert anything that remotely indicates their origins and history prior to their transportation to Israel. I have come to the opinion that you are intent in denying Mizrahim of any accreditation of their culture, history and legacy as Jews of Arab ethnicity. You have made it clear that you wish to strip them of any Arab identity they may still have, in exchange for the "Israeli" (ie. eurocentric Ashkenazi) notion of what it is to be a Jew.
Only now are you interested in addressing Mizrahi origin, history and culture. Did the possibility of addressing a more damaging topic worry you? I suppose that it did, because by including a reference to the subject matter in the article I could not be accuse of being in violation of "NPOV". And why not? Because the discrimination is real, and YOU KNOW it is. You need only do quick research to know of this prevalent, but seldom known or discussed by non-Mizrahim, reality.
Of course I don't want to dwell on this subject, and the last thing i would want is to include it in the article, which is why i posted here instead. And I'm sorry for raising this topic, but I wanted to see your reaction, and unfortunately it was the one I had expected.
What I have always wanted is to exemplify the achievements and the millennia of greatness and contributions of the Mizrahim.
By the way, in reply to your "their persecution in Muslim lands", I really didn't want to address this, for the same reason. Though do let me say just one thing.
Most Mizrahi will agree that the positions in life in their HOMELANDS were better (with many of them it being MUCH better) than what they now find themselves in in the "promised land" of Israel. Mizrahim are well aware that the "'persecution in Muslim lands'" that you speak of was not what you are trying to make it out to be. You're not convincing anyone of this, except gentiles and some ignorant Ashkenazi who are unaware of some key facts.
In the case of the Jews of Iraq, I will say yes, that persecution was committed by non-Jewish Iraqi Arabs, but you fail to mention that the violence itself was inspired and instigated by underground Zionists intent on causing religious tensions between a people that had otherwise lived in reltive harmony where no real threat was ever felt by the Mizrahim. Iraqi Jews initially opposed any implementation of any concept of Zionism in the creating of any "Jewish" state. Why would this be done if indeed there was violence and persecution? Because the violence started later, after the sabotages. But why? To ensure Arab Jewry moved to Israel in the frenzy to import cheap Jewish labour to farm the lands and do the jobs that were below the enlightened European Ashkenazi. The "how they were flown to Israel in special airlifts" goes hand in hand with it all. Though i suppose you think it all to be a charitable deed the Mizrahi should be eternally grateful for.
Then again, maybe you're just one of those who falls in the "gentiles and ignorant Ashkenazi" basket and didn't know any of this, and you actually don't have an agenda. I don't know. But enough be said, I don't want to get into this subject, I want to focus on positives! Al-Andalus 17:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please recall that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Jayjg (talk) 18:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And why am I not supprised at your simplistic avoiding attempt at a response? Sure, I'm on my "soapbox". Fine, water it down and don't address it. Because you can't dare. Al-Andalus 18:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please recall the Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and Wikipedia:No personal attacks rules. Let's focus on article content instead. Jayjg (talk) 18:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sure, cite me the Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and Wikipedia:No personal attacks rules, but where was your concern with these when you "Wow, why am I not surprised that you want to promote this notion?" me? Stay consistent! Al-Andalus 18:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
One sentence vs. a 1000 word essay? I don't think there's a comparison. Jayjg (talk) 19:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Was that an essay to you?. Please. If you want an essay, just ask me for one, and I will gladly write one out just for you.
The subject was brought up to prove myself a point. With that accomplished, I'd actually prefer to leave the subject matter here, as it is, and not continue. But if you like, I am willing to frankly discuss it, and this time propose a serious initiative at including the matter it in the main article, if that is what you want. Al-Andalus 09:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
WP:POINT Jayjg (talk) 15:35, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You may want to move the indentation back to the beginning again.

Like this. - Gilgamesh 00:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Might I recommend the essays of Loolwa Khazzoom? They are opinion, but opinion worth considering seriously before moving on. She addresses issues faced by Mizrahi Jews, past and present. - Gilgamesh 00:40, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


"Mizrahim are not a race in any sense. Therefore they are not subject to racism."
To reply to this we must first analyse "race". Biologically speaking, race doesn't exist. In its social understanding, however, race does exist. Now, the fact that generally speaking the social concept of race has been generally accepted as being divided as Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Australoid, Negroid and Amerind, doesn't mean that every society follows a set guideline of who belong to each one of the above mentioned races. This is simplly because these categories themselves are also social, not biologic or scientific. For this reason the people who comprise these "races" varies, and may or may not include some people in some society and exclude them in others. NB. race and line of descent are also different concepts.
In Nazi Germany Jews were not considered members of the white (or "Aryan") race, but does this mean that the discrimination Jews endured in Europe wasn't racism? Of course not! The concept of “race” in that society was that Jews didn't belong to the same race as European (despite belong to it in the generally accepted races, which themselves are also social concepts), therefore racism DOES apply to the form of discrimination felt by the Jews of Europe.
"Mizrahim are no more victims of "racism" from Ashkenazim than Italians are victims of "racism" from Spaniards…Discrimination has occurred against Mizrahim, but this is not racism…."
I suggest you research into the history of the Mizrahi in the years prior to, during and just following the establishment of Israel.
Yes, we have established that Mizrahim, Sephardim and Ashkenazim are all members of the same "race" (the Caucasoid "race") as are Germans, Spaniards, Italians, Swedes also members of this "race". But like in Germany, in Israel Mizrahim were viewed as being Jews who were of the "Arab race" not belonging to the "race" of European Jewry. This has been historically documented, and was exemplified by David ben Gurion when he referred to those Jews of as "avaki adam" (less than human). It’s clear that Mizrahim were accepted as Jews, but just not as the same "race" as the European Jews. So like Jews in Nazi Germany were victims of racism (despite being of the same race) the Mizrahim of Israel were also victims of racism not because they were actually of a different "race" (since they were all “Caucasoid”) but because they were viewed as separate.
And while we're at it, since race doesn't exist biologically, then does that mean the racism doesn't exist against African-American in the USA or Asians in the UK? Is it just random discrimination? Of course not! Race in all its forms is a social concept, and is highly fluid, likewise racism and those who are victims of it is also as fluid. Al-Andalus 08:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC).

Mizrahim in Modern Israel

Al-Andalus, could you try not inserting so much POV into your text, and providing some sources for your claims here first? That would help this article conform to Wikipedia standards. Jayjg (talk) 21:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Times like this I wish both User:Mustafaa and User:Yoshiah ap were around to help mediate and fact-check. - Gilgamesh 07:13, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, it would be nice if Al-Andalus were interested in facts and sources; Al-Andalus seems to think he can put anything he likes into an article, and as long as other people can't "disprove" it, it must stay; at least that's what his edit comments indicate. Jayjg (talk) 00:51, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, I don't want to get involved in mud-slinging. We can make everyone content and provide inline links to sites that verify information. No biggie, we just need to find them. There are plenty around. Besides loolwa.com, there's also her links page, including Jews Indigeous to the Middle East and North Africa. There are also individual articles at the Jewish Virtual Library, including Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia, Yemen, and Yemen again. There's also the case of Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews that were expelled from traditional communities in Hebron and other places earlier in the 20th century, whose descendants are largely unrelated to newer settlers like those in present Qiryat Arba. I recommend you both cooperate and find informational resources, rather than both arguing your points into the ground. If you can find additional informational resources, whether they support or argue against existing information, great. :) It's a much more productive use of everyone's time. :) - Gilgamesh 02:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
My sources are not from the internet, but I have found some links that will direct you to the same information. While I do understand that everything must be sourced, one cannot go deleting everything other wikipedians have included based solely on the fact that the deleter isn't aware of facts contained in the updates. Perhaps it was a mistkae on my behalf to assume it was blatently obvious, and a well-known fact, that over half of Israel's population is Mizrahi. And, while the fact that Moshe Katsav is indeed the first Mizrahi placed to such a position, I will admit this might not have been well known to everyone except the Mizrahi themselves who see him as a good step towards representation, a few studied non-Mizrahi Jewish Israelis, and those who have fought for the representation of Israel's invisible majority living in a minority run "democracy".
-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Excerpt from Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council website:
"Battler President" [In Australian English, "battlers" are societies underdogs]
"President Katsav, Israel's eighth President in its almost 60-year history, is Israel's first President to have been born in an Islamic country. He very much represents a success story among Israel's Sephardic* population, the nearly half of Israel's Jews who immigrated from the ancient Jewish communities of the Middle East and North Africa..." [[2]]
*In this context Mizrahi is implied. The use of Sephardic is in the erroneous generalization made by European Jews.
-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Excerpt from The David Project website:
"The Forgotten Refugees"
"Mizrahi Jewish refugees, who today make up half of Israel's population." [[3]]
Al-Andalus 03:34, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You need to source all your claims, and from something that looks even a tiny bit authoritative, thanks. And please recall that this is not about me, but about article content. Jayjg (talk) 04:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately this is about all about you, and just you. I will be forwarding this content, and your baseless reverts (apart from your reasonable dispute over "native"), for Wikipedia arbitration. Al-Andalus 07:16, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No, this is about citing sources. And I recommend you follow the normal dispute resolution process, which begins with an RfC about article content. I'll start that for you. Jayjg (talk) 07:35, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's getting too indented again.

Ahh, better. ^_^ Continue. - Gilgamesh 07:38, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, here's a more authoritative source, the Israeli Government census figures from 2003. However, from what I can see here, it indicates that around 1.5 million Israeli Jews are African or Asian born, which is less than 1/3 of Israeli Jews. As well, of those, about .5 million are Morroccan, who (as has been stated earlier on this page) are arguably not Mizrahi. I have no idea where Al-Andalus gets the notion that Mizrahi Jews were a majority in 1968 from. Jayjg (talk) 07:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nice try. "Around 1.5 million Israeli Jews are African or Asian born", and since you pointed it out, 1/3 is a considerable proportion considering this specifically exludes those of the same ancestry who are Israeli-born. Al-Andalus 08:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nonsense. Look at the tables. Under the heading for each continent, it lists the total Born Abroad and Israeli born, giving the total for each continent. Thus for African Jews, 317.7 were born abroad, 542.8 were born in Israel, giving a total of 860.5. For Asia, 224.1 were born abroad and 481.3 were born in Israel, giving a total of 705.4. Thus of the overall total of 1.58 million Jews from Africa+Asia, .54 million were born abroad and 1.04 million were born in Israel, and out of Israel's 5.4 million Jewish population, African+Asian Jews comprise 30%. Now throw in the fact that of those 1.58 million African-Asian origin Jews, some are certainly Sephardim, others Ashkenazi South Africans. Now add to that the fact that the single largest group, Morrocan Jews, are not considered Mizrahim either, and what are you left with - 20% Mizrahi Jews at most? It's bad enough when you insist on things without any sources, but it's worse when you insist on things when the sources say the opposite. Jayjg (talk) 08:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Jewish Virtual Library [4] seems to claim that Mizrahim were the majority until the 1990s, and now are half of the Jewish population in Israel. One might question whether these statistics are based on an accurate definition of Mizrahi (not a combination of Mizrahi plus Sephardi), however, and I believe census information would be a more accurate source. From JVL: "In Israel, Middle Eastern and North African Jews were the majority of the Jewish population for decades, with numbers as high as 70 percent of the Jewish population, until the mass Russian immigration of the 1990s. Mizrahi Jews are now half of the Jewish population in Israel." --MPerel( talk | contrib) 20:25, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, the POV of one individual (not a demographer) isn't very strong compared official government statistics. Jayjg (talk) 00:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I completely agree with you, official census data is the most authoritative. And based on the government census link you gave above, I don't see any way of adding the numbers to come up with more than 20% Mizrahi. I think sources that exaggerate that number are overlapping Mizrahi and Sephardi. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 02:27, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
Also, the existence of disparity in status between Ashkenazim and Mizrahim that Al-Andalus alluded to is discussed, for example, in this link. This is the kind of sourcing I believe Jayjg is requesting, when POV statements are put forth in the article, they must be expressed as claims from citable sources, not editor opinion, otherwise the article becomes a POV editorial. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 20:52, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. Quoting Peled as a source for his opinion makes sense. Jayjg (talk) 00:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Obviously, I, as well, am inclined to trust (a correct reading) of the 2003 Census figures over speculation. I am displeased that Jayjg had to endure such acrimonious comments as those depicted above just to illustrate that. El_C 03:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Your argument is that "Arab Jew" is an oxymoron, holding that Arab and Jew are worlds apart. While most pre-Israel Mizrahim did view themselves as simply "Jewish", their culture and language was Arab and Arabic. There is no other way around that. Thus, they are as Arab as an "Arab Christian" or an "Arab Muslim". Is "Arab Christian" an oxymoron too? Of course not, because Arab is an ethnic affiliation.
You yourself have stated that neither Arab nor European are races, but both are members of the caucasoid race. Also stated is that neither Mizrahi, nor Sephardi or Ashkenazi are races, but they belong to a common line of descent. So why then is "Arab Jew" an oxymoron, when "Arab" is the ethnicity and "Jew" is the line of descent. "Arab Jew" is an oxymoron but "European Jew" or "Iberian Jew" are not? Again, the prior is the ethnicity and the latter is the line of descent. If both word comforming the compound term were ethnicities or both were lines of descent or religious affiliations (eg, Arab European, Muslim Jew, Jewish Christian) then of course it wouldn't make sense. Then they would indeed be oxymorons. Al-Andalus 12:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC).


"But they have seldomly been historically grouped together (like "Arab Christians" or "Arab Muslims")"
This is because historically they haven’t even comprised significant minorities. They were always regarded as Arab in custom, language and culture. And this is in fact the definition of Arab; a shared culture, language and customs.
"If your argument is that in the strictest definition "arab jew" makes sense, then I agree with you."
Thank you. And isn't this what an encyclopedia is meant to be all about? It's not about how many people agree with one perspective or the other, it about accuracy.
"Regardless of this, its not an acceptable term for most Mizrahim"
You may be surprised, but I actually agree with you here. Indeed, it's not an acceptable term for MOST Mizrahim. I don't deny this. But the fact remains, that this is an encyclopaedia, and what must rule is accuracy and neutrality. It must not be converted into propaganda of the group with the loudest collective voice.
That most Mizrahi today don't identify with the term "Arab Jew", doesn't invalidate the validity and accurateness of term itself. It doesn't make it an erroneous concept. Nor should it silence the voice of those who do agree with the term "Arab Jew" (for whatever reason other than for the fact in itself that the concept of "Arab Jew" isn't literally an oxymoron). Once again, this is an encyclopaedia.
"Thats why you never see Shas advertising itself as the "Arab Jew" party. Its just called Sephardi Jewish."
No. Shas doesn't advertise itself as the party of "Arab Jews" not because they disagree with the term, but because they don't only represent Mizrahi, but others too. In fact, I know from personal experience that proportionally those Mizrahim that do agree with the term "Arab Jew", for various reasons, are in fact politically associated to Shas. Their use of Sephardi is in the common Israeli usage, and not because they actually think they're representing the interests of Jewish Israelis of Spanish origin.
"Mizrahim are not Arabs in the sense of lineage. Technically, in a cultural sense before they moved to Israel they were considered "Arabic Jews" because of their Arab culture and language, while at the same time holding jewish lineage which connected them to the ancient Jews, not the Arabs."
Firstly, they were never classed as "Arabic Jews", as "Arabic" is a linguistic term, and does not encompass culture or customs.
Now, for the word "Arab", arabness itself is not based on lineage. Arabs are an ethnicity that shares a common culture, language and customs, but this has already been established.
Hypothetically, if Arabness was based on lineage, Mizrahim would still be Arabs since they absorbed some of that Arab "lineage". But historically, this is true of all Jews. Ashkenazim and Sephardim absorbed a great proportion of non-Jewish lineage in the centuries of their diaspora in Western and Eastern Europe and the Iberian Peninsula respectively. Of course this doesn't take away the fact that they're all Jewish, but it means that the Jewish lineage isn't the only one. It's just the way it is.
Like it or not, an Ashkenazi is as European as a German or a Pole, and a Sephardi is as Hispanic as a Spaniard, Chilean, Mexican, etc, and a Iraqi Jew is as Arab as a Lebanese Chrsitian or a Yemeni Muslim.
"A strong point that I have to emphasize too is that if one defines a person by the language they speak, then over 90% of today's Israeli Jews would be "Hebrew Jews", not "Arab Jews" or "Yiddish Jews."
Once again, this would be true if they were classed as "Arabic Jews", but this isn't the name applied. The terms are either Mizrahi or Arab Jews, just like the terms are either Ashkenazi or European Jews, not Yiddish Jews.
The appelation of "Arabic Jews" hasn't ever been used, because "Arabic" is a linguistic term, and ONLY a linguistic. "Arab", unlike "Arabic", represents both a cultural and a linguistic connection. Once again, they are not classed as Arab Jews because of their language, they are classed so because of their culture, customs AND language. Your comparison to terms such as "Hebrew Jews" doesn't apply in this instance. Al-Andalus 11:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC).