Talk:Human rights in Israel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human rights in Israel article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
Israel Portal
Human rights in Israel is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Human rights in Israel is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
48px} This article is part of WikiProject Human rights, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the Project page, where you can join the Project and contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2
Archive 3 Archive 4

Contents


[edit] 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)

[edit] POV: Pro-Israeli Bias

Many instances of human rights violations are given "justifications," which are inappropriate considering the nature of the article. In addition, this article seems to be generally an apologist's page for Israeli rights violations rather than an unbiased approach to the issue.76.1.142.88 16:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the article explains the background for the current situation, and why certain actions were/are taken. Just giving supposed human rights violations without any explanation would be un-encyclopedic, and extremely unhelpful to our readers. The article isn't "Human right violations in Israel", mind you. It's "Human rights in Israel", and so discusses the conditions of human rights in Israel, not just lists supposed infractions. okedem 17:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is hasbara, like most articles on anything vaguely pertaining to Israel on Wikipedia. Anyways, Shouldn't Vanunu be mentioned in "Treatment of prisoners," as he served an 18 yr. sentance in solitary confinement, and has just been sent back because he spoke to Western journalists. (How's that for free speach) Or the torture practices used on Palestinians. I think there is a wonderful series of drawings available. What about the blunt force castrations where Israeli soldiers grab peoples legs, spread them, and then a third soldier beats the victim between the legs with a club. There is video of this. Is video sufficient sourcing or is it not up to standards due to wikipedia:Hasbara rules. Shia1 18:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Vaanunu is a free man. He served his 18 year sentence, 11 years out of which in solitary. He was given a fair trial for his action, convicted, and sent to prison. Nothing special. Freedom of speech - yes, but not for revealing secrets. Again, nothing special.
"blunt force castrations" - Really? Do you have a reliable source for that, or just Palestinian propaganda sites?
The article is NPOV. It brings facts from reliable sources. okedem 19:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Do you consider Ynetnews a Palestinian propaganda site? It is a Settler propaganda site, but when those people stopped their warcrimes long enough to get upset about having to leave occupied territory, they put up a whole lot of anti-IDF video without realizing it would come back to bite them. SO .... Yes, there is video of Israeli troops seperating men's legs then beating them in the crotch dozens of times. Also, there is a Neutral Article on Neturei Karta called "We do not believe, we will not follow," which mentions this form of punishment was used against Rabbi Amram Blau. I'm puting it up. If you have reason to believe these things are doctored, prove it. By the way, Vanunu is back in jail for speaking to journalists, which he was ordered by a military court not to do. (He is a civilian.) And he did not get a fair trial. He was abducted from Rome, tried by a military court despite being a civilian, without his lawyer being able to know exactly what he was charged was, and then spent 11 years in solitary confinement. And what "secrets" did he betray? He told the guardian Israel had made 300 nuclear weapons. Israel denies it has nuclear weapons. SO is he a Novelist or a Traitor? 88.154.231.162 07:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Neturei Carta are a fringe group, and not an RS. Show me actual sources.
Vaanunu deserves no mention. He broke the law and the agreements of confidentiality he signed, and paid for it. okedem 08:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is ABOUT neturei karta, not written by them. Vanunu was abducted from another nation in violation of international law, and was held in solitary confinement in violation of humanitarian law, and the BBc broadcast about him interviews several people on the phone who have been intimidated with threats by Israeli police. I'm getting stuff together than it is all going up. Stop Hasbara. 88.155.134.126 10:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't an article about individual cases or people.
If you have relevant material about Israel's Human Rights record as a whole, we can discuss it. okedem 14:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that those who have served in the IDF SHOULD NOT be allowed to edit any articles that have to do with Israel. That's just a rediculous idea, and completely undermines any honest intentions at a good and unbiased article. What has to be done to stop former and current IDF members from editing this page and others that have to do with the IDF and Israel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.137.34 (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Then I say Arabs shouldn't edit the article.
Oh, wait, that completely goes against everything Wikipedia stands for, right. Easy to get confused.
Edits rely on sources, not the people who make them. The person's opinions, nationality, ethnicity, religion, organizational affiliation, and any other characteristics are not relevant. Only the sources, and correctly representing them. If you think you can start dictating who's allowed to edit what article - I suggest you move along to another site. okedem (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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.
  1. I've listed the problems with your 1950s case.
  2. 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.
  3. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 <ref></ref>, however no evidence was found to support this claim<ref></ref>", 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 Wikipedia:Third opinion. Imad marie (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

  1. 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.
  2. The image is not fair use.
  3. You claim "human shields" were used in the Lebanon war, but the source makes no such claim.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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 {{notinsource}}, and we'll be able to see specifically what is disputed. If something is misleadingly worded, I suggest {{who}} or {{huh}}. 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.) <eleland/talkedits> 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. <eleland/talkedits> 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 wikt:facts on the ground by edit-warring under a ludicrous, contradictory rationale. <eleland/talkedits> 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)

[edit] 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 {{fairusereview}}.
69.140.152.55 (talk) 06:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Well-poisoning?

(copied from Leifern's talk page by Eleland)

Care to explain how switching the order of two paragraphs is "well-poisoning?" [1]

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. <eleland/talkedits> 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.) <eleland/talkedits> 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. <eleland/talkedits> 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)

[edit] 3O two

Hello everyone;

I also see two issues. As to the issue, its fair use, because;
1. It is being used for a nonprofit educational purpose
2. No financial value is being derived from its use
3. Our licensing specifically bars commercial use by readers

As to the NPOV issue, I feel that the section in question should be included because under WP:VERIFY we are not here to discover the truth. We are here to add reliable information. Imad marie has met verifiability for his edit, because it is cited and neutral.

Geoff Plourde (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If this issue still is not resolved, file an RfC. If necessary, I will certify the basis. Geoff Plourde (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm concerned that this is being certified as neutral when the organizations making the claim are being described as "activists". Neutral activists do not exist. Furthermore, when things are written with "allegedly" all over the place because the source provides no actual evidence, weasel words come into the picture as well. Sorry to keep on this, but this section absolutely should not remain without addressing its bias and lack of proof. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, well theres room for a refutation. Would you be willing to draft something? Geoff Plourde (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Documenting events that occurred outside of Israel

I suggest we continue the related discussions here Imad marie (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked over other articles of this kind ("Human rights in..."), and just like this one, they don't detail wars. They are always about the rights and violations in the country. Now, we add to this the situation in the Occupied Territories (except PA territory), since they are under Israel's direct control, and have been for 41 years, but events of a war aren't continuous, and aren't the "situation" people look for when reading about this kind of article. okedem (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the situation of Israel is different than the situation of other countries. Many wars have happened in the middle-east throughout the previous decades, in which Israel was involved in most of those wars. The claims of human rights violations during those wars is indeed relevant to this article, I really see no other place to discuss those claims in relation with Israel but this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imad marie (talk • contribs) 13:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
First off, no other wars are treated here, nor are they mentioned in the article for the other countries involved (Egypt, Jordan, Syria). Second, the issue is detailed in Allegations of war crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War, which is linked from multiple articles, including this one. okedem (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I will file an RFC for this. Imad marie (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC - events that occured outside of Israel

Long discussions have happened here and here if events outside of Israel should be included in this article 13:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imad marie (talk • contribs)

There is no reason not to include the events that happened in the 2006 Lebanon war. When I read this article, I expect to find everything about Israel regarding the human rights, no need to censor any information. Imad marie (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Imad, considering the topic has its very own long and detailed article, and that this article links to it (and that was the version I reverted to), claims of censorship are not in place. This is an editorial decision, of focus and scope, not any attempt to censor information.
To the point, glancing at other similar articles, they don't mention wars, nor does this article mention any other war. This is probably because the scope of the article is the human rights situation in the country itself, meaning - what the people in the country experience, what rights they are given, and what violations of those rights are there. A cursory glance will reveal those classic topics in the headings: "Freedom of speech", "Freedom of religion", "LGBT rights", etc. The Lebanon War is not an ongoing situation. South Lebanon isn't under Israel's control. Whatever happened then has no bearing on the situation today, and no bearing on the people under Israel's control (in Israel proper, and in some of the territories). Thus, the topic of the war should remain in its own article, not seep into others. okedem (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The version I'm suggesting is here, as you can see it's a summary paragraph that links to the main articles. In my opinion the factor that should be decisive in including/excluding the suggested paragraph is notability, is the 2006 war notable enough? Yes it is, the war has brought world wide attention, it has been debated in the United Nations and was of an obvious attention of by multiple world leaders. About wars and human rights, take a look at the Human rights and the United States article, is discusses the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as they are notable enough. Imad marie (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  1. Your version contains numerous falsities and misleading phrasings, as I've detailed above.
  2. No one is saying the war isn't notable. Hollywood is notable too, but still has no place in this article.
  3. Your claim about the US article is simply untruthful - the article makes no mention of the wars, only of the subsequent occupation, and only with regards to treatment of prisoners and renditions. The wars themselves aren't discussed at all. okedem (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think 2006 Lebanon War, Allegations of war crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War and other articles demonstrate that human rights issues taking place outside Israel can be handled outside this article. However, this article should link to those others where appropriate. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Very good, buy you have to write a summery paragraph, you cannot put a plain link or a single sentence, it's unencyclopedic. Imad marie (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral Ground

Can we get ourselves on neutral ground and work from there? For example, can we get a list of issues in one place, so they can be dealt with once and for all. If no one objects I will try to mediate this out. As an aside, this is for anyone here who is losing friends in the current mess, I will be praying for a quick resolution and for all the people who have died or are suffering. Geoff Plourde (talk) 04:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe the only disputed issue now is whether this article should include events that happened outside of Israel. Imad marie (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, This article is titled human rights in Israel. If you are thinking of stuff done by the military, might it not be better suited to a section in the Israeli Defense Forces article? If I am missing your rationale, please correct me. Geoff Plourde (talk) 07:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This is my argument: when I'm reading this article, I'm expecting to find everything about Israel relating to the human rights. And in my opinion this article should be the centralized place to do so, not the IDF or any other sub-Israeli article, because suppose we have some arguments regarding the Mossad for example, then this article should be the centralized place to document this as well, without scattering the information in different articles. Imad marie (talk) 13:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
These are my arguments:
  • Articles should serve to clarify, not confuse issues. An article about the human rights situation for people in (different parts of) Lebanon, Palestinians in various places around the world, etc., should include all factors that affect their situation, not just one.
  • By the same token, events that affect people's human rights situation should be described contextually. People who live in war zones have much more difficult lives, even when they are not being targeted. Soldiers who serve in a hostile environment are more vigilant and jumpy.
  • I have proposed that there be articles about the human rights situation for people on the West Bank, Gaza, Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan, and elsewhere, etc. This would include all the important facts and discuss what effect Israeli policies have on their situation. --Leifern (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Imad, would making articles on Palestine and such be acceptable?Geoff Plourde (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Suppose we are talking about Palestinians in relation with the human rights, and suppose the Palestinian army (which does not exist of course) has committed human rights violations in a neighbouring country, don't you think that this is notable enough to be included in the article? Imad marie (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
As an aside, this is not supposing. Whether or not they call themselves an army, both Hamas and PNA (Fatah) have large armed forces with weapons capable of inflicting significant harm. And they commit human rights violations every day in neighboring countries, and not just Israel. --Leifern (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Imad, you're avoiding the issue here. This article is for a continuous situation, not singular occasions. This is the same for other articles of this kind ("Human rights in..."), and is true even for the example you falsely cited (the US). Wars don't belong in this article. okedem (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Alright then, since everyone thinks that this is not the place to mention war events. Imad marie (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
From the title, I would have to agree with Okedem. Maybe we should add a Human Rights section to the current conflict page and link it in See Also, would that be acceptable? Geoff Plourde (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't get your suggestion. What conflict page you mean? Human rights in Israel or Allegations of war crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War? Imad marie (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
You mean linking to Allegations of war crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War in the see also section, and we already have a single sentence linking to the article. Okedem are you OK with that? Imad marie (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes. okedem (talk) 05:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I mean whichever conflict page the human rights violations occurred during. I.E. Israel starts shooting people at random in Lebanon during invasion, it goes in the relevant article and we link to it in see also. Sound like a plan from here on out? Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Fine with me. Imad marie (talk) 06:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Reset indent. The issue is whether these should be articles about the alleged perpetrators or the alleged victims. As the misery endured by Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, or Jordan are a result of many different factors but still end up in misery, I think it's better to write articles about the victims rather than the alleged perpetrators. --Leifern (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

How about writing about both? Geoff Plourde (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BBC article

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7345025.stm

Maybe someone wants to incorporate it. Dorftrottel (warn) 18:10, April 13, 2008

[edit] Comparisons

The comparison of Israel with Israeli occupied territories and Territories under Palestinian National Authority (still controlled by Israel) is fair and warranted.

However the comparison with Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt is unwarranted. There is really no rationale (except these countries share a border with Israel). I could similarly suggest comparing Israel's freedom with countries who share the same GDP as Israel.

Ofcourse, if reliable sources make this comparison we may include it was well. But as of now I see no such sources.Bless sins (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Rights"

This article is about human "rights", not charity or festivities. Thus the following is inappropriate, esp. under Freedom of Religion:

In 2006, the municipality of Jerusalem made many preparations for the Muslim holy month of Ramadan including the purchase and firing of shells for a special cannon used to signal the start and end of fasting and prayer times, the adornment of the Old City’s gates with lights in honor of the holiday, and sanitary lamb-slaughtering facilities for use during the three-day Eid el Fitr celebration at the end of the month. In addition, the city's welfare department will be distributing holiday gifts to needy Muslim families ahead of the holiday.

While this discussion is relevant in Islam in Israel or Arab citizens of Israel, it has no place here, because we're discussing whether Muslims (and Jews and Christians) are granted their rights, not whether the government takes part in the celebrations.Bless sins (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It might be useful to discuss the allocation of funding to different religious groups here.Bless sins (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reminder

This is a friendly reminder that this article is on "Human rights" in Israel. It is not the place for general criticism of Israel, nor general defense of it. Please limit sources to those that make claims about Human rights, and obviously they have to be relevant to Israel.Bless sins (talk) 05:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of war crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War

GHcool, this section was already more detailed than it is now, and then other editors objected to that and an agreement was made to shorten the section to this small summary, the agreement was made with okedem and other editors. Imad marie (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but a summary must include both sides of the story per WP:NPOV. Deleting it violates WP:CENSOR. Thank you for understanding. --GHcool (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Did you understand what I told you about previous consensus? previous consensus was made about this, if you want to change it, get a new consensus. Okedem, I hope you can clear things up. Imad marie (talk) 05:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
We agreed not to go into detail, as this article isn't about wars. I did not to object to a link to the article dealing with the war and the allegations.
I do think that when we mention the allegations, we should mention Israel's response (do they concede? Deny? Accuse the other side?). I don't think we should go into detail, but something should be mentioned about Israel's response. The current version is just stating an accusation, leaving a somewhat one-sided impression in the reader's mind. If I misunderstand the previous consensus, please correct me, but I don't think we ever discussed this point.
Both of you - please stop reverting each other. I'm sure we can come to some agreement here. okedem (talk) 07:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
What GHcool and Tkalisky is trying to do here is to include the Israeli response details although the accusations details were not included in the first place. Saying something like "Israel says that it tried to avoid civilians, but that Hezbollah fired from civilian areas" without saying "Human Rights Watch condemned Israel for failing to distinguish between combatants and civilians in attacks" or without saying: "Human Rights Watch found no cases in which Hezbollah deliberately used civilians as shields to protect them from retaliatory IDF attack" is not neutral. If one side of the story is presented then the other sides should be presented too. Imad marie (talk) 07:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I know, I don't want the details either. Actually, I was just about to suggest a phrasing along the lines of "Israel has rejected...", and I see you did that already.
Two notes - first, the "In response" part is superfluous, I think. We can just say "Israel has rejected..." (obviously it's in response).
Second - your phrasing says: "Israel has rejected most of those accusations." (my bold) - why most? To the best of my knowledge, Israel rejected all of the accusations regarding this, either saying they're factually incorrect ("we didn't fire on..."), or justified ("yea, we bombed this area, but Hezbollah was using it militarily, so it lost its protection under the Geneva conventions"). okedem (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the Israeli point of view (which as far as I know is accepted throughpout most of Israel the western world) should be mentioned in order to balance the allegations. Please do not censor even if you don't agree. Thank you for understanding. Tkalisky (talk) 07:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, so are you fine with inserting the allegations? please take a look at this version. Imad marie (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion accusation in war crimes is something very serious and cannot be taken lightly. I added the Israeli response to these serious allegations and the reference that was omitted. Everything is shorter this time and I am sure everyone will agree that there is not over-detailing to any side.Tkalisky (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)