Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:51, 24 February 2010

Palestine Start‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christian Arabs

If I am correct, there used to be a significant proportion of Christian Arabs in the Galilee and that their numbers were significantly reduced by a combination of factors, including Israeli policies, economic emigration and Muslim demographics. This could maybe be noted in the article if accurate sources are found. ADM (talk) 09:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No source for this paragraph

Since the 1990s, it is no longer considered acceptable in the Israeli mainstream to spek openly - as was frequently done in the country's first decades - about "Judaization" of the Galilee (or of other places in the country) - especially since the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that creation of Jews-only communities constitutes an illegal discrimination. Still, Israeli civil and human rights groups often charge that government agencies are continuing to implement such Judaization polices in practice, though not openly proclaiming them. Breein1007 (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It may not be acceptable, but reliable sources indicate that government planning documents from as late as 1995 continued to use the term. Tiamut 12:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Horrible article

Haven't looked into the history of this article but it reads like an electornic intifada manifesto. Whoever put an effort here didn't really care about presenting the Israeli policies in the Galilee and the "oh, they took land!" frame of mind is the only thing popping out of the page. Why are you even editing in this project? Its certainly not to build a quality encyclopedia. Jaakobou 20:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Your comment is abusive, does not exhibit a collaborative tone, and does not address any specific content issues. I have removed the subsections you created which were arbitrary and disjointed the text (retaining only the History subsection). I have also removed the POV tags you added to each section. Please list your specific issues with the article's content (not its creator or contributors) here before reappending it again. Please do not delete footnotes with quotes or sourced information again. Tiamut 11:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

In way, this similar of ethnic cleanse because it destroy way of life and culture of moslim in Jerusalem. Ani medjool (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I also see some concerns with this article. I have added some text. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Steve. Thanks for your additions. I am concerned however that some of the sources you used do not meet WP:RS requirements. I am also concerned by the presence of some WP:OR and WP:WEASEL words. I will tag the things I find to be troublesome (and remove the word "alleged") so that you can work to address those issues, should you wish to retain the text. Tiamut 15:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Steve, upon closer review, many of your additions are not only OR, they are POV and seemingly inflammatory. I've removed this entire paragraph since there is not a single source cited and it seems to be an attack on the article from within:

Israel defends its incentives for Jews to build communities in the Galilee as simply a legitimate effort to build viable functioning communities which can provide new opportunities for Jewish immigrants. However, critics of Israel refer to this policy under the epithet of "Judaization," in order to allege an illegitimate effort by Israel to undermine and to displace Arab populations. Supporters of Israel cite Israel's democratic nature and the full enfranchisement enjoyed by Arab citizens. Nevertheless, the claim of Judaization as shown by this article continues to be one of the most common allegations by critics of Israel; and this entry is designed to show the complete and total illegitimacy of Israel's government in general, as well as Israel's primary role according to many academics as the quintessential and paradigmatic source of an ongoing stream of actions which are colonialist, biased, non-democratic, and ethnically-biased, in order to displace all non-Jewish minorities in favor of Jewish groups and communities. Tiamut 15:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Please try to contribute seriously (rather than sarcastically) to this article's development, or don't bother. Thanks. Tiamut 15:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've revised my prevuious material in the opening section, and put in a new version. For one thing, I don't see the problem with the sources which i had put there. Also, I reworded the previous sentence there, to give it a more proper and acceptable role as an explanation of the term "Judaization" which is a central component of this article. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You basically reverted to reinclude material I removed. Perhaps I should explain my removal further?

First, the sentence I tagged is not supported by the sources you cited. You cite four different sources which you characterize (without evidence or attribution) as critics of Israel and opponent of a Jewish state to make the WP:OR conclusion that Judaization is criticized by people of this description.

Second, I removed Palestine Remembered and Democratic Underground altgoether from the article because I do not consider them reliable sources for this article's subject.

Third, I integrated the Assaf Adiv article into the body since it is a good source discussing the continuation of Judaization policies after 2000.

Fourth, I added the Ghazi Falah article to the additional reading section, since its also a high quality RS.

Please undo your edit as it is clearly out of line with our sourcing policies. Thank you. Tiamut 16:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, "Judaization" is a politically-charged word, and an epithet; it carries precisely the same meaning as the term "ethnic cleansing." I'm trying to help you give this word a legitimate place in the encyclopedia, by giving it a genuine context and encyclopedic explanation and underpinning. you can't just use a politically-loaded word simplistically in reference to one party in an ongoing conflict, without some explanation as to the actual underlying context and meaning. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Steve, if what you are saying is true, it should be fairly easy to find sources discussing Judaization as an "epithet". You can't simply add your unsourced opinion about the term to the article and expect me to say, "Oh, alright. I guess because Steve feels that way, it's true!" Please don't insert OR into an article on a controversial topic again. And pleae don't editorialize in the article in a way that degrades the subject matter or makes a mockery of the topic. Thanks. Tiamut 16:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

In this context, it means an ongoing official assault against the existing and legitimate communities of the Galilee. It clearly has an enormous negative connotation. ok, forget the word "epithet" (since in this context, the word "epithet" is itself an epithet against proposed wording). The word "Judaization" refers to a practice which if true, always depicts a major violation of human rights for those affected negatively by it. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

About your phrasing "if true", where did you get the idea that it is not true? Do you have sources that characterize this policy as "alleged" (a weasel word you keep adding, and which I refrained re-removing since I'm fresh off a 3RR block, as I'm sure you know)? Could you please refrain from adding unsourced or unverifiable material to the article? As you are aware, when dealing with a controversial topic, it is best to stick very closely to what reliable sources have to say. And by the way, I'm still waiting for you to remove the OR you added to the introduction and the unreliable sources you used to make you OR conclusions. Tiamut 16:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, i think you are really overdoing it now. how do you explain /define the word "Judaization?" I am truthfully asking. just try to provide some form of a definition, and maybe we can try to use that as a springboard. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't define it. Reliable source do, some of which are cited in this article. Others, if you are looking for a more general definition of Judaization, are cited in that article. I'm going to leave you to hack away at this article because I'm frankly uninterested in being reblocked while trying to protect an article from OR. So have fun. Perhaps I'll come back in a couple of days to see what you've done. Tiamut 16:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. thanks for your input on this. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

PS. You also added the category "Allegations against Israel" here. Once again, which source says this is an "allegation"? Every source cited here says it is a policy or project of the government and NGO actors associated with it. Tiamut 16:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Steve, the term "Judaization of the Galilee" is a direct literal translation of "ייהוד הגליל", which is the name of the official government policy to encourage migration of Jewish Israelis to the Galilee. It is used freely, and without and sense that it might suggest bigotry, by all political factions in Israel. Here are some examples:

• From a ministry of education website
• from the website of Arutz Sheva, one of the pro-settlement publications.
• from the Kibbutz movement.

So your contention that the term is inherently derogatory is apparently incorrect. --Ravpapa (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, okay then. If your point is true, then I was wrong, and I stand corrected. I appreciate your comment, and also your attention to Misplaced Pages accuracy and standards. Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Concerns about SYNTH

While I deeply appreciate Ravpapa's contributions to the article, I am a little concerned about the possibility that they constitute WP:SYNTH. Do the sources cited discuss Judaization? My (admittedly brief) review of them indicates that they do not. On what basis should they therefore be included in this article? Thanks for considering these issues. Tiamut 21:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Oh, and please excuse me if I am wrong. :) Tiamut 21:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the Kaadan case can be integrated by using these articles as sources:

• Arab MKs: Bill approving admission committees racist: This article from dec. 2009 discusses "A decision made by the Ministerial Committee on Legislative Affairs to allow admission committees in the Galilee and Negev to filter candidates seeking to live in their communities ..." Arab MKs characterized the decision as proving that the government was intent on Judaizing the Negev and Galilee. The Kaadan case is mentioned here too. Perhaps this is way to discuss his case in relation to the subject of this article.

• Plan to Keep Israeli Arabs Off Some Land Is Backed: Article from 2002 which discusses first passing of bbill to limit state land to Jews only. The bill was a response to Kaadan decision and states that giving preference to settling Jews is in keeping with a government policy "that recognizes the need to Judaize various areas across the country."

• Discusses the Kaadan case as a challenge to the system of Judaization and notes: "However, the material implications of this milestone decision are not yet clear: the Court was careful to confine the decision only to Katzir, and not to other Jewish settlements, especially Kibbutzim and

Moshavim, which form the vast majority of rural settlements blocked to Arabs. Further, more than five years after the decision, a range of legal and institutional means has prevented the Kaadans to actually live in Katzir. It appears that the High Court’s watershed decision about the illegality of discrimination against Arabs in the allocation of state land will not be easily expressed in a new geography of Arab-Jewish relations in Israel." It goes on to discuss the role of the JNF is preserving the policy of Judaization in the country.

I'm not sure about the coexistence section though, barring the discovery of sources that discuss in within the context of the Judaization of the Galilee. Tiamut 21:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are two: http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=924636&contrassID=&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0

http://www.abrahamfund.org/main/siteNew/?page=5&action=sidLink&stId=1903

--Ravpapa (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

How does RavPapa's material not discuss Judaization? Clearly, Judaization refers to the development and presence of Jews within a particular region. i see no problem with discussing some of the societal ramifications. This is a fairly fluid topic,as it deals with multiple aspects of demography, geography, as well as societal order and changes. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Steve. My request is that in order to avoid WP:SYNTH and WP:OR that we stick to using sources that specifically use the term Judaization, or Judaize, so that this article remains on topic and does not become unwieldy. Regarding the Kaadan section, I am satisfied that the issue is related to this topic given the multiple scholarly and news sources that discuss the case in connection to this policy. About the mixed city section, I'm still not entirely convinced and would like to see more sources making these links before we do. Tiamut 23:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, your concerns about WP:SYNTH are legitimate. I have added a quote from the Haaretz article, so, together with the Suliziano quote, it is clear that this is not my invention, but something that is discussed. For good measure, here is another source that discusses the relation between Judaization and Arab migration to northern cities: http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=1030370

I am sure that there are also scholarly studies of this demographic shift, but I don't have access to them. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Still a horrible article

The Palestinain critiques do not pose a 2nd paragraph level of importance for this article. Also, this article is still horrible and a revert that removes POV tags doesn't make it better. The article treats the topic of setteling the country and the actual movies of this action as if the only motivation is to dis-own the Arabs of their property. As if no other motivation exists or should be that those should be dismissed. If anything, these are the ones deserving merit in the second paragraph rather than giving undue credence to anti-zionists and their anti-Jewish excuses to why Jews shouldn't be allowed to settele their only country.

A starting point for fixing this article would be to stop calling the Syrian Arabs in the Galilee "Palestinains" because that is just crazy talk (pardon my phrasing). The next move, would be to hint that the land was lost after the Arabs, including the Arabs in Palestine, attacked the newly declared state and to add some context on the Jewish activity. Some proper context, and not just "took Palestinain land" style "context". Don't remove the tag until this issue gets some minor (read: considerable) treatment.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 23:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's begin shall we? This edit summary "fix lead from sounding like a protocols of the elders of zion introduction and rem Tiamut's Palestinian "critique" from the lead - notability is in the eye of the beholder. Add POV tag," is inappropriate. As I said in my edit summary, restoring your deletion of sourced information, I did not add the material in question and your choice of language is needlessly hyperbolic. If you are sincere is your desire to improve this article, you will keep in mind the need not to provoke your fellow editors.

Regarding your comment above, if you have reliable sources that provide a rationale for the Judaization policy that is not discussed here, please provide them and/or add them to the article. This article was written using high quality reliable sources that discuss the issue of Judaization. The paraphrasing of those sources has been done with an eye to properly representing the cited contents. If there are specific sentences that you feel fail in that regard, please do point them out so that they may be altered.

About your suggestion that we call Palestinians in the Galilee "Syrian Arabs", I have no problem with that, providing that there is a source discussing Judaization which describes them as such. All the sources cited here use the term "Palestinian" and/or "Arab". We write using the terminology that scholarly sources do, not what we decide is more appropriate based on our personal preferences of biases.

If you cannot make any more specific critiques, I would ask that you remove the POV tag, since your objections seem to be very vague and without foundation. Thank you. Tiamut 23:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The summary of Palestinian critiques was there to take the edge off this article's use of a term which sounded inherently anti-Israeli. Sometimes putting a concept in the open by writing it on the page in an encyclopedic manner, is better than perhaps having it "hanging in the air" in intangible, unwritten form. However, I have removed the material which you referred to, based on your suggestion. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are doing Steve. When I objected to your inclusion of that material on the basis that your decriptions of the holders of the view were OR, you fought me tooth and nail. You altered the section once I withdrew and I found your alterations to have addressed the OR issue. I added the ie of "proponents" of the policy to balance out the iew of "critics" after Jaakobou raised his concerns here, and then you go and delete the info related to the position of critics! What is going on? Tiamut 13:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, my approach to this article has evolved based on the developing consensus and discussion. in the section above, I admitted I was wrong, didn't I? That kind of admissions implies a willingness to change. Your points were right, and I was wrong. I didn't know that "Judaization" is an explicitly stated goal of Israeli officials. So I am willing to be more flexible here.

regarding the material which I removed, and your implicit question, the short answer is that perhaps I am somewhat open to feedback of editors who are from the "I-side". is that surprising? I think editors from both sides give each other the courtesy of respecting that we each have differing cultural beliefs, affiliations and premises. that fact has never stopped us from reaching some kind of understanding.

the truth is though, that my deletion of that material was not based on some sort of "party line" of any sort, but rather my own realization of my own previous errors, as I admitted earlier and further above. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well...

1. There's nothing vague in noting that the term Palestinians in the lead is politically motivated considering the main population is Syrian-Israeli.
2. The lack of mention of the Israeli reasoning for developing the area and populating it with Jewish-Israelis is verging on anti-zionist narratives (e.g. 'Jews stole land for the sole purpose of ethnic cleansing'). Words like "project and policy of the Israeli government and associated ] (read: the elders) which is intended to increase Jewish population (read: of zion)" is pretty intense skewing of things and to revert to this version when noted of the POV problem, ignoring an experianced editor, is WP:TE.
3. The article was constructed in a provocative manner by the creator and the people responsible for bringing it to such a deplorable state as the one when I first noticed it. Creating an article fitting for electronic intifada and then "asking" for the POV tag to be removed (read: deleting it without addressing raised concerns) is not the right way to fix the problem.

I'd be happy to raise more issues, but the tag-teaming must stop so this issue won't see an apropriate forum. Jaakobou 21:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

the Kaaden case

Kedar's and Yiftachel's comments about Kaaden are no longer true. Since the Kaaden ruling, courts have ruled that Arabs cannot be barred from purchasing property in Carmiel (http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-2974218,00.html).--Ravpapa (talk) 07:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Start-Class Palestine-related articles
• High-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles