Talk:Human rights in Israel/Archive 3

Lebanon
I think a section on civilian deaths in the recent conflict with Lebanon would be appropriate, since it constitutes a human rights violation on behalf of the Israeli military. We could link to: Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.Smitty Mcgee 15:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Technically, it may not be because it is under debate if the areas are being targeted because they are civilian, or because they are military targets which were placed there by Hezbollah to use the civilians as Human Shields, in which case it is not a violation but part of the acts of war (ala Dresden, Tokyo, Berlin, etc.) -- Avi 15:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but regardless of the motives, the massacre of civilians that occured in Qana, for example, was an act of terrorism. The argument that it was somehow justified by the firing of rockets close by is ridiculous.  The fact is, a building known to have civilians in it was targeted.Smitty Mcgee 15:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I always thought Dresden was pretty clearly a war crime. Certainly it's arguable. john k 16:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you know that, or were terrorists targeted and they were in that building using human shields, which may nt be a violation, or even more likely, the missles/bombs did not target that particular building. Do we know the ordinance used, was it precision guided? If so, was there a flaw in the guidance mechanism, was it wire-guided, laser guided? It's WP:OR for you to make that observation at this point. -- Avi 15:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I heard a radio program last night discussing whether Israel actually blew up that building at all, or whether it was one of several other scenarios, i.e. armaments being stored there by Hezbollah exploded. So maybe it would be a good idea to let some time pass and find out what actually happened before connecting what happened in a war to "human rights violations."  Such a connection would be original research anyway.  I also think there is a distinction between "war crimes" (not to imply that any have occurred in the current war) and "human rights violations" which generally are committed against a government's own citizens.  So, at this point, and probably permanently, nothing from the current military actions belongs in this article.  6SJ7 16:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree strongly with the above. The exploitation in the media of "massacres" etc which later turn out to be not israel's fault is documented.  Elizmr 16:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Does that include the '96 massacre? (no quotes necessary there)--Smitty Mcgee 16:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That was an accident - an artillery shell is not an accurate weapon. All of these allegation always miss one point - these event are not good for Israel! The exact opposite is true - it ruins Israel's international support. To call it "Terrorism" is a blatant misuse of the word - it was not intentional, and serves no purpose for Israel.
 * By the way, everyone is shocked when Israel accidentaly kills civilians, but no one seems to care about the fact that the Hezbollah has fired over 2,000 rockets at civilian targets, for the stated purpose of killing Israeli civilians. okedem 16:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that Hezbollah has also claimed to be seeking military targets, but also that its missiles are incredibly inaccurate and can't possibly avoid civilian targets. Nonetheless, Hezbollah's actions obviously constitute a war crime, just as Israel's do.  Beyond that, I will note that Hezbollah has killed something like twice as many Israeli soldiers as civilians in the present conflict, while Israel has had nowhere near so favorable a ratio...It seems strange to me that Hezbollah's "purposeful targeting of civilians" results in so many fewer civilian deaths, and a so much better ratio of military/civilian kills, than Israel's "accidental" killing of civilians...At any rate, I agree that we should not describe these Israeli actions as "terrorism," as this is not the term generally used for aerial bombing of civilian areas, even if it results in massive death to civilians. john k 16:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have never heard that claim ("...seeking military targets..."). Hezbollah says outright its purpose is to kill civilians, and destroy the Zionist "settlements" like Naharia, Tiberias etc. The reason Israel has relatively few civilian casualties isn't from Hezbollah's lack of trying. Hundereds of thousands of people spend most of the day/night in bomb shelters, and many others have left the Galilee altogether, living at hotels or with family away from the rockets' threat. Lebanon has relatively many civilian causalties because of a lack of bomb shelters, because people don't leave the war zone (like these people in Qana, who stayed despite repeated warnings by Israel, and despite the bombs all around them), and because Hezbollah launches rockets from the middle of town, even placing launchers in the yards of Mosques. okedem 17:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, read here, under "Views". okedem 17:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say that while the violence in Lebanon is unfortunate, Israel has the right to defend itself against Hezbollah. Unfortunately Hezbollah likes to hide amongst civilians, or civilians willingly help Hezbollah. Israel has warned everyone in Lebanon that if you're working with Hezbollah, watch your back. They've dropped leaflets, they've had press conferences, they've done this, and they've done that. The point is that it is war. Civilians are going to get hurt, especially if the enemy hides among them. Hezbollah, however, intentionally fires rockets at civilian targets, knowing that they're not going to destroy any military stucture, yet no one seems to criticize Hezbollah or the fact that they started it in the first place. If you're gonna throw a punch, be prepared for the punches coming.--Alcarcalimo2364 00:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation format
In general, one a citation is given a name in the ref tag as so, further citations only have to bring. Less complicated that way. -- Avi 15:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing the ref formats, Avi. Elizmr 16:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

reorg
I moved the state dept report stuff into relevant sections and then deleted it. I put all stuff related to Israel proper in the top section, and all stuff related to the territories in the territories section and labeled it as such. I think this makes the article more NPOV overall. Elizmr 16:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oiboy, please look at the article carefully, and especially at footnote 4, before jumping to conclusions. -- Avi 18:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems to work/clarify things right now. The only pitfall I can see is that there will be duplicate subsections on areas that are of concern in both territories.   I guess we address that when we get to it.  Sarastro777 18:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Eretz-Israel
Sarastro, if you look at the text, that is in quotation marks, that means it is a direct quote, which you may verify for yourself here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Establishment_of_the_State_of_Israel

So that must stay in the quote. Thanks. -- Avi 18:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Pointing out the quotations make it clear.. thank you Avi. However I will add [Land of Israel] to clarify the translation, since it should all be in English. This won't subtract anything for the others, and the Hebrew speakers already get it. Unusual for a "translation" to do that, unless there is not a word in the other language. For my own interest, I would like to see another translation into English besides the one on Wikipedia. Sarastro777 22:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A bit of balance
I recognize that the justifications I added are small and in no way serve to balance out the one-sided nature of the section on human rights in the occupied territories. Still, I hope they can serve as a starting point for building some context in this section. Israel's actions don't seem quite so heinous when viewed outside of a vaccuum, and we have a responsibility to provide some degree of context so readers can come to informed conclusions. Schrodingers Mongoose 03:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't realize a purpose of a Wikipedia article was to make Israel's actions seem "not so heinous outside of a vaccuum."  Sounds like agenda pushing.  68.6.254.16 03:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Not pushing an agenda...trying to achieve balance. ANYTHING can be made to look terrible without context. Example: "The United Kingdom and the United States firebombed the city of Dresden in 1944, destroying 85% of the homes and killing at least 35,000 civilians." Now, even with context, it might be safe to say this could be interpreted as a heinous act. However, WITHOUT mentioning that this occured in WWII as the Nazis were bombing and killing thousands in Britain and elsewhere, this would sound like unmitigated genocide. I am not pushing an agenda. I am saying that context matters. To recite only criticism of Israeli actions without also listing the stated reason for these actions creates a default bias. Schrodingers Mongoose 03:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So despite what the facts bear out, you have a need to write the article in a way to make things "not look terrible" or as you also call it, "balanced" ?  Do you think that is a reasonable approach for academic articles on subjects like Josef Stalin or HIV?  As you originally put it "...the justifications I added" -- "Justifications" attempt to justify behavior, not provide NPOV facts documenting events or conditions.   I find that troubling.  68.6.254.16 03:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to provide more than ONLY criticism of Israel in this section. I'm not trying to delete the criticisms or even edit them...just provide something to say why the Israelis have done some of the things they've done. I'm not saying they're right or wrong. Friankly, what I've added doesn't come close to balancing this section. Do you believe only anti-Israel statements are appropriate? Schrodingers Mongoose 03:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Bias Alert
The Israeli gov't has hundreds of thousands of people working in coordination to propagandize websites like Wikipedia. We need to be on alert for these "cyber agents" attempting to alter this article.

Israel backed by army of cyber-soldiers http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2289232,00.html []

68.6.254.16 15:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "hundreds of thousands"? So no one does anything else in Israel? Everybody just sits around, editing Wikipedia? Of course the article itself never mentions any such number, nor do they mention wikipedia, or propagana...
 * This article is already heavily edited and scrutinized. The editor's bias is irrelevant, only the facts. okedem 15:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd have to say that this pro-Israel cyber-army, if it exists, is not very effective, at least where Wikipedia is concerned. 6SJ7 17:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess they didn't do a very good job at reboot-camp... okedem 17:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't read the article. "The Foreign Ministry has ordered trainee diplomats to track websites and chatrooms so that networks of US and European groups with hundreds of thousands of Jewish activists can place supportive messages."  It's a worldwide propaganda operation. Anything else "not in the article" you didn't read that you would like to make factual statements about? Sarastro777 17:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I stand by it. The article doesn't say these people work for the government. The article only says some diplomatic trainees do. Simple. okedem 17:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, you can refute the claim that nobody made: "these people work for the government" and just pretend like you didn't say: "the article itself never mentions any such number."  We'll just sweep that under the carpet.  Hahaha  Sarastro777 19:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Another global Jewish conspiracy foiled. Yawn. ←Humus sapiens ну? 19:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. The same sophomoric lies about Jewish conspiracies and secret control...I always said it was only a matter of time before someone accused the Jews of owning the internet. I can't believe I saw it here first. Laughing too hard to be disgusted. Schrodingers Mongoose 00:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Owning the internet, I don't know, after all, Al Gore invented it and he is a Baptist I believe. 6SJ7 00:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)  (Ok, I realized that given the lack of sense of humor I have seen around here, I need to point out that I know Al Gore (1) didn't invent the internet and (2) never said he invented the internet and (3) is, nevertheless, a Baptist, or some other Protestant denomination.  6SJ7 00:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC))


 * "I took the initiative in creating the internet" - Al Gore, March 1999 Schrodingers Mongoose 04:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What a buffoon! Doesn't he know that I invented the internet?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Civil rights
user:Sarastro777, similar to the debate here in the US, if a constitutional amendment is passed defining marriage as between a man and a woman, then ipso facto there is no violation of civil rights for the refusal to allow same-sex marriage. It is a matter of law, not religion. he current legal statutes of Israel have to be investigated before such a statement is made. By defining it a violation prima facie without looking at the statutes pre-supposes a "civil rights" code that supersedes the legalities of the state, and is classic NPOV. Who defines such a code? Not you, not I, not anyone. So it is not a religious POV of mine that is behind my reversion, but a lack of evidence from a legal standpoint for your opinion-based claim of “''there can't be "full civil rights" if there is no marriage allowed. It's second class status compared to heterosexuals''” which I believe is based on nothing more than YOUR POV re: same-sex marriage. We both have to take care to make the edits reflect FACT and not OPINION. -- Avi 17:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

1) "marriage" does not have any reference to "same-sex" or "different-sex".  It is even used with inanimate objects, such as in alchemical texts, etc.  It just means a union... EXCEPT for various religions which have a specific subset of meaning.   This is confirmed in the Wikipedia article on marriage

To quote the US Supreme Court "..separate is inherently not equal." so providing some quasi-marriage alternative does not grant the same rights, certainly not "Full Civil Rights" if there is a different set of people that have different or more rights because of their sexual orientation. To say they have "full civil rights" is misleading at best, though they do have significant civil rights compared to other countries which is what the edit I made showed. Sarastro777 18:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The subject of gay rights is very difficult to deal with in an article on "human rights," given the lack of a standard approach worldwide. Plus, there already is an article on Gay Rights in Israel, to which this article links. But in any event, the terms I saw being debated between Avi and Sarastro were "equality" and "full civil rights." The latter term is meaningless for much the same reason that I have just discussed. What is the standard? Notice that, for example, the U.S. State Department does not appear to include "gay rights" in the list of factors that it looks at, probably because on the federal level, the U.S. government itself does not do a very good job of affording equal protection to sexual minorities. (I suspect there is already an article about that somewhere as well.) Israel provides more protections and rights for gay people than does the U.S., for example the right to serve in the military and the right to equal employment opportunity (which is protected by the laws of some U.S. states but not others, and not on the federal level.) So Israel compares pretty favorably. Nevertheless, gay people in Israel do not have "equality" in all areas, because they cannot get married... which is of course true in all but four countries in the world (Same-sex marriage). Even in the U.S. state of Massachusetts, where gay people may marry, they still do not enjoy full "equality" because of the lack of other legal protections on the federal level, for example gay people in Massachusetts are not given the opportunity to serve in their nation's military. Personally I think that if the article to going to say that Israel does not have same-sex marriage, it needs to say that only four countries do have it. It probably also should mention the number of countries (18 plus some states in Australia and the U.S.) that, like Israel, recognize some form of same-sex union other than marriage. I also have to say that a lot of issues could be handled much more smoothly if certain editors (I count two, there may be more) were not trying to make Israel "look bad" in almost every sentence and paragraph of this article. 6SJ7 23:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It might also be easier without "a hundred thousand Jewish activists from around the world" trying to make it look great, coordinated through "Operation Megaphone." (see above). If things are given citations from reliable sources, it is not the editor making the subject look bad.. it is the source or the subject itself for warranting such a source.  Please don't shoot the messenger. Sarastro777

Oh please. The same few editors are editing this article, and all of us have wiki histories much older than that piece you quote. Personally, I find it insulting. If anything, it is you who are the new editor here (with Oiboy) and it is you whose edits are predominantly, if not exclusively, on Israeli-Palestinian topics, with an agenda as clear as day. Please treat your fellow editors with the respect you would like to be treated with. -- Avi 23:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, many human rights groups consider gay rights to be a civil rights issue. Obviously, Israel would share this issue with most other countries in the world, and that should be noted. All information should be provided in a way which allows people to understand it in context. john k 23:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What is my agenda?  What was my agenda when I said "they do have significant civil rights compared to other countries" (above), removed "Alleged" from the Anti-Israel bias section, or translated Eretz to make the Declaration more understandable? Moshe has broken 3RR and I am not reporting it, because I try to be fair.  What is my agenda there?  I have more sources for one paragraph of my edits than most entire articles have, and without a doubt they are deleted by Israelis saying POV.  A whole slew of properly documented additions were all deleted below.     Let's quit playing like I am the biased one here.    We all know what is going on, this article is full of people that don't want to see any documentation for anything that could be perceived as negative about Israel -- whether or not the country has really done the things.  One way to rationalize this is to accuse people like ME of having the agenda.  Look in a mirror (not you personally, I consider you among the more level-headed of the others).    Sarastro777 23:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Christians
“Christians frequently point to the Israeli Government's lack of protection…” One incident is frequently? Just curious, how manysuch incidents a year are there? -- Avi 20:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the source I listed, the Armenian Archbishop, it occurs "daily." I also provided another example, so that we would not have the argument that one source was insufficient. Sarastro777 21:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Moshe Silverburg also reverted the following, calling it a massive POV rewrite:

During 2003, after raiding Bethlehem, the Israeli Defense Forces canceled all outdoor Christmas decorations and festivities. The developments led Christian civic and religious leaders to stage a formal protest. The Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem said: "It is not impossible to love...even the Israeli soldiers who impose upon us siege, curfew and humiliations." -  -    - Christians frequently point to the Israeli Government's lack of protection and seeming double standard towards members of their faith. During 2004, a Jewish religious student spit at the Armenian Archbishop during a religious procession near the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. In an ensuing brawl, the Archbishop's 17th century medallion was broken. Police questioned both, but banned the student from the Old City for 75 days. In response the Archbishop, Nourhan Manougian stated: "Israeli leaders must speak out about the daily abuse [against Christians]. When there is an attack against Jews anywhere, the Israeli government is incensed, so why when our religion and pride are hurt, don't they take harsher measures?" -   - The Director of a centre for Christian-Jewish dialogue, Daniel Rossing commented that there had been an increase in such events as "part of a general lack of tolerance."

This was added to the "Freedom of Religion" section. On what grounds are you deleting this? Sarastro777 23:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Azmi Bishara
Why is it 'skewed' to list that he was arrested for making 'pro-hezbollah' statements in the 'freedom of speech section'? It's sourced from a human rights article section on freedom of speech. There's obvious relevance, and I basically lifted the wording from the report. I don't understand what the problem is, unless you are upset it is an obvious limitation on Israel's "Freedom of Speech" ? Sarastro777 23:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It was skewed because it said nothing about making public statements in support of the killing of Israeli citizens.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

So why didn't you add a source confirming that instead of deleting the entire section? Secondly that was not something mentioned by the Humans Rights Sources cited which cited "pro-hezbollah statements" which was included in the edit. You can't just go adding in your own Original Research. Please review that policy. Sarastro777


 * LOL! I was not adding original research or anything for that matter! I was deleting a pov addition that was inappropriatly tied to human rights issues when in fact in was nothing of the sort. If I wanted to add anything about Azmi Bishara I could easily find such sources since I have the advantage of working on a previous project where someone was attempting to do something quite similar (although with more competence) to what you are trying to do now. You seem to have a bad habit of quoting the exact same policies that you constantly disregard.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Criminal Justice Reverts
Moshe, it looks like you are in violation of 3RR.

Also reverted were the following additions, updates to the older Dept. of State bulletin points.

It was stated that the were no political prisoners. I followed with: However more recent data shows the Government of Israel arrested more than 40,000 Palestinian prisoners since the beginning of the Al-Aqsa Intifada in 2000. It continues to hold more than 369 Palestinians who were jailed before the Oslo Accords and currently holds 9,400 Palestinian prisoners in more than 30 jails located across Israel. Of these 330 are children, and 70 are considered seriously ill due to lack of "basic medical attention."

Also mentioned torture was illegal. I added: On December 20, 2005 the Tel Aviv District Court rejected the Israeli State's petition to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Lebanese citizen Mustafa Dirani, who charged that Israeli security forces tortured and raped him during interrogations. Another former detainee alleged he was subjected to painful positioning, beatings, long periods of interrogation, threats, and food and sleep deprivation. An independent rights group verified "...the complainant suffered severe back pains and paralysis in his left leg from the abuse."

Again why are you reverting these?

Sarastro777 23:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Palestine Center is as a reputable source as Baghdad Bob. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * really, do you have something that proves that, or is it just your opinion?  Since the article quotes Dore Gold, a anti-muslim israeli ambassador I am surprised to hear complaints about a human rights group.  68.6.254.16 15:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We are still waiting for an answer humus.--Oiboy77 17:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The Palestine Center is, by its own definition, a pro-Palestinian organization. Its articles are 100% pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel. Whether or not it is fair or even accurate is immaterial...it is still a POV source. That being said, it isn't fair and it isn't accurate (lying by omission is still lying). Schrodingers Mongoose 21:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's hard to credibly take that argument when the same sort of information is being provided by Dore Gold, author of "Hatred's Kingdom", an anti-Muslim, and a career official for the Gov't of Israel. Is that information inaccurate because Dore Gold is a "POV source"? Secondly, the source is the Jerusalem Fund which has the stated mission of "a non profit organization working to raise funds to the aid of Palestinian people."   Many make the same "anti-Israel" claim about Amnesty International and the UN and we are still cautiously accepting their statistics in the proper context.  Sarastro777 21:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In the same vein... Humus Sapien just added information on Shehada in Extrajudicial killings. The sources he used were the Israeli Embassy, someone from an Israeli University, "Neo-Conservative JPod" who said regarding a fellow journalist that was taken hostage by terroists: "she was well-treated because she wasn't beaten or killed." Just wanted to make sure there was still a problem with a numerical statistic from a Palestinian non-profit aid group? Sarastro777 14:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The ":no political prisioners" was a quote from a state dept report. Orig the section read, "according to the 2005 state dept report....". I think it is a question of what one defines as a "political prisoner". If someone is convicted of planning suicide bombings in which people were murdered, some would consider this murder and some would consider it a political act. I think the US State Dept probably defines using the former definition. I think the US dept of state def of political prisioner is more along the lines of a person being held for saying something or believing something against a government without actually doing hostile acts like killing people, destroying property, etc. Elizmr 22:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah clearly the Israelis, as the potential violators are not going to label the prisoners as 'political prisoners', just as the United States calls its captives in Guantanamo 'enemy combatants.' There's expected bias on behalf of the country, usually contradicted by the human rights groups.   Defining 'political prisoner' is unnecessary imho if the information presented is by sources that use the terminology.   If Human Rights Groups view it as a human rights issue then it becomes relevant to a human rights article  68.6.254.16 04:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Article for Deletion "AFD" Loophole
User:Jayjg nominates article Israel Defense Forces using human shields for deletion. User:Jayjg then removes the links to it from this article because it has been nominated for deletion. But he was the one that nominated it for deletion in the first place. At this point no voting, none of the feedback, or any of the process is completed. In the edit notes he claims that leaving the link until the article is/is not actually deleted "causes lots of problems"  Isn't this just a round-a-bout excuse to delete something and try to keep other editors from putting back? Sarastro777 18:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. What it seems to be is an effort to prevent people from using Wikipedia as their own personal propaganda blog.  This is supposed to be an encyclopedia.  6SJ7 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, after the article was nominated, the author (Striver) went around adding it as a "Main" article to all sorts of other articles, in an attempt to prove it was worth keeping. It is Striver who has attempted to game the AfD, not me; I've just put that straight.  If the article is kept, then the links can be added again. If the article is deleted, then there's no big mess to clean up. Jayjg (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 6SJ7, I am confused by your comments. Could you please explain how my observations of the AFD process seen here relate to people using Wikipedia as "their own personal propaganda blog"?   Were you trying to say that you thought the contents of the totally separate article which has/had a link from here is a "personal propaganda blog" and just wanted to say it here in unrelated discussion about the AFD process for sake of sharing... or..?  Sarastro777 20:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about removing the link too....The human shields article is blatantly POV and Jayjg is going to win his AfD request, and rightly so. Thta being said, for the sake of process maybe the link should remain until the AfD is officially over? Schrodingers Mongoose 21:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel Wikiportal
Should we add a link to this page on [] <--Wikiportal Israel? I think a link would be relevant--Oiboy77 06:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You would, wouldn't you 8-D -- Avi 16:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Quoting "Opinion Pieces" as Reliable Sources
Source 32 by "Neo-Conservative JPod" comes from an "Opinion" piece from a Jewish-Interest journal. I don't think this meets the criteria for a reliable source, especially as it is being cited to provide unattributed "facts." 68.6.254.16 16:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is a quote from a NY Post article, which requires a subscription for articles that old. I took care to bring the NYP link as well, if you care to look. Secondly, the quote is supporting the following phrase “Defenders of this practice point out that it is in accordance with the Fourth Geneva Convention (Part 3, Article 1, Section 28) which reads: ‘The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.’” which is exactly what the NYP piece is describing, a defender of the practice quoting the Fourth Geneva Convention. I fail to see your issue with it. -- Avi 16:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I understand the content and how the source was being used. The issue is one of reliability, that being how reliable "Opinion" pieces are as sources for fact. In this case the author has a well known pro-israel bias. I am referring to Podhoretz, John. "Hamas kills its own"

This is akin to quoting a Pat Buchanan Op/Ed piece. I guess I am just confirming that Op/Ed pieces from major newspapers are considered reliable sources to put unqualified (i.e. without "According to John Podhoretz) facts into the article.  I would think we would want to avoid this and stick to reliable organizations and scholarly/expert sources.  64.186.246.122 17:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Quote from WP:RS


 * As much as Annan's statement at the time was his opinion as to Israel's intent, so too is the defense (for which I have found other sources, by-the-by) the opinion of those who offer it. The statement in the article is that the Israeli actions, are considered by its defenders, to be withing the guidelines of the 4thGC. The fact that this opinion exists is quoted in as reliable a source as the fact that Annan's opinion existed--The New York Post. I agree that not every blog, Jewish, Palestinian, or Pastaferian for that matter, is reliable. But the source of this opinion is, and the fact that the opinion exists is what is supported by the quote. That Jon Podhoretz is its author is rather clear if one clicks on the note. We need to be consistent, if we are going to bring ONE author’s name in the text, we need to bring ALL the authors’ names in the text. The alternative is as current, which is to bring it in the citation. What is your opinion? -- Avi 17:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, opinion is allowed as notable perspective, but the way it is presented is not as a notable opinion, but as an objective fact. My "opinion" would be that when we are dealing with one person with known bias, especially from an Op/Ed piece, the statements should at least be prefaced by "According to..." so that people don't get the false impression that these are objective facts (they may be, but that is not verifiable from an opinion column source). 64.186.246.122 18:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe that you are having an issue with a sentence that begins “Defenders of this practice point out…” That is a FACT that defenders point out that it is Hezbollah that is violating international law. The name and source are very clear in the citation. Unless you are willing to redo the thousands of citations in these related articles, the consensus seems to be that as long as the citation in the reference is active, valid, and properly filled out, that is sufficient. I've seen Al-Jazeera quoted without attribution in the text, see Attacks on United Nations personnel during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, note 35. If it is good enough there, it is good enough here. People are sophisticated enough to read the citations for themselves. -- Avi 19:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I was tempted to quote Al-Jazeera just to time how long it took for a revert and a whine on here :P  We both know there is no way certain Editors on here would ever let that stay even though Poderetz is the Pro-Israel equivalent.  Uhh yeah well "Defenders.." is helpful, it at least shows it is not accepted by everyone.  I still think it is better to source these things from places other than Op/Ed pieces.   There seems to be a disconnect between Poderetz's interpretation of the Geneva conventions and the continual condemnation from the UN and experts on international law for violating it with these killings.  Probably because he is just giving his opinion as a commentator.  There was another source I had that better documented this, but the article was split into regions and that source and information was deleted in the process. 64.186.246.122 20:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Political prisoners?
I removed that section as it was not supported by a reputable source. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I restored it because it is more reliable than the Pro-Israel Zionist quoted from an Op/Ed piece and the Israeli Embassy and you have used, as discussed above. Non-profit aid organizations are very germane to the article.   Please don't delete things you disagree with and then cite irrelevant policy articles to try to engineer justification.  One non-destructive idea might be to add another source if you can find one, that shows something different if that is your reasoning here.  68.6.254.16 04:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your POV. Here's one non-destructive idea: either cite reputable source or this doesn't belong. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Namecalling "POV" and deleting the section over and over really is not productive behavior. Please cite factual objective evidence showing the Jerusalem Fund is unreliable as a source, or stop deleting the section. 68.6.254.16 14:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Before we can even discuss reliability, it pays to quote the piece exactly. -- Avi 16:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * FWIW, the report was written by Samar Assad. Her bio is here http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/images/SamarAssad_Profile.pdf . An excerpt reads Samar Assad is Executive Director of The Palestine Center, a Washington, DC-based think tank dedicated to analysis of U.S. policy toward Palestine and the Middle East. Prior to her appointment on 15 May 2005, Assad served as Senior Analyst at The Palestine Center for three years.…Known for her informed research on Palestinian politics and the peace process, Assad served as communications advisor to the PLO Negotiations Support Unit in the West Bank from 2000-01. A journalist by training, Assad covered Palestine and Israel for the Associated Press in Jerusalem from October 1996 to June 2000 prior to her work with the NSU. Before joining AP, Assad worked for the Los Angeles Times’ Jerusalem Bureau. Assad graduated from San Francisco State University in 1994 with a degree in journalism and international relations. Born in San Francisco, Assad was raised and attended secondary school in Ramallah.


 * Are think tank reports reliable sources? I've seen them quoted on both sides of the Israeli-Arab issue, so I don't think it can be dismissed out-of-hand. The question is is the Palestine Center specifically a reliable source? Personally, I don't know just yet, I've never heard of them before. Thoughts? -- Avi 17:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it's no more on its face unreliable than something by John Podhoretz. The degree of reliability of a think tank depends both on the think tank itself, and what it's being quoted on.  I'd say that a think tank like Brookings is more or less on the same level as an academic.  Something like Heritage is more on the level of an opinion piece in a newspaper.  No idea about this particular group.  They seem as though they're probably more on the advocacy side, so more skepticism is probably warranted, but I don't think it can be dismissed outright. john k 17:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The other question is the reliability of the Palestinian Beareu (sp?) of Statistics. Also, a difference is that Podhoretz was cited to support the existance of an opinion. This is being cited to support purported facts. There is a difference. Unless we write, there are those who claim that… or something like tha, but we are supposed to avoid a plague of weasels 8-) -- Avi 18:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the reliability of the Palestinian Bureau of Statistics would have to be questioned. Are there any Israeli figures on this issue? In terms of the specific material, it seems like we need a source which refers to these people as political prisoners. I don't think anyone disagrees that Israel has arrested a lot of Palestinians since 2000 (and some before that). The issue is whether they are political prisoners. If a think tank provides that opinion, we can cite it. In terms of the factual issue, I'd prefer to find a more reliable source. john k 18:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As a compromise, I left the section in for now and renamed it Palestinian prisoners. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"Blending among civilian populations"
What exactly does this mean? It seems like a very vague phrase, that could mean just about anything. Is a Hamas figure who lives in a normal civilian neighborhood "blending among civilian populations?" What about Hamas social services centers in civilian areas? Are these also examples of "blending among civilian populations?"

The source provided seems questionable. Is Arutz Sheva a reliable source? Our article on it describes it as a right-wing "religious zionist" news source, which was technically illegal until 1999. I don't like it when people seem to have found article sources based on a google search. The article itself seems highly questionable - there is no real sourcing, just "Sources in the PA". Furthermore, I'm not sure how this source, which describes one incident of Palestinian militants operating in a civilian area (where the IDF already was operating), can be used to support a general statement that Palestinian militants "have utilized a tactic of blending among civilian populations." The source even seems insufficient to prove Oiboy's preferred wording that "several Israeli newspapers" have reported this. What we have is one Israeli news source (apparently not a newspaper) reporting one incident of this. This does not qualify as a general report that this is a normal tactic of Palestinian militants.

At the very least, the phrase needs to be cleaned up and a better source needs to be found. I think the phrasing "operate in civilian areas" is better than "blending among civilian populations," as it's clearer what exactly is meant. (Unless something else is meant.) john k 11:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Arutz Sheva" was an illegal radio station. They currently broadcast over the internet. They are NOT a reliable source. They have an extremely clear agenda, and are known for it. Practically no one in Israel uses it as a valid source, since everyone knows what it is. okedem 11:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, okedem. It looked questionable to me.  So we clearly a) need a better source; and b) need to explain what exactly we mean, and preferably have a clearer phrasing than "blend among civilian populations." As noted before, there's very different degrees of it.  I think a lot of people would agree that if militants are shooting rockets off from a civilian area, it is appropriate to respond militarily, even at the risk of civilian casualties.  Dropping a two ton bomb on a residential area because Palestinian militant leaders happen to live there tends to be rather more controversial. john k 12:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the Arutz Sheva source with a paper published by Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. -- Avi 13:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A much better source, although I still think we need to be clear on what we mean by "blending among civilian populations." Do we just mean the kind of thing Lutf is describing, or do we mean the much broader and vaguer usage of this idea to justify the bombing of Christian neighborhoods in Beirut (not Palestine, I know, but the same argument has been used), or the kinds of targeted attacks on civilian neighborhoods where militant leaders live?  john k 15:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the bombings in Beirut, there are more recent papers quoting the 4th Geneva Convention. I have not added them here because they are out-of-scope as a) they are against Hezbollah, not the Palestinians and b) they are not occuring in Israel or any disputed/occupied territories. -- Avi 15:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I was just using that as an example. In terms of the 4th Geneva Convention, it's always been my understanding that interpretations differ as to whether IDF actions in civilian areas are in violation of it or not. john k 16:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Unhealthy preoccupation with Israel
This seems to be the longest and the most elaborate article of the series, many others being substandard stubs. Given that Israel's H.R. record is better than that of its neighbors, and that WP is an encyclopedia and not a battlefield, I wonder why certain editors are preoccupied with besmirching the Jewish state. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I wonder the same thing, and of course it is not just in this article that this unhealthy preoccupation is exhibited, but also other articles that have been created solely for the same purpose, besmirching Israel. You could read parts of this article and then the article on human rights in China, which indisputably has one of the worst human rights records in the world, and not be sure which has the better record.  The one on China has all kinds of nonsensical dancing-around like the part about "Lockean constructs of government existing solely for defending individual liberties" being "a notion that has largely escaped the Chinese political discourse", while portions of this article condemn Israel for isolated actions by individual people.  There is no sense of balance. 6SJ7 00:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Humus, are you suggesting that it is inappropriate to work to improve this article, because other articles are not detailed at the moment? Why don't you go work on Human rights in Egypt yourself, then? john k 19:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, is it really a cause for celebration to have a better human rights record than Egypt and Jordan? Of course there are people who are motivated by an anti-zionism that verges on (or simply is) anti-semitism to talk about Israeli human rights issues.  At the same time, there are perfectly legitimate reasons that one might focus on Israel more than other countries.  The very fact that Israel is a western style parliamentary democracy and has a well-developed civil society and near-developed world standard of living makes its human rights problems more noticeable, and more noticed, by other people in the developed world (as most wikipedia contributors are).  Note that Human rights in the United States is also fairly long. And I'm not sure what virtue vague ad hominem attacks have here. What does this comment have to do with improving the article?  Isn't this comment's purpose, in fact, to delegitimize this article, rather than to improve it? john k 19:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with "besmirching" which seems like a vague and pretty POV characterization, but if you are genuinely asking...one could conjecture Israel is better known among Westerners that use this site, as it is an open democracy. Among Western countries it is the only one besides the United States to my knowledge engaged in military occupation of regions occupied by minority ethnic groups, which always brings up Human Rights issues. Also regarding the length, I might add that a lot of the material which we have added shows areas of strength in Israel's Human Rights record. China is a closed Communist Dictatorship where Human Rights advocates are imprisoned. Therefore there is no "Association for Civil Rights in China", etc. I agree with 6SJ7, it seems the China article is missing quite a bit of potential material. Since you obviously have researched China's Human Rights policies, it might be a worthy area for you to apply your expertise. I am sure the community would be grateful. Sarastro777 17:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * One huge issue in this article as it stands is mixing up acts of individuals with acts of the government. Sarastro's comments notwithstanding, it reads a bit like a mishmash of every thing that Israel bashers could dig up to discredit the country with.  Elizmr 18:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What the article probably needs is somebody who is willing to kind of do a complete overhaul and turn it into a well put together whole. The person would need to be relatively even-handed, but also knowledgeable enough to know what is important.  I have no idea if such a person could possibly be found - it seems too much to hope for. john k 19:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * One way to handle accusations that all Human Rights Groups have anti-Israel bias is to follow their statements with a few documented examples, this at least helps verifiability to show SOME instances.  To my reading these examples are not given on their own, at least not unless the result of editing and reorganization by many different people.   Also important to differentiate between an incident with one person, and one person speaking broadly on their perception of gov't policy as a representative of larger interests.  e.g. the "Latin Patriarch" could reasonably be presumed to be speaking on behalf of Roman Catholics, not just himself.   As opposed to a Palestinian that gets pulled over at a checkpoint and beaten, and complains about his own experience, though this may help to document claims of brutality already documented by a human rights org, etc. Sarastro777 20:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Cuba, Syria or Egypt are not being run by toddlers, so no double standard please. And in a serious encyclopedia, Latin Patriarch's feelings may belong (if anywhere) only in article dedicated to himself. The Church is known for their prejudice towards the Jews and the Jewish state, so let's not inflame the matters. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a "Chicken Little" complex. Oh no the sky is falling and everyone is out to get them. Cite ref's for your argument and then maybe you will earn some respect.--Oiboy77 01:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Anything on the subject? ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As if you have anything to say on the subject, Humus. Your comments have nothing to do with improving the article, and everything to do with trying to associate working on this article with being anti-semitic. john k 04:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's also not appropriate to keep referring to the country euphemistically in section headings as "the Jewish state."  The title of the article is "Human Rights in Israel" not "Human Rightst in the Jewish State" although that admittedly makes it easier to throw around the anti-semite label.   Sarastro777 05:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

JK please watch the personal attacks. Elizmr 02:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm making the personal attack?? Humus is the one accusing everyone who criticizes Israel of being an anti-semite.  He's doing it by implication and innuendo, rather than straight out, but he's most certainly doing it, and it's not a personal attack to point this out.  It's blatantly obvious that his comment here had absolutely no relevance to improving the article, but rather to suggest that anybody who wants to spend their time being concerned about Israeli human rights violations is in fact showing an "unhealthy preoccupation with the Jewish state," presumably due to anti-semitism.  How can we extrapolate from his comments any kind of constructive way forward to editing this article? His complaint seems to essentially be that people are working on this article, and not on articles about human rights in Jordan or Egypt, and thus are anti-semites.  There is nothing derived from this about how we can make this article better.  The implication seems to be that it is morally wrong to put more information into this article unless we also add information to articles about Arab states' human rights situations.  This is pretty outrageous, and I'll be damned if I won't point it out. john k 04:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It would behoove me to note here that I am passionate on this subject because I feel that the only way to make any progress with articles on the Arab/Israeli conflicts is if people are going to refrain from accusing everyone who disagrees with them of being evil. Humus does this pretty incessantly, but I should also note that the other side has not been remiss about this either.  Sarastro's repeated accusations that anybody defending the Israeli side is a paid propagandist of the Israeli foreign ministry (or whatever it is exactly he's been saying) is just as worthy of condemnation, and I ought to have condemned it myself earlier.  But the cry of "Anti-semite" has for a long time been one of the most powerful accusations you can launch against someone, and nobody should insinuate that all their opponents are anti-semites unless they can back it up. As I've said before, there are certainly bound to be some anti-semites who get involved in an article like this.  But that doesn't excuse the kind of broad brush insinuations that HS has been making ever since this article got started. john k 04:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That soapboxing and ad homs surely improve WP. Please review my initial post. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you expect to happen when you start a talk page section entirely devoted to making insinuations about the motivations of other editors. Your initial post involved wondering why "certain editors" are "preoccupied with besmirching the Jewish state."  That was about the extent of it.  What constructive point could possibly come of this?  And after you start from that perspective I don't see where you come off accusing other people of ad hominem attacks.  Just because you insinuate rather than stating directly doesn't make it any less of an ad hominem. You're right, of course, that this whole discussion is useless for improving the article, but what did you expect when you started it?  A constructive discussion of whether people are anti-semites or not? john k 11:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Humus after reviewing your initial post and I quote "This seems to be the longest and the most elaborate article of the series, many others being substandard stubs." If this is the case why not add to those articles? Nobody here other than yourself is drawing comparison between Israel and other countries. It seems you are the one with the unhealthy preoccupation (pun not intented) with "protecting Israeli articles at all cost". Some of us DO take offense at Israel being called a Jewish state as well, as the current mandate in Israel has very little to do with Judaism. Please take a few minutes to consider how you can make a positive contribution to this article. Labeling people on both sides is unhealthy. Perhaps we should all step back a bit and do what some writers do when editing highly controversial subjects. The people who are now writing things about Israel's human rights abuses maybe could add content on Israel's positives when it comes to Human rights, and the people who sing the praises of Israel can add to the Human rights abuses section.--Oiboy77 12:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a fairly good suggestion, although I will say that I think the positives are already pretty well-covered in the article now, for the most part. Some of the negatives need elaboration on (see my review of the article below). john k 12:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * On the WP:NPA issue and Humus, I did think your comment was a personal attack. "Your comments have nothing to do with improving the article, and everything to do with trying to associate working on this article with being anti-semitic."  Saying that someone's comments have nothing to do with improving the article is assuming bad faith and attacking their contributions.  I think HS is an excellent editor who is certainly contributing the the article and the talk page in a very productive way.  "Anti-semite" is certainly a loaded term---let's not use it, ok?   I think it is fair to say that many of the editors on this page are primarily interested in smearing Israel's human rights record and their edit history (ie wholesale reverts of sourced accurate and relevant material that places Israel in a good light) supports this.  It is a good and reasonable thing to be honest about what Israel has done that is not ideal or even bad.  It is not a good thing to supress what Israel has done right.  It is also not a good thing to use extreme examples in a one sided biased way to use Wikipedia as a soapbox.  HS does a credit to Wikipedia when he calls people on this stuff.  Elizmr 15:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, Humus started many other Human rights in x,y.z articles which have now started to be populated by others. YOu and I have talked on the talk page of one of those articles.  This is also a valuable and balancing contribution that he has made.  Elizmr 15:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Elizmr, I wasn't trying to imply that Humus, in general, has not contributed to this or other articles, just that his comment opening this section was entirely unproductive. But perhaps I was not clear enough about it.  As for "Anti-semite" being a loaded term, sure, but are you saying that accusing one's opponents of being motivated by an "unhealthy preoccupation with besmirching the Jewish State" is not, in essence, an accusation of anti-semitism?  Why is it acceptable to make this accusation in euphemistic terms, but not acceptable for me to call a spade a spade?  Beyond that, I will again say that there are certainly editors who are going to be making bad edits to this article that ought to be reverted (and I will admit that I haven't followed the editing history of the article itself that closely, and have mostly followed the talk page discussion, so I may not be up on the whole thing).  But that doesn't justify blanket accusations, and beyond that, I still am not sure what constructive purpose Humus's accusation that started this mess of a talk page section could possibly have served.  He certainly didn't call anybody on anything, since he failed to make any specific points at all.  If he'd called some specific user out for out of line editing, that would be one thing, but his comment's main complaint seemed to be that this article is longer than other articles, which isn't a valid complaint.  At any rate, continuing to discuss this is likely to be completely unproductive, and I'm going to stop. I got angry and made comments that were out of line earlier, for which I apologize, but I still think that Humus's original post was out of line as well, and that his follow-up posts where he complains that other people aren't being productive in their responses to his unproductive post are hypocritical. john k 17:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * John, thank you for admitting that you "haven't followed the editing history of the article itself that closely". Perhaps it would help if you take a look at the very first edit by the creator this article. I stand by my comment. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, yes, that is obviously a completely inappropriate edit, and completely out of line. Oiboy clearly has rather extreme ideas on the Israel/Palestine conflict, and in his initial edits, he was clearly pushing them to the point of vandalism.  Obviously, this kind of start is something which oughtn't be ignored when assessing his contributions thereafter.  At the same time, your comments, true or not, are still entirely unproductive in terms of improving this article.  What exactly were they supposed to accomplish in terms of making the article better? What are your specific problems with the article?  That's the real issue, specific problems with the issue.  "Being too detailed as compared to other articles on similar topics" is not a real complaint. john k 19:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

John, I hear your apology, but do find Humus's posts productive and not hypocritical. The personal attacks and dismissive tone just don't help. Elizmr 13:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * How has anything in this section said by any of us been the least bit productive towards improving this article? When you create a section entirely devoted to questioning the motives of other editors, it's bound to be unproductive.  I'll withdraw the accusations of hypocrisy, but this section has been entirely unproductive. john k 19:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This article was created as an attack on Israel and the efforts to turn it into an attack page are ongoing. John, sionce you seem to have assumed a role of a supervisor and reserved the right to call a spade a spade only for yourself, what are you going to do about it? ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you give me some specific examples of attempts to "turn it into an attack page"? Beyond that, I don't like the idea that I'm a supervisor, or that I've reserved any rights to myself.  I suppose I have been trying to informally mediate, to some extent, but I certainly don't reserve any special rights to myself.  If you want to say "this edit and this edit and this edit are basically just unfair attacks on Israel," and back it up with diffs, you should do that.  But launching into a tirade about how this article shows an "unhealthy fixation on the Jewish state" isn't doing that, it's just increasing the level of distrust and failure to assume good faith that's making progress so difficult.  That this article was created as an attack on Israel is also unfair - whatever the motivations of Oiboy in creating this article, it's pretty plain that this is a legitimate topic for an article - there are numerous articles on human rights in different countries.  The point should be "how do we make this article into a good, balanced, NPOV article on the subject."  john k 03:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

State of the article
Looking over the article as a whole for the first time in a few weeks, I find that it's considerably better than I expected it would be. There's still a lot of problems, though. If anything, most of the explicit bias seems to be towards the pro-Israeli side. For instance, in the discussion of "extrajudicial killings," we only provide the opinion that the Israeli policy conforms to the 4th Geneva Convention, and there is no discussion of the other side (i.e., the view that it is against international law). More broadly, the good points of Israel's record seem to be discussed in a better-written and clearer way than the bad points, which often take the form of brief quotations from human rights reports or UN resolutions.

There's also a few sections that are weird - that the section on settlements is entirely a description of some UN resolution about the Golan Heights. There's a lot of raw text from human rights reports, and very frequently the quotations come from the summary parts of reports, and are not elaborated on. For instance, we quote the state department as saying that there's personal status discrimination against non-orthodox Jews, but no discussion of what this means or what it entails (I assume what is being referred to is the fact that only orthodox Rabbis are recognized in Israel, so that a Reform Jew could not be married in a religious ceremony in Israel, or what not).

I'm still not a fan of the section on the Israeli Constitution, which doesn't seem terribly connected to the rest of the article. And the section on human rights groups being biased against Israel still seems lame to me, although it's better now that it's not half the article.

But, at any rate, all that being said, I don't think this article is nearly as bad as it could be. It highlights strong points in Israel's human rights record as much as (or even more than) weak points, and is mostly well-sourced. It still needs a lot of work, but it's really not too embarrassing at the moment, imo. john k 12:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. I believe you meant the Israeli declaration of independance. Israel doesn't have a constitution, although it does have several "Foundation" (or "base") laws, mostly about the Parliament, military, government, elections, etc. Most of these laws are "protected", meaning they require a true majority to change (61 out of 120, not just a regular majority). Anyways, two of these are directly related to human rights - "Human Dignity and Freedom", and "Freedom of employment". I can't find them in english, but they're extremely important to the situation in Israel. They were passed in 1992, and were called the beginning of the "constitional revolution". I can translate the laws, or the articles about them from the hebrew wiki, if you (the plural "you") think that's a good idea.
 * 2. The part about marriage refers to two things - firstly, what you wrote (orthodox only), and secondly - and more importantly, I feel - there's no non-religious marriage. You can't just go to city hall or a judge and get married. You have to have a religious marriage, be it Jewish, Christian or Muslim. This creates a terrible difficulty for people with no recognized religion, or people who just don't want a religious marriage. okedem 12:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I meant the Declaration of Independence. We should talk about those two Basic Laws you mention.  As to marriage (and any other similar personal status issues), that should certainly be discussed - perhaps you could fill that out a little.  john k 12:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's what I wrote for the marriage part:
 * "Israel only recognizes Orthodox Rabbis for the purpose of marrying couples, not allowing Reformist or Conservative Rabbis to perform the ceremony. This is a major issue, due to the lack of civil marriage, as opposed to religious marriage. A couple wishing to marry must do so through a religious ceremony, be it Jewish, Muslim, Christian or other. This creates a problem for non-religious couples, who must undergo a religious ceremony to marry. This is also a problem for persons with no recognized religion, as is true for many of the immigrants from the former Soviet republics, who recieved citizenship based on a Jewish relative, but who are not recognized as Jews by the Chief Rabbinate of Israel. This difficulty is partly mitigated by Common-law marriage, which gives couples most of the rights married couples enjoy.".
 * I'm thinking it should be inserted right after "Israel does not give funding..." in the religion section.
 * As for the basic laws I mentioned - they mostly declare that this right and that right should not be infriged upon, unless for a worthy cause, and to a reasonable extent, in a way that doesn't contradict Israel's basic values. For example: "A person's freedom should not be limited by any way of imprisonment, arrest or otherwise". Of course there are arrests in Israel, but this law means that all of these arrests must take place according to a specific law. They cannot be arbitrary. The wording of the law gives the supreme court the authority to invalidate laws that do not fit the previous criteria.
 * These "Basic Laws" are meant to serve as the basis for a future constitution.
 * Oh, they are mentioned here, in brief. okedem 15:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is similar to the issue of marriage being a "civil right" in the US as well, while that is still under much political debate, I think the way you have written it is an accuarate portrayal of the situation. The question of whether this is an infringement of a "human right" or the upholding of the laws of the state, however, may impact on whether the marriage issue belongs here at all. But your description, to my uneducated eyes, seems pretty good. -- Avi 15:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue seems considerably more serious than the issue in the United States, where we a) have civil marriage, and b) recognize pretty much any group that wants to to be a religion for the purpose of marrying people. The issue of same sex marriage is a frought one, and there's problems with that in lots of countries.  But the lack of civil marriage and the very limited recognition of who counts as a proper "religion" for the purpose of religious ceremonies is rather unique, and the latter, in particular, can be seen as a religious freedom issue, which is certainly a human right. john k 17:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Okedem's version looks pretty good to me. john k 17:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding the quotations, the other material in most of the sections has been deleted by other Editors. This has negatively affected the writing.   Specifically refer to the history on the Settlements article, and you can see that most of it has been deleted with only this single quotation remaining.   The quotes could be paraphrased, but then that is deleted as "POV" (alleging the paraphrasing is the POV of the Editor).   This has been one way to address the issue in what seems to be a very hostile article.   I also agree on the Declaration of Establishment (which doesn't represent any actual laws), it is not a constitution.  It takes up too much room and is of questionable relevance.  What is stated by the Gov't is really of only minor relevance when compared to the defacto state of things which is what should be documented in the article.  "talk is cheap" so to speak.  Sarastro777 05:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the 1936 Soviet Constitution was full of lots of lovely language about universal rites and so forth. Israel's human rights situation, and even that of the Territories, is obviously much better than that of Stalin's Russia, but it stands to reason that rhetoric shouldn't play a major role here.  We should note that rights are guaranteed by the Basic Law, and so forth, but we shouldn't act as though that is the be all and end all. john k 19:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding marriage, John, you may wish to see here: Civil unions in Israel, in that there exists a common-law arrangement for same-sex couples, I am not certain, but it stands to reason that the same rights apply to heterosexual couples, albeit not with the name “marriage”. Of course, as this is talkspace, I reserve the right to be hideously wrong. -- Avi 06:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. See what I wrote above - I mentioned Common-law marriage. There's even a section there about Israel (albeit a short one). A lot of couples in Israel just don't get married, as the "common-law marriage" gives them rights (mainly tax things) pretty much like a married couple. Also, one spouse can adopt the other's child, even though they're not really married. This right has been extended to LGBT, via a court ruling (one woman was allowed to adopt her female partner's child). okedem 08:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but in most other western democracy type countries opposite sex couples have the right to explicit civil marriage, or to a religious marriage in the denomination of their choice. It's a difference between Israel and a lot of other countries that is worth mentioning, and is arguably a freedom of religion issue, and as such a human rights issue. john k 19:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Freedom of religion, and mostly "freedom from religion". I don't know if that's a commonly used phrase in english, but it is in Israel, due to the lack or seperation of religion from state.
 * About the Basic Laws, don't underestimate them. Their power isn't with empty/brave promises. Their real strength is the fact they give the Supreme Court the right to disqualify laws that contradict these Basic Laws. The court uses that power, and has forced the parliament to withdraw proposals, rewrite them, or even give them up completely. The supreme court in Israel is more liberal than the parliament, and plays a major role in protecting civil/human rights (similar to the part the court played in keeping abortions legal in the US, in Roe vs. Wade). Also see the section "Powers", and especially "High Court of Justice", in Supreme Court of Israel. okedem 20:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's probably worth discussing this in some detail in the article. john k 23:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, It seems to me that there's definitely a freedom of religion issue in the fact that the religion I kind of grew up in (Reform Judaism) is officially considered illegitimate by the Israeli state because it's not "real" Judaism. If some state government in the US tried to take away the right of, say, Unitarian Universalist ministers to perform marriage ceremonies, because it's not "really" a religion (which is arguably true!), that would cause serious outrage. john k 23:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree it is problematic and it is quoted as an issue in the text (the us state dept reports says something about non-Orthodox jews). I think "illegitamte" may be too strong of a word to use here, perhaps.  It is true that Israel doesn't fund non-Ortho jewish movements, have non-Ortho weddings, but Reform jews have a right to pray, make communities, say whatever they want to, etc.  Someone who converts Reform to Judiasm is still eligible to make aliyah.  Elizmr 00:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't think it should be the focus of the article or anything, just that it should be mentioned in a way where it makes sense what is being referred to. The quote from the US State Dept bullet point isn't terribly clear on what exactly it means.  It ought to be elaborated on. john k 03:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * All Jews are eligible for Aliyah to Israel, it doesn't matter if they're religious or Atheists. Non-Jews who convert to Judaism, and wish to immigrate to Israel based on the conversion (as opposed to just being married to a Jew, or being the child of a Jew), must convert to orthodox judaism. Reformist/Conservative conversions are not recognized by Israel for this purpose. okedem 05:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've translated Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty (Israel), please review it.
 * The question is - where should it be mentioned in this article? okedem 08:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)