Talk:Judaization of the Galilee

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^talk 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^{Chalk Talk} 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^talk 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^talk 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^talk 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^talk 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^talk 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^talk 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^talk 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^talk 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^talk 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 Wikipedia 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^talk 21:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Oh, and please excuse me if I am wrong. :) Tiamut^talk 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."

• [1] 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^talk 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^talk 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^{Chalk Talk} 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^talk 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^talk 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'[2]). Words like "project and policy of the Israeli government and associated [[Non-government organizations|private organizations]] (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^{Chalk Talk} 21:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

1. There is something wrong if you dont give a source making that point.
2. Stop saying silly things and if you imply that the people editing this article are racists again I will go to AE. The sources say it is a project and policy of the government and of various NGOs, your continual crying about this being from the Protocols is both stupid and offensive
3. See above.

nableezy - 21:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There's something wrong with synthesis of sources to create an opening that is verging on anti-zionist narratives in an article about a perfectly legitimate Israeli policy inside Israel. Whoever brought this article to its state when I first noticed it can only come to themselves with complaints... and reverting back to that ridiculous opening doesn't help this article move forward. I assume that mainstream sources don't try to present the topic in this manner but you're free to let me know if any of them does. Meantime, I ask that you stop removing POV tags and reintroducing a libelous and wholly unacceptable version. Demanding a source has zero merit in this instance since I'm correcting an issue of synthesis and poor writing. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have not removed a tag and there is no libel here. What is unacceptable is your trying to force in a favored narrative. nableezy - 22:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Nableezy,

I made an article related argument about synthesis of sources in a manner that creates a horrible article. There is libel in falsely presenting Israel as if the only issue that is in concern is Palestinian concerns. Making note of the problem is not an issue of preferred narratives, on the contrary ignoring this problem is.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I dont care if you think the article is "horrible". And "making note" is not the issue here, the issue is you repeatedly attempting to push into the article a lead that does reflect a favored narrative. The only thing you included in your lead is Dayan's quote. You have done this multiple times. And there is no synthesis here, no point is made in the article that a single source has not made. And there is no false presentation either. This is a policy of the Israeli government, this is even the Israeli government's name for the policy. nableezy - 15:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I do care if it is horrible. I also care for policy and if you're going to assert that there's no synthesis, you might as well show it here with a relevant quote of the sources. As far as I can see there's a pretty dastardly synthesis in a manner that makes sense as much as saying "zionists want to steal land". I'll also accept discourse on what you find "favored narrative" in my edit.. I had no idea that removing synthesis and replacing bad writing with a normative phrasing was a "favored narrative", but feel free to enlighten me. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC) You are asking me to prove a negative, does not work that way. Show which line in the article is synthesizing sources. Lead sections are always summaries of the article, you replacing that with a single line on what one person said the motivation for the policy and ignoring what high quality sources have said is the problem. Show where there is synthesis here, dont just assert its existence and then demand changes. nableezy - 15:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis and poor writing exist in calling it both a policy and a program (and a plan, and a "brainchild") and connecting the government with "private organizations". What is the problem with calling it an "Israeli policy" exactly that you reverted it?[3] You still haven't answered which source describes this topic in this manner - I've asked more than twice already. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Really, which source? How about the sources cited? an ongoing program of the regime undertaken by various governmental and nongovernmental agencies. --Lustick, Arabs in the Jewish State: Israel's control of a national minority, p. 129.
a regional policy --Ben-Ami, Shlomo; Peled, Yoav; Spektorowski, Alberto (2000), Ethnic challenges to the modern nation state, p. 249.
Would you care to explain how reporting what these sources say is "synthesis"? nableezy - 16:15, 26 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)

Ravpapa, is it true that the "Judaization" policy entails "destruction of Arab towns and villages"? I need to get a sense of the views of others here on this. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that statement, which appears in the 'Background section of the article, is not completely accurate. Villages that had been abandoned during the flight of Arabs in the 1948 war were indeed physically destroyed to prevent their possible return. A typical case is Tsippori: if you take a guided tour of Tsippori, it is likely that the guide will point to the slope on the side away from the ruins, and point out the area where the Arab village of Tsippori once stood. Absolutely nothing remains. The entire village was bulldozed in 1948, and it is now just a typically verdant Galilee hillside.

On the other hand, by the time the Galilee Judaization policy began in 1952, with the creation of Upper Nazareth, I don't know that destruction of villages - beyond what had been already destroyed during and immediately following the war - actually took place. It certainly wasn't the stated policy. The stated policy - beyond building a Jewish majority in the Galilee - was to prevent expansion of Arab villages onto "state-owned land". This term included both land which was registered to the state under Ottoman rule, as well as areas controlled by the "General Guardian" (אפיטרופסות הכללית), who held control of the lands owned by those Arabs who had left in 1948. For this reason, many of the outposts were built on the borders of Arab villages - to prevent their expansion beyond their existing boundaries.

In this respect, I think that Yiftachel's explanation of the motivation for the Judaization policy - to prevent the return of Palestinian refugees - is not correct. That may have been the motive in 1952, when the return of the refugees was still a possibility. But by the 1960's, the policy was not aimed against the refugees, but against those who remained. It was the Arab population living in Israel that was seen as the danger, and not the Palestinians beyond Israel's borders.

I should say that, in my opinion, there is nothing inherently wrong with a policy that encourages migration from a densely populated area of the country (Tel Aviv and Gush Dan, which is almost entirely Jewish) to a sparsely populated area, that offers incentives to industries to move to the north, and that offers subsidies and other benefits. Moreover, the economic growth of the Galilee that was a direct result of that policy (the development of industry in Carmiel, Gush Tefen, and elsewhere) has benefited the Palestinian population of the region, as well as the Jewish population.

On the other hand, the de facto implementation of the Judaization policy, together with unreasonably restrictive development policies in Arab population centers, can only be described as discriminatory and repressive, and have unquestionably had the effect of radicalizing the Palestinian population. It has, therefore, become a self-fulfilling prophecy: the Israeli government, in attempting to suppress the growth of Arab nationalism in the Galilee, has actually been its nurturer.

I am so glad you asked. What an opportunity to pontificate! --Ravpapa (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your excellent and very helpful reply. You're not 'pontificating' at all. :-) The article should not be including one side's historical allegations as fact, without providing a clear context. We are merely replying to existing materials. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ravpapa, according to sources cited in our rticle, the Judaization policy was adopted as early as 1949. I would also suggest that you review the sources cited in the section below, all of whom indicate that the destruction of Arab villges formed a key part of the Judaization policy. Tiamut^talk 16:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The question, I guess, is one of semantics. When government officials and newspapers talked about Judaization, they meant specifically the building of Jewish settlements, and the migration of Jewish population, to the periphery. And that process started as a government policy with the establishment of Upper Nazareth, which began in 1952, even if it was talked about before.

That doesn't mean that we Israelis didn't do a lot of other terrible things. Yes, we did destroy Arab villages that were abandoned in 1948, and we did expropriate land belonging to Arabs - both those who left and those who remained. We also imposed a repressive military government on the Arab population, and we massacred people in Kibia, and we expelled and lied to the people of Biram and Ikrit. I just wouldn't lump all those things together with the policy of Judaization.

The Judaization policy, in its narrow definition as it was used by the government, is bad enough as it is. We don't have to juice it up with a lot of other bad stuff that was going on but was not, at least as the term was and is used, Judaization. --Ravpapa (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I really do appreciate your perspective on things Ravpapa and indeed, if you and I were in charge of sharing this beautiful land together, I have no doubt it would run quite smoothly. However, the sources seem to indicate that the adoption of Judaization as a policy began in 1949 and that the destruction of Arab villages were part of that policy (or at least paved the way for it). Indeed, if one looks at what is happening in Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan among other places in East Jerusalem, even today it can be argued that the demolition of homes is part of the policy of the Judaization of Jerusalem. True, home demolitions are much rarer in the Galilee these days, but they do still happen.

I think the important thing is to faithfully represent what reliable sources are saying, rather than what we think they should say, while giving the various positions due weight of course. We definitely do need to note in the background the progression from expropriation towards land use limitations and the target population affected by Judaization efforts in the Galilee being Arabs who remained after 1948. But again, while your thoughts are compelling, and I find them personally very heartening, they are not a substitute for what reliable sources have to say. With warm regards and deep respect, Tiamut^talk 20:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay. --Ravpapa (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

ReasoningWOW

Section about reasoning is clearly missing input about the concerns relating to the Jewish refugees as well as the threat from Syria (yes!). Lets try to fix it please because this is not the Palestinian encyclopedia but rather an article about Israel. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Bring sources that relate that to the policy of Judaization and it will go in. Simple enough. nableezy - 22:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I just might. In the meantime, the section is prominently written like the Palestinian encyclopedia rather than an article about Israel. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

p.s. if the writer involved is not an anti-zionist or someone with a Palestinain agenda; some notables call it 'settlement and development' rather than 'judaization'. It is part of Israel proper since the armitice agreement some 60 years ago. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop saying silly things. The Israeli government called it "Judaization", this is not some made up name. And your comments about a "Palestinian encyclopedia" are inappropriate. Kindly desist from such foolishness. nableezy - 23:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I am a bit puzzled by your complaints about this article. I refer you to this article from Arutz Sheva - a source that you consider reliable as you have quoted from it frequently in other articles. This article refers to "Israeli plans to Judaize the Galilee" (התוכניות הישראליות לייהוד הגליל). The article refers to the non-Jewish residents of the Galilee as "Palestinians" (לדבריו, הפלסטינים הצליחו עד כה באמצעים העצמיים שלהם). Arutz Sheva - a website as ideologically right-wing as they come - does not call the program "settlement and development" and does not call Palestinians "Syrian-Arab Israelis." Why, then, do you insist that this article should? --Ravpapa (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Heyo Ravpapa,

Yes. For Israeli matters INN is more reliable than, say, the Guardian, whom we consider wiki-reliable (god knows why). On point. You should really review that source again as it only solidifies what I was saying. The person making the statements you're talking about is a "Palesinian" Israeli Knesset member and not the newspaper. All the information in the article is coming from his descriptions and most of it is put in parenthesis to emphasize this. If you note the introcution, he's also asking the Arab world to "enlist" in aiding him fight Israel (published on IslamOnline of all places - I'm sure he meant well though). No offense intended but mistaking Palestinian narratives for actual Israeli motivation and activity is quite an issue for general academic debate (it tends to happen too often in global media).

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Umm, well, no. The words were not Zakour's but Dalit Levy's, the author of the article. Moreover, Arutz Sheva repeatedly uses the phrase "Judaization" - see also http://www.inn.co.il/News/Flash.aspx/253014, http://www.inn.co.il/News/News.aspx/198123. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Rationale for the policy

I think we should do something about Yiftachel's claim that the rationale for the Judaization policy was to prevent the return of Palestinian refugees. Yiftachel may or may not be a reliable source, but in this (if he is being paraphrased correctly) he is wrong.

The Judaization policy was, and is today, aimed at Palestinian residents of the Galilee (and the Negev), and not at the prevention of a possible return of refugees. Deputy foreign minister Danny Eilon (Israel Beitenu party) recently stated this clearly:

"...We are losing the Galilee and the Negev. There are many areas there without a Jewish continuum, and there are attempts to steal ownership of Jewish land, and to introduce factions that are not Zionist and do not support Israel... The focus today must be Judaization of the Galilee and the Negev." ("Eilon: 'We are losing the Negev and the Galilee'", Arutz Sheva, Dec 22, 2009)

In other words, the policy has, and has always had, two objectives: to create a Jewish majority in the region, and to prevent the geographic expansion of Arab villages. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Later: I didn't realize I could read the Yiftachel citation online. I think that much too much emphasis has been put on his one throwaway sentence about the refugees. Yiftachel states clearly that the planning rationale of the Judaization policy was twofold: "(a) a skewed (Jewish) population pattern existed at the time, with 70 percent concentrated in a few coastal cities, and (b) services and opportunities were lacking for the hundreds of peripheral villages, and new towns were needed to bring these closer to the rural population>" (p. 120) --Ravpapa (talk) 07:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No surprise that just his exceptional claim was quoted out of the full analysis. If Wikipedia was properly constructed beurocracy-wise, the editor involved would have been forced to give some answers. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

And you would have long since been banned. nableezy - 15:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ravpapa, Oren Yiftachel discusses the relationship of Judaization to the Palestinian refugee problem in most of his works on the subject. For example:

• In The struggle for sovereignty: Palestine and Israel, 1993-2005, he writes [4]: The territorial restructuring of the land has centered an expansionist Judaization (de-Arabization) program adopted by the nascent Israeli state. The flight and expulsion of cloe to 800,000 Palestinian refugees during the 1948 war created large "gaps" in the geography of the land, which the authorities filled with Jeiwsh migrants and refugees. The Judaization program was premised on a hegemonic myth cultivated since the rise of Zionism that the land (eretz yisra'el) belongs solely to the Jewish people. An exclusive form of territorial ethno-nationalism "indigenized" immigrant Jews and concealed or marginalized the prior Palestinian presence.
• In another essay in Rethinking ethnicity: majority groups and dominant minorities that Yiftachel co-authored with As'ad Ghanem, they write [5]: In the next five decades, Israel absorbed some 2,7 million Jewish refugees and immigrants, and prevented the return of the Palestinian refugees [...] Following independence, Israel began a concerted and radical strategy of Judaization. The expulsion and flight of Palestinian refugees created large 'gaps' in the geography of the land, which the authorities were quick to fill with Jewish settlements. This stratefy also entailed the destruction of over 400 Palestinian-Arab towns, villages and hamlets (Falah 2003). He continues on to describe Judaization as accompanied by de-Arabization.

In other words, the idea that I somehow misrepresented Yiftachel's position or gave undue weight to one of his explanations for Judaization is simply wrong, as shown by a review of his work. Indeed, he is not alone in this opinion either., But to be on the safe side, I carefully atttributed this idea to him. In any case, should anyone wish to rephrase the material in a way that they believe more accurately represents what he is saying in many works on this topic, please do go ahead. Removing or downplaying the information is inappropriate however given its prominence in Yiftachel's work. Tiamut^talk 16:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

As for other authors who make the same point as Yiftachel, as explicitly, ther is Haim Yacobi, who writes in the introduction to The Jewish-Arab city: spatio-politics in a mixed community [6]: The Judaization and de-Arabization of space employed a range of strategies, which followed the flight and eviction of Palestinian refugees in 1948. These included the prevention of the right of return, the destruction of some 400 Arab villages (Morris 1987), and the expropriation of some 50 to 60 percent of the land owned by Arabs who remained in Israel (Kedar 1998). Tiamut^talk 16:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems you are right about Yiftachel, then. But I still contend that he is wrong. If you read the statements of Israeli leaders then and now, they never mention prevention of the return of refugees as a motive for Judaization. They always say they are trying to create a Jewish majority, and to block Arabs from expanding their villages to "state-owned" land. In other words, the policies were aimed specifically to discriminate against the Arabs who remained within Israel's borders.

And, incidentally, if you read Zakour's remarks here, you will see that he says the same thing. He laments the fact that the public debate is always about the refugees and the West Bank, and those Palestinians who stayed behind and suffered from the Judaization policies are forgotten.

It's not so much an error as a matter of emphasis - we need to emphasize that the true target of Judaization is the indigenous Arab population. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you are trying to say, however, I think Yiftachel is using the issue of Palestinian refugees and the expropriation of their lands as the point of departure. If you read for example pages 137-139 here [7], you will see how he starts with the expropriation of refugee lands. He then documents a shift in the early 1950s when a new phase of land transfer based on settlement of title begins that affects the Arabs of the Negev and Galilee. In the later phases, land-use limitations predominate over expropriations. I think its important, particularly in the background section, to begin with the beginning and outline the progression over time. That's another reason why I began with the issue of refugees. Its square one. Tiamut^talk 17:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

recent edits

Jaakobou, you know full well you cannot just decide on your own what is relevant background and what is not. Your edits drastically altered the article, presenting the issue as one that is solely about Israel attempting to protect itself from those big bad A-rabs. You removed information that was not to your liking to present this narrative for which you provide no sourcing. Can you provide a source relating the policy of Judaization to the changes you made in the background section? nableezy - 03:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Remind me to use this diff next time you try to claim I'm suggesting others are antisemites. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. But would you mind explaining how the sources support your edits? nableezy - 04:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Put a tag where you feel the material is incorrect. Reinsertion of earlier "land thieves" style, doesn't make me feel your interest is in the welfare of the citations. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

How about you dont replace well-sourced content with your unsourced narrative? nableezy - 07:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's try and work this out - which on article material you feel I left out in my recent edits? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits - fresh start

Artucle, now that I've added soem content and broke off all the "stolen land and criticism" from the actual history is within reason. The content about stolen land arguments - as well as the inflated arguement by one academic are still inside the article so both sides get represeted. I did remove one case study that has no real relevance to the general topic. Its a minor story and can't take up one 5th of the article about such a broad topic. Within its own paragraph its mentioned as not being conclusive for anything and only used for an argument. I hope editors here will try in the future to present issues that are Israeli from a more Israeli perspective - not in the sense of removing perspectives of others, but in the one that you can't write Israeli history from the eyes of only people who claim 'Israel steals land'. At this point, I have no problem, btw, with asking external perspective on both versions to see what outsiders have to say.
Best wishes. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

p.s. a good thing now would be to mention by name some of the development plans and the people involved in them. I'm also certain a few plans were about developing Arab settlements - there's room to mention this as well. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Jaak, separating what reliable sources say about the development of the policy to a special section for those that you feel claim 'Israel steals land' is not acceptable. Your edits to the lead likewise emphasis only things that you personally find important and gloss over those that the sources find important. I've reverted the changes you made to the background and lead for reasons stated above, and your attempt to segregate POVs you dislike. Also, each of the additions you made, such as the Galilee observatory plan, are sourceless. I think that material would be fine if it were sourced, so I left it in, but request a citation for it. nableezy - 04:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy,

Allow me to repeat myself: At this point, I have no problem, btw, with asking external perspective on both versions to see what outsiders have to say.

As for the version you insist on edit-warring over:

All due respect, using a single and controversial academic and a guy whos memorandum was rejected by the cabinet (though, he was a prominent role), and a single case study that drew no real conclusions is rubbish even if sourced. I've already noted several times that this project is an inclusive encyclopedia and not the Palestinian encyclopedia - editors are expected to at least try and write with a neutral perspective.

Note that the restructure maintains the lead's main issue and criticism still has a very nice section for Nableezy/Tiamut and anyone else interested to maul over. We also have a nice section about how land confiscation led to the first intifada so there's no worries about only critique beingheard without some proper historical contexting.

My suggestion/request at this point is that you stop reinserting controversial paragraphs and blanket reverting without proper care for this subject matter. No disrespect, but it appears that you haven't really examined the background section and what was done with it (it had a ridiculous mean-nothing paragraph about 'mizug galuyot' and one assertion of a controversial accademic that Jews wanted to stop 750K Palestinains from coming back .. to Israel proper).

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

So if you have no problem why do insist on retaining your favored version. You have now 3 times reverted the lead to your favored phrasing, downplaying what the actual sources say and emphasizing your favored narrative. Three times now you have segregated whatever sources you dislike. How about you start following your own advice and stop pontificating while, seemingly, being completely oblivious to the fact that your criticisms of other editors carry the rank odor of hypocrisy. Stop inserting controversial paragraphs? You mean like your supposed "NPOV" background edit? I have examined the background section, you turned a section that actually discusses the background of the policy itself and replaced it with a slanted account of the events of 48. How about stop edit-warring your favored narrative in to the article and see if others agree with you, instead of insisting that your favored phrasing, for which you added no sources, stay. Kind of a "facts on the ground" strategy, seems familiar. nableezy - 05:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy,

Getting personal: I'm trying to correct the issues that made the entire article a problem and I'm really not interested in the personal aspect of anyone's long term teag-team edit-warring or their political opinions. Let's discuss these issues and work things out. I know you've gotten away with quite a lot of incivility, but you might want to check that policy non-the-less - incivility, esp. long term incivility, is detrimental to the project IMHO and in the opinion of some of the admins as well.

Background section: The background section is about the backgroud settup of the policy - i.e. Israel created, Arab-Israeli war, Armitice agreement, connecting the newly-Israeli area to the Arabs as well through the rejected UN policy and make note that the population was mostly Arab - is there anything missing?

Earlier version was about paragraphs that make no sense about Kibbutz Galuyot or some non-notable accademic claiming its all about Palestinians - its not and that text was extremely poorly written as if "Israel took land - its Arab - they want instead of making Jewish settlements, to make Jewish settlements - X says they want to keep out 750K Palestinians".

I kept the relevant content in the article so there's no concern that any of the relevant Israel bashing is gone and if you compare the two versions -- it really leaves no room to the thought that the earlier version was a reasonable one and better than the current one.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Saying things like "warm regards" or "no disrespect" does not magically make your comments "civil". If you wish to act in a civil manner with me I will reciprocate, but until that time I refuse to pay any attention to anything that you say about me. "Tag-team edit warring" accusations from somebody who made three reverts within a few hours tend to fall on deaf ears. "Arabs rejected then attacked" is a simplistic view. Other changes, such as in the lead, you write, as a statement of fact, the aims of the policy based solely on a quote from Ben-Gurion. You change what the sources say about it being a policy by both the government and NGOs to the weasilish Currently, the project is also associated with private organizations. You also separate what you feel is not sufficiently praising Israel to another section, one in which the text is presented as biased propaganda and rather the writings from respected authors and publishers. There are a host of problems in your text, but as you have shown that you are perfectly willing to make 3 reverts in quick succession, all while crying about others edit-warring, I'll leave the task of correcting those problems to somebody else for now. nableezy - 07:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Heyo Nableezy,

I tried to frame the subjects in very few words, don't take it literally. Anyways, I'm not following your concern with the lead relying on Ben Gurion. The writing was poor and came off like a protocols arrangement (this is not a personal insinuation towards anyone). There was no considertaion to evolution and proper presentation. As I've noted, I'm open for review on the two versions by external uninvolved observers if you feel the previous version was immaculate - I can assure you it wasn't. No offense, but I've no idea why you call it "weaselish" to note exactly what the original text said only ascribing it a more relevant time-frame. The earlier version was a mesh, a synthesis and the footnotes were a little ridiculous as a result "x calls it policy", "y calls it regional project" - it doesn't strike me as encyclopedic footnotes when we're dealing with something fairly benign - a policy to populate a section of the state that has a majority of another ethnicity. There's no need for praise here, but there's also no need to make the article a weapon against Israel. This article is about an Israeli policy - not about the Palestinian perspective of that policy (which is still on the article).

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The only synthesis in the article was in your additions. If a soruce does not discuss info in relation to Judaiztion, we shouldn't either. As such, I've removed all the crap you added about Arab armies and rejection of the partition plan (unrelated and tired Zionist propagnda etc). I've also removed the unsourced section you added on the Galilee observatory plan. I've also removed your one-sided and incomplete and incorrect additions to the introduction.

Please propose the changes you would like to see to the intro on talk first before making them. Please also make sure your additions to the body of the article are supported by relible scholary sources. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 15:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Backgroud_for_Israeli_territory_-_Request_for_neutrality_check.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Totally Biased Anti-Zionist Article

The tone of this article is all wrong and it definitely biased against Zionist and Jews.

The purpose of building homes in Israel is not to "prevent the return of refugees" or "exert control over Arabs" it's simply to build the Jewish homeland. I'm so dissapointed that you have to go to sneaky means to advance your battle against the Jewish state. 3dtech (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That's what usually happens when an anti-Zionist clique gets together. The title of this article, btw, is a magnet for such coterie shenanigans. That and anything where 'settlement' could be inserted into the lead. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

p.s. I did open discussion, but I didn't have and energy to waste on the clique and get this article to reasonable shape. I will support most edits that remove much of the crap and insert some normative perspective that is not from the Pali-Pedia project. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I would tone down your commentary on other editors if I were you. But, as always, thanks for sharing. nableezy - 03:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

On the head of the thief, the hat is burning. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing again. nableezy - 14:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Judaization of the Galilee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605023553/http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=924636&contrassID=&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0 to http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=924636&contrassID=&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)