Talk:Mizrahi Jews/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Nice revert war...

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

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

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

Problems with the latest edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

I just realised your arguement in regards to my edit;

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

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

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

Mizrahi Jews still living in Arab/Muslim countries

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

Use of the word "native"

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

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

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

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

Your assumption is completely incorrect. Rather, my objections to your edit are for the following reasions:

• Your original wording using the word "native" implied that Palestinians were native to North Africa, Egypt, Syria etc., which is the exact opposite of what you meant.
• The word "refugee" generally implies native of some sort or another, so it is redundant at best, argumentative at worst.
• Native itself is an ambiguous term; are Arabs native to North Africa, or are Berbers? Are the English natives of England, or are the Celts? Are the Spanish natives of Spain, or are the Basques?
• The intent of your statements are not clear, in part because of your non-native use of English, but in particular because of your use of incredibly long sentences.

In summary, I am not debating that Palestinians are "native" (whatever that means) to Palestine; rather, I am trying to word the article in the clearest way possible. Jayjg 20:54, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• You have failed to answer my questions about what "native" means above.
• Please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith; my reasons are exactly and only the ones I have stated.
• Regardless of your native language, your wording is nearly incomprehensible. Honestly, who creates two (!!) 65 word sentences, each as single paragraphs, and uses the word "retrogression" to mean "retribution", and imagines it is readable or comprehensible?
• Is a Sephardi Jew whose ancestors moved to Morocco or Algeria in the 12th century "indigenous" or not? What does "indigenous" mean anyway, didn't the ancestors of the Sephardim and Ashkenazim also come from the Middle East? Is an Iraqi or Persian Jew, whose ancestors were expelled by the Babylonians and who lived outside Israel for 2,500 years somehow now "native" to Israel and "special", whereas a Ashkenazi Jew whose ancestors were expelled by the Romans and have lived outside Israel for 1,900 "foreign" and "non-special"?

Please consider these points and respond to these questions. Jayjg 22:02, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It seems, these questions were posed to Al-Andalus here 5 months ago but weren't answered and I notice that s/he still continues to replace neutral wording countries of birth with a POV term native homelands. This went on far too long, please stop. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:23, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Found article

It might be worth adding this link:

• Reflections by an Arab Jew

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

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

Muslim and Christian Arab societies?

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

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

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

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

Iranian Jews

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

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

Racism toward the Mizrahim

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

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

Wow, why am I not surprised that you want to promote this notion? For a change why don't you focus on something more relevant, like their origins, history, their persecution in Muslim lands, or how they were flown to Israel in special airlifts, or on famous Mizrahi Jews, like Moshe Katsav, the current President of Israel? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Finally I caught your attention! Though it is a fact they do face discrimination, I do think that more focus should be put on "their origins, history," as you NOW say. However, you CONSTANTLY revert anything that remotely indicates their origins and history prior to their transportation to Israel. I have come to the opinion that you are intent in denying Mizrahim of any accreditation of their culture, history and legacy as Jews of Arab ethnicity. You have made it clear that you wish to strip them of any Arab identity they may still have, in exchange for the "Israeli" (ie. eurocentric Ashkenazi) notion of what it is to be a Jew.

Only now are you interested in addressing Mizrahi origin, history and culture. Did the possibility of addressing a more damaging topic worry you? I suppose that it did, because by including a reference to the subject matter in the article I could not be accuse of being in violation of "NPOV". And why not? Because the discrimination is real, and YOU KNOW it is. You need only do quick research to know of this prevalent, but seldom known or discussed by non-Mizrahim, reality.

Of course I don't want to dwell on this subject, and the last thing i would want is to include it in the article, which is why i posted here instead. And I'm sorry for raising this topic, but I wanted to see your reaction, and unfortunately it was the one I had expected.

What I have always wanted is to exemplify the achievements and the millennia of greatness and contributions of the Mizrahim.

By the way, in reply to your "their persecution in Muslim lands", I really didn't want to address this, for the same reason. Though do let me say just one thing.

Most Mizrahi will agree that the positions in life in their HOMELANDS were better (with many of them it being MUCH better) than what they now find themselves in in the "promised land" of Israel. Mizrahim are well aware that the "'persecution in Muslim lands'" that you speak of was not what you are trying to make it out to be. You're not convincing anyone of this, except gentiles and some ignorant Ashkenazi who are unaware of some key facts.

In the case of the Jews of Iraq, I will say yes, that persecution was committed by non-Jewish Iraqi Arabs, but you fail to mention that the violence itself was inspired and instigated by underground Zionists intent on causing religious tensions between a people that had otherwise lived in reltive harmony where no real threat was ever felt by the Mizrahim. Iraqi Jews initially opposed any implementation of any concept of Zionism in the creating of any "Jewish" state. Why would this be done if indeed there was violence and persecution? Because the violence started later, after the sabotages. But why? To ensure Arab Jewry moved to Israel in the frenzy to import cheap Jewish labour to farm the lands and do the jobs that were below the enlightened European Ashkenazi. The "how they were flown to Israel in special airlifts" goes hand in hand with it all. Though i suppose you think it all to be a charitable deed the Mizrahi should be eternally grateful for.

Then again, maybe you're just one of those who falls in the "gentiles and ignorant Ashkenazi" basket and didn't know any of this, and you actually don't have an agenda. I don't know. But enough be said, I don't want to get into this subject, I want to focus on positives! Al-Andalus 17:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please recall that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And why am I not supprised at your simplistic avoiding attempt at a response? Sure, I'm on my "soapbox". Fine, water it down and don't address it. Because you can't dare. Al-Andalus 18:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please recall the Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and Wikipedia:No personal attacks rules. Let's focus on article content instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sure, cite me the Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and Wikipedia:No personal attacks rules, but where was your concern with these when you "Wow, why am I not surprised that you want to promote this notion?" me? Stay consistent! Al-Andalus 18:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One sentence vs. a 1000 word essay? I don't think there's a comparison. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Was that an essay to you?. Please. If you want an essay, just ask me for one, and I will gladly write one out just for you.

The subject was brought up to prove myself a point. With that accomplished, I'd actually prefer to leave the subject matter here, as it is, and not continue. But if you like, I am willing to frankly discuss it, and this time propose a serious initiative at including the matter it in the main article, if that is what you want. Al-Andalus 09:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

WP:POINT Jayjg ^(talk) 15:35, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You may want to move the indentation back to the beginning again.

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

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

"Mizrahim are not a race in any sense. Therefore they are not subject to racism."

To reply to this we must first analyse "race". Biologically speaking, race doesn't exist. In its social understanding, however, race does exist. Now, the fact that generally speaking the social concept of race has been generally accepted as being divided as Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Australoid, Negroid and Amerind, doesn't mean that every society follows a set guideline of who belong to each one of the above mentioned races. This is simplly because these categories themselves are also social, not biologic or scientific. For this reason the people who comprise these "races" varies, and may or may not include some people in some society and exclude them in others. NB. race and line of descent are also different concepts.

In Nazi Germany Jews were not considered members of the white (or "Aryan") race, but does this mean that the discrimination Jews endured in Europe wasn't racism? Of course not! The concept of “race” in that society was that Jews didn't belong to the same race as European (despite belong to it in the generally accepted races, which themselves are also social concepts), therefore racism DOES apply to the form of discrimination felt by the Jews of Europe.

"Mizrahim are no more victims of "racism" from Ashkenazim than Italians are victims of "racism" from Spaniards…Discrimination has occurred against Mizrahim, but this is not racism…."

I suggest you research into the history of the Mizrahi in the years prior to, during and just following the establishment of Israel.

Yes, we have established that Mizrahim, Sephardim and Ashkenazim are all members of the same "race" (the Caucasoid "race") as are Germans, Spaniards, Italians, Swedes also members of this "race". But like in Germany, in Israel Mizrahim were viewed as being Jews who were of the "Arab race" not belonging to the "race" of European Jewry. This has been historically documented, and was exemplified by David ben Gurion when he referred to those Jews of as "avaki adam" (less than human). It’s clear that Mizrahim were accepted as Jews, but just not as the same "race" as the European Jews. So like Jews in Nazi Germany were victims of racism (despite being of the same race) the Mizrahim of Israel were also victims of racism not because they were actually of a different "race" (since they were all “Caucasoid”) but because they were viewed as separate.

And while we're at it, since race doesn't exist biologically, then does that mean the racism doesn't exist against African-American in the USA or Asians in the UK? Is it just random discrimination? Of course not! Race in all its forms is a social concept, and is highly fluid, likewise racism and those who are victims of it is also as fluid. Al-Andalus 08:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC).

Mizrahim in Modern Israel

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

Times like this I wish both User:Mustafaa and User:Yoshiah ap were around to help mediate and fact-check. - Gilgamesh 07:13, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, it would be nice if Al-Andalus were interested in facts and sources; Al-Andalus seems to think he can put anything he likes into an article, and as long as other people can't "disprove" it, it must stay; at least that's what his edit comments indicate. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:51, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to get involved in mud-slinging. We can make everyone content and provide inline links to sites that verify information. No biggie, we just need to find them. There are plenty around. Besides loolwa.com, there's also her links page, including Jews Indigeous to the Middle East and North Africa. There are also individual articles at the Jewish Virtual Library, including Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia, Yemen, and Yemen again. There's also the case of Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews that were expelled from traditional communities in Hebron and other places earlier in the 20th century, whose descendants are largely unrelated to newer settlers like those in present Qiryat Arba. I recommend you both cooperate and find informational resources, rather than both arguing your points into the ground. If you can find additional informational resources, whether they support or argue against existing information, great. :) It's a much more productive use of everyone's time. :) - Gilgamesh 02:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My sources are not from the internet, but I have found some links that will direct you to the same information. While I do understand that everything must be sourced, one cannot go deleting everything other wikipedians have included based solely on the fact that the deleter isn't aware of facts contained in the updates. Perhaps it was a mistkae on my behalf to assume it was blatently obvious, and a well-known fact, that over half of Israel's population is Mizrahi. And, while the fact that Moshe Katsav is indeed the first Mizrahi placed to such a position, I will admit this might not have been well known to everyone except the Mizrahi themselves who see him as a good step towards representation, a few studied non-Mizrahi Jewish Israelis, and those who have fought for the representation of Israel's invisible majority living in a minority run "democracy".

-_-_-_-_-_-_-

Excerpt from Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council website:

"Battler President" [In Australian English, "battlers" are societies underdogs]

"President Katsav, Israel's eighth President in its almost 60-year history, is Israel's first President to have been born in an Islamic country. He very much represents a success story among Israel's Sephardic* population, the nearly half of Israel's Jews who immigrated from the ancient Jewish communities of the Middle East and North Africa..." [[2]]

*In this context Mizrahi is implied. The use of Sephardic is in the erroneous generalization made by European Jews.

-_-_-_-_-_-_-

Excerpt from The David Project website:

"The Forgotten Refugees"

"Mizrahi Jewish refugees, who today make up half of Israel's population." [[3]]

Al-Andalus 03:34, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You need to source all your claims, and from something that looks even a tiny bit authoritative, thanks. And please recall that this is not about me, but about article content. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is about all about you, and just you. I will be forwarding this content, and your baseless reverts (apart from your reasonable dispute over "native"), for Wikipedia arbitration. Al-Andalus 07:16, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, this is about citing sources. And I recommend you follow the normal dispute resolution process, which begins with an RfC about article content. I'll start that for you. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:35, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's getting too indented again.

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

Well, here's a more authoritative source, the Israeli Government census figures from 2003. However, from what I can see here, it indicates that around 1.5 million Israeli Jews are African or Asian born, which is less than 1/3 of Israeli Jews. As well, of those, about .5 million are Morroccan, who (as has been stated earlier on this page) are arguably not Mizrahi. I have no idea where Al-Andalus gets the notion that Mizrahi Jews were a majority in 1968 from. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nice try. "Around 1.5 million Israeli Jews are African or Asian born", and since you pointed it out, 1/3 is a considerable proportion considering this specifically exludes those of the same ancestry who are Israeli-born. Al-Andalus 08:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. Look at the tables. Under the heading for each continent, it lists the total Born Abroad and Israeli born, giving the total for each continent. Thus for African Jews, 317.7 were born abroad, 542.8 were born in Israel, giving a total of 860.5. For Asia, 224.1 were born abroad and 481.3 were born in Israel, giving a total of 705.4. Thus of the overall total of 1.58 million Jews from Africa+Asia, .54 million were born abroad and 1.04 million were born in Israel, and out of Israel's 5.4 million Jewish population, African+Asian Jews comprise 30%. Now throw in the fact that of those 1.58 million African-Asian origin Jews, some are certainly Sephardim, others Ashkenazi South Africans. Now add to that the fact that the single largest group, Morrocan Jews, are not considered Mizrahim either, and what are you left with - 20% Mizrahi Jews at most? It's bad enough when you insist on things without any sources, but it's worse when you insist on things when the sources say the opposite. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jewish Virtual Library [4] seems to claim that Mizrahim were the majority until the 1990s, and now are half of the Jewish population in Israel. One might question whether these statistics are based on an accurate definition of Mizrahi (not a combination of Mizrahi plus Sephardi), however, and I believe census information would be a more accurate source. From JVL: "In Israel, Middle Eastern and North African Jews were the majority of the Jewish population for decades, with numbers as high as 70 percent of the Jewish population, until the mass Russian immigration of the 1990s. Mizrahi Jews are now half of the Jewish population in Israel." --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 20:25, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, the POV of one individual (not a demographer) isn't very strong compared official government statistics. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, official census data is the most authoritative. And based on the government census link you gave above, I don't see any way of adding the numbers to come up with more than 20% Mizrahi. I think sources that exaggerate that number are overlapping Mizrahi and Sephardi. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 02:27, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Also, the existence of disparity in status between Ashkenazim and Mizrahim that Al-Andalus alluded to is discussed, for example, in this link. This is the kind of sourcing I believe Jayjg is requesting, when POV statements are put forth in the article, they must be expressed as claims from citable sources, not editor opinion, otherwise the article becomes a POV editorial. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 20:52, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Quoting Peled as a source for his opinion makes sense. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, I, as well, am inclined to trust (a correct reading) of the 2003 Census figures over speculation. I am displeased that Jayjg had to endure such acrimonious comments as those depicted above just to illustrate that. El_C 03:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your argument is that "Arab Jew" is an oxymoron, holding that Arab and Jew are worlds apart. While most pre-Israel Mizrahim did view themselves as simply "Jewish", their culture and language was Arab and Arabic. There is no other way around that. Thus, they are as Arab as an "Arab Christian" or an "Arab Muslim". Is "Arab Christian" an oxymoron too? Of course not, because Arab is an ethnic affiliation.

You yourself have stated that neither Arab nor European are races, but both are members of the caucasoid race. Also stated is that neither Mizrahi, nor Sephardi or Ashkenazi are races, but they belong to a common line of descent. So why then is "Arab Jew" an oxymoron, when "Arab" is the ethnicity and "Jew" is the line of descent. "Arab Jew" is an oxymoron but "European Jew" or "Iberian Jew" are not? Again, the prior is the ethnicity and the latter is the line of descent. If both word comforming the compound term were ethnicities or both were lines of descent or religious affiliations (eg, Arab European, Muslim Jew, Jewish Christian) then of course it wouldn't make sense. Then they would indeed be oxymorons. Al-Andalus 12:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC).

"But they have seldomly been historically grouped together (like "Arab Christians" or "Arab Muslims")"

This is because historically they haven’t even comprised significant minorities. They were always regarded as Arab in custom, language and culture. And this is in fact the definition of Arab; a shared culture, language and customs.

"If your argument is that in the strictest definition "arab jew" makes sense, then I agree with you."

Thank you. And isn't this what an encyclopedia is meant to be all about? It's not about how many people agree with one perspective or the other, it about accuracy.

"Regardless of this, its not an acceptable term for most Mizrahim"

You may be surprised, but I actually agree with you here. Indeed, it's not an acceptable term for MOST Mizrahim. I don't deny this. But the fact remains, that this is an encyclopaedia, and what must rule is accuracy and neutrality. It must not be converted into propaganda of the group with the loudest collective voice.

That most Mizrahi today don't identify with the term "Arab Jew", doesn't invalidate the validity and accurateness of term itself. It doesn't make it an erroneous concept. Nor should it silence the voice of those who do agree with the term "Arab Jew" (for whatever reason other than for the fact in itself that the concept of "Arab Jew" isn't literally an oxymoron). Once again, this is an encyclopaedia.

"Thats why you never see Shas advertising itself as the "Arab Jew" party. Its just called Sephardi Jewish."

No. Shas doesn't advertise itself as the party of "Arab Jews" not because they disagree with the term, but because they don't only represent Mizrahi, but others too. In fact, I know from personal experience that proportionally those Mizrahim that do agree with the term "Arab Jew", for various reasons, are in fact politically associated to Shas. Their use of Sephardi is in the common Israeli usage, and not because they actually think they're representing the interests of Jewish Israelis of Spanish origin.

"Mizrahim are not Arabs in the sense of lineage. Technically, in a cultural sense before they moved to Israel they were considered "Arabic Jews" because of their Arab culture and language, while at the same time holding jewish lineage which connected them to the ancient Jews, not the Arabs."

Firstly, they were never classed as "Arabic Jews", as "Arabic" is a linguistic term, and does not encompass culture or customs.

Now, for the word "Arab", arabness itself is not based on lineage. Arabs are an ethnicity that shares a common culture, language and customs, but this has already been established.

Hypothetically, if Arabness was based on lineage, Mizrahim would still be Arabs since they absorbed some of that Arab "lineage". But historically, this is true of all Jews. Ashkenazim and Sephardim absorbed a great proportion of non-Jewish lineage in the centuries of their diaspora in Western and Eastern Europe and the Iberian Peninsula respectively. Of course this doesn't take away the fact that they're all Jewish, but it means that the Jewish lineage isn't the only one. It's just the way it is.

Like it or not, an Ashkenazi is as European as a German or a Pole, and a Sephardi is as Hispanic as a Spaniard, Chilean, Mexican, etc, and a Iraqi Jew is as Arab as a Lebanese Chrsitian or a Yemeni Muslim.

"A strong point that I have to emphasize too is that if one defines a person by the language they speak, then over 90% of today's Israeli Jews would be "Hebrew Jews", not "Arab Jews" or "Yiddish Jews."

Once again, this would be true if they were classed as "Arabic Jews", but this isn't the name applied. The terms are either Mizrahi or Arab Jews, just like the terms are either Ashkenazi or European Jews, not Yiddish Jews.

The appelation of "Arabic Jews" hasn't ever been used, because "Arabic" is a linguistic term, and ONLY a linguistic. "Arab", unlike "Arabic", represents both a cultural and a linguistic connection. Once again, they are not classed as Arab Jews because of their language, they are classed so because of their culture, customs AND language. Your comparison to terms such as "Hebrew Jews" doesn't apply in this instance. Al-Andalus 11:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC).

Misdefinition

This is rediculous. Mizrahi has only come to be used this way since the founding of the State of Israel, and even late into that. Before then, Mizrahi referred to Ashkenazi religious zionists. It still does. Calling these people Sephardim is not incorrect. The Jewish world is devided between Ashkenazim and Sephardim. Nobody disputes the Ben Ish Chai was a Sephardi gadol. You're creating an anachronism by projecting an artificial Israeli linguistic creation backwords in time, and redefining "Sephardi" retroactively around that definition. Calling all Sephardim "Sephardim" is no more Ashkenazi arrogance than calling all Ashkenzim "Ashkenazim" is, even though only a tiny minority are actually from Germany. Retroactively naming most Sephardim, Mirachim, is Israeli linguistic arrogance. It is claiming that because people in Israel decided to spring a new name on a bunch of people, that should apply retroactively through time. 88.152.17.50 01:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought the definition was between Sephardim and Ashkenazim also. I was aware that Sephardim are now the majority in Israel, a change that not everyone is easy with.--Parkwells 03:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't stand that term Mizrahi myself, for all sorts of reasons; but we have to reflect current usage. I think we have to accept that Sephardi has two meanings, a narrow one (Spanish Jew) and a broad one (Jew of the Spanish rite). Thus, in one sense, within (say) the Syrian community one could distinguish Sephardi families from Musta'arabi families; but in another the whole Syrian community is part of the Sephardi world. Modern prayer books often speak of "Sephardim and Edot ha-Mizrach", as an overall description, sparing the need to draw exact boundaries between the two components. For a detailed account of the semantic differences, see my edit under "Peace proposals" below. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 11:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Just an interloper here -- seems to me that Mizrahi is clearly the right spelling insofar as, as one person pointed out, h (with or without dot) is the normal transliteration for chet and, as another person pointed out, in many versions of Hebrew the h is much closer to the proper sound than the kh which the English "ch" is used to indicate. I don't think this should be controversial, even if many persons misspell it or mistransliterate it "Mizrachi"; the fact is that on any transliteration there are many versions! Anyway, great stuff here.70.80.27.104 22:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I do think the polical party should get a subarticle eg. mizrahi (Polical party) and both spellings come to the same article. ems 15:29, 11 March 2006 (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)

From my understanding of the term, Mizrahim is generally used to describe Jews from the east who are not descended from Spain or Portugal, because of this definition there is quite a bit of ambiguity. For example, an a non-sephadic Egyptian Jew is probably about equally related to Sephardic or Ashkenazi Jews as he is to Persian Jews, but since they don't fit in anywere else they are usually grouped together. Complicating the situation is the fact that often groups that would seem to be counted as Mizrahi are usually counted seperately, like Bukharan Jews.

My point is Mizrahim are not a solid group, the term mostly exists for conveninance when refering to a wide group of peoples. Then again there is quite a bit of Ambiguity for other groupings- Most Italian Jews and Romaniotes never lived in the Iberian and are as distinct as any other traditional ethnic divisions but are usually grouped together in the Sephardic category.

I guess I got carried away on a tangent but I guess I want people to realize that the so-called ethnic divisions of our people are much more trivial then people (especially other Jews) usually think.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 08:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll be the first to admit that I am not up on the academic ethnology of oriental Judaism, but what I *can* tell you is that I am a Mizrahi Jew and know many other Oriental Jews and have observed the following variations: Ashkenazim call all non-Ashkenazim (perhaps except Beta Israel) Sephardi, including Eidot HaMizrah. Second, Teimanim and Persian Jews do not consider themselves mizrahi and take offense to being called Sephardi or Mizrachi (though they object more to the former than the latter and the Teimanim object more than the Persians). While Persian Jewish culture and liturgy are very similar to the Eidot HaMizrah, Teimani liturgy, pronunciation, and halakha are markedly different. I don't know what the standard Wikipedia procedure is with regard to following academia or the groups themselves so I'm not changing the page. Please be advised, however, that Teimanim do not appreciate being grouped together with the Mizrahim. Kol tuv, Avraham

"Arab Jew"

I'm tagging this, it has no citations and reads like original research. scrahan, April 5, 2007

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)

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)

I guess that this is a controversial issue, but allow me to suggest that it is controversial for two reasons.

One is more minor. My understanding of history is that the term "Arab" as a descriptor is actually quite recent in historic terms, and is approximately coterminous with the flight of Jews from Arab lands. In other words there were very few Jews comparatively who were in a position to call themselves "Arab Jews" in the first place. As a result, today those who use it are not a representative sample nor the inheritors of an authentic tradition -- but are expressing a particular point of view.

It is that point of view which forms the backdrop for the second point. The fact is that people are using the word in two ways. One is as the descriptor of certain place and culture, as in "anyone from Arabic lands is an Arab" -- sort of like East Ashkenazi Jews would be "Slavic Jews", etc. The problem is that this opens up into a different use of the word, as an ethnic not territorial descriptor: the Arabs, Slavs, etc as a certain people.

It is the latter inflection that offends people, because it reproduces the anti-Zionist canard of denying the historic existence of a Jewish people, a tenet central to the Passover narrative and to Judaism generally, and replaces it with a "fellow citizens of the Jewish persuasion" gloss similar to the approach of the Germans pre-WW2, Napoleon in France and, of course, the anti-Zionist movement today.

For that reason, I would submit that "Jews from Arab lands" is neutral because everyone agrees on its content and meaning, and that "Arab Jews" is not neutral because of the reasons above: for many people, although not necessarily all, it implies an assertion about Jewish history which is untrue, ie that there is no historic Jewish people, only a religion whose adherents have no shared history apart from that religion. Any phrase, such as "Arab Jews", which implies such a thing is likely to be controversial and non-neutral, in my opinion. 70.80.27.104 22:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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)

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

"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)". Sorry, but people from the Indian Sub-Continent (and thus also Indian Jews, aka Bene Israel) are as caucasian as the Middle Eastern Jews and Ashkenazim you have pointed out - although, perhaps this may "surprise you to know". So I guess "the Whole notion of Shephardic and Ashenazik" and Bene Israel "or whatever is proposterous and needs to be re-evaluated". Al-Andalus 06:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC).

Giladi

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)

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).

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)

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)'.

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)

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).

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)

I'm waiting for some evidence of encyclopedic worth and fewer personal attacks. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

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)

---

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)
  • 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)
    • Yes, do take it easy with them drugs. Regardless, in Hebrew it's מזרחים and אשכנזים, and I'm inclined to follow that convention. El_C 11:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't want to argue about it too much, but it's not a "convention", it's a "convenience", and a rather insulting one at that. Tomer ^TALK 11:49, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
        • Argumentation or lack thereof notwithstanding, I'm afraid I'm not entirely following the basis for your protest. El_C 11:57, 6 September 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
        • 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)
          • Upon your return, please be more straight forward and less hostile; assume goodfaith not telepathy. I confess to still being confused about the basis behind your unecessarily heated protests. The question I pose is whether the Hebrew word/term Mizrahi(m) is more well-known or scholarly in English as "Mizrahi Jew"? If so, please provide some sources to that effect. I really have no strong opinion on this, either way, I will gladly change my vote to oppose if the evidence so warrants. El_C 12:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
          • [T]he differences between the variously tagged "Mizrachi" communities are at least as diverse, if not more so than those that distinguish us Sfaradim from Ashkenazim. I don't understand why the article can't cover this. Which confuses me, as per your position. El_C 12:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
            • I wasn't particularly clear the first time around. IMNOTSOINCREDIBLYHO, the "solution" to this is not to move Mizrahi Jew to Mizrahi, but rather far preferably to move Sephardi and Ashkenazi to Sephardi Jew and Ashkenazi Jew, respectively. Tomer ^TALK 12:55, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
              • I don't have a strong opinion on that, either. My questions above remain unanswered, however. So, IMNSHO... they should be. But that can wait for another occasion. El_C 13:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
                • The real issue for me actually has nothing to do with the racism that invented the term, but with the notion of using adjectives as article names. What's next? Thorough → Thorough (book) so we can make Thorough a disambig so that we can have an article Thorough (adjective)? Transparency → Transparent? Sponge → Spongy? Clarity → Clear? Hardness → Hard? :-p Tomer ^TALK 02:43, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
                  • I'm not sure I entirely understand that adjective bit. Do you support renaming Ashkenazi into Ashkenazi Jew? El_C 01:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
                  • Never mind, I see above that you do. Still, I want to know what other editors feel about the adjective argument. El_C 01:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
                  • Also, is Spongy the quality of really being a sponge? TIA. :) El_C 01:54, 8 September 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)

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)

What about Mizrahi Jews? Intuitively, pluralizing makes sense to me. El_C 19:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly what I suggested. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Comments

• No comment! El_C 01:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

North African Jews

Shouldn't David Levy and Silvan Shalom be listed as Sephardi Jews as opposed to Mizrahi Jews? I believe that they are from North Africa, and not Asia. 64.231.162.68 23:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Jews indigenous to North Africa are Mizrahi. It is the non-indigenous Jews of North Africa - the ones that originated in Spain and Portugal and then fled to North Africa during the Spanish or Portuguese Inquisition - that are Sephardim. Al-Andalus 08:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC).

Is there an evidence that David Levy and Silvan Shalom are indigenous to North Africa and are not descended from European Sephardic Jews?

Thanks for the info.

I have made a few changes in the paragraph on languages so as to make things clearer. Regarding "indigenous". It is a mistake usually made by Jews of Turkey for instance about Morocco. There was high mobility within Morocco and between Morocco and Spain so there is no particular place or language associated with Sephardi Jews or Maghreban Jews. The great majority are Sephardim insofar as they practiced the Castillan rite. The others called themselves Palestinian Jews.

"Mizrahim are..." The Mizrahi identity has been imposed by outsiders upon people who heard the term for the first time in the 1970's and who still don't relate to it. So I'd be careful with phrases such as "Mizrahim are..." Perhaps "are considered" ?

Too many problems with this entry due, no doubt, to die-hard stereotypes. Sylvia O.W.

"Origins", "Originate"

Al-Andalus, you keep changing the disambiguation at the top to read that Mizrahi Jews have their "origins" or "originate" in the countries they most recently come from. This an unsupported claim that defies both conventional history and their own beliefs, which says they generally "originated" in Kingdom of Judah. I'm going to restore the lead to Arniep's version; please propose changes here, and please ensure they address the concerns I have raised. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Please note that my comment below was in response to a personal attack from Al-Andalus's (since removed) in which, among other things, he described me as an "Ashkenazi collaborator." [7] It looks kind of silly there all on its own now. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Al-Andalus, could you please actually respond to the issues raised, rather than resorting to personal attacks? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the contentious sentence altogether; it wasn't necessary, and other articles don't bother with that kind of thing either. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone other than Jayjg have a problem with "This article deals with the long-residing ancient Jewish communities of the Near East and North Africa. For the organization of the Religious Zionist Movement, please see Mizrachi.". Even this last edit was not to Jayjg's liking. It no longer says native, indigenous, origin or originate - terms that Jayjg disaproved, lest they validate the Mizrahim's Jewishness more than his. You're a European Jew, deal with it. Don't obscure the Mizrahim of their origins, history, and identity for your personal agenda. Al-Andalus 11:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC).

It's both awkward English and inaccurate, duplicated and too long for a disambiguation opening anyway. Mizrahi Jews original in Israel, not in some mythical "largely contiguous area", Gruzim certainly don't live in that "contiguous area", and Yemenite Jews are arguably not even Mizrahim. The truth is that the term "Mizrahi" is a modern term used as a grab-bag for Jewish communities whose main commonality is that they are not Ashkenazi or Sephardi, as the article itself points out. Please stop reverting, and get consensus for your proposed insertions. And if any of your future comments refer to me personally, rather than article content, or contain other personal attacks or violations of Wikipedia:Civility policies, I will simply not bother responding. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I have to say, if Jay is an "Ashkenazi collaborator" [whatever the hell that means, Al-Andalus], I must be a "Sfaradi collaborator"... The language you've proposed contains English words, but the grammar and syntax is decidedly not English... in fact, it's so horrendous that I have no idea what it's supposed to mean! Your nonsensical claims that Jay's disapproval of the language have something to do with his being a "European Jew" are disingenuous at best, and a gratuitous ad hominem attack at worst... in neither case, however, is your position advanced; the text you've proposed is just plain bad, regardless of whence Jay's ancestors hail. In fact, the "English" with which you formulate your defense of your position is so unspeakably bad that it's not just your proposed wording I don't understand, it's the arguments themselves! What on God's green earth is "Don't obscure the Mizrahim of their origins, history, and identity for your personal agenda." supposed to mean? The only thing I can imagine is "Don't deprive Mizraḥim [a term no self-respecting "Mizraḥi" would ever use to describe themself] of their origins [how exactly is Jay doing that?], history [how could Jay do that even if he tried?!] and identity [WHAT?! Using the term "Mizraḥi" is the surest way to accomplish that goal!!!] for your personal agenda [what?! are you seriously going to stand there and say Jay has an agenda here other than improving the WP project?!]"... Al-Andalus...seriously. These outbursts do nothing to strengthen any point you think you might have, and the statements you make on the subject make you sound increasingly ill-informed. If you're descended from Mizrajim, fine. If it means that much to you, drop the shroud of Islam and reclaim your Jewish heritage. You can't live forever with one foot in each of two houses. Otherwise stop. Clearly something is preventing you from discussing the subject rationally. Until you can, perhaps it'd be best for you to work on fixing the other areas of your life that need more work. Wikipedia will survive while you sort out your life... Tomer ^TALK 10:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

"drop the shroud of Islam and reclaim your Jewish heritage"? Who said anything about Islam? Islam has nothing to do with my herritage, but Arab culture does. Arab culture and Islam are not the one and same thing. Most Muslims are not Arabs, and not all Arabs are Muslims. Tomer, I thought you'd be smart enough to know that. It is that precise thinking, that equation of Arab and Islam that was propagated by the Zionist founders of currently un-holy land of Israel, that denies the culture, language and identity of the Mizrahi of Arab countries. What is most offensive is the fact that no one ever repremands the Ashkenazim for living forever with one foot in each of two houses. What's worse is that that European limbo of Ashkenazi identity is what is considered authentic Jewishness. "European Jewishness" is not an oxymoron, is it? Al-Andalus 13:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC).

I cut and paste alot as I type. What was meant to be displayed was "Don't obscure the origins, history, and identity of the Mizrahim for your personal agenda." Al-Andalus 13:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC).

My two cents: Since the article explains in detail who this community is, may I suggest that the hat-text could simply say something like "This is an article about certain sub-ethnicities of the Jews. For the Religious Zionist organization, please see Mizrachi." I understand Jayjg's objection, and it is not likely to be only his, but I would say on the other side that they were not Mizrahim while they were part of pre-diaspora Jewry: by the "ultimate origin" standard, all humans presumably trace back to some one place, probably in east central Africa. The issue of origin in this article is not "where did the Jews originate" but "where did the Mizrahim originate". -- Jmabel | Talk 17:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I'd prefer to avoid, like the plague, use of the term "sub-ethnicity" or any variants thereof. Also, if you understand the content of the article, you'd know "the Mizrahim" didn't "originate", they were invented by the Zionist racists in the early days of the State. If you reread the article and still don't understand that, let me know and I'll see what I can do to rewrite it to make that point clearer... Tomer ^TALK 10:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd love to find a better word than sub-ethnicities, feel free to suggest one. You will notice, by the way, I didn't say that they constituted a single sub-ethnicity of the Jews: clearly they don't. The word was deliberately plural. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I share Jayjg's concerns but I think that Jmabel's compromise is very reasonable and probably the best for the article. --Briangotts (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're aware, but Al-Andalus wants to insert the phrase in two separate places in the article, not just the disambiguation. In the opening paragraph Al-Andalus wants to define Mizrahi Jews as the long-residing ancient Jewish communities of the Near East (Southwest Asia) and North Africa; that is to say, their ancestors never left this largely contiguous region. It currently states that they are Jews whose ancestors resided in communities which were in continuous contact with the rest of the Jewish world, yet were neither Ashkenazi Jews nor Sephardi Jews. I argue that Al-Andalus's wording is both poorly written and inaccurate. In reality "Mizrahi" is a word used to designate Jews who are neither Sephardi or Ashkenazi, but who (unlike, for example, Beta Israel) were in continuous contact with rest of the Jewish world. It has nothing to do with any "largely contiguous region", whatever that means - Georgia, for example, is not in the Middle East, and it's not even agreed wheter or not Yemenite Jews are Mizrahi Jews. Also, they are not "pre-diaspora Jewry", but very much part of the Jewish diaspora. Perhaps the largest Mizrahi Jewish population are Iraqi Jews, descendents of the Jews of the very first Jewish diaspora. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Al-Andalus' proposal is equal parts nonsensical and unacceptable. I don't care if their ancestors never left "this largely contiguous region" (this WHAT?!) ... Under further consideration, I am of the opinion that the most ridiculous part of this entire discussion is that it's taken more than 10 seconds, cumulatively, of otherwise-productive editors' valuable time... Tomer ^TALK 10:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Definition disputed

To me, the major problem of this article is an incorrect definition that portrays Mizrahi and Sephardic Jews as mutually exclusive. Nothing is less true. Sephardic Jews include the majority of the Jews from the moslim countries and some beyond, as well as the Jews from Southern Europe. Mizrahi Jews include some additional communities in and around the Middle East which were not Spehardic, but excludes the Jews of Southern Europe. Not only are they partially inclusive of each other, but the majority of the Sephardic Jews are Mizrahi and the majority of the Mizrahi Jews are Sephardic. gidonb 18:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Please re-read the article. In reality, Sephardi Jews are the descendants of the 1492 Jewish exiles from Spain. The term Sephardi is often used loosely to refer to various Mizrahi groups as well, but this is inaccurate. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The former is a very narrow definition. By the equally valid, but wider definition Sephardic Jews include all who (used to) pray by the Sephardic prayer version. I believe that this dual definition should be included when referring to Sephardic Jews. gidonb 00:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Read any mainstream definition of these terms and you will see that Sephardic refers to a very narrow definition just like Jaiyg said. The only ambiguity between the terms is when it is difficult to ascertain the ancestry of a population.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, both definitions are quite widely used. But perhaps Sephardic Jews is a better place to deal with this issue. For example, both the common wide and the narrow definition can be included there and it can be mentioned that Wikipedia uses the narrow definition. Here we should strive for a core definiontion which excludes the words Sephardic Jews to solve the ambiguity that it introduces. gidonb 00:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The Ashkenazi invented the term "Mizrahi" because they would not allow the term "Arab Jews", "Middle Eastern Jews", etc. They imposed the sterile term upon the Middle Eastern and North African Jewish people with the only intention to cloud and obscure their origins and identity. The euro-centric Zionist founders of the modern "Jewish" state of Israel tolerated Mizrahi immigration to Israel, but "leave your languages, culture, ethnicity and identity at customs. We can't have Arab Jews, we only need and can only have Jews, to bolster our numbers. You're lucky we let you "Mizrahi" in at all. Arabs (non-Jewish Palestinians; and there were indigenous Jewish Palestinians, though much less than the minority Christian Palestinians, let alone the majority Muslim Palestinians) we already have". G-d forbid, ownership of "Mizrahi" has now been taken by the people it was imposed upon, but the Ashkenazi powers that be will now try to one again control the definition. Jayjg, I find your attempts to obliterate any piece of information that the Mizrahim are of Near Eastern and North African origin, pathetic and ethnocidal. Now, above taking out origin, originate, come from, native, indigenous (to top it all off) you have deleted the actual geographical region from which they came from. Why is it that on the Ashkenazi Jews article there is absolutely no problem in mentioning that the Ashkenazi are that Jews that originate from Northern and Eastern Europe? I'll tell you why! Because the Ashkenazi institution that promotes this believes their Judaism and they as Jews are the template of Judaism, and anything that diverges from it is the odd one out. Judaism did not originate in Europe, and most of those Jews are barely the seed of Abraham. To mention anything that may reveal that fact, in another article of Jews (Mizrahi Jews) that have actually resided in the Middle East for millennia, is then suppressed.

Jayjg, your views are extremely colonial, and dare i say now ethnocentric and bordering on racist. To you there is no conflict with Europe and Judaism, being a White European and a Jew at once, a "European Jew". There is no contradiction, right? In your colonial mentality, Judaism is instrinctly interwoven with Europe. Europe, Deutschland, Ukrayina, Hassidism, Orthodoxy, 11th century Polish shtreimels, bekishes, and gartels, Ha Shoah, kugel, latkes, bagels, shuls, Yiddish, Steinbergs, Rosenthals, etc; these are all which define Judaism and Jewishness in your narrow world view. You have no probblem in associating all these foreign elements to Judaism as actually being Jewish and defining Judaism and Jews! They are mentioned countless times in articles around Wikipedia. They do not define Jews or Judaism; they define Ashkenazi Jewry and Ashkenazim, that's it, nothing more. But dare one single article mention anything else as Jewish, then let's see what happens. Even mentioning the region of the Mizrahim cannot be done, as you deleted it. Mizrahim is now someone who is "not Ashkenazi and not Sephardi". Anything else? Before you even put Mizrahim were the Jews "which existed" in the Middle East and North Africa. What the hell is wrong with you? Which existed??? In a way, I'm glad this has turned out the way it has. It has shown your Eurocentric colonial Zionist ways, and this, your actions and edits prevent you from denying. Al-Andalus 02:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC).

If you were right here Al-Anadalus this is the part where I would hit you with a rolled up newspaper. "NO AL!, THATS ENOUGH, CUT IT OUT!" Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 03:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

If Al-Andalus is seriously saying that the Sho'a affected only Ashkenazim, after I get done figuratively beating the crap out of him for his unacceptable ignorance and unspeakable stupidity, I only have three words left to say...namely: "blah blah blah"... Yes, I get sick of the uppitiness of Ashkenazim sometimes, and yes I think Ashkenazim are far-too-often arrogantly ignorant of the rest of the Jewish world, but such an assertion is completely inexcusable. Tomer ^TALK 10:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I was hoping someone would notice this. I'm glad it was you. If you look at the page history you will notice I added the Shoah in a second edit of my post. I did this for a very good reason; to once again show Ashkenazi monopolization of Judaism and Jews. Of course I know the Shoah affected ALL Jews, full stop. It affected the Sephardim in Spain, the Balkans, it affected the Jews of Italy. With the medling of Germany in the Middle East it also affected Jews there and in North Africa. But go to the Shoah article, and what does it say?

• "Shoah or Ha Shoah (literally denoting a "catastrophic upheaval") is the Hebrew term for the genocide of two thirds of the European Jewish population during the Holocaust".

Apparently everything is about the European Jews, the Ashkenazim. I hope my point is clear.

To go through Wikipedia and de-Ashkenize all article related to Jews and Judaism would be so tiresom, because it is everywhere. It is also almost impossible because of reverts by Zionist Ashkenazi status quo-ers like Jayjg! The equation "authentic Jewishness and Jews" = "Ashkenaziness and Ashkenazim" is everywhere. I've made changes here and there for quite a while now, but it's just SO MUCH. From the article on "Jewish" surnammes when all it listed was German names, to recently Latkes, where it was a "Jewish" food. No, it is not Jewish food, it's Ashkenazi Jewish food. Furthermore, latkes shouldn't even be trademarked as food of the Ashkenazim either, since it is Eastern European food, made by Europeans and eaten by Europeans (hence also made and eaten by Ashkenazim, a EUROPEAN PEOPLE!). So, that's why I added Shoah. I hope you got my point. By the way, affter establishing that the Shoah is not an Ashkenazi trademark, let me say one thing, though it may affected Jews everywhere, the Shoah does not define Judaism or what it is to be a Jew either. Judaism and the history of Jews are more than the Shoah. Al-Andalus 03:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC).

The place to deal with your concerns is at Talk:Shoah, not here. Tomer ^TALK 04:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes I know, BUT I was replying to the post you made here as to my inclusion of the Shoah as Ashkenazi. Aside from that, I do hope you got my point. Al-Andalus 13:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC).

Also, if this discussion is going to continue, I'm going to have to insist, Al-Andalus, that either you switch to speaking English, or else that you write in some language you actually understand. While you're doing a wonderful job of stringing English words together and ending them in random groups with periods, NOBODY IS REALLY SURE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. So, if you can't use intelligible English, pick a language you KNOW, and one of us will translate for you for the rest of us. Thanks. Tomer ^TALK 10:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL. Al-Andalus 03:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC).

I know people are free to contribute to any article that they see fit, however I can't help but feel that Al-Andalus is misrepresenting himself as a Mizrahi Jew while he is in fact an Islamic Arab pushing a different agenda than he is suggesting. Although it doesn't make a real difference since it is important to argue with the the words and not the person, at the same time though it seems disingenuine and malicious that he is trying to defend the "oppressed" Mizrachi Jews from the perspective from one of their own even though he is in fact coming from an entirely different viewpoint. So please Andalus stop this irritating charade, it has gone on long enough.- Webster 09-11-05 3:16 am Pacific time

I think we would all be a lot more productive and efficient if we stopped discussing User:Jayjg and User:Al-Andalus and whoever, and whatever hidden or declared agenda they may have, and focused on Mizrahi Jews and how to make this article more accurate, more informative and clearer. If some of us still cannot resist the urge, they both have personal talk pages.--Doron 14:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Let him say what he will of me. I'm an Islamic Arab? Is that an attempt at an insult? Who cares, you're half right though. I do identify as what you "insulted" me, but I'm not a Muslim. People of the Arab world can be Muslims, Christians, and, yes, Jews TOO you ignorant Zionist! You're typical, trying to assasinate and discredit the character of those who dare speak out to. Al-Andalus 13:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC).

It would probably clarify things if a paragraph is inserted into the defintion section of the article stating that, in addition to the more technically and historically correct usage of terms, Sephardi is also sometimes used (within a modern Israeli context, at least) to denote more loosely any non-Ashkenazi Jew, and that Mizrakhi can similarly be used to mean any non-Ashkenazi (i.e. non-Western) Israeli Jew who is explicitly not Sephardi, but whose family hails mostly from the non-Mediterranean communties of Africa and Asia, such as the communties of Cairo or Kabul. Of course, this technically incorrect usage is restricted to a more informal socio-cultural understanding of divisions of Israeli society that does make sense from a sociological point of view as a means to explain layers of coexisting Jewsish identities today. Am I not right? --Big Adamsky 17:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I've never seen "Mizrahi" used to mean "non-Ashkenazi" - I've only seen "Sephardi" used that way. Where have you seen "Mizrahi" used that way? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't really remember, most likely I have simply heard rather than seen this usage. Note that it is intended to mean "the remainder of [Israeli] Jews, when both Ashkenazim and Sepharadim are subtracted". In other words a collective umbrella-term for the various mutually exclusive sub-groups who nonetheless do have certain traits in common.

I don't even think it's intended to mean that; it certainly doesn't include Bene Israel, Beta Israel, Cochin Jews, etc., and whether or not it includes Yemenite Jews is questionable. It is intended, as my wording above states, to include all non-Sephardi, non-Ashkenazi Jews who nevertheless kept in contact with the rest of the Jewish people. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe so, Jay. My point, however, was that, while exact or original definitions and etymologies are surely important in an encyclopedia or a dictionary, sometimes popular usage that is erroneous should be mentioned so as to avoid too much "linguistic snobbery". Our buddies from Yemen would most likely self-identify and be identified by others as Mizrakhim, and more loosely perhaps even as Sepharadim. It is incorrect, but it's really no biggie. :-]

Cochin Jews Mizrahi?

I think it's problematic to describe Cochin Jews as "Mizrahi" - the Cochin Jews appear to consist of at least two sub-communities, one ancient, and one about 400 years old (Paradesi Jews). While the latter are made up of both Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews, I've never heard that the community as a whole is referred to as "Mizrahi". Jayjg ^(talk) 16:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

They'd certainly be shocked as hell to hear they are Mizrahi. They're about as Mizrahi as Jayjg. But they're sui generis, really, none of the big groupings really fits. Mizrahi least of all, though. If we pick another designation at random we'll do better. Babajobu 17:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg, the designations Mizrahi, Sephardi and Ashkenazi are not entirely straightforward. That said, it is not unreasonable to include all the former and present Jewish communities of India and Ethiopia as part of the "Mizrahim". Regards, gidonb 17:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Gidon, Sephardi and Ashkenazi have strict definitions that are quite unambiguous, though Sephardi in particular has a more loose definition that is technically inaccurate but sometimes used. It is "Mizrahi" that is "not entirely straightforward", as it is a new term that is not well defined. That said, we cannot define Mizrahi ourselves, but use it the way others do. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I challenge anyone to find a single reputable source that describes any of the Jews of Kerala as Mizrahi. Babajobu 19:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg and Babayubu, the issue is that for all these groups there is no one way they are used. I say this as a social scientist who has done research on Jewish and Israeli ethnicities. gidonb 20:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Gidon, yeah, I definitely accept your point that these terms are fluid and inconsistently applied, and that if we are looking for a nice, clean formula for which Jews belong to which group, we'll remain permanently disappointed. But if we're going to characterize the Fort Cochin Jews as "Mizrahi", we really must be able to produce one published work that describes them as such. And my guess is that we won't find any such source. The origins of the Cochin community are so distinctive and so divorced from the Mizrahi heartland in the Middle East that Mizrahi seems to me a very infelicitous and unlikely term for them. Perhaps for the Jews in Northern India it'd be a bit less of a stretch. Babajobu 20:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I see that Al-Andalus has updated article to reflect that Cochin Jews do not fit comfortably with term "Mizrahi", but Baghdadi Jews do. I think this is much better, and I hope Cochin Jews don't creep back into the article. Babajobu 15:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Definition

As pointed out above, while the Ashkenazi and Sephardi are well-defined, there seems to be a problem defining the Mizrahi. I cannot help noticing that the article gives no actual reference to such a definition in the literature. Can anyone point us to some work on the subject? The definition in the article speaks of "continuous contact" with the rest of Jewry, the meaning of which is unclear to me. Have the Cochin Jews had less contact with the rest of Jewry than remote Kurdish communities? Surely there must be some scholar work that identifies which are the Mizrahi communities, not just guesswork.

I would like to note that contrary to the very strong distinction make in the article between Mizrahi and "everything non-Ashkenazi", the (presumably incorrect) definition of Mizrahi as non-Ashkenazi or non-European is very prevalent in modern Israel and has a central political role, from Independence through the Wadi Salib riots, the (Israeli) Black Panthers movement, Shas and the Mizrahi Democratic Rainbow. Sami Shalom Chetrit in his book "The Mizrahi Struggle in Israel Between Oppression and Liberation, Identification and Alternative" clamps all non-Ashkenazis together as "Mizrahi", being an oppressed class, and draws parallels between Mizrahi and "Oriental" a la Edward Said (i.e., "Oriental" is everything not "Western"). While Chetrit has a somewhat radical agenda, I assure you that what he describes is a reality in Israeli socienty and politics.--Doron 22:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Denial and Racism

We should start looking at the Mizrahi Question outside of the Israeli and Middle Eastern context. A book I recomend "The Sephardim of Sydney" (of course, being written by an Ashkenazi, "Sephardim" is used in its "any non Ashkenazi Jew" ignorant definition). Apart from the title, it's good literature.

"The Sydney Jewish community is dynamic and vibrant, with many communal, social and religious institutions. This book investigates the Sephardic community of Sydney – their history, their experiences as new immigrants in a host society after arriving from traditional Moslem cultures, as well as the changes they have undergone since they arrived in Australia. The Sephardic community comprises about 5,000 of the 50,000 Jews in Sydney, whose majority reside in the eastern suburbs, in Sydney's multicultural inner city “ethnic belt”. Although the Sephardim share some cultural features with the Jewish majority, there are substantial differences: they emphasize their cultural heterogeneity. Their experiences are viewed through the prism of their relationship to both the Ashkenazim and the larger Anglo-Australian society. Their inability to acculturate and assimilate into the Ashkenazi and Australian groups contributes profoundly to their self-image and to ethnic marginalization."

"...share some cultural features with the Jewish majority..."? What "Jewish majority"? Are the Mizrahi not Jewish? See the Ashkenazi monopoly of Jewishness? At the most it should read "share some cultural features with the Ashkenazi majority". Ashenaziness does not define Jewishness!

"...inability to acculturate and assimilate into the Ashkenazi...groups"? See the Ashkenazi racism and arrogance present even in literature!

"A negative ethnic identity and self-rejection, enhanced by rejection from the Ashkenazim and Australians, has a major impact on their everyday life and their perception of their social standing, especially on the younger Sephardic generation. This issue has been particularly relevant since 1988, when the Australian government moved to restrict Asian immigration. This became a media issue, with the [white] Ashkenazim taking the side of white Australians and seeing themselves as superior to the Afro-Asian Jewish Sephardim, who are viewed as “Asians” by both the Ashkenazim and the white majority. The result is a sense of “double rejection”, which pervades this group’s political and social standing."

Need I say more? To put it into context, Middle Easterners and North Africans are not "White" in this country. Whiteness is not defined by religious herritage, but by European racial origin, ie. European Christians, European Jews (Ashkenazim), European Muslims (Torbesh, etc.) Al-Andalus 14:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC).

I kindly ask you to stick to improving the article. This debate, though interesting and important, is diverting our attention and there are other places in the web where it would be more appropriate.--Doron 16:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you get the aim of the post. It is so that we can indeed "stick to improving the article". How can we continue to improve the article when a user (of the same tendencies described in the review of that book) constantly prevents the addition of any information that would actually attribute the Mizrahim with their cultures, ethnicities, origins and identites, when anything actually having to do with the Mizrahi (that hasn’t been manufactured or is not sanctioned by those who invented the term Mizrahi in the first place) is not incorporated?

We have to wake up to ourselves and address this Zionist racism and denial, and acknowledge that it/he/she/they is preventing the development of an unbiased article reflecting ALL SIDES and ASPECTS of the Mizrahi, and not only those that fit an agenda and, while omitting everything else "just in case". This is especially true when said agenda is almost foreign to the subject "Mizrahi Jews", making the decrement of this article's NPOV even moreso unjustifiable. Al-Andalus 16:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC).

"European racial origin" doesn't really make sense. Ashkenazim are descended from Palestinian Jews who settled in Europe, and I think Sephardim are descended from Babylonian Jews who settled in Europe. And many "mizrahi" jews from North Africa have roots in Iberia which would make them of "european racial origin" as well would it not? Can you see why this is not the best term? Who is to even say that there is a european race? Europeans don't even all look alike. And European Jews are of middle eastern origin anyway, so its not the best term in any case.

Let the discussion move on...

I'm going to propose that we drop the previous discussion, since it's completely counterproductive. The purpose here is to improve the article, and none of the discussion that's taken place in the past 24 hours is even remotely geared toward doing so. In the interest of moving to a higher plane of discussion, let me start out by saying "yaddayaddayadda". OMG, the most relevant thing said all day. Let's stick to the ARTICLE, shall we, instead of to insulting theories about peoples' "personal agendas". Thanks, and good morning. Tomer ^TALK 06:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Moroccan Jews

As I've noted above, in some social and political contexts, Sephardi Jews from Islamic countries are considered "mizrahi" in Israel. There has not been any concensus here on this matter. Earlier, I've removed David Levy from the Distinguished Mizrahi personalities list as he is not mizrahi by the strict definition, and now I see Amir Peretz has been added. I do think that the article lacks a proper discussion if the socio-political meaning of the term in Israel. On the other hand, there should be some sort of concensus on this matter. If Moroccan Jews are included, there are a whole lot of distinguished people that should be added to the list.--Doron 08:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, this really needs to be sorted out, there's no use working on the rest of the article until we have some sense of how we're defining the term. Babajobu 08:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it's worth noting that Shas, the religious Sephardi party, has two non-Sephardi members of Knesset -- Amnon Cohen (Bukharan) and Meshulam Nahari (Yemenite).--Doron 23:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

If only the Israelis didn't speak/confound Hebrew, things would be so much easier... TShilo12 07:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I suppose you are a prescriptivist...--Doron 08:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

In some ways, yes, but that's not my motivation here. I fully support discussing the Israeli usage of both Mizrachi and Sfaradi, as well as of Ashkenazi. That said, using Israeli usage alone (including the Academy's Ashkenazi-"Sefardic pronunciation"-centric "official" transliteration scheme) as the sole arbiter of "correct" usage is incorrect at best, insulting and misleading at worst. TShilo12 09:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Transliteration aside, nobody is advocating the "Israeli usage" as the sole usage, I merely ask it be mentioned. Though I would be very grateful if you could provide a reference to a non-"Israeli" "correct" definition of the term, which I have yet to see. And by the way, how is it insulting?--Doron 09:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly that it should be mentioned. As for a non-Israeli definition, "Oriental Jews", the English translation of "Mizrachim", have been discussed often in non-Israeli settings, and long before the establishment of Israel. As for "insulting", I wasn't saying you were advocating adopting Israeli usage as "authoritative" wrt the meaning of Mizraḥi here, and thereby "insulting" anyone; my comment was more germane the discussion about the "accuracy" of the Academy's transliterations elsewhere, which I mentioned above, albeit parenthetically. TShilo12 10:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Strict definitions (yet to be established, it seems) aside, I re-added David Levy (again) as per .he. El_C 23:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

What's "Mizrahi"?

I would be grateful if someone could refer me somewhere where I could learn what "Mizrahi Jew" means, which communities are commonly known as "Mizrahi" and where did this definition come from. From the definition in the introduction to this article, it appears Mizrahi Jews are not defined by a common origin, but rather by a lack thereof, and thus I cannot help feeling this definition had been applied to Mizrahi Jews, rather than self-designated. Why are Georgian Jews considered "Mizrahi" and Cochine Jews not? Is it because there is some fundamental difference between all Mizrahi communities and the Cochine community, or is it simply because nobody ever referred to Cochine Jews as Mizrahi, which Georgian Jews are referred to as such? Could someone informative shed some light please?--Doron 08:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

.He's מזרחים appears to currently be undergoing extensive revisions and I'm seeing various new scholarly sources (I think) that have been added. It's likely we can gain further insights not only from these additions, but attempting to engage editor there directly with these questions once she is done (or now). Ironically, I notice that the title of the first section which used to be called the problematic-ness of the Mizrachi concept ("בעיתיות המונח מזרחים") is now called the Mizrachi concept ("המושג מזרחים"). El_C 08:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The Hebrew article views "Mizrahi" in quite a different way than the English article. It sees it in an Israeli socio-political context (which I have brought up before, the English article barely addresses this aspect), while the English article seems to refer to a different context, supposedly universal, of the term Mizrahi. From the Hebrew article it appears that "Mizrahi" is entirely an Israeli invention, while editors here argue that the term predates Israel and the Israeli view of the term is incorrect (and possibly offensive?). I've heard plenty about the term in the Israeli-context (and I intend to elaborate on this), but I would very much like to read about the term as it is defined in this article.--Doron 10:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm also interested, even if it's original research, I'm still moderately interested (within reason!). El_C 10:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the difference has to do with whether or not the community was in (more-or-less) continual contact with the rest of the world Jewish community - yes for Gruzim, no for Cochin Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you know where in the literature is this distiction made? And I'm not sure what it means, in what way were Bukharan Jews more in contact with the rest of Judaism than Cochin Jews?

I'm starting to seriously doubt what's written in this article. Encyclopaedia Judaica has no entry "Mizrahi", the closest thing they have is "Oriental Literature" which includes Sephardi literature in Spain and later North-Africa. On the other hand, in the Israeli front, Sami Shalom Chetrit in his book "The Mizrahi Struggle in Israel" asserts

יוצאי ארצות ערב והאיסלאם, ארצות הים התיכון והבלקן, מעולם לא הוגדרו "מזרחים" כקולקטיב, עד אשר הם החלו מגדירים עצמם "מזרחים" בשנות השמונים"

(Jews from Arab and Muslim countries, the Mediterranean and the Balkans, were never defined as "Mizrahi" as a collective, until they started defining themselves as "Mizrahi" in the 1980s), and

"עדות המזרח" היתה ועודנה במידה רבה ההגדרה הנפוצה ביותר באקדמיה

("edot hamizrah" was and still is largely the most common term in the academic literature) and later he quotes Carl Frankenstein (ק. פרנקנשטיין, 1951, "למושג הפרימיטיביות". מגמות ב' 4, 339--352)

בדברנו על "עדות המזרח" אנו מתכוונים ליהודי צפון אפריקה ממרוקו ועד מצרים, ליהודי הלבנון, סוריה, טורקיה, עיראק וכורדיסטאן, ליהודי פרס ואפגניסטן, קווקאז ובוכרה, ליהודי תימן ועדן.

(When we speak of "edot hamizrah", we mean the Jews of North Africa from Morocco to Egypt, the Jews of Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Kurdistan, the Jews of Persia and Afghanistan, the Caucasus and Bukhara, the Jews of Yemen and Aden). These are just a sample, throughout the book, as well as the quoted literature, no distinction is made between Sephardi and other non-Ashkenazi communities. Mind you, that the author is a scholar on the subject, as well as a radical "Mizrahi" activist (and bears a Moroccan surname), so I can't see how this Wikipedia article can go so far as to claim that "to include Mizraḥim with Sephardim may be considered culturally insensitive or ignorant"!

I am yet to encounter any reference in the literature that confirms the view of this article with regards to the term "Mizrahi".--Doron 23:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Bring on the sources. :) El_C 00:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This is the problem, saying this without taking the time to read the preceedings above (I really don't have time today)... "Oriental Jews" is a very old (going back to at least the 15th Century CE afaik) appellation, i.e., "eidoth hamizrach"... That said, Mizrachim in Israel today are not defined according to the traditional understanding of the term (which was confined primarily to gruzim, bukhorim, parsim and kurdish and mesopotamian Jews, not as a unit, but as a source), but rather, according to the [excuse me for saying it yet again], racist antireligious ashkenazi Zionists as "anyone not Ashkenazi, nor identifiably Sfaradi (i.e., civilized, but not Ashkenazi)". This stereotype has caused a blurring, indeed a slurring of the meaning in modern Israel, where terms in the vernacular are myopically believed to be a reflection of the truest interpretation of their traditional meaning. Tomer^TALK 05:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

So why isn't anybody providing a single source that shows the term 'edot hamizrah' is indeed so old? Why isn't anybody providing a source that defines or describes this supposedly old term? Where did you come up with 15th century?--Doron 06:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that my "confusion" is from reading too much Yekke stuff lately... as this article demonstrates, the "old use" of the term "Oriental Jews" may be a reference to Galitzianers (and possibly Litvaks), and later to Chasidim, as opposed to "Occidental Jews", as Yekkes. Tomer^TALK 03:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

By the way, however, I'm pretty sure that the majority of these citations refer to Mizrachim as we know them today, not to Galitzianers and Chasidim... Tomer^TALK 03:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Dispute

Could someone summarize, preferably neutrally, what is currently disputed about the article? I gather that one disputed point is whether Mizrahi and Sephardi are mutually exclusive. Is anything else in dispute? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

As expressed in the discussion above, I dispute:

• The definition of "Mizrahi" Jews that is given in the introduction of the article and that affects the entire article, on the grounds that nobody here appears to be able to justify it from any published source. While I can accept this usage may be in use, I am yet to be convinced that it indeed is in use. Certainly I am not convinced that it is the main usage of the term.
• In Israel, the term has a different, socio-political meaning, that has been studied extensively and has great importance. The sentence "Sephardi has in some modern contexts acquired the meaning of 'non-Ashkenazi Jew', however, to include Mizrahim with Sephardim may be considered culturally insensitive or ignorant" completely ignores this meaning, and I strongly dispute it in particular even if the rest of the article is correct.

Unless somebody can come up with references that justify the definition of "Mizrahi" as it is given in the article, it appears to me that the article ought to be rewritten, perhaps in line with the Hebrew article.--Doron 07:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, we need to come up with a definition that can be cited to credible sources. Until that's done, I don't think there's any point in doing other work on the article. Babajobu 11:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've raised my concerns about this article, and I am yet to see any reference that confirms this article's correctness. Unless you are all combing the library right now for an appropriate reference, I intend to rewrite the article to conform with the Hebrew article.--Doron 09:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Doron, I believe this is a good idea. The Hebrew articles define Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews better than the English articles. I have commented on this issue in the past. gidonb 19:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It's what I intended to do —well, not to write it, but translate .he's, which in light of changes and being perpetually out of it, never happned. El_C 07:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It's those damned drugs! :-D Tomer^TALK 14:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I take it this the place where I pick up my free drugs! El_C 23:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Update

I've updated the definition of "Mizrahi" to reflect some of the concerns here (the definition given for Ashkenazi Jews does not seem to be any better). I also propose taking off the "dispute" tag--but first wanted to see how people react to the changes. If you have any problems, by all means go ahead and edit the article yourself. Pointing to the Hebrew article and saying that's better doesn't do anyone any service. Aucaman^Talk 20:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The dispute is still not resolved. I do not agree with the assertions made in this article, and I am yet to see anything in this article sourced. The contents of the Hebrew article are what I am familiar with, and it is well sourced. I'll translate it to replace this article when I find the time, unless of course you can address my concerns, given above.--Doron 09:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Since the concept Mizrahim is mostly used in Israel, it is reasonable to use the Israeli definition is the lead. The Mizrahi vs. Sephardi vs. Ashkenazi typology can be mentioned, but imho does not deserve even nearly such a central place in a fairly weighted global definition of the concept Mizrahim. Regards, gidonb 07:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, Fascinating and Necessary

Shalom, Shlama, Salam. Three languages that are an integral part of my daily life, Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic. I've tried to follow the discussion(very intense and quite dense!!) and hopefully will have the time to give my 2 cents. Being of Iraqi origin(my dad is Baghdadi and my mum is Zakhoyi, from Zakho in Northern Iraq)and Israeli Jewish i find it amazing that until now individuals and communities are struggling to identify themselves and resist being identified by others. Personally, i don't consider myself an Arab although i learnt Baghdadi Judeo-Arabic from my father's side and neither does my father's family consider themselves "Arab" seeing that our presence in Iraq pre-dated the Arab-Islamic invasion and conquest. However, they are comfortable with Arabic being an integral part of their culture and daily lives, although dominant political ideologies have made this increasingly difficult and problematic. When in Baghdad, they grew up as Baghdadi Iraqi Jews, who spoke Arabic among themselves and their Christian and Muslim neighbours, friends and colleagues. It wasn't so much a Jewish/Arab division as Muslim/Jewish/Christian. My mother's family on the other hand, spoke and continue to speak a dialect of Aramaic, as well as Kurdish when communicating with Kurds or other Jews in North Iraq who didn't speak Aramaic. I think its very important to discuss these issues of representation(or the lack thereof) in Israel and the diaspora Jewish communities. What are we? Arab Jews? Mizrahim? or Mizrachim? or MizraKHim? Sephardim? Oriental Jews? I think this reflects a serious problem within our socio-politico-cultural-historical reality. --Ben Zakai 00:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

ignorance

"Prior to the emergence of the term "Mizrahi", which dates from the time of the establishment of the State of Israel, Arab Jews (יהודים ערבים) was a commonly used designation for those Mizrahim originating in Arab lands" who wrote this (and other) nonsense? the one who will translate the hebrew article will do the en.wiki a big favor.

As an Iranian Jew - I find all the blather from Al-Andalus quite silly. Please get a job and stop spreading leftist nonsense under the cover of academic authenticity and ethnic group rights. Your posts read like the rant of a Western academic and not the thoughts or concerns of a Jewish writer.

- Ferredoun

You've hit on the core of the problem with this and several articles he chooses to "contribute" to. I don't think, however, that he was saying that Iran is an "arab land". Also, I don't think you'll find Western academic leftists spouting this kind of crap. It's just crap. It's not leftist or academic or Western. It's just crap. Tomer^talk 05:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

And as Jew from Iran you should also know that the term "Arab Jew" does not apply to you. A Jew from Iraq, has every right to identify or denominate himself as an "Arab Jew" as you a Jew from Iran has the right to denominate yourself a "Persian Jew".

That in your mind you view my position not to be the "thoughts or concerns of a Jewish writer" only reflects your own ignorace. Know you not of to the pluraliy of Jews and Judaism? Englighten me then; What then are the immutable parameters for the thoughts and concerns of a Jew be validly Jewish (and not the rants of a leftist western academic)? Perhaps the parameters of the Zionists? I'm sorry, Zionism is the last thing to validate my worth as a Jew, or the validity of my thoughts and concerns as a Jew? G-d forbid the day in which that might become our people's truth. Al-Andalus 10:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC).

Al-Andalus, as a first step to helping contribute to the future of the Jewish people, I recommend converting to Judaism or if, as you claim, you really are Jewish by ancestry, that you make tshuva. Tomer^talk 08:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Contribute to the future of the Jewish people, you say? Zionism is not the way. It is what will utimately disrtoy us. Don't delude yourselves. We have had continuity for over two thousand years of Diaspora, whereever in the world; Germany, Poland, Ethiopia, Iran, Tunisia, India. Over two thousand years. Zionism will see our ultimate demise, and not brought upon us by outsiders, but by those within. As for Tshuva, the irony in the day when a Zionist demanded someone else to make Tshuva! In another 50 years you (plural) will see the damage you have done to us as a people, then YOU will make Tshuva on your own accord. But by then the damage inflicted will have been done, iit will have been too late. Zionism is but another golden calf, and Zionists but another corrupted mob unready to await for Moses to descend from Mount Sinai. Al-Andalus 02:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC).

Since the core of Zionism is irreligious or antireligious socialism, I would agree with you, that "Zionism is not the way" to contribute to the future of the Jewish people. That said, I rather doubt that Zionism is going to be the undoing of the Jewish people. That is brought about by assimilation and by Jews becoming apostates by following false prophets. So, I'm somewhat mystified. As I am the only one who has pointed out to you that the best way you can contribute to the future of the Jewish people is by converting to Judaism (tshuva is impossible for non-Jews), I'm seeing two problems with your response here. First, I'm not a Zionist. Second, I'm not more than one person [making the "you (plural)" business rather bizarre]. The rest of your pontifications about Zionism and Zionists, therefore, are completely irrelevant as a response to anything I said...and nothing you said has anything even remotely to do with this discussion, nor with the article, which is what this page is here for. On an unrelated note, Al-Andalus, it is when you type things like "It is what will utimately disrtoy us", "the irony in the day", and the like, that gives rise to the common perception that English is not only not your native language, but that you don't speak it very well at all. Tomer^talk 23:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Convert to Judaism? I hardly think one can be made a Jew twice. By birth and then conversion? Perhaps for the Zionists who abandoned Judaism for Zionism, should be made to convert. Al-Andalus 12:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC).

This seems to have moved from a discussion of the term/cultural group (self-identified or not) to a discussion that might better be carried out on different talk pages - perhaps Talk:Zionism, Talk:Jew, et al. Discussion of an editor's facility with English, if it happens at all, should be carefully limited to whether or not that affects readers' comprehension of the article. Most of the people who've contributed to this talk page seem to be frequent contributors to WP; none of this should be new to anyone. Epimetreus 22:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

POV

As a simple example, introduction of an "Arab Jews" section with the claim that the term "has been largely eradicated or supressed as an ethnic identity by consecutive Ashkenazicentric Israeli administrations" is blatant POV. There is no evidence that anything you have entered is NPOV, or cited from encyclopedic sources, and much to indicate the exact opposite. Please suggest changes here first. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Arab Jews, Mizrahim and Sephardic Jews

Andalus states that Arab Jew describes himself well, as do some Israelis. We all agree that the concept never really took off in Israel. Many pull and push factors may be named to explain why it did not take off or may had taken off under different circumstances. Andalus supports in this discussion a critical theoretic approach (for example neo-Marxism), where the reason why the concept does not work has to do with a class struggle in a (near) horizontally ethnically-stratified Israeli society. To keep the discussion POV, I would just list the history of the concept and name the factors that made it more and less likely to be used. I hope this is acceptable to everyone. Before I will change anything I would appreciate some reactions. I would also like to know what happened to our welcome intention to undo the mutual exclusiveness of the concepts Mizrahim and Sephardic Jews. gidonb 03:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Are Morroccan jews considered Sefardim or Mizrahi--Burgas00 13:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

fe! what a mess! Tomer^talk 20:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Since when was IRAN AN ARAB COUNTRY

Iran is located in Southwest Asia (MIDDLE EAST). Majority of countries their are Arabs.BUT IRAN IS NOT. SO THE ISRAELI PRESIDENT AND DEFENCE MINISTER OF ISRAEL ARE FROM IRAN. most of Iran is Persian not Arab.

KingKongIran 00:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Mizrahi Jews are not just from Arab countries. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Jayjg you are right. But The persident of Israel is known as a Persian Jew. Same with the Israeli defence minster. 70.68.185.170 04:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you guys even talking about? Instead of discussing obvious stuff why don't come down to the Persian people article where a lot of users are trying to add racist, sometimes anti-Semitic propaganda into the article. Aucaman^Talk 07:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Al-Andalus again

Al-Andalus has again returned to the article, attempting to insert various POV and ungrammatical statements, without even bothering to use edit comments, much less introduce them on the Talk: page first. His most recent attempt included this modified paragraph:

...its use by the Mizrahim themselves varied; whether used as a simple discriptor of origin or as a label of ethnic identity. Most Iraqi Jews, for example, "viewed themselves as Arabs of the Jewish faith, rather than as a separate race or nationality" [8] to other Arab Iraqis (Muslim or Christian.) Both in Israel and the diaspora, the term is rarely used today, and is discouraged and avoided by the Israeli government. There is a minority among the Mizrahim who promote reintroducing the designation Arab Jews over "Mizrahi", however,...

The first sentence is ungrammatical and speculative. The second sentence does not refer to usage of the term "Arab Jews" at all, but rather quotes (and then interprets) a paper by a sociologist who claimed that in the 1920s Iraqi Jews saw themselves as "Arabs of the Jewish faith". The third sentence introduces an uncited POV claim, that the term is "discouraged and avoided by the Israeli government". The fourth sentence is ungrammatical. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me or is this just a bit overboard? Just a comment from an outsider, but this is seeming kind of personal. EK 01:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)EK

Interesting that you make your first comment on Wikipedia on an alleged personal nature of a discussion by and about persons you did not know before?! I hope that you find many areas for constructive contributions here at Wikipedia. gidonb 01:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This contribution also remained the only one. This is very sad for the person had planned that EK would identify her or him best while making Wikipedia a richer source of knowledge. gidonb 22:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Iraqi Jews

Iraqi Jews and Middle-Eastern Jews in general rarely described or considered themselves as Arabs if at all!! Sure, my dad's family from Baghdad spoke Arabic which was different from the Arabic spoken by Baghdadi Muslims or Baghdadi Christians. In Baghdad people coould tell if you were Jewish or Muslim or Christian the moment you opened your mouth and spoke. My father's family and his community never saw themselves as Arabs but were proud to be Baghdadi Jews and especially took pride in being descended from Jewish communities that pre-dated the Arab-Islamic conquest of the region. A more accurate term would be Arabic-Speaking Jews rather than Arab Jews as this label never really took off either among Jews in Israel or when they used to live in the Middle-East before being expelled en masse. Middle-Eastern Jews always succeeded in learning the language of the conquerors and wrote in it, spoke in it, sang in it and partcicpated actively in the general culture. However, they always maintained a separate communal Jewish identity and Hebrew and Aramic remained in constant use. My mother's family which is also from Iraq but from Zakho, in the North and they speak Aramaic and they DEFINTELY DO NOT identify as Arabs. They all spoke Kurdish, Turkish or Persian but didn't even identify as Turks or Kurds let alone Arabs. The tiny minority of Mizrahi Professors and Academics who are trying to popularize the term "Arab-Jew" are exactly that...a MINORITY. In addition to this, this new "Arab-Jewish" identity of resistance doesn't seem to factor in that not all Middle-eastern Jews spoke Arabic or lived in Arab countries. --Ben Zakai 02:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

A Suggestion

I realize this is something of a radical suggestion, but mightn't it be better (considering the amount of controversy generated by this article) to rewrite the article as being about the term itself (i.e. the usages of the term), rather than presenting it along with the entries on the Ashkenazi and the Sephardim, which, by contrast, appear to be realtively uncontroversial terms embraced by the various groups they are presented as describing? In this way, the different perspectives may be explored in the body of the article, and the shifting, ambiguous nature of the relations between the various groups of Jews in Israel might be present on the surface. My impression is that "Mizrahi" came into usage because people used to thinking in terms of Ashkenazi and Sephardim started finding Jews that did not fit the traditional categories, and "Mizrahi" was a comfortable way of extending the existing conceptual division to include the new groups. Such a term rather resembles the "Here there be dragons" trope, eh? Even without the red herrings about Arab Jews, and whatnot, the term Mizrahi is a sloppy term. There's nothing wrong with that, but let's not have an article treating the term as if its extension was clear enough to warrant it being lumped together with "Ashkenazi" and "Sephardim."

I don't really know anything about this subject beyond what I've read here. It just seems to me like the controversy here is mainly semantic, and arises from the ambiguity of the term itself.

Everything you say should be considered, but I think this article is pretty neutral the way it stands (at least compared to some other articles). People using the term in other articles, however, should be a little more careful. Aucaman^Talk 22:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Not an ethnic group

I am gonna remove the ethnic box from this article as it clearly doesn't belong here. --Kash 22:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with it at this time. It appears to be used for most of the Jewish ethnic group articles. —Viriditas | Talk 22:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

The article states

"the Mizrahim are not Sephardic, as they are not descended from those Jews who were expelled from Sepharad (the Iberian peninsula) during the Spanish Inquisition and the Portuguese Inquisition.,

yet David Sassoon and Charles Saatchi are (originally) Arabic speaking Jews but are descended from Sephardic Jews and so presumably are many other "Mizrahi". Arniep 23:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think Sassoon and Saatchi are Sephardi? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well the Sassoons were descended from the Ibn Shoshans of Spain [9] so presumably considered themselves Sephardic and Charles Saatchi is described as being "born into a Sephardic Jewish family" in his article. Surely many Jews in the arabic speaking countries were descended from Jews from the Iberian peninsular therefore the statement that they are not is a distortion. Arniep 23:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I think the Ottoman Empire had a large Sephardi Jewish population and many of them could have moved south toward Iran and Iraq at some point. I don't think anyone is claiming the Mizrahi category to be completely independent of the other two. Even within Ashkenazim and Sephardim you have groups of Mizrahi origins. It's best to understand these categorizations as geographical/historical, not ethnic/racial. So I guess it's not exactly accurate to say they're "descendants" of anyone in particular, but I don't think these are major concerns, so I'm not [bother to offer alternative wordings. Aucaman^Talk 23:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

But surely in light of the above the statement "the Mizrahim are not Sephardic, as they are not descended from those Jews who were expelled from Sepharad (the Iberian peninsula)" remains inaccurate. Arniep 02:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm busy with enough controversies and adding one more to the list is not exactly in my short-term interest. I'll try to have your points in mind. But if this is really bothering you you can propose some alternative wordings and try to swing more users on your side. This article does not appear to be high up on anybody's list of interests, so it shouldn't be hard to make some changes. Aucaman^Talk 03:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Arnie, while the Sassoons may well have descended from a particular Spanish family, they may have intermarried over many centuries into other Jewish groups. In fact, this was quite common, and it was only in certain areas that they maintained their unique identity and customs (mostly in Turkey/Greece/Bulgaria, Morrocco, and Holland). As for Saatchi, we don't use Wikipedia as a source, and I don't see any citation in that article. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

A lot of sources describe the Sassoons as Sephardi [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], and also mention the Sephardi community of Baghdad. Arniep 18:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the question is, can you be both Sephardi and Mizrahi (I think the answer is yes which means the above sentence should be removed)? Arniep 19:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sephardim can be considered Mizrahi, but I'm not 100% sure on this. I've never heard otherwise and I believe "Mizrahim" is inclusive of all Eastern groups. Yairzohar 00:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced

I think this whole article needs some sources. Most of the material, especially the definition of who Mizrahi Jews are, is unsourced and probably violates WP:NOR. Until some sources are found you can't really talk about who's Mizrahi and who's not. Aucaman^Talk 20:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you're wrong - there are lots of links at the bottom of the article, and there are many books which offer an exact definition of "Mizrahim" which is the opposite of "Ashkenazim". It started from political activism but now is in wide use. I don't think the definition should be disputed. Yairzohar 00:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

"Though many Mizrahim now follow the liturgical traditions of the Sephardim, and in modern Israel may be colloquially referred to as Sephardi Jews, the Mizrahim are not Sephardic, as they are not descended from those Jews who were expelled from Sepharad (the Iberian peninsula) during the Spanish Inquisition and the Portuguese Inquisition. Sephardi has in some modern contexts acquired the meaning of "non-Ashkenazi Jew", however, to include Mizrahim with Sephardim may be considered culturally insensitive or ignorant."

I took that paragraph out because I believe it is wrong and I have never read anywhere about this. If someone can point me in the right direction so we can see where this is from, that would be good. Yairzohar 00:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph was, for the most part, correct and should not have been removed. -- Olve 19:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this article should be called Mizrahim instead of "Mizrahi Jews" because its already a Jewish word that refers to a Jewish people. Yairzohar 01:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

And I think that should be the same for Ashkenazis and Sephardis too, because those article titles are like this one. Why? Yairzohar 01:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

??

I was under the impression that Sephardic also reffered to Jews from the MidEast area.

Not if you want to express yourself accurately. Relatively popular (but not particularily well-oriented) Ashkenazi usage has led to this misunderstanding... -- Olve 20:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Babylonian Jewry / Iraqi Jews

In order to refer properly to those Jews who moved to the area along the fertile crescent, some academics have turned to the term "Babylonian Jewry" to encapsulate the area bounded by modern day Iraq. While one may idiomatically refer to an "Iraqi Jew", the term is anachronistic since within a few short years (compared to over a thousand years of presence in the region) of the creation of the state of Iraq, almost all Jewish communties had decamped from "Iraq". Use of the term "Baghdad-Jews" also fails to include the communities that existed in cities such as Basra. Use of the term "Babylonian Jews" also accurately reflects the ancient lineage of communities in the region.

As regards the question of Babylonian Jews falling with the category of Sephardim, there was indeed a Sephardic component to the Jewish communities in the region, as a result of the Spanish Inquisition from which Sephardic Jewry sought refuge, ironically from a contemporary perspective, in Muslim lands.

Al-Andalus' latest edits

I've had to clean some up again. For example, he was referring to Iraq and Tunisia as "ethnic origins", when they are countries of origin, and was claiming that all mistreatment of Jews in Arab lands happened subsequent to, and as a result of, the creation of Israel. I've also removed his link to a dubious claim that the term "Arab Jews" was "often used", since the link itself never made that claim, and removed the unsourced claim that they "exhibit affinity" towards their countries of origin. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. See Farhud; that didn't happen subsequent to the establishment of the State of Israel. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought we've gone through this already? Al-Andalus, where are your sources for these claims, and from these, specific citations? El_C 08:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The Farhud was an event requested and orchestrated by Nazi Germany. The man that allowed it to happen was one single Iraqi who regretably agreed to scapegoat Iraqi Jews in exchange for Nazi help to rid the country of the British colonisers. This doesn't lessen the gravity of the event, but let's analyse it for what it was. The Farhud was not instigated by historical Arab sentiment against Jews (that whole phenomenon is a modern concept), and Arab nationalism did indeed included Arab Jews. Prior to this isolated event in the history of Jews of Baghdad, and even in the years following it up until when the State of Israel was founded, interreligious sentiments was largely peaceful around the Arab world. Furthermore, the Farhud on its own must not be misrepresented as being the ONLY history of the Jews in Iraq (considereing the florishing hisotry of the Jews in Iraq prior to and in the few years following it before Israel), and must especially not be extended to be a part of the history of Mizrahi Jews elsewhere. It shouldn't even be extended as being the history of all Jews in Iraq, as it specific to the Jews of Baghdad. Al-Andalus 07:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Your POV on this is fascinating, but not backed up by sources. Moreover, your latest edits are filled with POV, use completely non-encyclopedic sources, and often inject huge amounts of original research into articles that is simply not found in the sources. For example, you claim "The term was most commonly embraced where Arab cultural and national identity encompassed Jews together with Muslims and Christians", yet none of your sources actually support that conclusion. "There is a minority of Mizrahim, however, who promote reintroducing the designation" is both ungrammatical, and unsupported by any reliable sources: this link, for example, is a Google cache of a blog, and this source is another completely non-encyclopedic source. And even if you find some Jew who calls himself an "Arab Jew", that doesn't imply that a "minority of Mizrahim promote reintroducing the designation"; that's just a conclusion you have come to. "Discrimination and racist rhetoric by the dominant Ashkenazi establishment against Mizrahim was rampant in the early years of the state" and ""Israeli society" being a euphamism for an Ashkenazi-based society and culture." are two rather egregious examples of wildly POV statements consisting entirely of your own original research. Inserting pictures of Yemenite Jews into the article, when it is unclear if they even should be considered Mizrahim, is another issue. In addition, your continued use of ungrammatical and often poorly spelled Englsih is problematic. Al-Andalus, given your inability to find encyclopedic sources or quote sources accurately, and given your strong propensity for inserting highly POV and poorly written original research into articles, I'm afraid you're going to have to bring all changes here first, so we can ensure that there is a consensus for the changes, and that they meet Wikipedia's content requirements. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"So we can". Please. Say what you mean. "So you can" sift through what approve and disaprove according to your own sensabilities. Al-Andalus 15:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Your latest edits have been reverted by at least three editors. Several others have objected to them now and in the past, on the Talk: page. And, of course, you're an editor here too. That what I mean when I say "we". The only "sifting" that will need to be done will be to ensure that they comply with Wikipedia policy and guidelines (that means WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS) and then to clean them up so they're grammatical, use comprehensible English, and are properly spelled. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Properly SPELT you mean? Stick with your incomprehensible American English spelling and grammar, and I'll stick to my proper Australian English orthography a grammar. At the end of the day, this complaint of grammar and spelling you cite has always been an empty excuse merely used as a guise to kept out content you dislike. If this were truly the problem, you'd keep the content and just reword it to an English spelling and grammar you deem proper. But this you do not do. Al-Andalus 16:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC).

"Arab cultural and national identity encompassed Jews together with Muslims and Christians...Advocates of Western-orientated cultural identity also bewailed the "danger" of the "Arabization" of Israeli society. The immigrants thus faced a fierce clash between their original Iraqi-Arab narrative and the Jewish Zionist Western-oriented dominant master narrative—the natural Iraqi Jewish-Arab identity was split into Arab versus Jew." [16] Al-Andalus 15:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The link you have provided is to an abstract of one paper by one author about one group of Jews, Iraqi Jews. You haven't even read the paper yourself, yet you feel you can take the abstract of one man's opinion about an isolated instance and turn it into a broad "fact" that is true about all Mizrahi Jews - in this case, you used it to make the wholly [[WP:NOR|novel claim] that "The term was most commonly embraced where Arab cultural and national identity encompassed Jews together with Muslims and Christians". From where do you get this "most commonly embraced" stuff? This is just one example of your consistent abuse of the sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

WHY DO YOU REFUSE TO ACCEPT THAT SOME MIZRAHI ACCEPTED AN ARAB-JEWISH IDENTITY, AND THAT SOME (EVEN IF THEY ARE FEWER TODAY) STILL DO. Your constant edition stating "though not by the Mizrahim themselves" is just a blatant lie. There are even articles, which you in the past have quoted, that acknowledge and counter the "Mizrahi academic minority" (that you deny exists) which embraces the "Arab Jews" identity. Al-Andalus 15:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph in question is about whether or not Mizrahim used the term "Arab Jew", not about whether or not they "accepted an Arab-Jewish identity". Again, your claims must match your sources; if you have a reliable source which notes they called themselves "Arab Jews", then bring it forward. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

How many Iraqi Jews must personally afirm to YOUR PERSON that they presently identify, or that Iraqi Jews in general identified, as Arab Jews before YOUR HONOUR accepts it into your encyclopaedia? You won't allow any sources, as many as I have provided (not just now, but previously). Then you continue stating, "yep, but that's only one source". Al-Andalus 16:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I said it's one opinion, by one person, which you haven't even read, and which doesn't support the claims you are making. Provide reliable sources, and quote them accurately, and we will have no issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"Overall, Jews viewed themselves as Arabs of the Jewish faith, rather than as a separate race or nationality" [17] Al-Andalus 16:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC).

The two go hand in hand. Those who did, and those who presently do, embrace an Arab Jewish identiy by definition labelled themselves Arab Jews. If you bothered reading the works of the Mizrahi academics who embrace this label and identity (which you say they don't exist), you'd come to see (and you've been shown) that they all refer to themselves as "Arab Jews". Al-Andalus 16:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC).

Your original research is fascinating, as always, and you certainly do love to use that paper by that Australian sociologist as fodder. Please provide one reliable source which states that some Jews described themselves as "Arab Jews". One will do. Quote the source, please. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

And it'll be you that deems what is reliable, right? What's the point? You've rejected all other sources. What the point on giving you ten more? The ones i have provided you with a perfectly valid. Cite the reason as to why they are not reliable. Could you do that? Al-Andalus 16:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't rejected all the sources; I've rejected a number, but others would be fine, if only you could quote them accurately. But if you want examples of unreliable sources, I think we can both agree that a google cache of a blog doesn't count as reliable; do you agree with that? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"I haven't rejected...just" Can't you hear your own arrogance? It's not up to what you like or dislike, it's whether they comply with wikipedia regulations. Point our which specific sources don't comply with said regulations and why. Al-Andalus 17:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I must reject certain sources, and so should you, based on policy and guidelines. For example, WP:RS "At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources." Get it? Blogs are not accepted. Which other sources do you think are acceptable? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

And what exactly is your excuse for delegitimising "among Israelis of different ethnic origins, inequality is deeply entrenched. The income of Ashkenazi Jews is the highest...In 2001, the salary of an Ashkenazi employee was, on average, 1.5 times that of a Mizrahi" or the early racist decriptions of Mizrahim, exemplified by this sources quote; "Their ancestral ties are indeed positive, but they are also shared with Arabs. Like the Arabs they are "natural," spontaneous, and uncivilized in a childlike sense. Hygienically the Yemenites are primitive, their health is poor, and they are physically weak" [18] or some of other new statistic i've included such as "Mizrahi women account for .5% of female professors". Al-Andalus 17:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that you surround the quotes with all sorts of biased original research, as listed above, and you also selectively quote - for example, you left out "Their average income has increased over the past decade, distancing itself from the average income of Arabs, although the gap between the income of Mizrahi and Ashkenazi Jews remains constant." Then you fill the article up with all sorts of other poorly written, POV original research. It's not my job to try to tease out two or three useful words out of a 300 word edit, and it's not within Wikipedia policy to try to turn every article relating to Jews or Israel into an anti-Ashkenazi, anti-Zionist diatribe. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You'll notice that the paragraph immediately above (which you reverted) did state that those gaps are giving way. So no, I do not selectively quote, it's just that putting what was already stated would have been redundant. And it does say "gap between the income of Mizrahi and Ashkenazi Jews remains constant" anyway. As for the anti-Ashkenazi thing. It's not anti-Ashkenazi if all that is being done is reporting factual historical and present trends of the "Israeli establishment". If you can discredit the infinate sources available that detail the racist and discriminatory behavriour of the early Ashkenazi dominated Israeli establishment, then do so. If you can discredit the infinate sources available that detail today's racist and discriminatory left-overs which still linger from the early Israeli establishment, then do so. If you can discredit the historic and present existace of Mizrahi activist groups combating that racism and discrimination, then do so. If you can discredit the infinate sources available that detail how the early and current "Israeli society" and "Israeli establishment" was/is Ashkenazi (culturally/politically/demographically)dominated, the do so. What you shouldn't do is work hard to keep content out solely beacause you believe it too be anti-Ashkenazi, even if all it is is presenting historical or present facts.

Also, what's up with this; "With the exception of Yemeni Jews, Mizrahim are not physically distinctive from other Mediterranean peoples. Many communities, especially those from the Moghreb, or North Africa, tend to have blue eyes and fair features and it is often difficult to distinguish them from Ashkenazi Jews.'

Why single out Yemenite Jews? Can the rest of the content be back up with concerete research, and where are its sources. You yourself are very selective when inforcing your "original research" cleansing. First it says that Mizrahim (with the exception of Teimanim, for whatever reason) are indistinguishable from other Mediterraneans (which should read "Middle Easterners and North Africans" anyways) to then say that they are blonde and blue eyed (which would differentiate them from most Middle Easterners and North Africans). Yes, Teimanim are dark complexioned (some almost Ethiopian-dark), but plenty of Parsim look almost Punjabi, including my ex in New York. Al-Andalus 07:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The article itself already had a link to the study; you went and found a copy of that study from several years before that showed worse statistics, then put some incredibly biased commentary around it not found in the studies themselves. And if there are indeed, as you claim, "infinate sources available that detail the racist and discriminatory behavriour of the early Ashkenazi dominated Israeli establishment", then why do you fail to provide them? As for the appearance of Mizrahi Jews, the statements themselves are undoubtedly true, but since they're not sourced, I've removed them. Anything else? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Term used by Israelis?

The term "Mizrahi Jew" is a term used in English to collectively describe certain Jewish communities; e.g. Persian and Iraqi Jews and their descendents. It is not a term used only for Israelis, or only by them. See, for example, [19] [20] Jayjg ^(talk) 14:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

So would it be correct to say that Mizrahi essentially means any non Ashkenazi Jew? Arniep 16:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not! Spanish and Portuguese Jews are only one example out of the many groups of Sephardi Jews who are by no means Mizraḥi Jews.... -- Olve 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Other non-Ashkenazi groups not usually called Mizrahi would include Bene Israel, Beta Israel, Yemenite Jews, Romaniotes and Italkim. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Long settled European Jews would clearly not be Mizrahi, but for the other groups it seems less clear. The Yemenite Jews article says they are sometimes considered Mizrahi, and who is to know that the other groups have not been referred to as Mizrahi or will not end up being considered Mizrahi. IMO the term seems as problematic as "Desi Jews". Arniep 17:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Peace proposals

The discussion really shouldn't have given rise to so much passion, as it is about words and not things. Can we all agree on the following propositions, and edit the article accordingly?

1. "Sephardim" means, etymologically, Jews descended from the Iberian peninsula, as "Sepharad" is the rabbinic (and modern) Hebrew for Spain.

2. In religious parlance, "Sephardim" is also used to cover Jews from Ottoman, Arabic-speaking and Persian-speaking backgrounds, as these use the Sephardic liturgy (or some variant of it) and follow the Shulhan Aruch (with or without the usages of the Ari); thus, though not "Spanish Jews", they are "Jews of the Spanish rite". (The notable exception to this is the Yemenites, especially those who follow the Baladi rite.)

3. After the arrival of Spanish exiles in many of these countries, a social distinction often persisted between the newcomers and the older communities. The Arabic-speakers were often referred to by names such as "Mustaarabim" and "Moriscos".

4. In Arabic, the term "Mashriqiyyun" (Orientals) is used to cover the people of Syria, Iraq etc. as distinct from those of North Africa (Maghrebiyyun, Westerners); and older Jewish usage often followed this convention, as in the collection of responsa "Mizrach u-Maarav". The proper use of "Mizrahi" as as a translation of this term.

5. In Israel, many people still use "Sephardim" as a catch-all for all non-Ashkenazi Jews, on the lines of the religious usage in 2. This usage is maintained by religious activists from these communities, and especially by SHAS.

6. Also in the religious context, there is a growing tendency to speak of "Edot ha-Mizrach" as a catch-all for Jews from African and Asian countries: siddurim purporting to contain "minhag Edot ha-Mizrach" usually reflect the Baghdadi rite and the rulings of the Ben Ish Hai. This terminology is regarded by some as misleading, as it presumes that one size fits all and does not do justice to the variety among the communities in question. Some prayer books speak of "Sephardim and Edot ha-Mizrach" as a single comprehensive category, without specifying any boundary between the two.

7. Many people, especially in Israel, prefer to call Jews of Asian and African origin "Mizrahi" rather than "Sephardi" on the ground that most of them are not of Spanish origin. Others object to this on the grounds:

(a) that it is pedantic, as the convention of identifying them as Sephardim for religious purposes goes back for centuries (see 2);

(b) that it is geographically inappropriate, as the largest single community is from Morocco, which is as far to the West as you can get (see 4);

(c) that it is demeaning, as it suggests "Oriental" in the sense given by Edward Said.

Usage varies on whether there is a two-way split between Ashkenazim and Mizrahim or a three-way split between Ashkenazim, Sephardim and Mizrahim.

8. There is a growing tendency among secular activists from these communities (such as the Keshet, Mizrahi Democratic Rainbow) to identify as "Mizrahi" rather than "Sephardi", so as to avoid the religious overtones of the latter word, and to distinguish themselves from western Sephardim such as the Spanish and Portuguese. They do not intend by this to suggest that the communities are all homogeneous, but only to claim that they have the same problems, being marginalized by the Israeli Ashkenazi elite and perceived as uncivilized Orientals. It is not the business of Wikipedia to decide whether these claims are well-founded.

9. Some academics, such as Chetrit and Shohat, have claimed the description "Arab Jews". The argument in favour of this is that Jews from Syria, Iraq and North Africa have strong historic links with Arabic language and culture. The argument against is that Jews in Arab countries were always considered a distinct ethnic group. (In the same way, a Jew living in England would accept the description "English Jew" but might balk at "Saxon Jew".) The description could be justified as a translation of "Mustaarabim" (see 3) but remains politically controversial.

That way, the article would simply describe the various usages that actually exist, rather than going too far into the question of whether they are "right" or "wrong".

OK? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 11:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"Sephardim"

For non-Jewish American English speakers, there are two kinds of Jews: "Ashkenazim" (European) and "Sephardim" ("Non-European").

The relationship -- phylogenically and sociologically -- of the terms "Mizrahi" and "Sephardi" should be clarified in this article, as it is intended for a general English-language readership.

The answer is that there is no answer (see above). I have tried to make this as clear as the subject matter admits of in my edits to the article. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 09:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Isaac Mizrahi

Again for general English-language readers, the fashion designer Isaac Mizrahi -- often referred to simply as Mizrahi -- is a much more well known concept than the division of Judaism.

A diambiguation page for "Mizrahi" -- or at a minimum, a diambiguation line at the top of this article -- would therefore be appropriate.

If you're wondering about my strange edit summary...

I accidently pressed enter before I could write out my edit summary. Anyway, I removed the words "if any" because it implies that there is uncertainty as to whether there are Jews that refer to themselves as Arabs. Well, some do and these sources prove it [21] [22] [23]. --Inahet 03:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Jews already living in Israel?

Do they have a name for the Jews who've always lived in Palestine for thousands of years and never migrated? Are those Jews included with the Mizrahim?

I think this is covered in the article. Suffice to say that these people are included in the 2,000,000 Mizrahim Jews in the modern State of Israel... Although many of that number will have migrated from other Arab countries. - 128.232.240.178 22:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The Sephardim who lived in Palestine self identified as Iraqi, and all their customs were Baghdadi because their scholars were almost always from the larger and more organized Iraqi cmmunity, particularly the yeshivas of Baghdad. They didn't have a special name. There were not many of them, and they were localized in Jerusalem and Safed, with the Safed community leaving after the great Earthquake for Jerusalem, just like the Prushim and Chasidic community of Safed did. Unfortunately, or fortunately I guess based on one's persuasion, most of them lost their religious identity in the late 19th and early 20th century as secularizing movements arrived from Europe and built schools. The Baghdad community responded to this by sending, among others, Rav Kaduri, but it was mostly too late. 79.183.238.237 (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

250 Mizrahi Jews in India?

Is this figure correct in the "Regions with significant populations" box? Surely there are many other countries with similar or greater numbers than this. 128.232.240.178 22:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

yitzhak navon

Navon belongs on this list because he was half Moroccan: "On his father's side, he is a descendant of the Jews who were expelled from Spain and who came to Jerusalem from Turkey in 1670. On his mother's side, Navon is descended from the Ben-Atar family of Morocco, who came to Jerusalem in 1884." --Gilabrand 10:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, put him back. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 15:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving to Arab Jews

I support the existence of the article "Arab Jews", though the description is controversial. However, I strongly oppose the moving of information (such as the list of prominent personalities) from here to there: people looking for it are far more likely to look under "Mizrahi Jews". The Arab Jews article should be confined to the merits and demerits of the description, and the specific links with Arabic civilization. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 09:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree! The Ogre 13:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Even more importantly, Mizrachi Jew isn't synonymous with Arab Jew. Funkynusayri (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

probably not appropriate. arab jew may be considered by some a somewhat pejorative term; also iranians aren't really considered arabs, so an iranian jew wouldn't really be considered an arab jew either, for example. mizrachi seems to be more fitting.68.32.127.93 (talk) 06:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)jonah

Title

Shouldn't it be made clear much earlier that this use of Mizrachi is a late Israeli coinage, and that they were known collectively as Sephardim throughout Jewish history. 79.183.238.237 (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

sephardi was always a term used to denote jews who left spain after the inquisition. the moroccan and algerian communities for example descend from the original spanish community (for the most part). it's true that sephardi is often a term to lump all non-ashkenazi jews together--i've heard ethiopian jews even referred to as "african sephardim" or bukharians also as sephardim. i would say "sephardi" has more recently been used to denote all non-ashkenazim. i'm not sure about mizrachi though.68.32.127.93 (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)jonah

population figures

there seems to be significant overlap between people deemed sephardi and those deemed mizrachi. the french population figures for example have 350,000 sephardim and 400,00 mizrachim. there is no mention of ashkenazim figures. but suffice to say that there are considerably less than 750,000 jews in france (especially when you discount the considerable ashkenazi population). i think it is extremely difficult to project mizrachi population figures separate from sephardi ones as they are often used as interchangeable terms. any suggestions?68.32.127.93 (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)jonah

in Russia there are about 50000 jews of mizrahi type (Maiuntain jews) you should add this fact =] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.128.221 (talk) 12:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)