" 

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

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

 :That wasn't how it read in the text that was in the article.  And now you've assumed bad faith again.  What is the purpose of that?    

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

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

 :Judging from the bottom 1/3 of the article, it is your viewpoint that nothing is a reliable source except for Alan Dershowitz.  Did I miss something?    

 LOL. I meant the talk page, here, hold on. Talk:Human rights in Israel#Political prisoners?. Please see John's response to me on this.    

 ::Here's the quote I edited: ""According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, more than 40,000 Palestinians have been arrested since the start of the September 2000 Al-Aqsa intifada. It continues to hold more than 369 Palestinians who were jailed before the Oslo Accords and currently holds 9,400 Palestinian prisoners in more than 30 jails located across Israel. Of these 330 are children, and according to the Bureau, 70 are considered seriously ill due to lack of ""basic medical attention."" {{cite web   	   
  	 | url = http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/images/informationbrief.php?ID=160  	  	 | url = http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/images/informationbrief.php?ID=160 
  	 | title = Palestinian Political Prisoners in Israel""  

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

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

 I agree with Elizmr - the sentence as it was constructed was extremely unclear as to whether it was 70 children or 70 people.  On the other hand, it probably would have been better to check the source first, before deleting, but it was obviously an honest mistake, and not some kind of con