Wikipedia

Talk:Mizrahi Jews

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Al-Andalus (talk | contribs) at 06:12, 13 October 2005 (→Farming abilities of the Mizrahim and socialsim of Ashkenazim). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 19 years ago by Al-Andalus in topic Farming abilities of the Mizrahim and socialsim of Ashkenazim

Use of the word "native"

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Nice revert war...

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

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

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

Problems with the latest edits

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


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

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

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

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

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

I just realised your arguement in regards to my edit;

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

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

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

Mizrahi Jews still living in Arab/Muslim countries

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

Found article

It might be worth adding this link:

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

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

Muslim and Christian Arab societies?

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

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

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

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

Iranian Jews

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

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

Racism toward the Mizrahim

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

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

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

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

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


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

African Americans are negroid. Asian Americans are Mongoloid. Caucasians are people indigenous to europe, the middle east, or north africa. If we start labeling the prejudice against mizrahim in Israel as "racism" than who is to say that discrimination Irish faced in america wasn't "racism"? Or the prejudice the Kurdish people face in Iraq...is this racism? No.

Btw, "avaki adam" seems to only be mentioned in the anti-zionist book entitled "Ben Gurion's scandals".

Mizrahim in Modern Israel

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

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

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

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


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


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

I deleted all of my previous responses because I realized that it was really all just my point of view which doesn't belong in a dictionary.

But this does. Shas obviously does not consider its sephardic and mizrahi followers to be arab. Chief Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (Iraqi-Israeli Jew) calls for annihilation of arabs. Clearly this Iraqi-Israeli rabbi is not an arab, nor are his followers judging by their own comments and by the responses of the palestinians who label Ovadia Yosef a "racist."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1270038.stm

Mizrahi vs. Mizrachi

Why is the wikipedia spelling of this term "Mizrahi" as opposed to "Mizrachi"? I realize that "Mizrahi" has more Google hits (twice as many), but it seems me inconsistent to transliterate the chet in Mizrachi as a ch for the political party, and as an h for "eastern". Is it because the correct pronunciation, preserved by mizrachim, of chet sounds "more like" /h/ to the untrained ear than to /x/? Tomer TALK 18:37, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy suggests using the most common terminology; in this case (as Google shows) it is Mizrahi. One common Hebrew transliteration scheme is to use kh for chaf, and h for chet (often with a dot or line underneath). Since a specially marked h can't be used, a plain h is used instead. And yes, Mizrahim pronounce chet differently than chaf, as does the academic reconstruction, and in both it sounds closer to a heh than a chaf. Finally, the spelling in the article should at least be internally consistent. Ah, then why is the political party (inconsistently) spelled "Mizrachi"? Well, fortuitously, the party actually spells it that way themselves in English, so that is the proper way of spelling it for them. Jayjg (talk) 20:26, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have no particular problem with the transliteration as such, but this article still make several errors (almost entirely confined to plural/singular discrapencies) which to a Hebrew speaker look very odd, even vulgar. I was going to attend to this lastnight, but forgot. I'll... look at it again later tonight (if I actually remember to do so this time). El_C 22:17, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please do. I fixed them all last night when I was rewriting basically the entire article, and then I just cancelled everything I'd done. This article is in sorry shape, and it's not only because of the jarring inconsistency w/ the number. I actually considered putting a {cleanup} tag on it. Tomer TALK 22:34, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Part of the confusion perhaps is that "Mizrahi" can mean both eastern and easterner. At any rate, for now, I just ctrl.F'd Mizrahi and pluralized/singularized it when necessary, which were rather striking errors in that sense. I'll see if I can revisit it — though, I'm thinking of translating/integrating מזרחיים into it if I can find the time. Either way, I'll revisit this soon. El_C 06:09, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on this El_C...I don't have the time to devote to it that I'd like. :-/ Tomer TALK 06:47, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Well, one or both of you could do a lot of good here. You might want to think about whether "Mizrahim" or "Mizrahi Jews" is more appropriate for an English Wikipedia article. Jayjg (talk) 23:58, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Teimanim as Mizrachim

I'm not going to fight with you about it Jayjg, but "I think this is more accurate" isn't really that convincing. The article makes quite clear that Mizrachim (a spelling I will persist in using, since ח is a completely different phoneme in my world from either ה or כ/ך...) are distinguished by their manner of pronouncing Hebrew Mizrahi Hebrew language, while the Yemenites speak Temani Hebrew language or Sanaani Hebrew language. Nusach Teiman is different from nusach edot hamizrach, which in the article is accurately identified as being similar to the basic sefardi nusach. When it comes to disputes about the proper spelling of words in the Torah, the mizrachim and sefardim agree, and disagree with the ashkenazim and teimanim who agree. By every definition of "Mizrachi" except that they happen to live in Muslimia (as have many Sefardim, Juhurim, Ashkenazim, Beta Israel, Bukharans, and Romaniotes) and arguably speak Judæo-Arabic, they are not Mizrachim. The language (Judæo-Arabic) thing clearly is not exclusive, since it also includes speakers of Judæo-Aramaic languages and Dzhidi, but apparently does not include Jews who speak the closely-related languages of Juhuri and Bukhori. It also apparently does not include the historically (and liturgically similar) Baghdadi Jews of India, since? I have no idea, because they're from too far to the mizrach!?? argle bargle. Tomer TALK 03:40, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

The Beta Israel lived among Christians, and their liturgy is not particularly relevant. The Baghdadi Jews of India (as their name suggests) are actually Iraqi Jews who lived in India for 100 years; of course they're Mizrahi (as opposed to the Cochin Jews and Bene Israel, who clearly are not). Anyway, it would be nice to have some source for exactly who is Mizrahi, or who considers themselves Mizrhai, besides two editors on a Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 05:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Granted...and I would agree. The problem is that nobody knows. This name is so new, and so nebulous, that the definition in basically every case, depends on the mind of the speaker. Arab Jew had a far more refined meaning, but has, for fairly obvious political and historical reasons, fallen into grave disfavor (including with me). As for all of my spellings of Mizrachi as Mizrahi, please know that if you see it in the future, that I'm not being obstinate...I am accustomed to spelling cheth as ch (as opposed to kh for khaf), and so sometimes I slip up. I'm willing to accept Wikipedia's de facto policy on the matter, but as you'll see by my edits, I do make typos. :-/ Tomer TALK 05:33, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
hahahahaha. CRAP! I meant to say "Mizrahi as Mizrachi", not the other way around. Argh...my head! :-p Tomer TALK 05:34, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
I'm used to using "ch" as well, but here I use "h". Jayjg (talk) 05:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And while we fiddle, Ofra Haza, a Temani Jew, is added to the page... Jayjg (talk) 22:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note that .he also mentions Silvan Shalom (current Foreign Minister) and David Levy (former Foreign Minister). El_C 22:23, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. Moroccans? Where's Shalom from? Jayjg (talk) 00:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Tunisia. El_C 00:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lead paragraph roughly reads: Mizrahiim are a social group comrpised of olim belonging to Eastern Judaism (primarily from Islamic countries) and their descendents.

Sorry, writing in haste. Hope this helps. El_C 00:17, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Before I go, I'll add that the first section (which directly follows the above passage) is titled "the problematic-ness of the Mizrahim concept." El_C 00:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I added Ofra Haza to the page. But I don't want to get into this dispute. I won't dispute the sides of this dispute if I don't have to. - Gilgamesh 02:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What? You lost me at I. Oh, I get it, אַפְּרִיל, you got me! El_C 03:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, all I know is that the article now says Temanim are sometimes considered Mizrahim, yet the only picture of Mizrahim on the page is of Teimanim, who are described as "Mizrahim". This seems inconsistent at best. Jayjg (talk) 15:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the Yemenite Jews article, they're called Yemenites. I don't have time to futz with this anymore until late next week. Shabat shalom. Tomer TALK 19:37, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
I'm far from an expert on ethnology; .he dosen't mention Yemenites, but they don't mention Moroccans either, or any specific nationality, for that matter. I think they are all encompassed under the Mizrachiim catgeory though. It's an interesting article: have you read it, Tomer? שַׁבָּת שָׁלוֹם :) El_C 20:27, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Arab Jew"

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Al-Andalus, the term is not used today, and in any event excludes the large numbers of non-Arab Mizrahi Jews (e.g. Persian Jews). Why do you persist in trying to put it up top under current terms, when (outside of rare instances) it simply is no longer used by the people to whom it refers, and indeed, never was? Jayjg (talk) 06:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If I might express pesach-distracted-ignorance...what is the argument about here? Tomer TALK 07:16, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
Al-Andalus insists that the term "Arab Jew" is a current synonym for Mizrahi Jew, and should be included at the top of the page; I disagree. Look at the article diffs for the details. Jayjg (talk) 07:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, OK, I have about 15trillion agorot to throw into that discussion, as I imagine you (Jayjg, at least) can readily believe... Being predominantly Sefardi, I sometimes get annoyed when people lump the so-called "mizrachim" together with Sefardim, not because I find it offensive in and of itself, but because it is, to me, yet another manifestation of Ashkenazi arrogance toward the rest of the Jewish world: i.e., there are ashkenazim, and sefardim, i.e., in the ashkenazic mind, "everyone else (who claims to be Jewish, but they don't speak yiddish, so we're not quite sure...)". I'm exaggerating only slightly, sadly. My overriding and perennial gripe about the term "Mizrachi Jew(s)" is that it is a label that was slapped onto various groups by the few Ashkenazim in Israel in the early days of the state, who had the (limited) sense to realize that hmmm..."well, they're (bizarrely enough!?) not sefardim(!!!)"... That said, sorry Al-Andalus, but "Arab Jew" is a term that's just as prejudicial and non-descript. It describes Jews, perhaps, who come from "Arabic-speaking lands", but the fact of the matter is, "Mizrachi" encompasses Jewish communities from lands where Arabic was/is not the predominant language, notably including communities of Judeo-Aramaic and Judeo-Persian speakers, esp. from Iraq and Iran. At the same time, "Mizrachi" is used to describe non-Sefardic communities from the middle east and maghreb who spoke Judeo-Arabic and Judeo-Berber languages, but excluding Sefardic communities who...oops! also spoke Judeo-Arabic languages and/or Ladino...and all the while, only the most ignorant of folks have ever included Yemenites, whose name, "Teimanim", meaning "Southern", in the ranks of "Mizrachim", meaning "Eastern". I rack it all up to "the indistiguishable of the unfamiliar", but ignorance isn't good science, and in this case, insisting on spreading ignorance is downright insulting, whether done innocently or by design. "Arab Jew" has only ever been synonymous with Mizrachi in the mind of those who imagine that the Mashhadim and Golpayganim speak, or have ever spoken, Arabic, a clueless assertion which has no place in headlines for Wikipedia articles. Tomer TALK 08:10, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
"Mizrahi Jew, Oriental Jew or Arab Jew." As you yourself have clearly stated, not ALL Mizrahi are Arab (culture, customs and language) for example Persian Jews. But not all are Oriental either. Is Morocco in the East to you? I don't think so. So should we take out that term because it's also not as often used as "Arab Jew", and is actually more of an oxymoron than "Arab Jew" (not by the nature of having Oriental and Jew together, but because "Oriental" means "Eastern", and not all those countries "Oriental Jews" come from are in the East). In that sense, the term MIZRAHI in itself is also incorrect. But guess what? It's the term stamped onto all Middle Eastern Jews by the Ashkenazim, and it has stuck. The Ashkenazi monopoly on naming and renaming all Jews other than themselves is a bit tiring. "Arab Jew", like "Oriental Jews", is just another term that may or may not be used. It exists. That's the point.
I just want you to reflect on this question.
  • Do ANY Mizrahim (I don't care how many or how few, radical or not) use the term "Arab Jew"?
Obviously there are some that do, and it's a term that they have chosen to embrace (even though they didn't have anything to do with it coinage, just like they didn't have any say in the invention of the word "Mizrahi"). "Indians" obviously wasn't the term chosen by Native Americans, but placed on them by "ignorant" Spaniards that thought they had landed in India. But some natives of the American continent have embraced the term, with all it's history (good and bad, for better or worse) as a symbol of identity and history. Should the term "Indian" or "Amerincan Indian" be omitted from the head of the article Native Americans as an alternate term. Of course not. And guess what, not all Native Americans are "Indians" either, because Indian specifically refers to an ethno-cultural mega-group from Canada to Patagonia that excludes the Eskimo and Aleut (who are still obviously Natives of the Americas).
I am not debating how often "Arab Jew" is used, or by how many. I know the answers to those. But just because it's not the norm should't warrant the silencing of a ethno-cultural and linguistic identity that some people hunger to claim, and are muzzeled because it counters the Zionist ideal. Whether good and bad, for better or worse, it's a term that some have embraces. Once again I ask, is this not meant to be an encyclopaedia representative of all aspects, not only of those with the loudest voice? Al-Andalus 11:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC).
I would counter that you are debating how often "Arab Jew" is used, and I would counter that it's even more seldom than you suggest. In any case, what you are doing is simply "wrong". By placing the term "Arab Jew" in the position you are, you are making it synonymous with Mizrachi, which it clearly, even by your own admission, is not. While elements of that particular segment of the Jewish world that was at one time called "Arab Jews" may have even "embraced", as you put it, the term "Arab Jew", there is no rationale of which I'm aware for saying that everyone lumped together as "Mizrachi" would do so. Moreover, I don't know how well you're aware, but many people from the Maghreb take offense if you call them Arab, and I'm guessing the same applies to Jews from the Maghreb as to non-Jews, especially those who speak/spoke Judæo-Berber languages. I have no problem whatsoever with including significant mention of the appellation "Arab Jew" later in the article, but to put the term "Arab Jew" where you keep reinserting it is unencyclopedic, and increasingly, it appears, just plain "obnoxious". Tomer TALK 13:00, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
So do something about it. Jayjg (talk) 17:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
OK, so it's almost shabat/last2daysOfPesach here, so I don't have much time...what I'm going to do is take Arab Jew back out of the opening, and leave myself a reminder on my talk page to look into adding the Arab Jew part back in at a later (and more relevant) point in the article. Al-Andalus, if you're not Jewish or not keeping pesach or whatever, perhaps you can take the time to do that this weekend (i.e., write a background of the various communities lumped together as Mizrachim) and we can hash out the details sunday evening or monday. If not, we can straighten it out in due course. Whatever. Please stop putting "Arab Jew" into the introductory sentence tho. It simply does not belong there. I am, however, making Arab Jew a redirect to this article. OK, it appears someone has already beat me to it. Anyways. Shabat shalom, and chag kasher vesameach. Tomer TALK 19:44, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
It's already discussed in the third paragraph. Jayjg (talk) 22:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I thought this should be noted. Even on this very website under Moroccan demographics Jews are listed as a separate ethnic group than the arabs. This is correct. Moroccan Jews whether regarded as Sephardic or Mizrahi are not arabs. Moroccan Jews even refer to arabs as "aravim". They never call themselves this but rather "sephardim"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Morocco

As it seems that Sephardi Jews, Mizrahi Jews and Yemenite Jews have their differences, why not create a separate article specifically about Arab Jewish issues. How, mostly before the emigrations, many (but not all) Sephardim and Mizrahim lived in the Arab world and spoke Judaeo-Arabic. Whether they considered themselves both Jewish and Arab really seems to vary, as I have observed it. Some are willing to identify themselves as Arabs, and some are not. So, how about Arab world Jews or Jews in the Arab world? - Gilgamesh 10:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Point Of View?

What, in the name of G-d, is POV about this wording?

  • "Prior to the emergence of the term "Mizrahi", which dates from their transportation and incorporation into the newly created state of Israel—Arab Jews was a commonly used designation for the Mizrahi, though not employed by the Mizrahim themselves. The term is rarely used today, except among Mizrahi minority circles promoting a revival of Arab Jewish identity. Most Mizrahim today generally self-identify by their country of origin, e.g. "Iraqi Jew". Compare with the synonymous usages of European Jew and Ashkenazi, or Iberian Jew and Sephardi."

What in that paragraph is untrue? Perhaps that which doesn't appease to the ears of some is the following; "The term is rarely used today, except among Mizrahi minority circles promoting a revival of Arab Jewish identity."

However much some people may disagree with this sentiment among some Mizrahi, who can honestly say that it is not true? Please raise your hand and debate your position, or otherwise don't revert.

It doesn't say every Mizrahi feels this way. It specifically says that it is within "minority circles" that the term is espoused and promoted.

I believe the only POV here is the attempted denial that indeed there are some Mizrahi that espouse and encourage the term. Al-Andalus 01:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Ignoring the poor wording for the moment, please provide support for your claim that any significant number of Mizrahi Jews prefer to refer to themselves as "Arab Jews". Jayjg (talk) 01:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry mate, if that's the case, why then don't you say it's poor wording insteead of throwing around POV accusations.

In any case, since my last Discussion post above, I have reworded the paragraph in question to a more neutral version.

"Prior to the emergence of the term "Mizrahi", which dates from their transportation and incorporation into the newly created state of Israel—Arab Jews was a commonly used designation for the Mizrahi, though not employed by the Mizrahim themselves. The term is rarely used today, except among Mizrahi minority circles espousing and promoting Arab Jewish identity. Most Mizrahim today generally self-identify by their country of origin, e.g. "Iraqi Jew". Compare with the synonymous usages of European Jew and Ashkenazi, or Iberian Jew and Sephardi."

I hope this change appeals. Al-Andalus 01:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC).

I would say "please provide support for your claim that any relevant number..." ... That said, if you're the one, Al-Andalus, who put that ridiculous "European Jew" and "Iberian Jew" nonsense in there, perhaps while you're at it, you can provide evidence that anyone of relevance refers to Ashkenazim and Sefardim by those terms nowadays, as that wording seems to suggest. Tomer TALK 01:43, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Tomer, I'm glad that at least someone noticed the salient part of my previous comment. Jayjg (talk) 01:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What?!?!? Who these days refer to the Spehardim as Sephardim, you ask? Uhm, most people do!! Except perhaps Ashkenazim with their one world view of Judaism and Jews.
Of course in the view of most Ashkenazim there is no ditinction between Jews when it comes to numeric supremacy and dominance over Jewish culture (both Ashkenazim).
Your question is insulting to all those wishing to preserve their distinct Jewish cultures and customs, which together make Judaism and the Jewish people the rich herritage that is. You may be surprised to know that that monochromatic view of Jews that you have (which provoked you to ask who these days cares or distinguishes between Ahkenazim and Sephardim, etc) is not the view held by all Jews (especially the non-Ashkenazim). But what else could be expected, the Ashkenazim wouldn't care to distinguishing the beautiful varieties of Judaism and the Jewish people since their Ashkenazi culture is well assured for survival, unlike the stuggle by all other Jews. That's the very arrogance that we've come to expect. The arguements here in this very page are also evidence to that arrogance, with the continual attempts to crush any feeling of "other" Jewishness that would go against their Jewish (Ashkenazi) norm. Al-Andalus 01:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC).
Rather than spouting rhetoric, please provide evidence that any significant or notable number of Mizrahi Jews prefer to refer to themselves as "Arab Jews". This is the third time you've been asked. Jayjg (talk) 02:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Many (although obviously far from being a large majority, not a small majority or a large minority, but yes a small minority) Iraqi Jews identify as "Arab Jews" (deny it all you want). The continuing oppression and struggles of Moroccan Jews within Israeli society has also lead to some identifying as "Arab Jews" (though not as many as the Iraqi, since many Moroccans are Sephardic and not Mizrahi). What else would they be expected to see themselves as, when they themselves are seen as such. When their own Israeli government brands thems as neurotic Moroccans when they dare voice complaints of their conditions of life?
Will that be enough? Would you like affidavits of all these people? I'm sure you would, and if I could and had the time, I'd collect them signed and serve them to you on silver platter. For now, however, web pages of individual Mizrahim who advocate the identity will have to do. But just remember, for every one page there is (especially for a cause demonized by the Ashkenazi majority) there are a hunderd others who feel the same way.
On a personal note, I know of a few Mizrahim who identify both as Jews and then as Arabs, but then I also know of many that don't. But the case here is among Mizrahim, there are those that do. Isn't that what you wanted proven.
The few external links on this page, and the many organisations created to cater and foster multiculturalism in Judaism (including Judaeo-Arab cultura, language, customs, and identity) includes some people who identify both as Arabs and as Jews.
All these serve the purpose of demonstrating the existance of a "significant" and "notable number" espousing an Arab Jewish identity. But whatever, who will it be to determine what constitutes "any significant or notable number"? You perhaps? If i gave you a million people, it would not suffice you as "any significant or notable number" for it woulnd not befit your ends.
Many young Mizrahi refusniks (those who refuse to serve in the anti-Arab Israeli army) are prime examples of those who espouse thier "Arab Jewish" identity.
There was a documentary shown on Australian television (SBS NETWORK), entitled "The Last Jews of ******" (I can't remember the city name of the title). Here the protagonists also identified as Jews and as Arabs, and mourned the death of their "Arab Jewish people and culture" by all the younger generations leaving for Israel and adopting Israeli (Ashkenazi) ways and not keeping "their Arab culture".
I would go on, but I know the quotes will go unheard by you, and sadly in my dispair I realise that with you this would be a futile task. Al-Andalus 03:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC).
You've provided a link to one individual; one individual is no evidence for your claims. Either provide evidence for your claims, and stop inserting your personal POV. Jayjg (talk) 03:54, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Al-Andalus, either you're being deliberately obstinate or you're completely illiterate. In either case, be advised, I will brook little of either. What I asked for, which Jayjg clearly understood, (which reduces the legitimacy of any claims that my wording was ambiguous or unclear) was a source for the terminology "European Jew" and "Iberian Jew" as descriptors for Ashkenazim and Sefardim. Your petty whining, as a non-Jew, that I am exhibiting some kind of arrogance against you with respect to your "other Jewishness" strikes me as absurd, and your allegation that I, as a proud sefardi, am part of some vast ashkenazi conspiracy to crush your identity or to delegitimize anything that doesn't fit with the Ashkenazi norm is equally absurd. Now, who refers to Spehardim as Sephardim? I have no idea what "Spehardim" are, nor did I ask that question, nor anything analogous thereto. So answer the question I actually asked, and try to chill out while you're at it. Your position is not served by emotional flailings. Tomer TALK 02:43, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and of course it was Al-Andalus who added that "Compare with synonymous usage..." nonsense; see [5]. Jayjg (talk) 01:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am fed up with this arrogance. Jayig, if you want people and institutions advocating Arab Jewish identity numbered one by one (for your own personal satisfaction, and no other reason), I will do it.

If you want it to be demonstated that SOME Mizzrahim (do note that I said SOME, and I have NEVER said EVERY Mizrahi) espouse Arab Jewish identity, I will. Realise I have specifically used "MINORITY" in the article even though both you and I know it is not that small(It's just an unheard voice that is trying to be muzzeled), but we both also knew that you would attack the notion anyway.

I will pile up this page with your demands of proof and evidenve of Arab Jewish identity among Mizrahi that YOU will be the one to revert the article, not I. You're persistance has made it obvious you're purpusfully limitting your understanding of Judaism and Jews only within the Ashkenazi sphere.

  • The last Arabic Jews, Prof. Sasson Somekh (Author, translator and researcher of Arabic literature).

"We are Arabic Jews just as there are American Jews - it's a historical fact. But people did not use that definition, because the Israeli society didn't like it. I am not afraid to use it, and there are others like me, such as the author Shimon Balas or Prof. Yehuda Shenhav."

  • On Israel and Arab Jewish Identity, Sami Shalom Chetrit (Israeli Poet and Author).

...Where are the voices within Israel, whether artists or politicians, who challenge the status quo, who are raising the consciousness about this problem of Arab Jewish identity? We do it all the time, but the establishment doesn’t care. You know of course what the Zionist position is toward Palestinians, and how stubborn it is, and how they won’t change anything; it’s exactly the same position toward Arab Jews. They’ll publish some nice poems about “my grandfather in Baghdad,” but nothing political or controversial.

  • FROM BAGHDAD TO CALCUTTA: ARAB JEWISH WOMEN CREATING COMMUNITY Jael Silliman (Author)

Iraq has been violently brought into our drawing rooms as scenes of war and its aftermath unfold. While Iraq is now known to Americans in its territorial sense, there is little reference to the Iraqi people, their history and their culture...The stories of four generations of Baghdadi Jewish women...Through a discussion of Arab Jewish identity and the role that women played in sustaining diaspora communities.

  • Racism within the ranks, Yehudith Harel (Israeli scholar, writer and peace activist. )

These are the phases I see Arab Jews as having gone through: First, coming to Israel, being discriminated against, looked down upon and humiliated because they were "Arab Jews" -- ie belonging to Arab culture and yet practicing Jews; trying their best to integrate in many ways, among others by "forgetting" and repressing and denying their Arab cultural roots, sometimes even turning against them by adopting "Ashkenazi" (quasi-Western and secular) ways of life and strong anti-Arab positions in order to differentiate themselves from the despised and feared "enemy".

  • At Home in Exile: An Interview with Shimon Ballas, Shimon Ballas (Israeli novilist, author of the first Israeli novel to depict life and identity among the Arab Jewish immigrants)

I'm a Jew by chance...Zionist ideology is essentially an Ashkenazi ideology that developed in a different culture, in different surroundings, in a different world and which came to claim its stake here in the Middle East through alienation and hostility toward the surroundings, with a rejection of the surroundings, with no acceptance of the environment. I don't accept any of this, this is all very different from what I am. I am not in conflict with the environment, I came from the Arab environment and I remain in constant colloquy with the Arab environment.

  • THE NEW MILLENNIUM PROJECT, Responses to September 11th, 2001, Jordan Elgrably (Author, producer)

Producer Biography: Elgrably is an Arab Jew who is in demand as a public speaker on Sephardi/Mizrahi cultures and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict...He is editing a novel about Arab-Jewish identity and the Middle East conflict, along with a collection of essays. Currently he serves as the editor of CriminalDefense Weekly

  • The Arab-Jews, Yehouda Shenhav (Israeli Author)


Even pro-Zionist on Ashkenazi-run anti-"Arab Jewish" identity websites acknoweladge the "Arab Jew" identity, yearning and "phenomenon" as you arrogantly call it. In any case, how could " "Arab Jewish" identity be a "phenomenon" among Arab Jews? The only phenomenon is Ashkenazi-identified Mizrahim. But back to my point, even those who work against the cause (that you ARROGANTLY dismiss as not existing) admit it exists, even though like you they wish to muzzle it.

"A growing group of Jewish Israeli professors is challenging the legitimacy of the Israeli state from within. Many are Mizrahim, as the Sephardi Jews from the Middle East and North Africa are increasingly called, and do so from a distinctly Mizrahi outlook. In July 2004, for example, a poem appeared online entitled, "I Am an Arab Refugee":
When I hear Fayruz1 singing,
"I shall never forget thee, Palestine,"
I swear to you with my right hand
that at once I am a Palestinian.
All of a sudden I know:
I am an Arab refugee
and, if not,
let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth.
1 A famous Arab singer born in Lebanon"
The author is not a Palestinian refugee but rather an Israeli Jew. His name is Sami Shalom Chetrit, a Mizrahi professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem who, along with Mizrahi academics like Ella Shohat, Eli Avraham, Oren Yiftachel, Yehouda Shenhav, Pnina Motzafi-Haller and others has developed a radical critique of ethnic relations in Israel."

Would you like more, Jayig? Would YOU like MORE?

I often wonder if this article is really about the Mizrahim. Why will YOU not allow the representation and story of ALL Mizrahim to be told? Why do you insit in telling the story of the Mizrahim as interpreted/invented through Ashkenazi eyes.

This denial was also the reason why YOU prevented the inclusion of "Arab Jews" as an alternate at the heading of the article (next to "Oriental Jews") because it didn't fit YOUR zionistic mould. Get it mate, this article is not about YOU or your views and you accuse me of POV? Please!.

It's not like anyone said that "Arab Jews" is the only term that existis, or that "Arab Jewish" is the only identity. But, no, you won't have it, will you! You can't even fathom the proposition that other schools of though may exist, G-d forbid challenging the Ashkenazi norm, for Jayig almighty will prohibits the inclusion of any factual information, which has in any case already been over-neutralised (by including the word minority, despite not being that small anyway) just to placate YOU. Al-Andalus 07:10, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Thanks for finally providing some evidence for this phenomenon. Please recall the purpose of Talk: pages, which is not for long diatribes and personal attacks, but rather to discuss article content. Jayjg (talk) 16:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Would you stop calling it a phenomenon. What's so "phenomenal" about a Mizrahi identifying with the term "Arab Jew" or identifying with his Arab culture, language and customs? Would one suggest it to be a phenomenon for an Ashkenazi to identify his culture and [Yiddish] language as European, or for a Sephardi to identify his culture and [Ladino] language as Hispanic? Of course not. The only "phenomenon", unfortunate indeed, is that after decades of de-ethnisizing (ie Israelization, a.k.a. Ashkenization) and cultural cleansing, many Mizrahim these days don't identify with their Arab Jewishness.
BTW, don't give me this BS "Thanks for finally providing some evidence". Your contributions to Wikipedia demonstrate you're educated and of an academic nature to have known what I added to the article wasn't a POV. You knew fully well. Al-Andalus 17:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC).
I'm not sure what is wrong with the word "phenomenon", it seems prefectly neutral to me, and it doesn't mean "phenomenal". As for the rest, please recall the purpose of Talk: pages, which is not for personal attacks, but rather to discuss article content. Jayjg (talk) 19:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also, you've been consistently breaking the 3 revert rule here; I request that you revert yourself. Jayjg (talk) 20:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Futility of it all

Jayjg, I'm comming to the bleak realisation that it is futile to play by the rules with you. I've provided you with the evidence you demanded, on an addition to the article Mizrahi Jew which you knew to be true, and still nothing has changed, despite your insincere "Thanks for finally providing some evidence". Instead, it has taken a turn for the worse.

I refer to the following paragraph:

  • "Prior to the emergence of the term "Mizrahi", which dates from their transportation and incorporation into the newly created state of Israel—Arab Jews was a commonly used designation for the Mizrahi, though almost never employed by the Mizrahim themselves. The term is rarely used today, except among Mizrahi minority circles espousing and promoting a revival of Arab Jewish identity. Most Mizrahim today generally self-identify by their country of origin, e.g. "Iraqi Jew", "Tunisian Jew", "Libiyan Jew", etc."

You demanded "evidence", when it was given to you, you send me to be blocked, and remove the sentence altogether. How is that neutral? Why did you bother to ask me for evidence if when I gave it to you, you would not back down from your position?

To this point in time, the paragraph in question now reads like this:

  • "Prior to the emergence of the term "Mizraḥi", which dates from the time of the establishment of the state of Israel, Arab Jews was a commonly used designation for those Mizraḥim living in Arab lands, although it was rarely employed by the Mizraḥim themselves. The term is rarely used today, and a recent attempt to revive it met with widespread opposition. Most Mizraḥim today generally identify themselves by their country of origin, e.g., "Iraqi Jew"."

I would first like to mention that it has been proven to you that the the paragraph (quoted first) is not a POV, and that no word or wording in it is inaccurate. That said, the fact that the sentence "The term is rarely used today, except among Mizrahi minority circles espousing and promoting a revival of Arab Jewish identity" has been totally omitted from the paragraph, with no complaint on your behalf, shows your utter bias.

The sentence has instead been replaced with "The term is rarely used today, and a recent attempt to revive it met with widespread opposition." This is an unequivocally biased, and also inaccurate, point of view. But you have no objection to this? Why am I not surprise?

May I ask to what "recent attempt to revive" the term "Arab Jew" you refer to? The term "Arab Jew" has always been in usage (as pointed out by all the sources you demanded of me), although in differing degrees at different times in history (much more prevalent pre-Israel, not so prevalent now).

Then it goes on to say that it has "met with widespread opposition." This wording is even more biased (though I'm not saying it is untrue), based on the fact that it serves no other purpose than to totally eradicating any reference that would suggest the term "Arab Jew" is in fact sill in use (and I do acknoweladge it being a small, but growing, minority among the Mizrahim). The new wording obliterates all reference that point out that there are those that do use it, and purposefully alludes to the term being utterly rejected by everyone (a an utter misinformation). Yet you have no problem with this un-neutral wording?

On a final note, I would ask you to realise that Ashkenazim constitute an almost complete majority of both senior university personnel and members of Israeli academia, and for any Mizrahi academic (or layman) to openly espouse the term "Arab Jew" and espouse the cause of "Arab Jewish" identity and awareness, is not only of "any significance" (as you have previosuly asked me to demnostrate) but is of great significance, proportionally.

My new proposal for the paragraph in question:

  • "Prior to the emergence of the term "Mizraḥi", which dates from the time of the establishment of the State of Israel, Arab Jews was a commonly used designation for those Mizraḥim living in Arab lands, though almost never employed by the Mizraḥim themselves. The term is rarely used today, except among Mizraḥi minority circles (composed primarily of a growing number of Mizraḥi scholars, and other Jewish Israeli members of academia) espousing and promoting a revival of Arab Jewish discourse and identity; but which has thus far received little support among the wider community. Most Mizraḥim today generally self-identify by their country of origin, e.g. "Iraqi Jew", "Tunisian Jew", "Libiyan Jew", etc.".

My intent is to make the paragraph as neutral (to BOTH sides!) as possible, WITHOUT the omission of the positions and realities of (again, may I stress) BOTH sides. Al-Andalus 19:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Al-Andalus, in the future, unless you can post comments that deal solely with article content, and not with me, I will simply not respond. Consider this my last word on the matter. As for your claims, it was Tomer who wrote that paragraph, not me, so please don't put that on my head. However, I certainly agree with his edits. The problem with your proposed paragraph are manifold. For one, the English is terrible; what on earth does "minority circles" mean, for example? For another, how do you know that the number of scholars and members of academia are "growing"? What is "Arab Jewish" discourse? As for you examples, they are also inaccurate; the identification is often with a region, not a country e.g. Bukharan, and you consistently conflate "Arab Jew" with "Mizrahi", something that Persian, Bukharan, Gruzini, etc. Jews would have serious issues with. Jayjg (talk) 23:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I echo Jay's comments about staying on (the impersonal) topic strongly. Also, see the translation I left on Tomer's talk page here. El_C 23:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
El C, thank you for directing me to the translation you left on Tomer's talk page. I have now read it, and I'd like to quote it here;
  • ישנם פעילים חברתיים שונים (למשל חלק מאנשי הקשת הדמוקרטית המזרחית) המציעים לקרוא למזרחים בשם יהודים ערבים, משמע, יהודים שמוצאם מארצות ערב. ולא "מזרחים", שהיא קטגוריה שלדעתם הומצאה על ידי הממסד האשכנזי ששלט בארץ. אך זה אינו ביטוי נפוץ בשיח העדתי הישראלי, וזוכה לביקורת רבה מרוב הציבור המזרחי
  • There are various social activists (for example, some members of the Mizrahi Democratic Rainbow) who suggest calling Mizrahim: Arab Jews, that is, Jews originating from Arab countries [sic.] and not "Mizrahim", which is a category that in their opinion was created by the Askenazi institution who ruled the country. But this phrase is not prevalent in Israeli ethnic discourse, and recieves much criticism from the majority of the Mirzahi public.
This is exactly what I've been saying, and trying to insert into the article to balance out the litany of anti-"Arab Jewish" discourse this article has become. It's not about making the article into a pro-"Arab Jewish" article, it's about bringing it back from the anti-"Arab Jewish article that Jayjg has turned it into. Now, having utilised your own quoted translation, and considering that the only pro-"Arab Jewish" supporters your quote presents and deals with are those of the "Mizrahi Democratic Rainbow" (not including any other unaffiliated Mizrahi scholars [greater in numbers, proportionally] and laymen [though very few in numbers]), why then, won't this information be included? Why is it categorically opposed to? Does that seem like the makings of a neutral article to you?
As for Jayjg, I've stressed with you countless times over the English which in your opinion "is terrible". Fine, have your opinion. This is one thing I'm not going to get my nickers in a knot. Many words and euphemisms used many people on Wikipedia, I myself consider "terrible English". However, I know fully well that this is only my biased perception of their use of the language. I have pointed out to you the fact that the English standard I, as with many others in the Internet community, use is Commonwealth English (with more countries speaking this variety, and thus considered the "better" form) and is quite different in idioms, orthography and euphemism to North American English (the variety which in actual fact is the one considered to be the "terrible" form of English, because it is mainly two countries which use it as their standard, but because of the population size of the USA is accepted). However, because we Commonwealth English-speakers are aware of this difference, and are culturally snsitive of other people, we do not verbalise our opinions on the "terribleness" of the English used by Americans as often as Americans opine our English to be (or in your [Amrican] case, your constant opinions on my [Commonwealth English] usage).
You ask; what on earth does "minority circles" mean? It means exactly what it says. Lest it be too hard for you to decipher, I'd suggest it a wise move to look it up in a dictionary, or perhaps you could Google "minority circles" to find countless articles using the phrase to see in what context said euphemism it employed. On much the same linguistic note, you say What is "Arab Jewish" discourse?, again I would urge you to Google it up, or reach for your nearest dictionary.
As for, For another, how do you know that the number of scholars and members of academia are "growing"?. I, unlike you it seems, research material arguing the points of both sides of any given subject. Although I know the words I had added are a true statement, the source from where I quoted it is actually a site dedicated to anti-"Arab Jewish" discourse and identity revival. I specifically chose to quote it from that source so as to avoid a challenge by your person on its legitimacy. But again, with you, my good-natured attempts have failed. Once again, I suggest you look up relevant analytical material on "Arab Jewish" identity, either anti or pro. You will find that all sides agree that the discourse of said identity is growing. However, among the opponents of said discourse, the acknowledgment of its growth is for the purpose of pointing out its "threat", as a matter of a "phenomenon" (the words you and they use) which must be stopped.
Finally, you consistently conflate "Arab Jew" with "Mizrahi". No, it has been made perfectly clear, in the wording of the paragraph, that those Mizrahim that might refer to themselves (or refered to by others) as "Arab Jews" are "for those Mizraḥim living in Arab lands".
You go on to say that the statement that conflates "Arab Jews" with all Mizrahim (which I have just shown to you is not the case) is "something that Persian, Bukharan, Gruzini, etc. Jews would have serious issues with". Though I do not disagree with the notion you have brought up (that the association of the term "Arab Jews" with all Mizrahim would be something these individual Mizrahi communities would have serious problems with), I would point out again, that this is not what has been implied in the wording you are referring to.
It seems to be that the only thing for you now is to struggle in finding nuances as reasons to avoid the inclusion into the article of specific (pro-"Arab Jewish" to neutralise the anti-"Arab Jewish") elements, which have otherwise been proven to you to be true. Al-Andalus 07:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC).
Al-Andalus, the Hebrew Wikipedia dosen't, however, employ the term Arab Jews as an alternative in the article's lead, they only note the abovementioned attempts in the article's first section, titled: the Problematic-ness of the Mizrahi Concept. El_C 07:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Al-Andalus, could you please try to address the issues in a concise way, rather than either directing me to do research, claiming you know things to be true without evidence, or simply asserting that obvious ambiguities are not there? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 04:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
claiming you know things to be true without evidence. Mate, scroll up for your EVIDENCE!!!. Are you BLIND? Al-Andalus 05:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC).
To begin with, as I've explained, Tomer re-wrote the intro, not me, so please stop describing it as "the anti-"Arab Jewish article that Jayjg has turned it into". Second, your "evidence" consists of statements like "look it up in a dictionary", "Google it up, or reach for your nearest dictionary", "look up relevant analytical material on "Arab Jewish" identity", etc. Providing evidence means concisely quoting sources which state exactly what you are trying to prove. Finally, I've told you already I'm not going to waste time with you if you cannot refrain from making personal comments about me (e.g. "in your [Amrican] case, your constant opinions on my [Commonwealth English] usage", "I, unlike you it seems, research material arguing the points of both sides of any given subject.", etc.). Jayjg (talk) 19:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Identity?

Al-Andalus, your additions speak of a revival of Arab Jewish identity among minority circles, but to my knowledge, this (the Arab part) remains largely limited to the use of the name. Do you have sources depicting some of this (organized events, statements, writings, etc.)? If not, do you not think it should be reworded to account for it being limited to phraseology rather than cultural and other aspects specifically linked to AJs? Thanks. El_C 08:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please review my two substantial edits to the lead and let me know what you think Al-Andalus, Jay, Tomer, and everyone else. Thanks. El_C 10:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Your edits seem good; I've copyedited a little, including changing the "minority circles" to something more encyclopedic. I'm not sure what a "minority circle" does, whether holding hands, dancing the hora, or whatever, but the phrase is meaningless at best. Jayjg (talk) 16:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I concur. Hopefully this is a good omen, and we can hash things out here beforehand in the future. Tomer TALK 09:14, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

I sectioned this part off and sighned Al-Andalus' name in each partition. El_C 05:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Firstly to El C; "your additions speak of a revival of Arab Jewish identity among minority circles, but to my knowledge, this (the Arab part) remains largely limited to the use of the name." True, but the term "Arab Jew" and the concept of "Arab Jewish identity" go hand in hand for the minority that is implied (and indeed is identified as a minority). The reality is that most Mizrahim do actually embrace the promotion of their (Arab) Jewishness, but as you have correctly indicated, not necessarily by that term (Arab). Al-Andalus 03:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not so much, no. It is a part of a (psuedo)leftist current directed towards increasing solidarity with and reducing ethnocentrism against Arabs by (also) the Mizrahi population. I haven't studied much of the proffessional scholarship, but that much seems clear. When you say 'identity,' it implies culturally, so unless this is qualified more along the lines of political identity, it dosen't work, it's sophistry. Those currents are not calling for the Mizrahi Jews to greatly accentuate and increase Mizrahi traditions, culturally — they are only calling for the name to be changed for these abovementioned social and political reasons. The Mizrahi Democratic Rainbow, then, isn't a cultural association, it is a social justice forum. Their focus on and orientation towards the Mizrahi is primarily socioeconomic (and yes, also secular and multicultural, but far from these being a driving force, is the key). Unless there's another movement I (or .he) am not pirvy to. El_C 05:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph which I edited (and which is the subject of your questioning) was meant to convey that among the many Mizrahim that do espouse a revival and promotion of "Arab Jewish" identity, it is a minority from among these that also promote the use of the term "Arab Jew". Al-Andalus 03:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide me with any sources that speak of this (cultural) revival phenomenon, written from a reputable scholarly/authoritative authors, so as to better qualify this most and this espousing of the revival in verifiable terms? Thanks. Also, of course, whatever the scholarship finds it to be, it's clear that 'Arab' would not apply to Iranian Jews, but that's an aside.El_C 05:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure you're aware that as a result of the very nature of the modern Israeli (Ashkenazi) understandings of the terms "Arab" and "Jewish", it is widely accepted that Jewishness and Arabness are irreconcilable concepts. But this is true only for the Ashkenazim, and non-Ashkenazim who have adopted their outlook. This isn't intended as an attack on what understandings Ashkenazim have or don't have on Jewishness. In fact, it's not irrational to see why to the Ashkenazim, Jewishness would inherently be tied with Europeanness (or Eastern Europeanness). Al-Andalus 03:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cultural traits are tied to people's past history, this affects how they are transmitted, manifested, synthesized, etc., okay... El_C 05:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Ashkenazi notion of regarding Arab and Jewish as irreconcilable concepts, is exactly what has led to most Mizrahi protests (past and present) for the vindication of their heritage. Al-Andalus 03:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can you please cite a few (of these protests for the vindication of their heritage) for me? Thanks. El_C 05:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The only difference is that, up until recently, Mizrahi calls for recognition and inclusion of what their (Arab) heritage has to offer to Israeli culture and society has been discounted by everyone since the establishment of the State of Israel. Al-Andalus 03:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But, above all other things, inclusion in Israel's establishment, within positions of influence, power. Yes, also recognition that their traditions be respected (i.e. not seen ethnocentrically, etc.), but not so much as a driving force in that movement, to my knowledge. El_C 05:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In fact, it is still largely dismissed by the modern Ashkenazi institution running Israel, and it is evident by merely seeing the refusal to accept and acknowledge that to be a Jew and an Arab are not contradictions in identities. The only difference today is that only recently has their [Mizrahi's] plight been given any sort of acknowledged by the collective consciousness of mainstream Israeli society, whether negatively (as in most cases) or positively. Al-Andalus 03:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As a said above, I'm not certain that this is a driving force, these concepts; whether in the Mizrahi public, or the activists. It is a political (even if they hilariously call it "apolitical"), social justice movement. Once I can review your sources, I'll be in a better position to comment. El_C 05:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that when the Mizrahim first arrived to Israel in the early 50's, they too viewed Europeaness and Jewishness as two irreconcilable concepts, yet because they [Mizrahim] weren't the ones running the country, THEY were the ones required to shed their ethnicity at Israel's door, which to their misfortune was the ethnicity which was to become the "enemy", in place of a homogenised form of [European] Jewishness. Al-Andalus 03:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would not phrase it the way you do, but I get what you mean. Yes, it is interesting. But these Mizrahi cultural traits have been (accepted as) fairly mainstream for decades now. I'm not sure about this 'Arabization' role; at least not via these defintions, in these terms you set. El_C 05:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now, to Jayjg, I see you haven't gone to Google up "minority circles". Pick up a dictionary. I'm not saying this to be a smart-arse, I truly mean it. You might learn that "circle" has more than one meaning, and that minority circle is in fact valid terminology, not a fabrication of my very own. Al-Andalus 03:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC).

We can use currents or groups or circles; I'm not sure why this should be a big deal. Let's try to focus on the fundamentals for now. El_C 05:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oriental and Mizrachi

Mizrachi also means Eastern. But Oriental shouldn't be used for a different reason, and that is because it is the name of the race of Chinese people, Japanese people, etc.... 68.80.133.163 07:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Oriental means the same thing as Asian. → JarlaxleArtemis 07:07, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, "oriental" means "eastern", not "asian". The newspeak "Asian" is a recent PC invention. "Oriental" is the opposite of "Occidental". There is nothing any more wrong with using "Oriental" to refer to Mizrachim than there is with calling a train from Paris to Istanbul the Orient Express. On the other hand, if this article is translated to the Simple English wikipedia, then I'd agree with you. Let's not edit to the least common denominator here tho. Tomer TALK 20:52, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
"Orient" and "Oriental" have been used in English to refer to both Near and Far Eastern countries, including the Middle East, China, Japan, and India. For example, Mizrahi Jews are often referred to as Oriental Jews, while the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies focuses on Africa as well as the Middle East and East Asia. (see: Oriental). -- ElC

Farming abilities of the Mizrahim and socialsim of Ashkenazim

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Although I kept it in my edit, I have to wonder if there is in fact any proof that the Mizrahim were indeed not very good farmers. Also, I eliminated the part in "Mizraḥim in modern Israel" that said the Mizrahim were less socialistic than Israeli Ashkenazim because (1) it doesn't seem to be well supported and (2) it doesn't seem to be significant--or at least it certainly doens't belong in the paragraph it was in.

Now that I think about it, what is meant by "modern Israel"? This section appears to be primarily historical, so if "modern Israel" refers to Israel at the present time, then the whole section seems mostly irrelevant. If, however, "modern Israel" refers to the post-1948 ("modern") state of Israel then the section is more relevant.

Also, what in particular is disputed in this section? I don't see the section specifically cited anywhere else in the Talk page. If the POV problem has already been resolved then I will eliminate the stop-hand, and if the POV problem remains can we know what it is so it can be eliminated?

Theshibboleth 23:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

There's nothing about that edit that in any way implies that Mizrachim (by all accounts a far from cohesive "group") were "bad at farming". It simply says that the collectivized moshavim were unsuccessful. Why? I suspect that it had to do with incompatibilities between the ideology promoted by those running the moshavim (non-Mizrachim) and the mizrachim who were actually doing all the work. Preach socialism and every Jew is responsible for his brother all you want, to a non-socialist idealogue, it's Napoleon the pig preaching, and inspiration sinks below 0...especially in light of the fact that the Mizrachi communities were, "to a man", so to speak, religiously devoted, if not so fervently as charedim, and the anti- or irreligious attitudes of those who ran the vast majority of kibbutzim and moshavim in those days would have been a severe disincentive to coöperation. My speculation, all of it, but I submit to you that it's just as valid as yours... :-p Tomer TALK 03:09, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Racism of European Whites Yet Again - Remember that from the pure Jewish/Israeli Point of View (Which Does Not Yet Exist), the Middle East is Central and the Oriental is East from that And the Occidental West from that. At the end of the Day, the Majority of Jews are not White, and that's what causes this kind of Supreme ignorance. It is the same supreme ignorance that founded the Modern State of Isreal. The Olive Skinned proper Jewish ancestors would be turning in their graves if they saw what was gowing on. Central Jews are the Ones from the Middle East who still retain all the characteristics of the Yehudi Originals - these imposters from Manhattan are no more Jewish than ET. It may also surprise you to know that there are indeed Jews in India and China, so what are we to call them? For the differences between them and the Middle Eastern Jews are far different to the Differences of the later to the European Jews (both Being Caucasian). The Whole notion of Shephardic and Ashenazik or whatever is proposterous and needs to be re-evaluated - ZA

People from the Indian sub-Continent (and thus also Indian Jews) are as caucasian as the Middle Eastern Jews and Ashkenazim you have pointed out - although, perhaps this may "surprise you to know" Al-Andalus 06:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC).Reply

Giladi

Latest comment: 19 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Giladi appears to be a wild conspiracy theorist with no credibility; I have yet to find any reputable source which supports his claims, or which supports him as being anything more than a crank. However, I have found that reputable websites want nothing to do with him. For example, regarding "The Jews of Iraq" article which you wish to link, the Middle East Information Center has taken the article down, with the following explanation: The Article is no longer available because the credibility of the content is questionable. MEIC, works hard to host accurate information regardless of opinion. MEIC apologizes for any inconvenience.[6] What makes you think the author or content is credible in any way? Jayjg (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

As I thought. You failed to cite anyone/thing that could say anything more than that they questioned his credibility. That is the most classical way of discrediting people without evidence. I do believe you realise that DOES NOT constitute any proof that his evidence is false. In any case, the link that you provided doesn't exactly specify what article was previously hosted on that address, but I'll give you the benifit of the doubt.
You ask me what makes me think the author is credible in any way? What? Apart from the fact that the Israeli government lacked the ability to disprove the assertions made in his book? If the assertions were false, the Israeli government would've eaten him alive and discredited him with hard facts. But they didn’t. If they could've assassinated his character and buried all the facts (fully knowing that his assertions are true, and thus they must have been able to have done this without shooting themselves in the foot) they would have done this. But it wasn't. The book was simply banned. Banning things is always the last resort.
Besides, the personal accounts of Iraqi Jews (only the few that I have personally conversed with) who have made yerida from Israel are similar to those made by Giladi. My guess is that it is common knowledge among Iraqi Jewry, but as always, their voices are silenced for the greater good of the State, and the atrocities that were perpetrated by Zionists against other Jews (for G-d’s sake) in their demented quest (my opinion) to create the State of Israel are forgotten, and if not forgotten, are banned.
Just realise Jayjg, A LOT of people also assert (including most of the Jews who lived in Arab lands) that the information officially propagated by the state of Israel (the only version sanctioned by Zionist accounts, whether right or wrong) as to their “perilous” situation in Muslim Arab lands, and the situation with their neighbours, was an exaggerated fabrication, and thus also questionable. Should the link propagating this account also be removed? Yes, it should be removed, if only another link with a differing point of view is removed, yet both are equally as questionable. At most the situation of Arab Jews was no different than how other non-Muslims Arabs were treated in Arab lands, and especially no where near how European Jews were treated throughout different periods of time in Christian European history. The reality is, the climate became perilous in the culminating years of their history in Arab lands. And we know why this was, and who incited it.
So, just cite a concrete source that discredits him without a shadow of a doubt. Al-Andalus 04:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC).Reply

Sorry, the burden of proof is on you. Anyone can put claim anything; provide evidence that Giladi is a respectable source quoted on reasonably unbiased and encyclopedic websites. Jayjg (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, the burden of proof is also on you. Either take accept the link, or delete both. Deal with it. I'm not going to be bullied by your tactics, they may have worked elsewere. But you're in for a fight mate. Al-Andalus 07:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)'.Reply

I'd prefer not to fight; please just provide some indication that the link and source is encyclopedic and credible. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Credible to whose criteria? [arrogant as you are] to yours I assume. The fact remains, Giladi's accounts of why Mizrahi flight from their native countries has not been dismatled as lies, where as Israel's "official" (Zionist) account has been (if not shown to be a outright lies, at the very least sensationalist). Of the two, only the pro-Zionist account is the one which has so far been able to be shown as an exageration. Au contraire, Giladi's account hasn't been able to be disputed. It's not popular, true, but his quotes have not been disclaimed by the Israeli government.

Credibility of either account is in the POV of the individual, that's why they are provided as links, and not explicitly quoted in the article itself. Al-Andalus 07:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC).Reply

Not sure if it's productive for me to get involved, but here goes: what has been written on it, though, both supportively and criticism-wise, by scholars who specialize in this field? It was banned, what were the reasons given? This ban notwithstanding, how notable of a work is it? It isn't a matter of balancing POVs against each other so much, as it is, establishing reputability. But one must be prepared to do a bit of work in order to provide even the preliminaries. I, for one, would wager that there are reputable criticism of both the Israeli govt. and the Giladi et al. positions; what is easy often is not worthwhile, etc. El_C 07:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
I'm waiting for some evidence of encyclopedic worth and fewer personal attacks. Jayjg (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply


Requested move

Latest comment: 19 years ago26 comments7 people in discussion
Copied from WP:RM. Dragons flight 19:42, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Mizrahi Jew → Mizrahi – Move so article title may conform to articles such as Ashkenazi (and not "Ashkenazi Jew") and Sephardi (not "Sephardi Jew"). Cannot move because Mizrahi is currently a redirect page. Al-Andalus 16:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Add *Support or *Oppose, then sign your poll submission with ~~~~
  • Support -מזרחים (ובצורה הפחות מקובלת - מזרחיים) הם קבוצה חברתית המורכבת מעולים השייכים ליהדות המזרח. El_C 07:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
    • Your vote indicates that you view "the other" as a good way to lump people together. Why not call the Beta Israel and Bnei Menashe as Mizrachim then? According to what you say, such a categorization is not only "logical" and "reasonable", but questioning it is just plain stupid. Wrong wrong wrong. But maybe it's just the drugs... :-p Tomer TALK 11:21, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose in the strongest possible terms. While "Ashkenazi" and "Sephardi" (or more correctly "Sfaradi") refer to a largely scattered in some cases, but still identifiable cultural subgrouping of Jewish communities, "Mizrachi" is a categorization made as an almost racist lumping together of "everyone 'other'". As I've said elsewhere, and at other times, the differences between the variously tagged "Mizrachi" communities are at least as diverse, if not moreso than those that distinguish us Sfaradim from Ashkenazim. Saying that we should move Mizrachi Jew in accordance with the namespace positions of Ashkenazi and Sephardi is tantamount to embracing the racist ideology of the early Zionists who invented the term to begin with. If the word had wider currency in English, I'd probably feel differently, but even in Israel, in Hebrew, nobody really knows what "מזרחי" means, and for us to accept a nebulous adjective as a well-established noun is not only insulting, but a blatant violation of WP:NOR. Tomer TALK 11:17, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • It is, indeed, a broad term and its historical origins can and should be qualified accordingly. Following claims of original reserach, I'm inclined to have reputable research presented which affirms the above argument — the distinction between Hebrew and Enbglish usage along those reasons. El_C 11:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
    • Also, note that the Hebrew Wikipedia has four articles (מזרחים ,יהדות המזרח, יהדות אשכנז ,אשכנזים), which makes sense to me. El_C 12:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
      • Great. So you embrace a worldview in which we sfaradim don't exist at all. A secret wish perhaps?  :-p Tomer TALK 12:10, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
        • I embrace no such worldview, please refrain from such insinuations, even in jest, and avoid personalizing this issue (it isn't personal to me). Anyway, I am preplexed you find it amounts to that (again, on what basis does the word "Jew" remedies any of this?). You do not appear to be taking great effort to elucidate this key component, despite repeated querries on my part. El_C 12:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
          • Despite my erstwhile contributions to the article in question, I'd like it to go away entirely, in favor of <shudder>Arab Jew, Persian Jew, and Kurdish Jew (since that's really what's entailed in the discussion of Mizrajim). I'm going to bed now. I have class in 2 hours and need to get at least a halfhour's rest. Ciao belli! Tomer TALK 12:26, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Mizrahim are not "ethnic division", even if {{Jew}} claims otherwise, so comparison with Ashkenazim and Sephardim is irrelevant. · Naive cynic · 21:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Spongy Contd.

I think the articles should all be moved, to Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardi Jews, and Mizrahi Jews, and Jewish American should be move to American Jews, much like the current Bukharan Jews, Cochin Jews, Yemenite Jews, Persian Jews, Lithuanian Jews etc. articles. Most of the "History of" articles should also be moved to similar names, e.g. History of the Jews in Hungary moved to Hungarian Jews. Jayjg (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
What about Mizrahi Jews? Intuitively, pluralizing makes sense to me. El_C 19:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
That's exactly what I suggested. Jayjg (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Oh yeah. Note, though, the opening paragraph (which I will cite in full) in Professors Yinon Cohen and Yitchak Haberfeld's '"Gender, Ethnic, and National Earnings Gaps in Israel: The Role of Rising Inequality" (The Pinhas Supir Center for Development, 2003). Israeli society is characterized by a national cleavage between Jews and Arabs, and within the Jewish society between Jews whose parents immigrated to Israel from Europe and America (henceforth, Ashkenazim), and those from Asian and African origin (henceforth, Mizrahim). Over the years, a clear hierarchy in the stratification system has been institutionalized in Israeli society in general, and in the labor market in particular, where Ashkenazim are at the top of the socioeconomic ladder, Mizrahim are in the middle, and the Arab citizens of Israel occupy the bottom echelons of the socioeconomic hierarchy. Not surprisingly, within each group, men are above women, at least with respect to their earnings. /hides from Tomer El_C 23:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

El_C writes: /hides from Tomer Tomer responds: Good idea, since the source is obviously either incredibly flawed, or we Sfaradim were exuded from the muck of hmmm... must be Australia, or else we merely imagine our own existence... (what do the Hindus call that? maya?) Tomer TALK 10:44, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you very much! I aim to agitate please! Answer: from Africa! Anyway, and even seriously, you might find this article of interest; I encourage you to read it then, these objections notwithstanding. /switches hiding spot. El_C 11:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Well, all fun aside, (a) the article seems to clearly indicate that Jews from Africa are Mizrajim and (b) Sfaradim apparently just simply don't exist [except perhaps in our own minds!]. That said, my sfaradi ancestors are from <gasp> Holland (oh n03s! Europe!). And btw, I can find you whereëver you try to hide. Don't you know? We Jews are EVERYWHERE!!! :-p Tomer TALK 11:32, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Luckily, though, easily sweet-talked! At any rate, just from having glanced at the body, it appears to be an instructive study. Please do give the whole thing a read whenever you get a chance, I'd be interested in your impression of it. Same goes with Jay. El_C 11:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Heh. I just now noticed how you'd entitled this subsubsection :-p. I'll try to give it at least a once-over before shabath 2moro and get back to you...possibly not until sunday tho. ciao bello, e sciabata buona. Tomer TALK 11:54, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
I haven't had time to read the study yet, but FWIW, I completely agree with Jay's recommendation to move them all (except for the articles that deal specifically with actual history ) to pluralized X Jews articles, and to create appropriate redirects. Tomer TALK 21:25, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
I also support Jay's proposal as an imporvement over the current name. El_C 10:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Hey El_C, I finally read that report. It's interesting, but ultimately not very informative, since it uses rather shaky criteria for its division of ethnic groups as well as concentrates on older folks and new immigrants (apparently) rather than on the population as a whole. While studying income disparity is not one of my hobbies, I'd say a real study of the subject certainly seems warranted based on the conclusions brought forth by the paper in question. לשנה טובה תכתיבו Tomer TALK 19:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Studying income disparity should be one of your interests (!). Thanks, I appreciate that assessment; it's difficult to find better studies that have been translated to English (or at least, ones available to moi). Belated !שנה טובה :) El_C 00:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I agree that the article name should be Mizrahi Jews. Mizrahi by itself (in the box on top of the page) is very confusing, because of the Mizrahi movement which is largely Ashkenazi. More important however is changing the name of the article Jew into Jews. All peoples and ethnicities should be plural. I made this change in the Dutch Wikipedia and propose the same change here. gidonb 12:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Comments

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. I see no concensus here for the move to merely Mizrahi from Mizrahi Jew. There is some support for pluralizing everything to "Jews", which I am not opposed to, but it hasn't really been clearly agreed to either. For the record, there is a naming convention for using singular nouns in article titles, but the name of a group of people is one of the exceptions where plural is considered okay. Dragons flight 19:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mizrahi_Jews&oldid=25412996"