Talk:Anti-Arab racism/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Algeria's section

Hello, algeria's section seems to irritate an arab contributor (bestofmed), but what's the problem ? let's analyse the article:

"Anti-Arabism is a major element of movements known as Berberism that are widespread mainly amongst Algerians of Kabyle and other Berber origin"

It's "BERBERISM", and not anti-arabism, that are widespread among kabyles and berbers. It's sure that some of these people are anti-arab, but not necessary the majority. If there's a real interrogation about this sentence, it's more about the "is a major element" fact. I'm not sure that berberism is essentially based on anti-arabism, it could be even insulting to this movement to say it, claiming that's a racist ideology !!!!

"it has historic roots as Arabs are seen as invaders that occupied Algeria and destroyed its late Roman and early medieval civilization that was considered as an integral part of the West; this invasion is considered to have been the source of the resettlement of Algeria's Berber population in Kabylia and other mountainuous areas"

That's historical facts, easily found in any history book. About the resettlement, we can add that many other berbers went to north, to Iberia and Italy (perhaps it helped the devellopement of an anti-arabism there, but it's not the subject).

"regardless of this the Kabyles and other Berbers have managed to preserve their culture and achieve higher standards of living and education when compared to Algerian Arabs"

About the management of culture and language, there isn't any doubt. About the standart of living, it seems to include essentially the level of industrialisation: Kabylia and Algiers (which is widely populated by kabyles) are the most industrialised regions of Algeria.

I'm not sure if kabyles have a beter standart of living, because algerian arabs have oil allowance. Officially, kabylia does't receive oil's money arguing that's more "riche" than the rest of the country, but this argument doesn't satisfy many kabyles: it look like clearly a racist economical politic.

The comparaison of standarts of living, and even more standarts of education, are more evidents in ALgiers, the only bicultural region of the country: most of middle/upper classes are kabyles. The city is populated widely by kabyles, while arabs are often living in the poor suburbs.

Most of Algiers teachers, doctors, engineers and other hight education jobs are kabyles. It's known essentially by the universities's census (the only racial and religious census in Algeria). Myself a teacher at the nation polytechnical school of Algiers, i can give the last census (2007):

- 83% of students identitfy themselfs as kabyles/berbers

- 11% identify as arabs

- 06% are foreigners (most from subsahara africa, mainly from Mali, Senegal, Congo and Cameroon)

Thid in a national school, in state where berbers represent 25% of total population...


"furthermore many Berbers speak their language and French, are non religious, secular or Evangelical Christian and openly identify with the Western World"

It was said that "many" berbers speak french, so it doesn't mean neither that ALL speak it, nor that there isn't arabs who speak it. This point just discuss the fact that many arabs have a rejection of french language, for identity reason (arabs seeing the french influence as a danger for their arab language and muslim culture). This rejection doesn't exist among kabyles, it explain perhaps their best general level in it. But french stills the first foreign language everywhere in Algeria.

About the religious affiliation, the "many" word doesn't exculde the existence of kabyle (and more often berber) muslims. The quotation of the evangelical movement (and not catholicism, the kabyles christians's majority's church) evok clearely that anti-arabism is developped ONLY by this kind of churchs. It doesn't mean too that all evangelical churchs in Algeria are anti-arabs (there's even some arab protestants !!!).

"many Berber Nationalists view Arabs as a hostile people intent on eradicating their own culture and nation"

It's a political fact, easily comprehensible when you see arab political parties's program (which often include anti-kabylism !!!)

"It is a usually a taboo amongst Berbers to marry someone from the Arab ethnic group, although it is permitted to marry someone from other ethnicities. There are regular Hate incidents between Arabs and Berbers and Anti-Arabism has been accentuated by the Algerian governments anti-Berber policies and violent actions as well as by Islamist (Arab) terror acts against Berbers."

I will not comment the marriage question, because i don't really know if it's the case, but anyway it doesn't seems to me a really important point of the article.

About hate incidents, we can see it very often in shows like football matchs, where kabyle teams are AUTOMATICALLY very badly handled in their trip against arab teams.

Algerian anti-berber policies is a fact. About islamist terror acts, of tourse it doesn't touch only berbers, but when it's the case many berbers see it as an arab attaks against theme. And in general terrorists tend to accentuate this feeling (deliberatly or not) by actions like demanding to algerian government to impose the payment of the "al jizya", a special taxe that jewish and christians are supposed to pay in muslim countries, for kabyles !!!!!


I have many sources that can confirm the article's section, i i will add theme o Nabilus's ones (i ignore Camps's book but i know the 2 others).

In final, the charge of bestofmed that this article support algerian anti-arabism isn't well-founded. It's just a retrospective of the situation in our country, wich explain the origin of anti-arabism, but doesn't support him by any way.

friendly.

Ignacio elias (talk) 12:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)ignacio elias

I am not sure given the spelling errors you did (including Nabilus), that you understood my concerns above. But I am sorry to tell you this, I am going to report some of your above statements as Personal Attack as you kept stating prejudices against me instead of discussing the article's content. Is it problematic for you for me to be an Arab, I am wondering what is the correlation of that with what we are discussing; I hope you are not Anti-Arab yourself? Is the fact that you are Kabyle made you automatically biased? I do not think so. I will not play the Don't call the kettle black game but I think some remarks were necessary.
About the section I did a major rewrite to the section and preserve what is really relevant to the article's main topic; my first concern.
About Nabilus sources I checked them and there is no relation so ever with all the stated claims (It is a crime to falsify sources and references in the Academic world). I asked you to show me where did you get the claims but I got nothing but personal attacks. May be I mistranslated them, I am asking your help and the help of Nabilus especially for French sources.
Finally I am going to ask a third party intervention to resolve the dispute (three or an infinity of successive exclamations marks won't convince anyone). Bestofmed (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC).


Bestofmed refuse the debate, And modify one-sidedly the article, by deleting valid sources because those aren't convenient for his ideas. I am going to seize an administrator for vandalism.
Thanks for moking my english understanding level, but it's suffisant to understand your pseudo-ideas.
I didn't see any personal attack, besteofmed use de ses origines arabes pour crier au racisme. Il est interessant de voire comment les arabes vivants en europe savent user des failles de la démocratie chrétienne pour imposer leur lois (bien plus loin que ce qu'ils leur est du), alors meme qu'ils n'accordent aucun droit aux minorités dans les pays ou ils sont majoritaires.
Ay mmis n izzan, ruḥ ad qewḍeṭ ultmak, tesneḍ...s deffir, am tbeγγum kunwi waεraben !!!
Timeṭuṭen n waεraben: ukk g deffir !!! Ruḥ ečč izzan, am vavak, d vava-is, am ukk raṣa-nwen, g izmawen n umezruy....
Nabilus junius (talk) 10:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Nabilus Junius


Why do you think my edit is one-sided? What I removed from the section content is irrelevant. You can include these claims in other/new articles such as Anti-Kabylism.
Let is see what was stated step by step:
  • Anti-Arabism is a major element of movements known as Berberism that are widespread mainly amongst Algerians of Kabyle and other Berber origin: I agree to some extent but you need to be specific as not All Berberism movements are Anti-Arab (it is not their intention; at least at the intellectual level). In this regard, I completely agree with User:Ignacio elias.
  • ..it has historic roots as Arabs are seen as invaders that occupied Algeria and destroyed its late Roman and early medieval civilization that was considered as an integral part of the West; this invasion is considered to have been the source of the resettlement of Algeria's Berber population in Kabylia and other mountainuous areas. I know that Arabs invaded North Africa no question about that. The problem here is that it was said as if Berbers welcomed Phoenicians and Romans but only objected the Arabs. The expression ..as an integral part of the West.. has no meaning; there is no such thing as the West at that time. The idea should be expressed in a wider view. I suggest the following instead: For centuries, Berber culture has survived conquests, repression, and exclusion from different invaders: Romans, Arabs and French. Hence, like any ethnic group that becomes conscious of the dangers that threaten its identity and specificity, the Berbers became aware of the political and ideological implications of Arabism as defended by successive governments.
  • About the quality of life and higher standards; I consider that off-topic. You can praise and do some chauvinism in other articles such as Kabylia and its people.
  • Berbers speak French: how that relates to Anti-Arabism?
  • Berbers and religion: how that relates to Anti-Arabism? May be you should add it to Islamophobia article. I am researching the topic, some call it renouncing everything Arabic but still not relevant.
  • The marriage idea was preserved as it is nothing but Anti-Arabism.
  • I agree to some extent with User:Ignacio elias about terrorism but I object on how the idea was expressed (implying All Arabs are Muslims idea and blaming only Arabs for terrorist acts in Algeria as if 1-they are not targeted 2- something called Berber Islamists does not exist). In addition to that the source does not support the claim.
I want to give some explanation about my rewrite. The section is divided into three paragraphs:
  1. The first paragraph introduces the reader to Anti-Arabism in Algeria (mainly in Kabylia) and tries to give some of its aspects and roots at a glance according to scholarly sources.
  2. The second paragraph shows some aspects of Anti-Arabism at different levels (intellectual, social and cultural). Again every aspect is well documented and referenced.
  3. The third and last paragraph tries to explain in more details the origins of Anti-Arabism in Algeria by stating two different point of views. Again based on solely renowned sources. Bestofmed (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC).

Photo

Article is lacking a few. Thought I'd offer this one up. Taken in Pattaya Beach, Thailand in April 2002. Safe to say it shows a somewhat anti Arab view. --Looper5920 20:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

considering that there is a land mine warning right next to it, it is also possible that it is being displayed as a curiosity. Hard to tell out of context. Also, the text is illegible when thumbnailed, so it doesn't really make for a great addition to the article. --dab (𒁳) 14:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:CITE

Read it, understand it, use it. It isn't optional. Anarchangel (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

What Anarchangel said. If you can't back up controversial opinions with verifiable citations, those controversial opinions should be removed posthaste. Bestofmed - I'm closing out the WP:3O; the next step is to get binding assistance if continued reversion occurs. There's not a lot a 3O'er can do in the face of recalcitrance. arimareiji (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok I'm not commenting about the argument above, but I find the berber, kabyle, Amazigh thing confusing in the text. The proper word to use is Amazigh Jannahred (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

POV

The section "Israel" is connecting ANY fear of terror with "racism", a term used by all anti Israel and anti Jewish bigotry propaganda, aided by POLITICALLY far-left (including {Ha'aretz) in Israel.

It avoids any linkage to the authentic cause of fear by genuine concerend Israelis, worried about their children safety.

Nor does it mention the very attacks by Israeli/Palestinian Arabs on Israeli (selecting out) civilian - Jews, as real RACISM.

Gades334 (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I am going to revert your last edit because you removed referenced, relevant information; and you added a nonsensical fragment that has nothing to do with anti-Arabism and only about antisemitism (obviously you are at the wrong article). I will have to look into your first edit as well. I will keep the POV tag but you will have to point which parts are POV and why, or the tag will be removed. Your explanation above doesn't provide any of this information (merely excuses) and NO this is NOT an article about attacks on Jews. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
To Falastine fee Qalby, the entire section of Israel is POV and totally bias, if it talks about Zionists' anti-Arab, it sure can mention the explanation of Arab anti-Jewish racism.
Nor does your portion of Israel Beyteinu's particular objection to a Palestine state have anything to do with anti Arabism.
If so... then most Arabs on the entire planet would ber considered racists since most do not recognize Israel...
Another tip, not every case of sopposed discrimination stems out of racism.
To Gades334, I wish you'd elaborate more on the fear of Israelis.Caponica (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I will remove the POV tag as Gades has failed to bring any rationale. I don't call the above to be rationale for the POV tag because when boiled down, the arguments are 1. This article should be more about antisemitism 2. Israelis are incapable of racism but Palestinians and other Arabs are the real racists and 3. Whatever discrimination Arabs receive is their own fault. I would address Caponica's argument but he is just a sock of Lanternix who is simply reverting because I was in a dispute with him on a different unrelated article, an action known as wikihounding. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Caponica and I have nothing to do with one another. Of course I can suggest that some admin checks his/her IP vs mine, but admins will tell me that people can somehow fake IPs etc. But since Caponica was banned because of that game of trying to compile every single user who disagrees with FFQ together as sockpuppets of me, I will be backing him/her up, and I will be restoring his/her edits until he/she comes back, or at least until there is some sort of explanation as to you FFQ is reverting these edits. --Lanternix (talk) 04:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Lanternix/Caponica or whatever you wish to call yourself, if you wish to add material regarding Arab anti-Semitism I suggest you do it in the correct place. That place is not here. Factsontheground (talk) 08:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The section about Israel has nothing to do with so called anti Arabism, it has all to do with the conflict from Arabs upon Jews since the 1929 massacre in Hebron by the Mufti (buddy of Adolf Hitler]]) inspiration.

Usualuntilalnd (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You want to talk massacres, Caponica/Usualuntilalnd? Talk about the Deir Yassin massacre where Irgun killed over 100 unarmed civilian villagers leading to the fleeing of thousands of Palestinians from their homes. But all this has nothing to do with the subject. You have to provide a valid justification for the POV tag, so far you have not. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone disagree that the repeated 'edit war' by 'Falastine fee Qalby' is a bigoted Palestinian militant propaganda work of the cheapes kind, nothing encylopedic?

It is not far fetched from sense to mention (Wiki) terror attacks by Israeli Arabs, vital to understand Israelis feelings.

Here are my added lines that 'Falastine fee Qalby' repeatedly removes with ever changing sepposed "reasons"...

See also related Palestinian terror Israeli Arabs involvement in terror attacks on Israeli civilians Islamic terrorism Jerusalem bulldozer attack Mercaz HaRav shooting in Israel involving also Israeli-Arabs, to understand Israelis' peocupation.

Usualuntilalnd (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, your personal attack is out of line and if you make one again, I will report you. I haven't made an edit to the article other than to remove nonsense like your poorly worded fragment that contains a made-up word. How silly is that sentence by the way, you are directing people to go look at other articles to "understand Israelis' peocupation" What is peocupation??? Your edit is not only inane but it is also nonconstructive. Again you provide no rationale just whining and personal attacks. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Verification tag

There was a {{verify credibility}} tag on a citation from Al-Ahram Weekly. The tag was dated Feb 2008, and I could not find any discussion on the talk pages about why it was tagged. Looking at the website, this appears to be regular news publication that meets at least the basic standards of WP:RS. So absent any specific reason for challenging it, I've removed the tag. --RL0919 (talk) 03:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Revoking Jordanian citzenship of Palestinians

Why would this not be anti-Arab? Many of the links on this page do not explicitly say that one event or another is anti-Arab. In checking, I found that the Ivory Coast section does not even seem relevant to this article. The link is about anti-foreigners, not specifically anti-Arab. --Shuki (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Do any sources give the motivation for this as being anti-Arab? You saying so is OR. Reverted until a source is provided showing that this is anti-Arab. nableezy - 21:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, if that is the standard here. The the article should be likewise cleaned up. It is misleading to bring libelous examples from countries if the source does not specifically state anti-Arab motivation. --Shuki (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree it needs to be cleaned up, though I disagree with some of the changes. Racism against Arabs is anti-Arabism, so a source saying racism against Arabs is fine. The issue is the citizenship did not say that it was a racist action or had racist motivations. I think the Ivory Coast section removal was fine, not so much the Australia one. nableezy - 21:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
But you demand explicit references. Most of the French section is about immigration from North Africa, and not specifically about Arab immigration at all. Anti-black/African is not anti-Arab. --Shuki (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
That depends on what the definition of Arab is. North African (Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, even Sudan) is routinely included. nableezy - 21:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
What I want is explicit cites saying it was anti-Arab for Jordan to revoke the citizenship. That is what I wanted, though I am perfectly willing to accept a source calling it racist. nableezy - 21:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Should this really be a catch all?

I think there are some very different things, which are all pushed together in this article, when perhaps they either need different sections or just cutting out.

  • Form 1: Eastern anti-Arabism, by people who are classified as Arabs themselves but reject this and adopt a different view. For instance Phoenicianism, Aramaeanism, Assyrianism, Pharaonism, Greater Syrianism, Berberism, etc.
  • Form 2: conflicting with completely non-Arab, Islamic neighbours like Persians and Turks.
  • Form 3: considerations in relation to Zionism/Israel.
  • Form 4: IMO there is no such thing as "Western" anti-Arabism. In France, UK, Czech Republic, examples given in this article are just general dislike of Islamics, not exclusive to Arabs. Their "Arabic" nature, is not what is being targetted, but the Islamic alieness. This belongs on anti-Islamic sentiment, not here. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Fort Hood

The Fort Hood shooting took place two days ago. Currently, it is impossible to say that it has "significantly" increased Anti-Arabism in the United States. Please leave this part out until some future point (if ever) that an increase in this sentiment can be verified. Grsz11 21:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, quick question. I can't find anything that says that the attack was funded by the Arab American Institute, and that information in the article has no source. It isn't mentioned in any of the articles on James Zogby or the Institute. Unless it can be proven, I have a feeling that it is just racist vandalism and needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.114.161 (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, just worthless vandalism. I've removed it. Thanks, Grsz11 04:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ayn Rand as only pre-90s example of US anti-Arabism?

I find it odd that Ayn Rand is given such prominence in the discussion of anti-Arabism in the US. After an introductory sentence, the section immediately quotes Rand speaking in 1974, then jumps to 1991. The article almost gives the impression that Rand was the premier anti-Arab activist in the US prior to the 90s, which is hardly the case. (She seems to have spoken of Arabs relatively little. The quoted comments are from a Q&A session after a speech on an unrelated subject.) I edited the lead-in to give the quote a better sense of historical context, but it still seems like undue weight on one person. I'm no expert in anti-Arabism, but surely there are other, more prominent examples from before 1991 that could/should be added to provide more history? --RL0919 (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more accurate to describe her as an Objectivist not a Libertarian. --65.26.244.190 (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Saudi image

How is it not OR to say this simply anti-Saudi sentiment? YEs, he's Arab. If a Polish guy is vilified for being catholic, that's anti-Catholic sentiment, not anti-Polish sentiment.--Urthogie 16:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That image seems to be have anti-Christian Arab prejudice (since Muslims don't drink alcohol, which the sign says). In any case, do we have a reliable source that says this image indeed displays anti-Arab prejudice?Bless sins 17:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Many Muslims do drink alcohol. Many followers of every religion fail to obey all its injunctions Manormadman (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Manormadman

Oh I see you were talking about the cartoon. I thought you were talking about the image taken from Thailand.Bless sins 17:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think anti-Saudi sentiment is part of anti-Arab sentiment?Bless sins 17:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
It can be, and probably is most of the time in the Western world at least, but it's original research to say it is in the case of this picture, which has no source confirming this or making this clear.--Urthogie 17:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have a point there. What is the source of this image anyways?Bless sins 18:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
A right-wing cartoonist.[1] Calling his cartoon anti-Arab is OR, and possibly even libel, since we can't prove it and we keep it up here.--Urthogie 18:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
It's obviously anti saudi-arabic, but then that is a subset of anti-arab so... // Liftarn
I already addressed this point, it's original research to assume it says anything about anyone beyond saudis. If a Jordanian made a similar poster about a Saudi, would that be called anti-Arab? No, of course not. It's a criticism of a country, not an ethnicity. There are 22 arab states, this is just one of them, marked clearly as "Saudi Arabia" in the political cartoon directed against Saudi policies.--Urthogie 02:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
It's obviosly directed against Saudi-Arabs, not Saudi-Arabio or Saudi-Arabians. // Liftarn
Saudi Arabian people are not allowed to visit Thailand, because there is a political problem between Thailand and Saudi Arabia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.219.157 (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Saudi Arabia is a country, while Arabs are the main ethnicity in that country. The cartoon criticizes Saudis who happen to be Arabs. It's original research to claim otherwise.--Urthogie 11:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
And your conclusion that it's about the country and not the ethnicity is not original research? // Liftarn
No, it's not original research because the cartoon itself says "Saudis" on it (see the guys badge). No mention of "Arabs." The title of the cartoonist page is even "More cartoons about stinking Saudi Arabia." Original research means thinking beyond the exact content of the source(s), which is what you're doing.--Urthogie 13:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh well, take your pick of http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/BushArabs/1.asp instead. They are clearly marked "arab" so there should be no dubt about it. // Liftarn
Those work, yeah. But make sure you're not violating Wikipedia:Fair use, I think they may be copywritten. After all, your current Saudi uploaded image is not really Fair use, as fair use requires "Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." Have you searched through the creative commons or wikimedia or flickr?--Urthogie 17:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't reccomend that anybody created an anti-Arab cartoon for the article as that would defeat the purpose of it. // Liftarn

The anti-Israel rant POV & blanket brushing everything as "racism"

The "racism" shouting has become more political, less of substance, at least from critics' view have to be (added) stated, if the Arab organizations' POV is already presented so much in the article, which is one big rant of bashing Israel.

1) Where's Israelis' worry from Arab racism's attack (specifically targeting) on Jews of security in all of this, as if it doesn't play the role.

2) Criticism of mixed-marriages, is "racist" and not based on religious and safety concern at all? Who's POV is that? What does this have to do with anti-Arabism.

3) In this anti-Israel rant, affirmative action by Israel and favouring Arabs over Jews is omitted. Where's the balance and objectivity???

4) To whoever has added an organization that rescues Jews entrapped by Arabs, it is a religious org. its motives are religious never about "Arab ethnicity."

---

Criticism of the Arab charges of "racism"

Israel's Favoring Arabs' rights over Jews'

Israel has implemented affirmative action in different areas[1], And on campus --critics argue-- there's a constant favoritism of Arabs over Jews, a de-facto affirmative action.[2][3]

Rabin's government contributed to the introduction of affirmative action[4] under there some affirmative action programs Arab citizens pay much lower lease rates than do Jewish c=itizens[5].

An rexample in the finacial sector, from an Address by the Governor of the Bank of Israel, 13 Nov 2007:

We publish tenders for the populations entitled to affirmative action, and in other tenders too the approach to candidates from those sectors is one of affirmative action. Tenders are passed directly to several organizations that represent those populations, and are published also in Arabic.[6]

An example of unfairness towards Jews:

Upper Nazareth was established for the Jews as affirmative action, because the Arabs would not let them live in Lower Nazareth. Today, Arabs live in Upper Nazareth but in Arab Nazareth there are still no Jews.[7]

Some have asked if companies' Minority Discounts" for Israeli Arabs constitute reverse discrimination.[8]

Calling on security worries "racist"

A writer titled (the false "racism" terminology on awareness of anti-Jewish Arab racist attacks targeting Jews[9][10][11]) it: "Israelis aren't 'racist,' they're worried" [12]. Others have spoken out on describing Israel’s concerns as "security pretexts" and translating those genuinely held concerns into policies supposedly promoting "apartheid" and "racism" - as pure incitement and the real racism, it has also been noted example-facts which these "critics" ignore, like: there are roads in the Arab-Palestinian West Bank that are closed to Jews, where the real racist-apartheid side is at. [13].

"Racism" epithet as a political tool

Under title: Yes, Israel's a democracy J. Dayan wrote in the LA Times (May, 2010) about Tibi's using inflammatory words like "racist" and "fascist." As is his style, Tibi failed to back up his white-hot rhetoric with hard facts. the writer backs up the factual equality status of Arabs in all aspects with facts on the ground, and goes on in saying: "The Arab Israeli lawmaker who accused the Jewish state of having 'racist' and 'fascist' policies enjoys rights and freedoms he wouldn't find anywhere else in the Middle East." [14]

Even not agreeing with Israel Beiteinu's Liberman's policies, the left winger liberal Haaretz had a piece: "Lieberman is no racist," and it's an injustice to brand him as such, for him, for his voters, it stems from a tendency to delegitimize and demonize people with whom certain politicians have a disagreemen with. Emphesizing that:

What's racist is denying the Jewish people a state of their own. Certain Arab Knesset members talk incessantly about the Palestinian people's rights, including their own state. But in the same breath they refuse to acknowledge Israel as the state of the Jewish people and deny the very existence of a Jewish people as a nation with national rights. The person who deserves the racist epithet is MK Jamal Zahalka, who attended the conference of hate in Geneva and called himself "a victim of Israel's racist apartheid" while serving as a member of the Israeli parliament.[15]

  1. ^ http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2000/2/Israel%20Government%20Action%20in%20the%20Arab%20Sector%20-%20Febr
  2. ^ http://n2.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/6670
  3. ^ http://www.dafka.org/news/index.php?pid=4&id=173
  4. ^ http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/isdf/text/reiter.html
  5. ^ http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=8&x_nameinnews=92&x_article=154
  6. ^ http://www.bankisrael.gov.il/deptdata/neumim/neum250e.htm
  7. ^ http://www.jlaw.com/Commentary/kaadan.html
  8. ^ http://www.jewcy.com/post/reverse_discrimination_israeli_arabs_bad_thing
  9. ^ http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=14650
  10. ^ http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/3533.htm
  11. ^ http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=98947
  12. ^ http://www.jpost.com/Home/Article.aspx?id=49178
  13. ^ http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/9590
  14. ^ http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/27/opinion/la-oew-dayan-20100527
  15. ^ http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/yehuda-ben-meir-lieberman-is-no-racist-1.274816

RolesRoice (talk) 22:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

  • I've removed this section as it seems like it's in the wrong article. It's a commentary on affirmative action, not a direct criticism of claims of anti-Arabism. I'd like to say A) I think this text belongs somewhere and B) I think a sction with this title could easily exist here. But the text as it stands is off topic. Hobit (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, Even according to your POV, (though wishing to remove the affirmative actions part, yet) the Jpost source (& other) criticism of branding worry of terror as "racist" should be included to balance out this all-out anti-Israel bashing, largely (even the Guardian is) based on such controversial figures as infamous Ahmed Tibi.RolesRoice (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Several of the sources above are not reliable sources, such as WND, CAMERA, and Jewcy. Others are simply op-eds in such poor sources as Arutz Sheva. And the rest have no place on a page dealing with racism against Arabs. That Israel has or plans to implement some affirmative action policies does not in any way contradict charges of racism in and by Israel. In fact affirmative action is most often used to combat institutionalize racism. nableezy - 19:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

So is the anti-Israel rant, the Guardian, an oped piece based on Ahmed Tibi, who himself is not a RS. The right-Arutz 7 is as reliable as left-Haaretz.

Boi - Address by the Governor of the Bank of Israel- 13 Nov 2007:

We publish tenders for the populations entitled to affirmative action, and in other tenders too the approach to candidates from those sectors is one of affirmative action. Tenders are passed directly to several organizations that represent those populations, and are published also in Arabic.

http://www.bankisrael.gov.il/deptdata/neumim/neum250e.htmRolesRoice (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that we explicitly cite what Tibi says as the view of Tibi. Until you tell me what is an "anti-Israel rant" I have no idea what you are referring to. But the most important reason the material you added on affirmative action is that it is not relevant, even if properly sourced. What does affirmative action have to do with racism? And Arutz Sheva has no where near the reputation of Haaretz. Political leanings dont factor into the discussion, Arutz Sheva not being a reliable source has nothing to do with its far-right political stances. If politics factored into it we would also be discussing Yedioth and the JPost. nableezy - 20:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Jpost - Center
Haaretz, peacenow, B'tzelem - radical leftwing.
Yedioth - left.
Arutz 7 - Right.
JTF, Kahana, Masada - radical right.
As the anti Israel rant says that Israeli Arabs are disciriminated against, that's exactly where the (relevance!) affirmative action aspect has to be stated. In accordance with your argumenT that the anti-Israel portion is OK because it mentions/names Tibi as a source, so can the Haaretz article that refutes him be named: [2]RolesRoice (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

  • I get your arguments, but disagree with them. Per WP:BRD please don't edit war over the removal of text you've boldly inserted. Two of us disagree with your reading as to what is appropriate for the article. Your text appears to be well sourced and may belong somewhere on Wikipedia, but not here. I'd ask that if you want to include this text you build consensus for the notion it belongs in this article rather than simply re-adding it. Hobit (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

To Hobit, in reality the recent action by nableezy is an orchestrated attack, it was due to this [3]. PS, I didn't understand what a an intifada-blog (ei) is doing there as a source.RolesRoice (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I replaced EI with the original source. Any other concerns? Oh, and calling Haaretz "radical leftwing" is funny, almost as funny as calling the JPost "center" or Yedioth "left". nableezy - 20:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
"orchestrated attack" you say? I had this page in my watchlist prior to any message from any user. In fact my first edit to this page was on 2009-05-28. nableezy - 21:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I am glad the truth can be funny. Thanks for replacing the trashy EI with something else. If the Arabs would often exchange smiles with Israelis (but with respect!) maybe there would be peace.RolesRoice (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Please dont bring your personal views to this page. nableezy - 21:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Your assessment of what is a RS in Israeli media is your own personal POV. However, the actual status of the Israeli media: mainstream; left; radical left; right, ect. are factual, as somenone that knows Israeli society, nothing "funny" as you tried to make it, as per your own personal view here.RolesRoice (talk) 22:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Haaretz is part of the radical left? Don't make me laugh. At most, it's center-left, and any definition of radical left capable of including Haaretz is so broad that it is utterly useless, and rather insulting to genuine left radicals. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 11:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
With this "funny" line... You sound just like Nableezy, are you his SP?

The fact is that its usually highly critical of the Israeli govt. and most of all on the IDF, it takes the radical lefty B'tzelem's claims as face value.RolesRoice (talk) 12:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


In this section

Mixed Arab-Jewish couples Many Israeli Jews oppose mixed relationships, particularly between Jewish women and Arab men due to religious differences and security concerns.

I note that no evidence is given that the opposition to mixed relationships is due solely to religious differences, and security concerns. The opposition could be based on other factors, such as racism or zenophobia. It is also possible that an opposition based on religious differences or security concerns could be seen as racist or zenophobic. I.e why could the Arab men not convert to Judaism, and why should all Arabs be seen as potential terrorists? In other circumstances such a belief that all members of one ethnic group, are all terrorists would be seen as racist. I therefore propose to remove the words, 'due to religious differences and security concerns' from this section. Otherwise this is a leading phrase.

Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Berber section

The Berber section is a little strange, since it kind of dances around the issue and avoids directly stating the fairly obvious fact that one reason why a lot of Berbers don't like Arabs is that they have been very specifically oppressed by Arab governments claiming to act in the name of Arab nationalism... AnonMoos (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Christians in the Middle East are not Arabs

Some sentence in this article claims that Middle Eastern Christians are Arabs. That is not true. If you refer to the section on Egyptian nationalism for example, you will notice not most Egyptians, not only Egyptian Christians, only consider themselves Egyptians, not Arabs. As for Egyptian Christians (just as an example of ME Christians), here are futher proofs that they are not Arabs and do not even consider themselves Arabs:

  • 1. An official figure of the Coptic Orthodox Church, Bishop Thomas of the diocese of Qusya, gave a lecture at the Hudson Institute in 2008, where he said: "We are not Arabs, we are Egyptians. I am very happy to be an Egyptian and I would not accept being an “Arab” because ethnically I am not." (Here is the link: www.hudson.org/files/documents/July18%20Bishop%20Thomas%20Transcript%20-%20Final.pdf)
  • 2. An article from the Washington Post in 1994 called "Copts are NOT Arabs". Here is the link: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-869253.html
  • 3. A research paper on the UK Copts Association is called "Egyptians are not Arabs, they are Egyptians". Here is the link: http://www.copts.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1204&Itemid=2
There are many other sites that prove that Christians in the ME are NOT Arabs and do not even consider themselves Arabs. I am reverting my edits based on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.133.6.7 (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Here are 2 more quotes from the book "The Arab Americans" by Randa A. Kayyali, which prove that Middle Eastern Christians are NOT Arabs and do not even consider themselves Arabs:
  • 4. "Chaldeans (Iraqi Christians) usually consider themselves Chaldeans, not Arabs". (page 20)
  • 5. "The Copts tend to consider themselves Pharaonic, or specifically Egyptian, rather than Arab" (page 21)
  • 6. "The Maronites who trace their heritage back to the Phoenicians, often identify as Lebanese and Phoenician and do not usually consider themselves Arabs" (page 19) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.133.6.7 (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

--152.133.6.7 (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


It is 100 percent true that there are Arab Christians whether you like it or not, stop disrupting to make a point. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Arab nationalism was spearheaded by Arab Christians like Michel Aflaq, George Antonius, George Habash, and Constantin Zureiq. Many Arab Christians identify as Arabs despite not speaking Arabic like James Zogby, Tony Shalhoub, Ray Hanania and even the Copt Akmal Saleh.This is basic knowledge, but then again you claim that Masri Arabic is not from Arabic. This denial is silly.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Fisrt of all, funny how you argue out of the air, while I argue with references and proofs. Secondly, you only bring forward names of people, while I bring forward arguments built on opinion of entire populations, as evidenced from my references. I will be fine with you saying in the article that those people consider themselves Arabs. But do not generalize and claim that those Christians in the Middle East are Arab Christians, because they are not, not ethnically, not historically and not even based on seld identification. As for your "silly" denial that modern Egyptian language is descendent from Coptic and Egyptian languages, maybe you guys are now more knowledgeable than the famous Egyptian linguist Bayoumy Andil :) --152.133.6.7 (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Most people know that the majority of Copts, some Maronites and all Chaldeans do not identify as Arabs, why are you stating the obvious? But everyone knows these are not the only Arabic speaking Christians. There are Palestinian, Jordanian, Syrian, and Lebanese Arab Christians. I gave you names assuming that you had some basic knowledge on these figures, but I guess you do not. Why don't you look them up? If you think Egyptian Arabic is not Arabic but Coptic, then there is really no hope for you. I am sure you will claim that most of the Egyptian vocabulary is Coptic including obvious Arabic words like rah and meta. Stop this soapboxing disruption. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad you are working on your temper and that you are working on your comments to make them more civil. Since you agree that Phoenicians, Copts and Chaldeans are not Arabs, then you agree than over 95% of Christians in the Middle East are not Arabs and do not self identify as Arabs. If you want to say in that disputed paragraph that 5% of Arabic-speaking Christians may consider themselves Arabs, then I would be ok with that, as long as you make sure to note that these do not include the Maronites, the Copts or the Chaldeans. About the language argument again, I already told you, you do not know better than Bayoumy Andil :) And by the way, it would be curious to see where you find that information that Akmal Saleh considers himself Arab?! --152.133.6.7 (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Too bad you have not worked on using rational arguments. Also you are continuing to edit war despite warnings, will you revert yourself or will I have to report this? I don't agree that 95 percent of Christians are not Arabs, I don't know where you got this statistic. I didn't even mention Phoenicians. Andil is a nobody, especially because he spouts fringe opinions. It says in an online bio that Akmal has Arab heritage [4], and he has made jokes concerning his Arab identity.[5]. Hmm, did I cover everything? -- Unsigned

Michel Aflaq converted to Islam lol plz bother to read his article he always related Arabism with Islam -- Unsigned

Funny thing about how Aflaq's alleged deathbed "conversion" was only revealed after he was dead, and couldn't say anything about it.... However, most of the time most Christians of Arab-speaking background consider themselves to be Arabs , and are considered to be Arabs by other Arabs. The real religious anomaly is that by their actions from the 1940s through the 1960s, Arab nationalists revealed that they were unwilling to consider Jews to be true Arabs (with only the Sultans of Morocco among Arab rulers being willing to provide consistent long-term protection to a real Jewish community, not just a remnant of a few old people), thereby reinforcing the stated rationales of Zionism and increasing the numbers of Jews going to Israel... AnonMoos (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced material

I am uncertain why this edit which is detailing the writing of anti arab graffiti is constantly being reverted. The reason given that: "Arabs within Israel are generally Israeli citizens, thus Israelis, and discrimination against Israelis by other Israelis cannot be classified as a conflict between Israelis and others" apart from being original research, appears to be selectively applied, as much of the content of the Israel section runs foul of this line of thinking.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 13:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

As I clearly stated to AnkhMorpork, the quote he uses – in fact the entire discussion in which it was made – was not at all related to the specific content of his edit but to a possibly related issue he brought to my talk page. As such, it is a complete straw man in this discussion.
Quite simply, a couple of Jewish kids caught scrawling swastikas on walls in Long Island would not be relevant in an article on antisemitism or a section on antisemitism in the U.S.; Tawana Brawley would not be an illustration of racism in New York; Crystal Mangum should not be included in an article about the problem of rape in the American South; and the disputed content concerning vandalism by a couple of 15-year-old Arab kids is equally irrelevant to the topic of actual anti-Arabism. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I feel to see a distinction between Arabs or Jews committing anti-Arab attacks as related to this article. Your conclusory argument appears to be original research.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Since one of the sources originally cited denies it is actual anti-Arabism, that's hardly original research, and in fact strengthens the case for its exclusion. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
which source would that be?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/General+News/121414/Arabs-Arrested-for-Death-to-Arabs-Graffiti.html
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4202214,00.html
Fat&Happy (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
The sources cite motives for the anti-arab vandalism. The youths perpetrated the anti-Arab attack because... They do not contradict the nature of the attack.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I apologise if I misrepresented your views: I understood this reasoning to be an objection to the content as evidenced in the ensuing discussion on your Talk page. An interesting article to read would be The Jew Flu: The strange illness of Jewish anti-Semitism, which clearly allows for the possibility of racism within the same racial group. The name Bobby Fischer springs to mind. An accurate "illustration of racism" should seek to incorporate this unusual dimension.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Granted. And this would also be the case in my Long Island analogy above, if there was a group of reliable sources identifying such to be the case. That is not the situation here, as shown by my response to Brewcrewer immediately above. And if there is evidence of wide-spread Arab anti-Arabism, it probably should be a separate section of the article (or subsection, if confined to one country). (The same subsection treatment would be appropriate if there is significant coverage of multiple efforts to "fake" incidents, say in an attempt to arouse international sympathy or outrage.) But the single incident added is thus far an anomaly, a one-off not clearly representing either of the possible motivations and seems to be undue weight if included. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
The attack is an example of Anti-Arabism within Israel, and as such warrants inclusion. It is no less notable then "Israel's Public Security Minister, Yitzhak Aharonovich, called an undercover police officer a "dirty Arab" whilst touring Tel Aviv." That it could be better placed in a hypothetical new section should not bar its current inclusion. The edit is not asserting that there are staged incidents "to arouse international sympathy or outrage" and so "evidence of wide-spread Arab anti-Arabism" is unnecessary. If the edit was advancing this contentious POV, then I agree it should be considered an anomaly and attaching undue weight. However the edit merely adds details of an Anti-Arab attack in Israel in a manner much similar to those already cited. The reason it is "not clearly representing either of the possible motivations" is because it does not seek to do so.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

POV in Israel section

I have just read the Israel section and it seems like a collection of random quotes and incidents, which does not have any purpose and in no way describes anti-Arabism in Israel. Actually most of the article is like this, but I don't know enough about anti-Arabism in other countries to make a clear argument there. In any case, we don't need to list every negative thing that any Member of Knesset ever said about Arabs, but we do need to provide a background and describe the history of anti-Arabism in Israel.

The content also needs to be generalized and un-recentism-ified: why is the Lieberman plan (only anti-Arab according to some) mentioned in depth? What about the Allon plan? What about hundreds of other Israeli plans that involved resettlement of Arabs or annexation of lands in some form? Direct quotes and unqualified statements should also be removed and replaced with a more objective overview. —Ynhockey (Talk) 06:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Your complaints are not about the neutrality of the section but the way it is written. I have thus removed the NPOV tag, since it's inappropriate. All the claims are well sourced anyway so there is no neutrality issue. **Many** pages on Wikipedia list items relevant to the topic, there is nothing inherently wrong with this. Whoever said an encyclopedia can't have lists? Eptified (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Sourced != Neutral 71.204.165.25 (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Portuguese anti-Arabism

I'm not sure if it is anti-Arabism per se or just anti-Islam, since Portugal came out from under Muslim rule and developed a very strong anti-Islamic sentiment. They seemed to have deliberately seperated Arabs frok others in their Indian Ocean campaigns for brutal treatment, eventually the Arabs drove the Portuguese out.


Portuguese massacre of Arabs

In Malacca

http://books.google.com/books?id=yUYFAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA461&dq=Arab+portuguese+slaughter&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YVVvUofeKYbXkQfOj4DYAQ&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Arab%20portuguese%20slaughter&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=UW4KAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA461&dq=Arab+portuguese+slaughter&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YVVvUofeKYbXkQfOj4DYAQ&ved=0CEkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Arab%20portuguese%20slaughter&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=nXIKAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA461&dq=Arab+portuguese+slaughter&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YVVvUofeKYbXkQfOj4DYAQ&ved=0CE8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Arab%20portuguese%20slaughter&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=aAgi_5xIVBMC&pg=PT142&dq=Arab+portuguese+slaughter&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YVVvUofeKYbXkQfOj4DYAQ&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Arab%20portuguese%20slaughter&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=9lOrrFgCZIgC&pg=PA465&dq=Arab+portuguese+slaughter&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YVVvUofeKYbXkQfOj4DYAQ&ved=0CFoQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Arab%20portuguese%20slaughter&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=0fAHAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA414&dq=Arab+portuguese+slaughter&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YVVvUofeKYbXkQfOj4DYAQ&ved=0CGAQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Arab%20portuguese%20slaughter&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=ff4HAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA414&dq=Arab+portuguese+slaughter&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YVVvUofeKYbXkQfOj4DYAQ&ved=0CGYQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Arab%20portuguese%20slaughter&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=B5PeMDWgrwUC&pg=PA414&dq=Arab+portuguese+slaughter&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YVVvUofeKYbXkQfOj4DYAQ&ved=0CGwQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Arab%20portuguese%20slaughter&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=hZsIAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA419&dq=Arab+portuguese+slaughter&hl=en&sa=X&ei=k1VvUoDjCsmrkAe7g4GIAQ&ved=0CD0Q6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=Arab%20portuguese%20slaughter&f=false


http://books.google.com/books?id=5fUHAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA414&dq=Enhance+terror+separated+arabs+cut+right+hand+nose+women&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rFZvUqnlBoT1kQef_oCwAQ&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Enhance%20terror%20separated%20arabs%20cut%20right%20hand%20nose%20women&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=wTMHAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA414&dq=Enhance+terror+separated+arabs+cut+right+hand+nose+women&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rFZvUqnlBoT1kQef_oCwAQ&ved=0CEcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Enhance%20terror%20separated%20arabs%20cut%20right%20hand%20nose%20women&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=iZIIAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT263&dq=Enhance+terror+separated+arabs+cut+right+hand+nose+women&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rFZvUqnlBoT1kQef_oCwAQ&ved=0CGMQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Enhance%20terror%20separated%20arabs%20cut%20right%20hand%20nose%20women&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=f5LIIpfpXNQC&q=Enhance+terror+separated+arabs+cut+right+hand+nose+women&dq=Enhance+terror+separated+arabs+cut+right+hand+nose+women&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rFZvUqnlBoT1kQef_oCwAQ&ved=0CGgQ6AEwCQ

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ol6K4ef_c5wC&pg=PA461#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=R-a2moz_taMC&pg=PT429#v=onepage&q&f=false


http://books.google.com/books?id=sJFTWMVybVIC&pg=PA92#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=AxWLxjyOUooC&pg=PA339#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=AxWLxjyOUooC&pg=PA340#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=ha4JAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA461&dq=portuguese+arabs+put+to+sword&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bgNwUszGM8-24AODsoCIAg&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=portuguese%20arabs%20put%20to%20sword&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=_EMZ5FLKAjgC&pg=PT46&dq=portuguese+arabs+put+to+sword&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bgNwUszGM8-24AODsoCIAg&ved=0CEUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=portuguese%20arabs%20put%20to%20sword&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ol6K4ef_c5wC&pg=PA461&dq=portuguese+arabs+put+to+sword&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bgNwUszGM8-24AODsoCIAg&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=portuguese%20arabs%20put%20to%20sword&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=VbYJAAAAQBAJ&pg=RA1-PT436&dq=portuguese+arabs+put+to+sword&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bgNwUszGM8-24AODsoCIAg&ved=0CGMQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=portuguese%20arabs%20put%20to%20sword&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=R-a2moz_taMC&pg=PT429&dq=portuguese+arabs+put+to+sword&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nRdwUoegMcWFyQH9roDYCw&ved=0CEIQ6wEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=portuguese%20arabs%20put%20to%20sword&f=false


http://books.google.com/books?id=hmX-6YOEVwoC&pg=PA360&dq=portuguese+arabs+put+to+sword&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9BdwUo-wGou3kAf0soHAAQ&ved=0CDUQ6AEwADgU#v=onepage&q=portuguese%20arabs%20put%20to%20sword&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=iRaJAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA56&dq=portuguese+arabs+put+to+sword+india&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zhlwUoVH6tbJAdmDgOAL&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=portuguese%20arabs%20put%20to%20sword%20india&f=false

In East Africa

http://books.google.com/books?id=iPA8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA224&dq=Arab+portuguese+slaughter&hl=en&sa=X&ei=k1VvUoDjCsmrkAe7g4GIAQ&ved=0CEgQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=Arab%20portuguese%20slaughter&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=GCYrLnzeuZwC&pg=PA35&dq=portuguese+arabs+put+to+sword&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nRdwUoegMcWFyQH9roDYCw&ved=0CGUQ6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=portuguese%20arabs%20put%20to%20sword&f=false

In Arabia

http://books.google.com/books?id=mJWrVWZuUJEC&pg=PA11&dq=portuguese+arabs+put+to+sword&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nRdwUoegMcWFyQH9roDYCw&ved=0CFMQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=portuguese%20arabs%20put%20to%20sword&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=1pbOYuGWKJgC&pg=PT29&dq=portuguese+arabs+put+to+sword&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nRdwUoegMcWFyQH9roDYCw&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=portuguese%20arabs%20put%20to%20sword&f=false

In Muscat

http://books.google.com/books?id=_vvOAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA324&dq=portuguese+arabs+put+to+sword+muscat&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rhhwUtCYIobhyQGNpICoDw&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=portuguese%20arabs%20put%20to%20sword%20muscat&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=FTTGWSme30YC&pg=PR47&dq=portuguese+arabs+put+to+sword+muscat&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rhhwUtCYIobhyQGNpICoDw&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=portuguese%20arabs%20put%20to%20sword%20muscat&f=false

In India

http://books.google.com/books?id=rN69iFj1PJoC&pg=PA131&dq=portuguese+arabs+torture&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HhlwUuCyJOXEyQGf-4CgDw&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=portuguese%20arabs%20torture&f=false

03:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

organization of Israel section

The Israel section could use some organization. Would chronologically be a good approach? Perhaps listing decades as sub-titles? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Anti-Arabism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Anti-Arabism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Episode of BBC: Our World entitled "Iran's Secret Army" (Anti-Arabism#Iran)

This is an example of how cherry-picked information from promary sources can mislead a reader. Actually, the entire movie was about Quds Force officers supporting National Defence Forces and Arab people. The guy said, "When we arrived there were no humans here. The village was deserted." The rest ("There still aren't any humans, only Arabs!") was said by the journalist as a joke. --Z 18:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Arab_racism/Archive_3&oldid=1172028142"