Talk:Human rights in Israel/Archive 7

Dareen Tatour
A paragraph on Dareen Tatour should be added to the section on freedom of speech and the media, as well as the strong condemnation it received from groups such as PEN International. Finsternish (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Calling for an insurrection and inciting violence are illegal in other countries as well.Icewhiz (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not here to have a political debate with you, but you ought to become aware of the facts of the situation before having an opinion. Also, the arts generally are held to a much higher standard than ordinary speech, and this poem was not exactly exceptional as far as resistance poems go. Finsternish (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC) Meant to say: the standard for convicting someone based on their art is generally much higher than the standard for convicting someone based on ordinary speech. Finsternish (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You appear to be unaware that she was not a published writer or poet, she was an individual who self-published infalmmatory poetry on her Facebook pafe.
 * In fact, in democracies, it's practically unheard of for anyone to ever be convicted of a crime for their poetry or other fine-arts writing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC) Finsternish (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This was a series of social media posts, with violent images, and sharing of Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine content.Icewhiz (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So Israel persecutes people for posting poems on Facebook; don't you think this should be added to the article? Especially given the vast international condemnation it has received for doing so?
 * Have you ever listened to Rage Against the Machine? Dead Kennedies? Black Flag? Choking Victim? Violent resistance poetry is not exactly unusual or unique to this situation. This isn't something that only Israel has ever had to grapple with, but it is something that only Israel has ever prosecuted people for. Well, them and China, and other regimes generally regarded as repressive and authoritarian.
 * If I'm wrong, then list other times when people in other free societies have gone to jail for their poetry. Finsternish (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * She was charged for three incidents - only one of the three could be construed as a poem (set to a backdrop of violent images against Israelis) - the other two - the shared Islamic Jihad post and posting the image of a shot knife wielding woman with the caption "I am the next martyr" (which is what led to her initial arrest following a tip off) - during a lone wolf knife attack wave - were not poetry. If you read past the headlines of neutralish mainstream sources it is quite evident this is more complex than "just poetry".Icewhiz (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That woman holding a knife was Israa Abed, an innocent Palestinian woman killed by Israeli police. "I am the next martyr" means "I could very well be the next person shot for no reason by Israeli police," and is in fact a slogan in the non-violent Palestinian resistance movement, much like "I can't breathe" in the United States.
 * As far as Islamic Jihad goes, should people be thrown in jail every time they share a Facebook status from a violent source that, in and of itself, has no violent connotation? Do you have any idea the psychology of Facebook use and how easy it is to do such a thing? Finsternish (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, at the time her poem was written there were elevated attacks against innocent Arabs by Israeli police and restrictions against Muslims praying at al-Aqsa. That was what she was telling people to resist, and the restrictions against al-Aqsa were the reason for her sharing that Facebook status. In a democracy, absolutely no one would ever go to jail for such ridiculous reasons. And if they did there would be international uproar, and Wikipedia would certainly include it in the section on human rights in that country. Finsternish (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What we're talking about here is racism, orientalism, demonization of the Arabic language (e.g. focusing on the word "intifada"), etc.. This is something that needs to be put in the section on human rights in Israel. Wikipedia isn't an arm of Israel's public relations campaign; if they don't want their actions to appear in articles, they shouldn't do things like this. Finsternish (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Finally, the images were not merely of "violent attacks on Israelis"; this is an intellectually dishonest way of putting it. They were of Palestinians fighting with Israeli soldiers, whose absolute rule they live under. Finsternish (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Israa Abed was waving a knife in a threatening manner and refused to drop it. She was convicted for attempted to suicide and sentenced to 6 months - the prosecution (who did not charge terrorism) came to the conclusion her knife incident was an attempt of "suicide by cop/soldier" - and she was duly convicted in a court of law. At the of the social media post the attempted suicide angle was not known. Furthermore, when these publications were made - 2015-2016 wave of violence in Israeli-Palestinian conflict - there was a knife attack spree against Israelis.08:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't argue endlessly about this, but let's suppose you're right, and Israel's perfectly just, not-at-all-racist, not-at-all-anti-Arab justice system "duly convicted" her of something real and serious, and that their police were telling the absolute truth. OK. What does that have to do with the meaning of "I am the next martyr" next to a person who the Palestinians believe to be persecuted? Let's suppose you're right. In a democracy, people have the right to be wrong.
 * Furthermore, with the very accusation of "incitement to violence," you are denying:
 * the Palestinian right to self-determination and to defend that right through violent means where necessary - a right Israeli Jews liberally claim for themselves
 * the Palestinian right to a political opinion that is different from what hardline pro-Israel activists believe, the right to be suspicious of an authority that they have virtually no voice in - and where their lack of voice was recently even codified into law
 * the Palestinian right to freedom of expression through the arts, when said expression falls within the normal bounds of what is considered acceptable within those arts - and it does; it's tame, in fact, as we have already gone through
 * So I'd like to ask, on what ground does the state of Israel's existence even stand? If Palestinians don't have these basic human rights, then why should anyone? And regardless, shouldn't the controversial nature of this topic give it a place in the article on human rights in Israel? The criticism has enough merit to be discussed. Finsternish (talk) 08:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In fact, subjecting the Palestinians to military occupation, and denying their right to violent resistance against that occupation, is itself a violation of the 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and the Fourth Geneva Convention, as Israeli human rights lawyer Lynda Brayer has pointed out:
 * Above and beyond the basic right of all human beings to resist their being killed and harmed, and a society to take armed actions to protect itself, this document legitimizes also national liberation struggles, including, at this time in history, most particularly, the Palestinian people’s struggle for its own freedom. It is this right which legitimizes all Palestinian attempts to lift the yoke of Israeli oppression from Palestine, including all the actions taken by the Palestinians during Operation Cast Lead.
 * And is not the right to resist oppression universal? Does this right not justify the American Revolution and then the French Revolution and the wars of liberation in the 1950′s and 1960′s. Nelson Mandela is a hero because of his resistance to, not because of his subservience to apartheid repression. And the Warsaw Ghetto uprising by the Jewish population against the Nazi repression is a beacon of pride in modern Jewish history. it is also a fact that Jews who joined the resistance, say in Poland or other places under Nazi occupation, are heroes for the Jewish people. I would contend that one cannot deny that right of resistance to Palestinians which the Jews appropriated to themselves, and which is the right of all peoples living under military occupation and/or colonialist regimes.
 * In that sense, the very conviction of incitement to violence in a country where even Israeli Arabs are second-class citizens is, in fact, itself a violation of Palestinian rights. Even more so when such "incitement to violence" is artistic. Finsternish (talk) 10:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: if you want to say that Tatour is Israeli, Israel itself has recently removed all doubt as to which nation Israeli Arabs belong to with its declaration that "only Jews have the right to exercise self-determination within Israel." Most Israeli Arabs did not think anything had changed with this declaration, other than longstanding practice being codified into law. Finsternish (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Tatour was neither a published poet, nor was she an individual with any notability at all prior to her arrest. She was a social media activist who posted inflammatory messages and incitement to violence on her Facebook, Youtube, and other social media accounts.  She is known only for here arrest and conviction on charges of  incitement to violence.  Adding material about her to this page would be UNDUE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * PEN International is notable and has a very long history of defending free speech throughout the world, and they have strongly condemned her arrest and imprisonment, so it's obviously not undue. PEN International isn't exactly a group that only ever condemns Israel; if you think that then you know nothing about the organization. You're confusing "I don't agree with it" with "it's undue." If it were undue, then legitimate and respectable human rights organizations would not be condemning it.
 * Otherwise, I could argue that the ADL's labeling of BDS as an antisemitic hate group is meritless and therefore mentioning it would be undue. And it is, in fact, utterly meritless, and is endangering me and every other diaspora Jew by cheapening the meaning of the word. They're utterly wrong about BDS. But nevertheless, they're allowed to be wrong about BDS. And not only are they allowed to be wrong, but the ADL is a legitimate and respected human rights organization with a long history of fighting antisemitism, so all of their opinions are notable, even the wrong ones. The same is true for PEN International. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, don't think I don't notice your attempt to belittle her by calling her a "social media activist," and to minimize the importance of her right to free speech and free artistic expression, and to push the POV that her messages were incitements to violence and inflammatory. All of this is utterly beside the point and does not belong in this discussion. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to add here that every member of PEN is either an accomplished writer or publisher, so their opinions are all notable and the lack of a published status for Tatour is therefore irrelevant. Full disclosure since I'm saying this: I applied and was accepted to PEN, despite declining to join due to being unclear of their position on hate speech (I'm against tolerance of actual hate speech). פֿינצטערניש (talk) 12:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC) פֿינצטערניש (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Notability of a statement by an NGO needs to be supported by coverage of said a statement in a WPRS, secondary source, even to be included on the page about this activist. And there would have to be SIGNIFICANT media coverage of this individual and of the PEN statement for it to be included on a page covering a large topic like the human rights situation in an entire country.  Ltos of statements are made without being notable enough for inclusion here. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Great! So we can get rid of all the direct citations to outfits like MEMRI, NGO Monitor, UN Watch, etc etc, that appear all over Wikipedia. And you will help! Great! Zerotalk 13:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Opinion in the lede
In the lede the final sentence says "Despite disproportionate criticism of its human rights record, Israel is seen as being more politically free and democratic than neighboring countries in the Middle East." The link is dead so I had to find an archived link but nowhere does the article claim "disproportionate criticism." This is a personal opinion thrown in to give the illusion that this is a referenced statement and it is not. 65.28.236.17 (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Removed "disproportionate" which was not in the source. Fixed link. This is not an opinion piece.Icewhiz (talk) 08:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Deportation
There is no section on Deportations here, shouldn't it be? According to this between 1967 and 1992, Israel had 1,522 Palestinians deported from the Occupied Territories. Huldra (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Many of them were members of terrorist organizations, and I don't think it has to do with human rights.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, deportations should of course be covered here, as they are an aspect on Israel's racial policy of trying to Judaize the areas. Yaniv, if someone is a member of a terrorist group (e.g. an Islamic or Jewish one), this particular person may be penalized, although deportation from one's own country may be against the UN Charter even in that case (not 100% sure). Such cases are not, however, the point here. --Dailycare (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The deportations in the B'Tselem report are all of people charged suspected with security related offenses.Icewhiz (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "None of the deportees had been charged with a criminal offense, nor tried and convicted." Besides that, the opinion that the deportations were in violation of international humanitarian law is held far more widely than just by Btselem and there is no reason whatever for avoiding the issue. Zerotalk 01:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, I should've used "suspected" as opposed to "charged". Struck above.Icewhiz (talk) 07:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

According to Nathan Thrall, BDS: how a controversial non-violent movement has transformed the Israeli-Palestinian debate, Aug. 24, 2018, The Guardian;  among the deported were "teachers, lawyers, mayors and university presidents". Huldra (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 October 2018
Change relevant paragraph to: Despite disproportionate criticism of its human rights record, Israel is described by Freedom House as being more politically free and democratic than neighboring countries in the Middle East. Freedom House is supported by NGOs and funded in greater part by the United States

176.61.21.220 (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.--B dash (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 February 2020
Link Hotline for Refugees and Migrants to its newly written wikipedia page. Thefutureisfemale (talk) 13:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 October 2020
An editor removed a source from Haaretz without explanation in edit summary or talk page. I asked him why but he didn't answer. The url seems working and supporting what the text says in article. Please restore the following source at the end of the second and third paragraphs of this section:

Thanks--Watchlonly (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done The source does appear to return a 404 error But I found an archived version and used that. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Education - Affirmative action
The sentence is not an accurate translation of the source, the source reads: לאור הסיכומים עם משרד המשפטים בעניין בחינה כוללת של הענקת מלגות ות"ת למגזרי אוכלוסייה שונים (נזקקים, חרדים, ערבים, אתיופים וכו') which translates to (people with disabilities, Ultra-Orthodox Jews, Arabs, Ethiopians etc) Notumengi (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Confused
How are "Human rights in the occupied territories" part of Human rights in Israel? Either the article has the wrong title or this material needs to go somewhere else. Selfstudier (talk) 10:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * As in to the Human rights in the occupied territories page that for some reason doesn't already exist? Yes, it's totally dysfunctional and fundamentally confusing as is. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Obviously related, since the occupied territories are controlled by Israel (either partially or totally). The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the situation in the Palestinian territories are prominent features here. No need to create another article nor explain the obvious.--121.186.225.210 (talk) 01:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Related to what? The occupied territories are not "in Israel". Do you agree then to change the title to Human rights in Israel and Israeli occupied territories? Selfstudier (talk) 09:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Aside from the current inaccuracy in terms of titling/scope, depending on the perspective, the size of the article, at 175kb, lends itself towards a split Iskandar323 (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Men's rights
Today, the world recognizes the violation of men's rights during the promotion of women's rights, mainly due to the stigmatization of affirmative action.

In recent years, the violation of men's human rights in Israel has come into the public discourse. Many men's organizations claim that the significant harm is in the family courts in divorce proceedings. Marcjosef3 (talk) 07:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

This article continues the oppression of Palestine
why is it that under the section of Human Rights and Amnesty there is ONLY criticism of bias and ZERO reference to the claims being made by the court of human rights or amnesty international. This article is clearly biased and supports the oppression of Palestine. Anytime I am asked to support Wikipedia in the future I will check this page. 51.37.182.210 (talk) 08:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is edited volunteers, yeah? So you can contribute at any point to help address issues. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Volunteers are impartial, yeah? This whole page is a glorification of the apartheid and genocidal state of Israel.
 * I not give my shekels to Wikipedia no more, yeah? MichiganFarmerII (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

As to the part of LGBT rights
I think that the first sentence in the first paragraph should be changed from "Rights for sexual minorities in Israel are considered to be the most tolerant in the Middle East." To "Rights for sexual minorities in Israel are considered, together with Cyprus, to be the most tolerant in the Middle East." As Cyprus is also, geographically, part of the Middle East. עמית לונן (talk) 10:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)