Talk:Human rights in Israel/Archive 4

Prisoners section, note to Sarastro777
Your edit summary: "→Treatment of prisoners - someone conveniently (my emphasis) deleted the 70 sick prisoners are in fact children, which was stated previously," assumes bad faith. If you read the quote, it is not clear if 70 of the total prisioners are ill or 70 of the minors are ill. I thought it was probably the former, but did not and would not "conveniently" delete anything. Assuming that everyone who doesn't agree with you is also unscrupulous is completely fallicious. There are people with and without scruples on every side of every issue. Elizmr 00:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

To quote the source: "According to the Bureau, 70 children are ill due to the lack of basic medical attention." It's not a matter of assumption when you feign confusion with such an obvious quote. Sarastro777 01:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That wasn't how it read in the text that was in the article. And now you've assumed bad faith again.  What is the purpose of that?  Elizmr 01:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That is not only how it reads in the text, that is a direct quote which anyone can verify. The only personal attack was from you: "everyone who doesn't agree with you is also unscrupulous." No Personal Attacks Sarastro777 01:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sarastro, If you read above, (I'll find the link soon) you'll see that the Palestinian Beureu of Statsitics may or may not be a reliable source. If we can back this up with data from the Israeli beureu, I'd feel better about it. And I know, I could never spell beareu. -- Avi 01:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Judging from the bottom 1/3 of the article, it is your viewpoint that nothing is a reliable source except for Alan Dershowitz. Did I miss something?  Sarastro777 02:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL. I meant the talk page, here, hold on. Talk:Human rights in Israel. Please see John's response to me on this. -- Avi 02:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's the quote I edited: "According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, more than 40,000 Palestinians have been arrested since the start of the September 2000 Al-Aqsa intifada. 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 according to the Bureau, 70 are considered seriously ill due to lack of "basic medical attention."


 * It is unclear if the 70 is 70 of the children or 70 of the 9.400 total prisoners they say Israel has. There was no reason to say I did the edit on purpose, and you had no evidence for that.  I was careful to leave a lot of negative stuff on Isreal IN, so that should communicate my intent to be fair to you.  Instead you accuse me of POV editing.  I did not attack you.  I just said not to assume I'm unscrupulous because I don't always agree with you. And you HAD called me unscrupulous.  Where is the attack there?  I don't see it.  Elizmr 02:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Now *I* called you unscrupulous? I did a search for that word and it comes up only in your edit or where I am quoting your edit. The line in question is a completely separate sentence in which the subject is the children. Was it the comma that confused you? What language are YOU speaking? It's not a greatly constructed sentence, but even if you were confused, why did you just outright delete it? (rather than look at the source which was there and immediately clarifies any confusion?) I just don't see where you thought you were going with the way you handled this, from a constructive/collaborative frame of mind and now attacking me as if I was the one that made the mistake. You are probably very well-inentioned, in fact I would assume you are... but since you did delete the line because you were confused and did not check the source, the description of convenient deletion is very apt. 5 more seconds of work would have made it unnecessary. Sarastro777 02:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Elizmr - the sentence as it was constructed was extremely unclear as to whether it was 70 children or 70 people. On the other hand, it probably would have been better to check the source first, before deleting, but it was obviously an honest mistake, and not some kind of conspiracy. Beyond that, I think Elizmr was saying that Sarastro accused him of being unscrupulous by "conveniently" deleting something, not that Sarastro accused him of being "unscrupulous," using that precise word. Really, everyone should chill out here. This one issue not that big a deal, and not worth an argument. john k 03:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sara777: You say "the description of convenient deletion is very apt", but it is against Wikipedia rules to assume bad faith, so "apt" or not you are breaking house rules. Please stop it, ok?  I should have checked the source, and I apologize.  The best thing to do would be to assume I was acting in good faith and clarify rather than assuming bad faith and using the snarky edit summary.  Honestly, you expect the Israelis and Palestinians to get along and we can't even assume good faith on this Wikipedia page.  Elizmr 23:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you did do the 'convenient' thing, by not taking the extra time to check the fact and just deleting a cited sentence. Of course this is all the edit note ever claimed. I don't understand what you want. I never accused you of not acting in good faith. Definitely not worth an argument as Johnk said. Sarastro777 22:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If that's true, I totally apologize. Sorry! Elizmr 01:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

weasel words....
I added the weasel tag primarily because of the following phrase: "Amnesty International has been accused of having a double standard when it comes to its assessment of Israel.". Accused by whom? Israel? Doesn't sound neutral to me.62.142.46.22 10:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It should be sourced (many people have said that, among them Israeli officials), but there's no nuetrality problem here. The article doesn't say Amnesty has a double standard, it says it's been accused of that, which is a fact. okedem 11:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read Avoid weasel words. If the source is specified it is not weasel. The accusers of AI are plainly listed as NGO monitor, there is no weasel issue at all. -- Avi 15:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Take 1
This is relevant to Freedom of Speech, but was reverted by Moshe Silverburg. The source I was using, The US State Dept referred to him as a whistleblower. This label differentiates him from some guy just violating state secrets. For those that don't know: Vanunu revealed Israel had a secret WMD project in which it had developed nuclear bombs to the British Gov't.  Sarastro777 23:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But why is it a violation of civil rights to incarcerate someone lawfully and legally convicted of treason? -- Avi 00:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? Presumably because the law under which he is convicted is considered to be unjust.  Nelson  Mandela was "lawfully and legally convicted" of crimes for which he was imprisoned, too. john k 14:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * He was kidnapped from Rome by the Mossad and then 'lawfully tried'. Amnesty International considers him a "Prisoner of Conscience" -- so added that to make clear what the opinion of the human rights groups are on the matter (our own views don't count). Sarastro777 18:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So you think that other countries would imprison someone who gave away state secrets? Is Jonathan Pollard a prisoner of conscience?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Here we go again. It doesn't matter what I think.  That would be OR.  The information given is from a Human Rights Group that is cited.   Your gripe is with them.  Maybe you should call Amnesty International and ask them about Jonathan Pollard if it is an area of personal interest for you.  Sarastro777 18:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Worth noting that Pollard was paid a lot of money by the Israeli government for his espionage work. Vanunu leaked information to the press. One can understand why the Israeli government wouldn't want people doing this, but the situation really isn't comparable to the Pollard situation. john k 20:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed it's not a good comparison, but I do believe Vaanunu's actions would constitute Treason in most western countries. okedem 20:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It depends on how you view the state secret he revealed. If it was a legitimate state secret, then he's a traitor.  If not, then he's a whistle-blower.  It seems to me that it's at a muddy intersection, and I'm not sure what I think - I'd have to know more about the particulars.  It could very well be treason, but it's certainly a lot more morally ambiguous than the classic kind of for-hire-by-foreign-governments treason, of which Pollard is certainly a classic example. I do think that kidnapping someone from a foreign country in order to put them on trial is generally wrong, and usually frowned upon.  Not sure if it's a human rights issue, per se, though. john k 22:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Every country limits freedoms as it sees fit. Vanunu violated a law and was punished for that. The freedom of speech section should talk about press, assosiations, etc., instead of harping on one old criminal case. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Because Amnesty International and other groups cited comment on it, it is not a business as usual 'limit of freedom', a classification which is your own opinion and not backed by the human rights groups..   "Harping" is also POV, the point of the article is to document human rights issues.  Classifying every section with wording like besmirching, harping, etc is not helpful to the process.   I also ask you to examine your behavior which consists almost entirely of coming to this article and deleting material which you have not added.  Your justifications are not borne out by the facts, also as in this case.   I have not seen you add hardly one thing other than a table, in which you omitted to 'occupied territories', which showed a very poor rating, but did manage to list Israel.  Sarastro777 02:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ignoring your ad hominem for now. It's good to know I'm being watched. You are wrong on all points. Vanunu broke the law, end of story. The section on the Freedom of speech somehow managed to omit to mention that Israel is ranked #1 in the region. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Besides the fact that this is not a HR issue, even according to YOUR OWN QUOTE it is not a problem, because you are hanging your hat on the AI articles saying, in April of 2005, that “If Mordechai Vanunu were to be imprisoned for breaching the restrictions imposed on him, Amnesty International would consider him to be a prisoner of conscience.” He has not been imprisoned as far as I can tell today in 2006, only the restrictions have been extended. So you have no leg to stand on, from your own article. -- Avi 05:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Acccording to Amnesty International which is a Human Rights Group this IS a human rights issue. See [] I quote verbatim "9. The SCM concluded that Amnesty International must now call for the release of Mordechai Vanunu, as a way to end his continued solitary confinement and as a way to redress the other human rights violations he has suffered." FYI this edit got me a NPOV warning from User:Avraham --Oiboy77 18:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Among two other edits of yours, yes, and if you were to re-engage the editors in discussion, and a consensus is reached that it does belong, then there would have been no need for a warning. But, I am sorry to say, you have a history of undeniably NPOV edits. -- Avi 18:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The issue at hand is this edit NOT my "history of undeniably NPOV edits" I have posted direct citations from a Human Rights Organization. If you or any other editors have citations that directly refute the aformentioned citation I this it is justified to remove it. No consensus is required when adding material that has direct citations.--Oiboy77 18:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oiboy77, do you insist that the history of your edits should be analyzed? ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Take 2
The Vanunu stuff seems to be being reinserted and removed by various editors over the last few days. I think this needs to be discussed here, rather than continuing the reversions.

I'm not convinced on the merits of including some mention of him or not, but if it is to be included, the current text isn't very good. The "if he violates the restrictions" wording is very awkward, especially since the nature of the restrictions has not been discussed in the article. There are two issues here: 1) his original imprisonment for treason; and 2) his current restrictions, and his status if he were imprisoned for violating them. The current version does not clarify this distinction at all. This needs to be done if a discussion of him is going to be in the article. john k 19:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see section 10 above -- Avi 20:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a little more understandable if the issue is the writing in the section, which can be addressed. I hope this is now the accepted viewpoint. The previous arguments being made to justify deleting the material consisted of "there is a law" or "there is a limit to freedom." Certainly the mere existence of some law does not ever morally legitimize any behavior by gov't. See:Nuremberg_Racial_Purity_Laws

Some sources on the matter: Another AI source: "The organization is also calling for his [Vanunu's] release from custody as redress for the persistent and past human rights violations to which he has been subjected." ^-- background on the "persistent human rights violations" are documented in [] Sarastro777 20:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sarastro, please do not tell me that you are comparing racial purity laws with a soveriegn country's right to protect its military secrets(not to mention vanunu violated every pledge/oath he took when given security clearances)???? -- Avi 20:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I can gather, what HS said above pretty much amounted to an argument that governments can decide to limit freedom of speech, and that such limits then do not constitute problems with freedom of speech. Sarastro's counter-example was probably ill-chosen (it's a bad idea to bring the Nazis into things), but surely we can all agree that laws can be passed which violate human rights?  Whether this particular law does is a matter for debate, but the fact that Vanunu was tried and convicted of something that was a crime in Israel does not necessarily mean that he's not also a martyr to free speech, or what not.  For instance, how is what Vanunu did significantly different from the actions of Daniel Ellsberg?  He is generally viewed today as a hero of free speech in the United States.  What he did was certainly illegal, but is generally viewed favorably now.  It seems to simple to just say that Vanunu is a "traitor." john k 22:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, that source is as of 1998. -- Avi 21:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So, Human Rights violations are erased from ever having existed after a period of time? Sarastro777 21:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The comparison is blindly claiming the existence of a law exempts gov't from human rights scrutiny, which has been done on this subject. In the obvious example above we can see that is a false argument. There are also wider issues of his status as Whistleblower, which means he was reporting behavior that could be considered illegal under international law. This is not a matter for us to decide, but there is a massive amount of Human Rights violations perceived by numerous organizations, basing around his 'freedom of speech.'  This IS something that is relevant to this article. Sarastro777 20:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think what's needed are better citations of the idea that Vanunu's original imprisonment was unjust and is considered a human rights violation by whatever group. john k 22:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see [] It is a clear citation. And clearly uses the verbage Human Right Violation in a un-birmirching way.--Oiboy77 18:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Vanunu is not the case of freedom of speech, and 2) AI is not a WP:RS in this matter. Its credibility is highly disputed when it comes to Israel. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Amnesty International is a reliable organization. You need to quit pushing the excuses. I didn't see you worrying about reliability when quoting Op/Ed pieces by "Neo Cons" and David Horowitz, whatever you would call him. Sarastro777 01:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't need your advices or approvals. AI's credibility is disputed. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Awww.. that doesn't sound like an Administrator attempting to collaborate. I don't think we can devote anymore space to conspiracy theories on major human rights groups being anti-semitic. As it stands this is probably at least 1/4 of the bulk of "Human Rights in Israel." Sarastro777 06:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding? AI's credibility is disputed? By who? Human rights violators. Is the UNs credibility also disputed to the point where any mention of their criticism of Israel can just be deleted. Is there any human rights organiation not directly run by the State of Israel who's record meats the Hasbarah crowd's standards? !!!!

Censorship and freedom of speech
I've added sources about Bakri's deposition that his film is not accurate, and that he did take "artistic liberty" in filming it. Are the sources false? Am I not using them correctly? okedem 08:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * YOur sources are fine, and add depth to the discussion of the film in this context.  The basic underlying problem with this page, of which the deletion of your cites is a perfect example, is that a few editors here are using Wikipedia as a sword against Israel.  When this, rather than the creation of a credible encyclopedia, becomes the goal, following core Wikipedia policies like WP:NPOV and WP:REF only get in the way.  Elizmr 15:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yea, well... I've accepted the fact that this article will be way longer than the ones about other coutries (especially in the region). Now I'm just trying to keep it as neutral as possible... okedem 15:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You claim that Bakri admitted he "falsified scenes and used inaccurate information", but he did no such thing and neither of your sources support this. All Bakri admitted was that he believed his interviewees and replied "No" when asked whether Israeli soldiers fired indiscriminately. Both of your sources are known for their extreme pro-Israel bias and should not be trusted anyway; this whole issue is spin. Deuterium 15:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I wrote "Bakri admitted to inaccuracies throughout his film". Nothing about "falsified". That was another editor, just now. I changed it back. Many of Bakri's claims have been refuted in another film, "The road to Jenin", and you can read about it in the source. The UN also determined there was no massacre. Anyways, please discuss changes on the talk page before deleting sourced sentences.
 * I'll try and find other sources, but most of them are in hebrew, so I can't use them here. okedem 16:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Also on this section. Why do we have "Censorship and freedom of speech" and "Freedom of speech" sections?  It should all be under "Freedom of Speech" (but then, of course, one doesn't get to throw the posioning the well term, "censorship" around.  Elizmr 17:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Indubitably, Elizmr. -- Avi 17:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Good catch, Elizmr. Another instance of using WP to attack Israel beyond any measure. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ironically, I think the situation only makes Israel look good. It have have been reasonable not to show a film that contained many innaccuracies, but in the end freedom of speech won out.    Elizmr 21:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Nationality and Entry into Israel law
Warring parties - Moshe and Deuterium - please discuss this section here before reverting each other's work again. okedem 07:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * On a topic other than the edit war, this should not be under "ethnic minorities". Maybe a new section on "immigration" should be started because that is the topic.  Also, this very difficult decision was made because security problems were found after letting this type of immigration take place.  Maybe someone could dig up a quote on that.  We can probably handle this topic in a NPOV manner that makes both sides ok with it.  Elizmr 09:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It should be under the "ethnic minorities" section, because critics argue that the law is selectively targeting an ethnic minority, Israeli Arabs, because many are married to Palestinians and will be affected by this law (e.g. have families broken up). Deuterium 10:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Rights of Women
The first paragraph, while a faithful rendition of the AI statement, is actually based on a slight misinterpretation of Rabbinic Law on AI's part. I will try to explain it as clearly as I can, and then we can discuss whether or not the article needs adjustment, and how to do so without violation WP:OR.

Biblical law allows male polygamy. Historically, this was a rarity, left as the perview of kings and wealthy men, as the biblical requirements of spousal support (financial, emotional, sexual, and child support to name some major responsibilities) were in general too demanding on men to fulfill with more than one wife. King David had 18 wives, and the Midrash brings down that this strained even he, the King of all Israel. Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with the Bible in theory, this explains the difference between the child's status if the father or mother was married. If we are not talking about one of the other forbidden relationships (incestual or otherwise) whose punishment is divine excommunication and early death from Heaven (Kares), and the only illegitamicy comes from the marital status of one of the partners, then if the man is the married partner, his having sex and a child from an unmarried woman is viewed as tantamount to marrying her (there are three biblical methods of entering a marriage, and having sexual relations with intent to consumate a marriage is one of them). A woman cannot use this loophole as she is not allowed to have two husbands, so perforce the child is a mamzer.

As mentioned, in practice polygamy was a rarity. In approximately the 10th century, one of the greatest of the European rabbinical leaders, Gershom ben Judah, impelented a prohibition against polygamy for 1,000 years. Although this is technically expired, most modern rabbinic authorities believe that this has taken on the status of a minhag yisrael, or an ancient minhag which is treated for the most part as halakha.

The heter me'ah rabbanan, or "Permission of 100 rabbis" is a loophole built into the rabbinic prohibition preventing polygamy, usually used in cases where divorce is impossible; for example, a woman who is declared insane cannot accept a Jewish divorce, as she must be of sound mind to effect the breaking of the relationship. As such, the husband is still required to care for her. However, as normal husband-wife interactions (emotional etc.) are impossible, he would be allowed, by obtaining this permission, to remarry. This is not a release from the marriage, but a legal instance of Jewish polygamy in the modern era. This is usually not secular/legal polygamy, as a secular divorce is granted, and the courts can break a marriage even with a woman who is not well.

So, the AI statement that this is a "release" is technically a misinterpretation and misunderstanding of Jewish law, but I have not changed the text, because it is what they wrote, and any correction I would make based on my own knowledge of Rabbinic law is considered original research.

Suggestions? -- Avi 14:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is one of those points where Wikipedia OR rules prove irritatingly bothersome. There should not be a policy which prevents you from giving well-sourced citations about why AI is somewhat wrong about Judaic law. Sadly, the prevailing interpretation of WP:NOR seems to be that this is in fact forbidden.  I'm not sure what is to be done about this. john k 23:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

So much for the marriage rights - can she sit in the front of the bus now.159.105.80.63 18:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Fence/Security Barrier
The section about the fence is in really bad shape - it's very POV, and doesn't even explain why the barrier was built. I want to make some changes there, but I'd like to see if there are any objections first.

okedem 10:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The name of the section (and the link to the main article) will be changed from "West Bank Wall" to "Israeli West Bank barrier", as the name of main article. The name "wall" is very misleading, as the barrier is 95% fence, and only 5% wall.
 * 2) "A controversial wall built by the Israeli Government around areas of occupied territory in the West Bank has drawn much controversy." ---> "A physical barrier, comprised mainly of fences and trenches, built by the Israeli Government which has been the center of much controversy. It is located partly within the West Bank, partly along the border between the West Bank and Israel proper."
 * 3) There's no explanation why the barrier was built! - I'll add something, like: "The barrier's stated purpose is "to keep the terrorists out and thereby save the lives of Israel's citizens, Jews and Arabs alike."".
 * 4) I'll also add something about it's effectiveness, from this paragraph (from the main article): "Israeli statistics indicate that the barrier has drastically reduced the number of Palestinian infiltrations and suicide bombings and other attacks on civilians in Israel and in Israeli settlements, and Israeli officials assert that completion of the barrier will make it even more effective in stopping these attacks since "An absolute halt in terrorist activities has been noticed in the West Bank areas where the fence has been constructed".  "
 * 5) "The Israeli government is known to refer to the wall euphemistically as a "security barrier", though this wording is not used by the international community." --> This sentence will be deleted. It's highly POV.
 * 6) "The wall was also condemned by the International Court of Justice..." --> "The building of the barrier inside the west bank was also condemned by the International Court of Justice..." - The source says it's about building it inside the west bank, not the sole act of building it.
 * 7) "the Israeli Supreme Court ruled: "The route [of the West Bank Wall] disrupts..." --> "the Israeli Supreme Court ruled, concerning a strech of the barrier to the north-west of Jerusalem: "The route [of the West Bank Barrier] disrupts... "


 * Well and fairly done. Thank you. -- Avi 21:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Way to go, you deleted the "wall" wording used in all the sources and by the international community and replaced it with the euphemisms used only by Zionists and the Israeli gov't.  The whole section is so much less POV now that you "fixed" it. Sarastro777 05:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed it so it used the actual name, and not that absurd "wall" thing, which makes no sense, as only 5% of the barrier is a wall, and the rest is a fence. Thus, the word "barrier" best describes it, as it's neither completely wall nor fence. If you can offer better ways of phrasing that section, we should discuss them. okedem 06:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The sources list wall. Your opinion doesn't count for anything... and you certainly are not an authority above the International Court of Justice, Amnesty International, the United Nations, etc. None of them use YOUR wording. Sarastro777 01:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you implying that Amnesty International is not biased? Are you implying that UN resolutions, which constantly put 40+ Arab nations against the one Jewish nation not biased?  It is hard to find middle ground, but Amenesty is definately not it.  The official name for the fence by the internationally recognized Israeli government is "security fence." |Israel Ministry of Defence  I advise you go see the "wall" for yourself, you could find media lies too. --יהושועEric 02:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It is irrelevant what some sources call it, and it has nothing to do with my opinion either. The fact of the matter is that despite the Palestinian propaganda campaign, it's still only 5% wall, and 95% fence, and so the name "wall" would be completely misleading.
 * Here in Wikipedia we call things by their proper names, not by names used to advance a POV, like "the wall" - an obvious, and fallacious, reference to the Berlin Wall. okedem 09:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

religious freedom section reorg
reorged along the following lines: please note NOTHING WAS DELETED--just reorged for clarityElizmr 15:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * statement of the law
 * Israel's record in protecting Muslim rights to worship including funding (could be expanded)
 * non-Jewish religious institutions in Israel
 * Israel's record regarding non-Orthodox religious movements

Rights of Women
For some reason people keep removing this section. Could they please explain why they keep removing the following cited, relevant information:

Rights of Women
In it's 2005 report to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women Comments by Amnesty International on the compliance by Israel with its obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), Amnesty International notes its concern about agunot (chained women): "Jewish religious divorce laws discriminate against women by making divorce for a woman conditional on her husband’s consent, whereas a man can be "released" from his marriage through the signature of 100 rabbis. Even though religious courts can take certain measures (including imposing fines and even prison sentences) against a husband whose refusal to grant a divorce to his wife is considered unjustified by the competent religious authorities, ultimately a woman whose husband refuses to grant her a get (divorce decree) has no recourse." Amnesty International also criticizes the custom that the illegitimate children of married Jewish women are considered mamzerim who face restrictions and stigma, yet the illegitimate children of married Jewish men are not. According to Amnesty International, "These discriminatory laws prevent women who find themselves in unhappy marriages, or whose husbands beat them up, rape them or otherwise abuse them, to obtain divorce if their husbands refuse. These laws and their implementation violate the right to equality and the right to marry and found a family."

It's clearly about human rights in Israel and it's fulfillments of it's obligations to the UN human rights convention on the rights of women (CEDAW) and so is EXTREMELY relevant to this page. FuManChoo 10:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Where does it say Israel? Read the title of the article. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Where does it say Israel? Where does it say Israel? ALL OVER THE REPORT. Read it. :


 * Amnesty International is submitting this briefing to the UN CEDAW Committee ahead of its consideration of Israel’s third periodic report(1) on the implementation by Israel of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), to which Israel became a state party on 2 November 1991, with reservation to Articles 7(b) and 16.(2)


 * This briefing focuses on Amnesty International’s concern about some aspects of violence and discrimination against women, including trafficking of women for forced prostitution and discriminatory policies and practices against women migrant workers in Israel. The organization notes a number of positive measures taken by the Israeli authorities in recent years, including the enactment of laws aimed at increasing the protection of women’s rights, and highlights outstanding concerns which have not been addressed or which require further measures.


 * Stop wasting my time. This is ridiculous, even for you. This report is obviously about Israel. FuManChoo 10:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why don't you stop wasting our time? The policies criticized bt AI in that section have to do with Judaic practice - they have nothing more to do with "human rights" in Israel than they do with "human rights" in the USA, or in France or in Argentina. These religious practices are not official policy or law of Israel, and are not binding on anyone but those who adhere, out of personal choice, to a certain relgious practice. Catholics do not eat meat on Fridays, are we going to create an article about "Human Rights in Spain" that denounces that practice? Isarig 17:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, Israel is a Jewish state and most of it's inhabitants obey Jewish religious law. For example there are no civil marriages in Israel and many citizens have to travel elsewhere just to get married. Jewish custom is relevant to human rights in Israel as the practice of Sharia law is to human rights in Ethiopia. Besides, this report is about Israel's fulfillment of the convention. FuManChoo 02:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And Argentina is a Catholic state - so are we going to create an article about "Human Rights in Argentina" that denounces the practice of not eatignmeat on Fridays? Nevermind the fact that you conflate the concept of a Jewish state, which is an ethnic, not religions designation, with the concept of a state that has Judaism as an offical religion (which Israel does not). If you want to add to the article that Israel has no civil marriage - go ahead, but stop wasting our time with complaints about Judaism's view on children born out of wedlock. Your analogy is telling - Sharia law is th elaw in Ethiopia. Judaic law is not the law in IsrealIsarig 02:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If judaic law is not the law in Israel why do so many of it's citizens have to travel outside ust to get married? It's officially an orthodox Jewish state. It's not a secular state.


 * It's also telling that you compare people being forced not to marry each other to not eating meat on Fridays. As a more valid analogy, it would be valid in a "Human Rights in Argentina" article to comment on abortions if they weren't allowed due to Catholicism (I don't actually know whether they are or not in Argentina). FuManChoo 02:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, you don;t know what you are talking about. IUsreal is not officialy an orthodox Jewish state, it has no official state religion. Kindly learn something about this topic. Isarig 03:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Fu, It is true that the agunah problem is a serious one for some orthodox Jewish women and their kids. Many in the Orthodox Jewish feminist community are working to address it. However it is not an official Israeli policy; Isarig is correct. Respectfully, please consider investigating your facts before editing. Elizmr 02:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The human rights situation in a country is not just the official policies of the state; the actual religious practices of the inhabitants are included as well. For instance, female circumcision may not be an official policy in North African countries, but it is a human rights issue. FuManChoo 03:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how to answer this, but most of the women in Israel are not orthodox and are not affected by this at all. In Egypt more than 95% of women are circumsized according to the UN.  Elizmr 13:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing that section, again. It's about rights of women in Judaism, not in Israel. If someone chooses to engage in a religious Jewish marriage, they accept these facts. Don't want to - don't get married like that. These problems have nothing to do with state laws, or rights. Besides, that section makes it look like Jews are the only ones in the country - anyone forgetting the 20% Arab minority? okedem 08:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Leftist Bias
The article completely and shamefully lacks another side of injustice: Israel persecuting conservative and religious activists and discriminating against Jews. It is a matter of common knowledge, supported by myriad sources, that Israel regularly keeps conservative Jews in administrative detention for half a year without bringing charges. That includes women and minors, as well as many known figures such as Federman, Marzel, Feiglin, ben Gvir, Tor. Israel also sentenced minors on purely political charges of protesting disengagement from Gaza. Israel routinely destroys illegally built Jewish homes, but almost never - any of the tens of thousands illegally built Arab houses. Israel requires pre-approving of Jewish real estate purchases in Hebron, using that time to discourage Arab sellers (selling houses to Jews is a capital offense in Palestinian Authority), but has no equivalent policy toward Arabs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.143.235.76 (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * False. okedem 09:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

i suggest a further section about human rights in israel that is the human rights of israelis to live in peace. the article ignores totaly 60 years of arab/palestinian infringement of israeli human rights. i suppose you cannot understand the israeli so called crimes unless you balance that with arab crimes against israelis.the automatic majority the arabs get in UN institutions is used to stifle any attempt to make official what i describe here. so many documentations there are to prove what i mean,that there is no excuse to neglect the ordinary israeli citizen's human rights abuse by external forces. until these subjects be met,one cannot call the article objective or a high quality product. it is quite amateurish and misleading. even propogandish

Sex as a Weapon
I added a section on Israeli forces using sex as a weopon. THe sources are valid. HaAretz News - an Israeli newspaper, and YNetnews, which is used all over wikipedia by pro-Israel people. THese are mainstream sources. If it is removed without discussion again, I will report the Hasbarah agent who does it. You may clean up the language, and you can find other sourced information, but you may not remove sourced, germane, information simply because it reflects a reality you do not like. 82.81.234.133 10:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest you don't call other editors "Hasbara agents" just because they don't agree with you. I've deleted your material, and have explained why in the edit summaries. Had you bothered to ask instead of reinserting the info, and attacking other people, you would have seen why I deleted it before.
 * You didn't even bother reading the article, and inserted the Dirani info, when it was already present in "Treatment of prisoners". okedem 11:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you didn't like the DIrani repeat, you should have removed THAT part, but your removal of sourced information on castration and rape from valid sources is just underlying your attempts at hasbarah. These are basic and profound human rights violations that deserve mention. I did read your summary. It was rediculous. Now Ynetnews and Haaretz are "fringe information?" Remove the information again, and I'm going to arbitration. YOu are trying to use wikipedia to promote your own political ideology. This is not a hasbarah site. 82.81.234.133 18:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've explained the deletions in detail. For you, I'll do so again:
 * "Israeli police have used sexual brutilization as a weapon against discidents and demonstrators. Neturei Karta founder Amram Blau sufffered blunt force castration by Israeli police during demonstrations against Zionism. http://www.guiltandpleasure.com/issue2articles/wedonotbelievewewillnotfollow.pdf" - This source is completely non-notable. Moreso, the exact quote was "In the 1950s, during one of these demonstrations, Neturai Karta co-founder Blau suffered a blow to his testicles that rendered him sterile." - So, we're talking about something from the 1950s. How very relevant. The article doesn't even say it was a police officer that did so; it doesn't say whether Blau used violence first; it doesn't say that it was a tactic - it could have just been a misdirected blow, hitting him in the testicles by accident. But you've taken this non-notable source, which gives basically no information, and twisted it around.
 * "This tactic was also shown being used in the Amona dismantlement in video taken by the demonstrators." - This tactic? You haven't even shown it a tactic. But even if it was - this is completely unsourced.
 * "Female settlers involved in the Amona clashes between settlers and police also have come forward with similar stories of sex being used as a weapon by Israeli troops. One young woman reported, "Police officers broke into the home where we were sitting on the floor and hugging. They broke through the door, broke windows, and saw us. There was a moment of hesitation. One of the police officers suddenly yelled: Treat them like boys! They started hitting us. We yelled at them: We want to get out of here. Please let us get out! But they responded: 'We'll rape you.'" The soldiers and police "Touched female bodies 'Not in order to arrest or move them, but to really grope intimate body parts,'" according to young women involved in the clashes." (source was YnetNews) - Sure, the source is notable, but what does it actually say? Saying to someone "I'll fuck you" isn't using sex as a weapon, at most, it's sexual harrasment or intimidation. Since the settlers claims were not verified by any neutral party, quoting it here is absurd. These settlers were breaking the law, disobeying direct government and police orders, and fighting against the Disengagement plan using whatever means they could, legal and illegal. Their claims are hardly reliable.
 * You, by the way, seem to have gotten confused with your own arguments, as you've claimed I removed "sourced information on castration and rape" - none of the claims spoke of rape, except the Dirani claim, which was already in the article.
 * So there. These are the reasons. Don't threaten me with arbitrations. All my actions have been taken in good faith, and have been explained in full. I, unlike you, have not personally attacked anyone, or assumed bad faith. okedem 19:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

YOu seem to have a fascist idea of what human rights are. Human rights violations ALWAYS happen against those who break the law. SOmetimes the law is just, sometimes unjust. THat really doesn't matter here. It becomes a human rights violation when the punishment goes beyond what is due to a human being engaged in that action. SMashing a man's testicles is a human rights violation. Threatening girls involved in civil disobedience with rape is a human rights violation. (Even if they were firing guns at the police, to threaten them with rape as a punishment is a human rights violation. These young women were sitting on the floor in an act of civil disobedience..) Having Homosexual Jews rape a Lebonese man is a human rights violation, and deserves mention in the section of the article discussing such actions. Not everyone reads an entire article. It could be somebody is interested specifically in how Israel uses homosexual assault and rape threats to control citizens and abducted foreignors. If you would like a parenthetical statement. (See other section of article for more detail) that is fine; in fact I will change it to read that a person should see the section on the rape to see another example. And the article is about human rights in Israel. SOmething that happened in the 50's is relevant because it happened in Israel. If you want to argue it doesn't happen anymore, fine. Put that in with a source. About good faith, the wikipedia policy is to ASSUME good faith. An assumption lasts only as long as it is not overturned. YOur other edits indicate you edit soley in apro-Israel hasbarah way. I do not have to continue to assume goodfaith after you have shown a propenstiy to use wikipedia to further your political stance. 82.81.234.133 08:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sick of this. I've explained to you, in detail, the reasons for the deletion. You refuse to reply to these reasons, or have very poor reading skills.
 * I've listed the problems with your 1950s case.
 * The "breaking the law" claim is not to justify taking sexual measures against people, but to doubt their credibility. Without impartial confirmation, the girls' claim is worthless.
 * The Dirani case is already mentioned.
 * Try to answer what I actually said, instead of what you think I believe. okedem 12:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm also sick of a student sitting in the country under discussion single handidly erasing an entire section of an article that is important in getting an idea of the situation on the ground simply becaus he does not want the rest of the world to see that his country has problems it needs to work out. YOu edit only in a hasbarah way. THat is your only activity on wikipedia. 1) You have listed the problems with the 1950s case, and you have concocted them all. THe source is guilt and Pleasure, a reputable magazine. The fact that the article is about a group you don't like, or that the human rights violation took place in the 50's doesn't matter. It is a human rights violation of the sort the section you delete singlehandidly is about. 2)Because people are engaged in civil disobedience does not mean when they report something police did they are not believable. It may mean they must be listed as claims. Yes, but considering those police undoubtably and in photagraphic and video evidence are seen using brutality, including sexual brutality, and they are the police force of a nation with a negative human rights record, and were under the command of men who cannot leave the nation without being arrested for war crimes, the claims of dozens of girls who all claim to have experienced the same thing does deserve to be mentioned. Besides, and most importantly, if the claims were notable enough to mentioned ina news article, they are notable enough to mentioned here. 3) Thank you for repeating your Dirani argument again. As I said before. That is fine, and this time it will be placed in wording similar to :"For the famous case of Shin Bet's rape of Lebanese leader Dirani, see that section." I'm fixing and getting more sources then reposting the section. I understand you are in Tel Aviv, so I just ask that you be polite and not rape any of my relatives after I do. 88.154.234.14 08:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, you should not be editing this article at all, and if you continue to, I will report you. YOu are an adult citizen of the state of Israel, and thus, by law, have served in the IDF. Since you are a member of the organization under discussion, who may or may not be culpable in the crimes under discussion, you may not edit this page. You are not impartial. 88.154.234.14 17:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Stop the personal attacks, or I will make sure your edits are reverted without discussion, and you will be banned, whenever you try to make such edits. Don't tell me which pages to edit. That, again, is a personal attack.
 * "guilt and Pleasure" is not a reputable magazine. It's non-notable, and has only existed for one year.
 * You, again, refuse to address the points about the 1950s case. What you claimed isn't backed up by the source.
 * You talk about video evidence, but have yet to show any, or link to a respectable source in the matter.
 * The girls' claims are not worthy of mention, since they're not backed up by anything, have not been confirmed by any objective source. If we start mentioning every little claim that appeared on a news site, we'd be a news site, not an encyclopedia.
 * The Dirani case is already mentioned, in the appropriate section.
 * Mind this - even if your claims were true and properly sourced, they'd still be OR - you don't have the authority to take a few cases and make a conclusive argument using them. Drawing conclusions is OR, and not our job. If Amnesty International, HRW, or another notable organization, claims Israel uses sex as a weapon against demonstrators, it's worthy of mention. Otherwise - we will have no such section here. okedem 17:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not a [personal attack it is wikipedia policy. YOu are not permitted to edit this article because you are party to an outside conflict. You are a conscript or reservist in the IDF, which is under discussion here. As a party to an outside conflict you may not edit articles pertaining to that conflict as you cannot be impartial. I will report you if you continue to do so. 88.154.234.14 17:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You also live in Israel; by your (ill-)logic you cannot edit either. Okedem has as much right to edit as you do, please refrain from your ad-hominem attacks. Thank you. -- Avi 17:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Who said I live in Israel? And I'm sorry but WIkipedia policy is a party to an outside conflict (for example a soldier in the Israeli army) cannot edit an article concerning that conflict. 88.154.234.14 17:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your IP addresses are from Israel.
 * Either quote said policy, or back off. okedem 18:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as how any Israeli Citizen is possibly connected to the IDF. None of you should be editing this page as your objectivity is immediately put into question. I find it hard to believe that there is next-to-nothing of Israel's human right violations in this article, seeing as how not even the freest countries are free from such violations. Just because Amnesty or other such organization don't report on something, doesn't mean it does not exist. This article should not be taken objectively. 69.231.66.21 06:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The identity of the editor is meaningless, only the validity of their edits. You obviously still fail to get that.
 * Any info from respectable sources will be considered. Otherwise - it's irrelevant. okedem 08:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No matter how irrelevant you wish us to believe it to be, the identity of the editor brings the validity of their edits into question. Why would an Israeli consider something from an Arab source to be respectable? They wouldn't. And you've proven that with your utter disregard for others sources or claims that you are subjective, not objective, about what is reputable and what isn't. Mind you, I'm new to this discussion and came about this page through my research- Israel's human right abuses are widely known with or without this Wiki-article. My only point is that the reason Wiki is hardly taken seriously or objectively is because of edits like yours. But I imagine you don't care at all about objectivity in the first place, so it doesn't matter. I repeat: This article should remain disputed as an non-objective source. 69.231.32.51 08:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Article move
Is anyone opposed to moving this article to Human rights and Isreal (like Human rights and the United States), as a large portion of this article deal with events outside Isreal? —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 21:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Difficult. It looks like 1/2 of the article is about human rights in Israel proper, and the rest is about Israel's record in the palestinian territories.  There is another article about human rights in the palestinian territories outside of Israel's influence.  The title you suggest works for part 2 of above, but not part one.  Bigglove 17:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Returning to this article after sometime I noticed that editors are starting to ( probably have been doing this for some time ) delete embarrassing information. They are tending to call anything they don't like - abuse of something or even the dreaded vandalism or inappropriate blahblahblah. I remember this distinctly because I put a report from Haaretz? about a Jewish woman who was taking the bus company to court because she was being physically forced to sit in the back. I am sure I placed it here because the editors forgot to clear out the reference to it in my talk file ( have Jimbo get you guys to tighten this up - it starts to look sloppy. Anyway - foer an appropriate addition to the section on WOMEN'S STATUS, you might want to beef up the insipid thrip you have with some real info. 159.105.80.141 (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Specific cases are simply not of the appropriate scope for such an article. If you have a source concerning full academic studies, that would be good. okedem (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt there are too many academic studies on the Israeli bus system - help me if you know of any. Usually Haaretz is considered a reliable source - as I assume is the Israeli court system. However, the court case turns out, I doubt this will merit too many reliable academic sources. "Specific cases" - I believe this is all women ( Jewish, Christian, Muslem, etc ) who can not ride except in the back of the bus - maybe not de jure but ... no it's de jure if I recall correctly.159.105.80.141 (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity I decide to surf the web and see how far down the memory/rabbit hole this "women in the back of the bus" story had been buried. Typying "israel women back bus" gave me mega hits - documented up the kazo as we say here. This is a major story in most Jewish communities - except of course for wiki - I am glad I decided to check it out and find that it is a fairly bad problem in Israeli society - and not just riding in the back of the bus it appears. Jewish women have websites, newspapers, etc fighting to get off the back of the bus in many areas. Thanks for the push.159.105.80.141 (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What the hell are you talking about? What you said has no basis in reality. All women? I guess I should tell all the women in our local bus lines they have to ride in the back. "An anonymous guy on wiki said you have to move. It's "de jure", he claims!" What a load of bull.
 * What you did, is take a single point, and take it completely out of context, to incredibly misleading levels.
 * Here's what actually happens - the are a few bus lines to major Ultra-Orthodox areas, like section of the city of Beit-Shemesh, which are operated by a subsidiary of Egged (the largest bus company). These lines are supposed to serve the Ultra-Orthodox community, where there's usually some separation between men and women in public places. In these very few lines women are expected to sit in the back. A problem usually arises when secular women want to get on, instead of waiting for one of the regular bus lines. It has nothing to do with law, and nothing can be done if a woman refuses to sit in the back. Of course, some Haredis try to use violence, but these are simply criminals, and have nothing to do with the rule of law. The very practice is in fact obviously against Israel's basic laws, and so will not stand up in court.
 * In all of the rest of Israel, in the many many hundreds of bus line, operated by a dozen companies, ridden by millions of men and women - everyone sits wherever they damn well please.
 * Now you took a small, local problem, and made it appear as though women everywhere in Israel are oppressed like the blacks of 1960s southern US. Nice spin! okedem (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"nothing can be done if a woman refuses to sit in the back" - then why does she have to go to court? It appears that her sitting up front was met with more than tsk tsk. Searching "israel women back bus" will clear this up quickly for those interested in the truth and getting some "reliable" sources. The "back of the bus" is only one minor problem. If the object is to minimize the "status" issue then maybe the article should just ignore it rather than say there are no problems.159.105.80.141 (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)PS Enjoy seeing Derchowitz defending - actually denying - activities that even rather uninformed Americans have seen for themselves on TV - he is always a pleasure to read about.


 * So the court will provide for the enforcement of the law, as some think the law doesn't apply to them. Yes, searching for that will clear up your completely false account here. Don't talk about things you know nothing about, and don't try to deceive people on this talk page. okedem (talk) 12:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that one tough woman from NYC caused such a stink over in the Promised Land, but they should have quessed they were stepping in it when they forced her to the back. She was not the first - just she got a lawyer to clarify the law versus tradition ( it is unsure as to who will win). Always check - in many places - to verify whether "completely false accounts" and "things you know nothing about" and "deceive" are accurate - heck I was only looking for the status of Jewish women ( why bother with Palestinian, Christian,... that would be too distressing).159.105.80.141 (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Stop wasting our time. The reality is exactly as I wrote it. The issue exists in a very small number of bus lines in mainly Ultra-Orthodox areas, and has no relevance for the overwhelming majority of the women in Israel. It has nothing to do with law, and whatever some crazy Haredi men think they can do, they're criminals, that need to be handled by the police. The law of Israel does not provide for any such separation, and it is strictly prohibited. okedem (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Then the woman would not be able to go to court for a remedy. Unless Israeli law allows a person to go to court just for entertainment, she - and her lawyer - must be fighting an actual law. I think you should look up some info on this case - the internet, newspapers, a lawyer maybe ... should help. I hate to see a section with nothing in it and/or have it full of obvious garbage - particularly about my distant relatives.159.105.80.141 (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter what you think might be. There's no law about it, in fact it's against the law. Stop distorting reality for your end. Good day. okedem (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Good day - looked up Naomi Ragen - she has a website. Her personally you can put in the back of the bus with my blessings( after reading some of her junk ). You are right - partially, but not much. The government sit up segregated buses, and it turns out lots/few other segregated things ( gates to the Wall,etc - amuse yourself extend the list to your heart's desire or not). By the way there was a short lived stink when the Orthodox tried to not have female stewardesses serve them on flights here in the US a few years back - it was never publicized as to what finally happened ( I hope they were told to take a boat). I'll check next time I fly to see if the airlines quietly caved in or not. I guess Ms Ragen et al launched a lawsuit saying the government couldn't set up bus service that "discriminated". "Separate but equal" - echoes of S Africa and the good old days in the USA - it wasn't really the law here either ( Jim Crow ). The case should be decided soon I believe - it could be really embarrassing or traumatic depending on your views I guess.It is strange how in Israel you can take a nonlegal matter all the way to the Supreme Court - a civil matter if it is true that separate but equl is legal in Israel. Any info as to why/how the court took on a civil lawsuit? PS The section on women's rights should be a little more hefty - or just erased ( there my constructive hint for a better article. As it stands it just loooks evasive and goofy ( goofy is worse). 159.105.80.141 (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There can be separation when dealing with religious things, since the religious establishment holds that, traditionally, men and women should not intermix. That's fine by me, and by most. You don't like - don't follow that religion. The problem arises when some try to apply that sort of thinking to secular things, like buses.
 * The buses in question have nothing to do with the government, except that the government gave the company a license to operate lines there. The segregated bus lines are basically a private initiative, but the Egged bus company, to "better serve" their ultra-orthodox passengers. I do suppose the company receives subsidies for these lines like they do for all others. The Israeli high court discusses many matters, not relating to the law itself, but to the actions of government bodies, etc. I suppose she's requesting the court the instruct the state to withdraw the license, or subsidies, for this bus service.
 * I say again - this is a local matter, affecting very few people, in mainly ultra-orthodox areas, and comes from their own belief system. okedem (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Israeli wikipedia 'logic": A STATEMENT by the ADL or US Government run "Freedom House" re "the only democracy in the ME" is "fact". a PICTURE of a boy tied to a jeep, along with his name, and published by the BBC is a "claim by activists", and the picture itself CANNOT come in as evidence to prove that it is not a claim, but DOCUMENTED fact. A link to a website which hosts the same picture or videotape CANNOT be used because the site 'promotes hate" and in 'inherently unreliable". Boy, I'll get my arms around that one soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.234.121.15 (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Human shields
here is the proof the image is rightful. (Imad marie (talk) 13:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC))
 * The image is copyright-protected and will be removed from Wikipedia, so please do not add it again. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Schrodingers Mongoose, what is your objection to the caption? it says: "Activists claim Mohammed Badwan was tied to the jeep by police" which is neutral in my opinion, it is the same caption in the BBC site. (Imad marie (talk) 06:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC))


 * The issues are Weasel Words and POV. "Activists" are not a neutral source, and there is no substantiation for their claims.Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There are no weasel words, I used the exact words used in BBC site. Even if there is no substantiation for their claims, the claims should be published as long as they have been cited by a reliable reference. Imad marie (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, mere claims do not warrant mention here.
 * For example, the Palestinians actually claimed a few years back (sources won't be hard to find, I'm sure) that Israel used depleted Uranium shells against them. An extremely ridicules claim, of course, as depleted Uranium shells are used against very heavy armor (as the Uranium is very heavy and strong), and the Palestinians don't even have light armor. Of course, no evidence was ever provided for the claim. Should we list that one too?
 * This article isn't called "Unbased claims of Human rights infringements", and should deal with facts, not unsubstantiated claims. okedem (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm unaware of this claim, but if it was cited by a reliable reference, then yes it should be included. To be fair, what we should include is: "Palestinian authority claimed the IDF has used depleted Uranium shells against them, however no evidence was found to support this claim ", this is wikipedia policy. But when you say: "Palestinians don't even have light armor, and therefore Israel didn't need to use the weapon", then this is your own original research, and it really does not count in the argument... Imad marie (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The same goes for the 2006 war, if you don't like what my sources say, find your own sources that object to what my sources say, that says for example: "the use of white phosphorus shells was justified according to international laws". No one can stop adding sourced content to the article as long as it's notable. Imad marie (talk) 06:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The following is quoted from the Allegations of war crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War article: "Amnesty International published a report identifying evidence of the destruction of entire civilian neighbourhoods and villages by Israeli forces" and then "Israel defends itself from such allegations on the grounds that Hezbollah's use of roads and bridges for military purposes made them legitimate targets."
 * The article presents all the facts, criticism and defense, this is not "spurious" as you have described it, wikipedia does not censor any information. Imad marie (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Then you just don't get it. This article isn't about baseless/false allegations. It's about actual human rights infringements. If a claim had no evidence, and/or was found to be false, there's no point in discussing it. Same goes for claims that aren't actually about human rights infringements (shutting down an airport, for instance). okedem (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems we will not reach an agreement, I will request Third opinion. Imad marie (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

2006 Lebanon war
The content I added is sourced, notable, and relevant. Okedem, justify your removal of the content. Imad marie (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The whole thing gives undue weight to the claims of HRW and AI, which treat claims as facts, and give a completely false interpretation of international law.
 * The image is not fair use.
 * You claim "human shields" were used in the Lebanon war, but the source makes no such claim.
 * You list the number of Lebanese deaths, as if those are all the result of war crimes. That's highly misleading. Many were actually combatants, which Hezbollah tries to claim were just civilians. Others died as a result of legal and acceptable use of force, of Israel exercising its right to self defence, after a cross-border attack from Lebanon.
 * In a war, civilians die. That is the inescapable result of it, especially when one side constantly operates out of populated areas, as Hezbollah did (like launching rockets from villages). A country has a right to self defense, even if that means deaths of civilians from the other side. This is the meaning of sovereignty - a country (Lebanon) is responsible for attacks launched from its territory. As it failed to prevent Hezbollah from controlling South Lebanon, it cannot claim to be innocent, nor can the Lebanese civilians there.
 * Cluster bombs aren't prohibited, like you falsely claim. They are not to be used on populated areas, not prohibited completely. Most or all cluster bombs fired by Israel were to open areas, to stop Hezbollah movement and activity there.
 * You misleadingly claim that phosphorus is prohibited, it is not, and Israel admitted to no illegal use. Phosphorus can be used against military targets in open terrain, and this is what Israel admitted to.
 * There is little distinction between civilian infrastructure and military infrastructure. A country defending itself has every right to attack strategic targets, such as airports, bridges, and power plants. These are all legitimate targets during war. Mind you, Israel did little actual damage to these targets - like the airport - Israel did not attack the landing strips, the terminal, the hangars, the control tower, the parked planes, or same such; it only attacked the junction of the taxi way (small stretch of road, easily repairable after the war, but prevents use of the airport), and the fuel tanks. This shows a very clear intention to avoid unnecessary damage.
 * The claim that hospitals were shelled requires much more evidence that some AI document.
 * okedem (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okedem, I'm not going to get into a discussion with you about this because wikipedia is not a discussion form. The thing that we should discuss here is whether the content should be added or removed, that is according to wikipedia policies. This article talks human rights related to Israel, any sourced content regarding this should be added, even if you disagree with it, or you think that Israel actions were justified during the war. Imad marie (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, this isn't a database of baseless claims. We deal with facts, in a concise manner. And that is facts from good sources, not HRW. Also, it means not distorting sources' claims, as you have done in this case. okedem (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * First, HRW is a reliable source for sure. Second, you are being unclear in your claims, how did I distore the facts exactly? I am a critic editor of Israel, this is a clear fact, accept the criticism as long as it's being properly sources. Imad marie (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, HRW can make claims, but its reliability for facts is doubtful.
 * I've listed how you misrepresented the source.
 * Criticism is fine. There's a lot to criticize, but not every spurious claim deserves mention. Specifically, claims which have not been confirmed, and claims which actually have nothing to do with war crimes, shouldn't be mentioned. okedem (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are not being objective in your discussions, HRW is a reliable source for sure and I think any admin would agree to that. And, sorry to tell you that, your personal opinion on this does not really matter here, what really matters is the material being cited in the reference. My advice for you, is to go through wikipedia policies, if you find that the content I added violates any policy, then please tell me and I will self-revert. Until then, I will add the content back, please do not remove it unless you are sure I have violated a wikipedia policy. Imad marie (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I find it distasteful that you choose to ignore my specific points about your misrepresentation of sources, and add material in dispute to the article. I've made specific points, which aren't my personal opinions, but facts, or common interpretations (self-defense). You chose to ignore them. I explained why mere claims aren't enough, and you ignore.
 * I'll also remind you, that you are in violation of 3RR, and ask you to self-revert. okedem (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It can't seriously be argued that HRW is not reliable enough to include their findings in the form, "According to HRW..." Even the most cursory survey shows that HRW is one of the most frequently cited sources on human rights issues; that search brings up Reuters, the Guardian, Voice of America, the AP, the AFP, the Boston Globe, the Telegraph, etc etc etc. Yes, I am aware that Israeli groups charge that HRW is pursuing a nefarious vendetta against Zionism; this is the same charge that every country makes when HRW finds something negative about them, it is utterly predictable and unremarkable, and it does nothing to diminish the status of HRW as among the most reputable and reliable sources available on human rights.
 * Now, it may be that some of the specific aspects of Imad's edits were problematic. If you find an assertion that is not in the given source, I suggest you tag it, and we'll be able to see specifically what is disputed. If something is misleadingly worded, I suggest  or  . Mass removal of content based on objection to certain relatively minor aspects of wording or sourcing is frowned upon. This is especially true in light of the recent arbitration. There is no emergency here; specify your objections to the wording, and we will take it from there. (Note: your objections to the wording, not your objections to the claims made in the sources themselves; your personal views on international humanitarian law are not overly relevant.)  &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 15:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * First off, the change being made here was Imad adding this material to the stable version. I object to it, and so the "burden of proof", so to speak, falls on him. He has decided to edit war, instead of making a case for his claims on the talk page, as he should. I'm reverting to the stable version.
 * I've detailed some of the problems in his wording, above, but he refuses to answer to the point.
 * His wording makes it appear as though shutting down an airport is a war crime, or a human rights violation. It is not. His wording makes it appear as though the aforementioned weapons are prohibited. They are not. He claims Israel was accused of using human shields in Lebanon. it was not. His wording makes it appear as though Israel was intentionally attacking civilians, when even his source doesn't make that claim. The mere death of civilians is not a war crime, only intentional attacks on known civilians (no, not civilian infrastructure, actual people).
 * Adding all that material, with false descriptions and claims, and one sided views from a biased source is unacceptable. By adding such claims he is inserting his own view that Israel basically has no right to self-defense, and should just let Lebanon attack it whenever it wants to, with no response. The distinction between Hizbollah and Lebanon is a charitable distinction by Israel, and Israel went beyond what it's required to do, and tried to avoid civilian casualties. A sovereign country is responsible for any actions from its territory. okedem (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as "stable version", anyone is free to add his content as long it's relevant and sourced. I did not say that Israel used human shields in Lebanon, I said: "activists claimed that Israel used human shields in Palestine" which is the exact words in the BBC site, so you really have no cause at all to object to what I added. Also, according to international laws, it is a crime of war to attack civilian infrastructure, which Israel did in the Lebanon war, this is not my personal opinion, this is according to HRW. The thing you must understand Okedem is that your personal opinion about this does not really matter, sorry to say that. If you want to make a point, search for sources that would say the opposite to what I claim, and you are free to add it to the article. Imad marie (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You obviously don't know Wikipedia well enough. The concept of stable version is commonly used here. The point is, that the editor who wants to make a change bears the burden of justifying it if there are objections.
 * Human Shields - let me quote you - "The human rights watch and other organizations have accused Israel of committing war crimes in the 2006 Lebanon war. These allegations included intentional attacks on civilian populations or infrastructure, the use of human shields, and the use of prohibited weapons." Your words.
 * Can you cite international law on that? It doesn't even matter, anyway. As all of the targets attacked were used by Hezbollah, they were legitimate targets. Just because HRW claims something is a war crime, doesn't make it so, and doesn't make it a human rights violation.
 * I say again, what you seem to not understand - this article is about facts, not baseless claims, no matter how many sources you bring to support the fact that someone made the claim.
 * Anyway, non of this matters. This article is about "Human rights in Israel", which excludes events outside Israel. There's a separate article about the issue, and that's enough. okedem (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Eleland has suggested that we restore the content, and then Okedem points to the "words" that thinks is dubious. I believe this is a fair starting point to resolve this dispute. Imad marie (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've given a detailed assessment before, you just didn't bother to read it. And I'm not just pointing out "words" which are dubious, I pointed out specific claims you made, which are false, and which you denied, falsely.
 * Your topic is fully beyond the scope of this article, and so doesn't belong here. There's an article about it, I'm sure it's mentioned in detail in the article about the war, and that's enough. okedem (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, so let's leave that for the discussion going here, I will restore the image now as it is describing something that happened inside of Israel. Imad marie (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm not going to get sidetracked into a procedural meta-debate about "stable versions" and "burdens of proof," etc. (Although, while we're wikilawyering, you're not supposed to use WP:TWinkle to edit-war in content disputes.) I'd like to deal with the specific content issues here. I'll start with the cluster bombs since I know a little bit about that issue.

First, while cluster bombs are not "prohibited weapons" per se, international law does forbid the use of legitimate weapons in an indiscriminate manner. For example, Hezbollah's shelling of Haifa with unguided artillery rockets was rightly condemned, even though Haifa contained many military and infrastructure targets of immense strategic importance (not least being a major fuel supply,) and some reports indicate that Hezbollah was clearly trying to hit them. The indisputable strategic value of those targets did not offset the threat to civilians; the method of attack could not discriminate between military and civilians.

As HRW put it, "Indiscriminate attacks [... include] those that employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by international humanitarian law. [...] The “means” of combat refers generally to the weapons used while the term “method” refers to the way in which such weapons are used." On the specific issue of cluster munitions, they said that "The wide dispersal pattern of cluster munitions and the high dud rate (ranging from 2 to 14 percent, depending on the type of cluster munition) make the weapons exceedingly dangerous for civilians and, when used in populated areas, a violation of international humanitarian law."

Perhaps the exact phrasing of "prohibited weapon" is problematic, but that indicates that a few words need tweaking, not that the entire contribution should be reverted.

Okedem, you have stated repeatedly that "this is about facts, not baseless claims." But it is a fact that HRW stated that Israel used weapons that, when used in populated areas, violate international humanitarian law. Wikipedia need not report that claim as necessarily true; but that the claim was made is itself a fact. WP:ASF. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 23:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a fact that someone claimed something. Great. But we should talk about facts that actually happened, meaning, there's good evidence to back it up, as opposed to baseless claims.
 * What you say about strategic value voids the claims of Imad in the subject. Fuel, bridges, etc. are legitimate strategic targets, which Israel attacked with accurate weaponry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okedem (talk • contribs) 06:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyway, this whole issue is fully outside the scope of this article, so the discussion is pointless. okedem (talk) 06:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okedem, take a look at the Criticism of the Qur'an article, it's full of claims against Qur'an. Being a Muslim editor, can I delete those claims on the base that they are "false" in my personal opinion? No i can't, and this is what WP is about. Now please accept the criticism as long as it is sourced and relevant even if you personally disagree with it. Imad marie (talk) 07:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Okedem, while I always WP:AGF, it's difficult to deal in a collegian manner if you're going to make statements that cannot possibly be meant seriously. This entire article is devoted to what are, by your arbitrary ad hoc standard, "baseless claims." Shall we demand "good evidence" from Freedom House to justify the numeric rankings they issued to Israel on various rights issues? Are we to work up a blog-style fisking on the State Department's findings on Israeli political freedoms?
 * Look at the some of the sources used in this article. Arutz Sheva, an extremist media outlet associated with the ideological settlers. WorldNetDaily, an ultra-right rumour mill run by fundamentalist Christians on the Scaife Foundation dime. For heavens' sake, we have no less than three footnotes to a blog posting by Alan Dershowitz!
 * Amnesty International is clearly among the most reliable and significant sources used in this article, if not the leader. I don't remember Dersh, or even the US State Department, scoring a Nobel Prize. It is not within Wikipedia's remit to critically dissect reports from the world's leading human rights NGO; if that is your intention, start a personal blog. You're a longtime, experienced editor. You know that original research is unwelcome here.
 * And again, although you have stated that you think this article should limit itself to human rights within Israel's sovereign territory, you have made no attempt to demonstrate that this is anything more than your own preference. Clearly, this article is structured to include extraterritorial actions by Israel. It has been so structured since at least July 2006; the companion article Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority is structured with this in mind. If you want to change that, sure, fine, but you'll go through channels, rather than create facts on the ground by edit-warring under a ludicrous, contradictory rationale. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 09:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The entire article only speaks of Israel, including the areas under Israel's control (the occupied territories). It says nothing of previous wars (October war, first Lebanon war, etc), and indeed shouldn't. The mention of the 2006 war is the exception, not the rule. Now, I don't particularly mind a one sentence mention with a link to the relevant article, but any more than that is beyond the scope.
 * If there are low-quality sources in the article, that doesn't excuse other low quality sources (and yes, Arutz Sheva is a crappy source. We shouldn't use it).
 * Let me clarify what I mean here - claims that just HRW or AI made, and were not supported by other sources (primary source, not just people quoting HRW/AI), are suspect. As an example I gave the claim by the PA a few years ago, concerning depleted Uranium. That just made it clear Imad doesn't understand the point of this article. It's not to list spurious claims, but only well-based claims, with good evidence. As the Uranium claim was never backed up with any evidence (and is absurd anyway), it shouldn't be mentioned, no matter how many sources we have that say the PA claimed it.
 * By quoting certain facts (Israel bombed the airport), Imad is making a personal judgement about it, presenting it as a human right violation, when it clearly isn't. Same for blindly quoting "civilian" (a lot of the are actually militants) casualty figures. okedem (talk) 10:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Eleland has suggested that the content be restored, and then you point out to the words that you think are "twisted", OK? but objecting to the whole added paragraph on the bases that HRW is not reliable, it's not going to work out I think Imad marie (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Imad, please, look at what I wrote, and you'll find all the specifics.
 * But it doesn't matter - the issue of the Lebanon war is outside the scope of this article. okedem (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I did look at what you wrote, and I think that you are going around in circles, throughout this long discussion you have not mentioned a single wikipedia policy that you think is being violated. Anyway I will respond:
 * About the events being outside Israel; the 2006 war (and other wars that Israel was a participant in) is certainly relevant to include in this article, maybe this article should be renamed to Israel and human rights.
 * HRW is not a low quality reference, and it can be referenced directly, few would disagree with that.
 * Quoting certain facts (like Israel bombed the airport). If you think that I added any information that is not in the reference I used, then you can object to that and it will be removed if you were rightful.
 * I hope this will convince you, the discussion has been going for a while now and all what you do is express your personal opinions without refering to any wikipedia policies. Imad marie (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You have not replied to a single point I made. Wars are not mentioned in this article, and for good reason. They are a transient event, not an ongoing one, and are not related to the areas under the country's jurisdiction and control. The Lebanon war has no place in this article. okedem (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I think you are wrong. As Israel has been engaged in multiple wars with its neighbouring countries, the claimed human rights violations should be included in this article, and it's for sure notable enough. Check for example the Human rights and the United States article, it discusses the events that happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. Imad marie (talk) 05:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Iraq and Afghanistan are both under a years-long American occupation. The Lebanon war was 1 month, and it's long been over. okedem (talk) 08:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Killing over 1,000 civilians, and destroying big parts of the Lebanese infrastructure, is definitely notable enough to be included in this article, and there are many references to that: HRW, BBC, AI, etc... I think that it's obvious from the context that this article discusses the relation between Israel and human rights, not putting notable information because some editors do not like it is not acceptable I think. Imad marie (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, there are sources to confirm the war happened? Oh, okay...
 * Wars are outside the scope of this. Lebanon isn't under Israeli occupation, it's not under Israeli control. It was in a war, which Lebanon started (by action or failure to prevent action - of Hezbollah), people died on both sides, and it ended. Not for this article. okedem (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Not confirm the war happened, confirm the human rights violations. I said before that I will not get into political discussions with you, I changed my mind: throughout the 1 month war, Israel got itself busy with bombing civilian targets, the intentional targeting of civilians was obvious, I don't think many would deny that. Israel killed 1,000 civilians and destroyed much of the Lebanese infrastructure in retaliation of killing 8 of its soldiers, isn't this crazy? you say civilian casualties has to happen in a war, well let's check the numbers: Israel killed 1,200 Lebanese among them are 1,000 civilians, the percentage is 83%. Hezbollah killed 158 Israelis among them are 41 civilians, the percentage is 26%, who is the war criminal? numbers talk. Katyusha rockets were only a response to the Israeli bombing and they were to stop as soon as the Israeli bombing stops, this was stated by Nasrallah. Just yesterday, Israel killed 61 Palestinians (many of them are children) in retaliation of killing one Israeli civilian, who is the war criminal? Stop defending your army, it has been accused of committing war crimes and those accusations have to be documented, and this article is the best place to do that. Imad marie (talk) 06:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Imad, Hezbollah fired Katyushas BEFORE Israel reacted at all - they fired them during their initial attack, as a diversion (see in Zar'it-Shtula incident for more details). Mind you, they've done this once before, in 7 October 2000, and then Israel chose not to react with military measures.
 * Lebanon had allowed the attack to occur, had allowed Hezbollah to take the Israeli soldiers, had allowed them to stockpile weapons and fire them at Israel. Israel defended itself, and the hard results for Lebanon were of its own making, by allowing such an attack on Israel. While Israel fired at strategic targets (like bridges, airport, etc.), Hezbollah fired specifically at Israeli towns, with the specific intent of killing civilians. This is what they do. While Israel tried to avoid civilian casualties, Hezbollah was actively seeking them. Considering the vast amount of bombs Israel used in the war, the fact that only a 1,200 Lebanese were killed shows an incredible effort to avoid civilian deaths. Israel gave the civilians time to evacuate, distributing pamphlets instructing them to do so. Israel sent soldiers into villages, at incredible risk to them (and most soldiers died this way), to go house to house and find the Hezbollah men, while it could have just leveled the village with artillery, as it was allowed to do, given the fact rockets were fired from it, stripping it of its civilian status. Israel's low number of civilian casualties stems from Israel's public and private shelters, not from Hezbollah's lack of trying.
 * Gaza - Hamas has been firing rockets at Israeli towns for years, intensifying its attacks after Israel left Gaza in 2005. The people of Sderot and the surrounding towns have been living in terror of rockets for years. While Israel tries to avoid civilian casualties, Hamas doesn't restrict its fire to military targets (which are within range) - no, they actively target civilian towns, with the express intent of killing as many civilians as possible. If the people of Gaza want to be independent, they need to accept responsibility for their actions. If they support Hamas, they support their illegal artillery attacks on Israel's sovereign territory, and must bear the price for that. If they want Israel's defensive measures to stop - all they have to do is withdraw their support of Hamas. They could have chosen to show they can live in peace with Israel when it withdraws and gives them back territory (as in 2005), but they didn't. They chose the way of murder and terror. Their choice, their fate. okedem (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Enough of this. Wars are outside the scope of this article. The issue is dealt with in multiple other articles, and requires to treatment here. okedem (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We can continue this discussion through private emails if you like. Back to our wikipedia debate, the dispute now is about if this article should document events that happened outside of Israel. It seems we will not agree over this and we need a third opinion again. Imad marie (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I created a new section that I suggest continuing the discussion there. Imad marie (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion
I came here from WP:3O. I understand there are 2 disputes here:


 * 1) An NPOV dispute as to whether to include certain information in the article or not.    I cannot resolve this dispute, but what I can say is that both Amnesty International and HRW are generally reliable, impartial sources.
 * 2) A dispute as to whether Image:Palestenian Human shield.jpg is fair use or is a copyright violation.  (There is also a possible middle ground, in which the inclusion of the image constitutes fair use under U.S. copyright law but may still potentially violate the Wikipedia fair-use policy).  This is a close call and should be referred to an expert for review.  In the meantime I have tagged the image for.
 * 69.140.152.55 (talk) 06:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well-poisoning?
(copied from Leifern's talk page by Eleland)

Care to explain how switching the order of two paragraphs is "well-poisoning?" 

I was only trying to make the article conform to the WP:MOS, as well as common sense. I think you need to lay off the revert button, and try to be a little less hostile. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 18:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The introductory section of an article on charges of human rights violation is typically context-setting. In this case, the most important piece of context is that Israel is a liberal democracy in which minorities are protected, just like, say Norway, or Sweden. To state that human rights are a matter of ongoing discussion is a) self-evident, and b) begs the question and therefore constitutes well-poisoning. Correcting bias is not hostile. --Leifern (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You think that's the most important piece of context. Others might think the ongoing occupation is the most important piece of context. Still others might think the most important piece of context is that Israel defines itself by religious identity. Still others might think something different.
 * It's interesting that you mention Norway or Sweden - I checked Human rights in Europe, and it begins, "The current human rights situation in Europe..." not "European states are multiparty parliamentary democracies..." In fact, I checked the first ten articles "Human rights in...x" and, of those that have any introduction at all, they all start along the lines of "The human rights situation in X is poor..." or "Human rights in Y have been analyzed by Z..." Why would Israel get special treatment?
 * You've switched from "well-poisoning" to "begging the question," which are two very different concepts. Which is it, and specifically, how would stating that NGO's and governments have looked into human rights in Israel in any way prejudge or bias? It seems to me that your problem is not with well-poisoning, but with failing to well-poison in the manner you favour (ie, by stating as prominently as possible that Israel is a democracy.) &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 19:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So interesting that you only quoted the first few words about Europe, because it continues "is believed to be good." Begging the question is a rhetorical fallacy that may (or may not) serve to poison the well. Well-poisoning means to predispose the reader to a particular, unfavorable conclusion about what's coming next; which is precisely what begging the question is as well. "Occupation" does not apply to the situation in Israel, unless you believe that Gaza and the West Bank are part of Israel, which would certainly be to beg the question. Why should Israel get special treatment? Here's a sample of introductory sentences about countries with a government system similar to, or inferior to, Israel's:
 * The United Kingdom has a long and established tradition of avowed respect for its subjects' human rights.
 * Human rights in Finland are protected by extensive domestic safeguards, in addition to the country's active membership in most international human rights treaties.
 * Spain is a democracy with a constitutional monarch.
 * Human rights are comprehensively guaranteed in Switzerland, one of Europe's oldest democracies
 * You are the one who wants to make Israel a special case, not me. --Leifern (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * First, let me dispense with the mind-bendingly silly idea that this page should not contain information about Israel's extraterritorial human rights record. It's clear that the page title "...in Israel" doesn't bear much relation to the content; it discusses Israel's record of occupation extensively, and it has for quite a while. Indeed the bizarrely named Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority (how can you be "in" an "authority?" - I assume the name is due to the pique that some "pro-Israeli" Wikipedians feel at using the mainstream terminology adopted by Israel's own supreme court, the World Court, and the UN) begins with a note: it's about "conditions experienced in the Palestinian Territories, apart from those associated with Israeli actions. For a full overview of Israel's human rights record in the Palestinian territories, please see Human rights in Israel#Israel's record: human rights in the occupied territories."
 * I'm not overly wedded to either paragraph ordering, it just seems strange to discuss the Government of Israel first, and then move to the actual subject of the article, which is human rights in Israel. AFAIK, none of the serious issues raised regarding Israel and human rights relate to the fact that it is a multiparty democracy. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 06:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Israel's system of government directly relates to the rights the people have. Saying it's a "multiparty parliamentary democracy" tells you the people have a right to vote, can make a change, they are the source of authority for the govenment, etc. This is basically the most important point here. okedem (talk) 10:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Eleland, I don't know why you would think it "mind-bendingly silly" to take the title of an article at its literal meaning. "In Israel" is pretty unambiguous - it could be "allegations of human rights violations by Israeli military and civilian authorities," but it quite clearly says "Human rights in Israel." We argue all the time in Wikipedia about article titles. I have previously advocated that articles be created called Human rights in the West Bank and Human rights in Gaza or even Human rights among Palestinians, so as to provide a full accounting of the situation, with all the factors that affect it. This has met resistance for reasons I can only speculate about. The correct title for the article you're highlighting would be Human rights under the Palestinian Authority.
 * It should be pretty self-evident why human rights issues related to a democracy are different from those of a dictatorship, especially given the topical title of this article. I really don't know how to help you see that connection - perhaps getting a breath of fresh air might help. --Leifern (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I created a new section that I suggest continuing the discussion there. Imad marie (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)