Talk:Human rights in Israel/Archive 1

message: I think it would be very important to include the following ideas in the article:
   * serious abuses by some members of the security forces against Palestinian detainees
   * Palestinian terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians and Israeli Defense Force (IDF) soldiers
   * resulted in the death of 29 civilians and an IDF soldier within Israel
   * poor conditions in some detention and interrogation facilities
   * improper application of security internment procedures
   * institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the country's Arab citizens
   * discrimination in personal and civil status matters against non-Orthodox Jews
   * societal violence and discrimination against women
   * trafficking in and abuse of women and foreign workers
   * de facto discrimination against persons with disabilities
   * government corruption 
As the DoS Report mentioned and discuss each of these subjects with some detail. Espicially the issue of "institutional" discremination against Arab Citizens. 195.229.241.187 15:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An outline to the article 

message: I do not even know where to begin.  The entire contents of the article are POV at the moment.  Even the one sentence from the State Department report that provided some balance seems to have been removed, unless it has been buried among all the information about prostitution and human trafficking, which is a worldwide problem.  And the intro seems to hedge its bets on whether Israel is actually a country or not.  Anyone who thinks Wikipedia has a "slight pro-Israeli bias," please take note!   6SJ7 20:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a new article. Fred Bauder 02:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please, save it for someone else.  Anyway, I will leave the tag off for now, though I can't speak for anyone else.  I did delete the second sentence of the intro, which was unnecessary and was causing the biggest POV problem -- that is, the biggest POV problem in the intro.  6SJ7 20:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: With the existence of the second version of this document, perhaps the 1998 version should not be brought as it is outdated, and does not reflect progress made since then. -- Avi 21:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, that is relevant. Granted, the state department may be biased as well, but that willbe handled in its proper section. Thanks. -- Avi 13:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Rights Committee : Israel. 21/08/2003 

message: This seems to be an isolated event (AI only brings one case), which stands in contradisinction to the tens of cases of the PA and Hamas using children as suicide bombers and having bomb factories in civilian homes. I think that this is being given a bit too much weight in light of non-Israeli actions, and in my opinion this section is currently unnecessary and problematic. -- Avi 21:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Shield 

message: Being that the article is using the Kahan report, which dod not find Israel responsible but Sharon et. al., does this belong here? It belongs in Sharon's article, but as a person, not as the country. If this article is about the COUNTRY's human rights record, this may be out-of-scope. Thoughts? -- Avi 21:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't get why something that happened in Lebanon is here in this article. Fred Bauder 02:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sabra & Shatilla 

message: User:Sarastro777 wrote:
Firstly, the criticism belongs in both places. If we are discussing Human rights violations, and bringing reports from biased organizations in this article, we must be NPOV and show that those reports may be colored in this article.
Further, if there is more validly sourced and pertinent material about the bias, doesn't that in and of itself say something?
You were the one worried about vandalism of this article, to the point that you accused me of deleting properly sourced information, which I did not. The Lebanon issue is one we need to discuss if it falls in the scope of this article. However, my data on AI is most definitely in the scope of this article, and you removed it. Please afford other editors the same courtesies that you expect. -- Avi 14:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sudan

message: This is all irrelevant to this page, and might be better placed on those organisation's articles. This article is supposed to be about human rights in Israel. Evercat 14:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see what I wrote above. If the allegations supporting the article may themselves be biased, then that fact indubiably belongs in this article. Otherwise it is absolute WP:POV -- Avi 14:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Sarastro, maybe the truth is bizarre. I think that it is just as bizarre to have quadruple the citations on Israel than Darfur, and to blame the Israeli government for Palestinian men raping Palestinian women. No one is suggesting to submit baseless allegations of bias, but where sourced information can be found, I think it is important for WP:NPOV that it be listed in the article that is based on these organizational reports. -- Avi 14:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The citations issue could simply be a result of the fact that as a developed country which is reasonably safe for westerns, it's a lot easier to get information out of Israel than out of Sudan.  And the information provided gives no evidence that AI blames the Israeli government for Palestinian men raping Palestinian women - in fact, it specifically lists "norms, traditions, and laws which treat women as unequal members of society" as an independent cause of the problem from anything relating to Israel. john k 17:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree.  A brief discussion that AI and other groups have been accused of anti-Israel bias is appropriate.  A long discussion of these claims is not.  An entire section paraphrasing an Alan Dershowitz polemic is certainly not. john k 17:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias of reporting organisations 

message: Review WP:NPOV. Surely the Declaration of Independence which guarantees the rights and freedoms is absolutely relevant. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sarastro777, I don't think you need to worry: nobody can discredit you any more than yourself. So far you picked any dirt in order to present the subject in the worst possible light and use WP for political soapboxing. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: Humus Sapiens has included a table with statistics on "Israel, Egypt, Jordan and the Netherlands" -- ostensibly showing that Israel is on par with the Netherlands.  What he didn't note is that on pg. 13 of the source, other areas controlled by the State of Israel .. i.e. the "ISRAELI-Occupied Territories" are rated as "Not Free."    I added this, but it was deleted and he said I must have added it for my "political agenda".    Please explain why it is more relevant to "Human Rights in Israel" to include a statistic on the Netherlands while omitting information from the same report on the "Israeli"-Occupied Territories.  Sarastro777 14:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the slippery slope at present would appear to be that Humus, et al, are trying to remove any discussion of the Occupied Territories because they're not part of Israel.  It seems to me that it's absolutely essential to talk about the Territories in this article. john k 18:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: "Human rights in Israel" implies human rights within the State of Israel, I think. john k 20:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That would be inconsistent with every other article in the series "Human rights in XXX". This aricle, "Human rights in Israel", should talk about its immediate subject: Israel. It is not up to WP to assert that WBGS + the Golans are parts of Israel. Other article(s) may cover human rights situation in those other areas. Also, please see WP:NC#Lowercase second and subsequent words. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't make sense to separate out human rights in Israel proper from actions by the Israeli government in the Occupied Territories, the latter of which is the main thing that most people think of when they think of Israel with respect to human rights.  I will sugest again that we move the article to Human rights in Israel and the Occupied Territories, which surely, HS, would address your concerns? john k 03:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Israel's actions in the territories should be mentioned, just as Iraq is mentioned in the article about Human rights in the United States. Israel is responsible for its actions, regardless of their geographical location. I would definitely like to see articles about this subject in the surrounding countries. It does seem as though Israel is being singled out, even though its human rights condition is far superior to that of its neighbors. okedem 10:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Human rights in Syria, Human rights in Lebanon, Human rights in Islamic Republic of Iran, Human rights in Iraq (actually a disambiguation page for three separate articles), Human rights in Saudi Arabia, Human rights in Turkey, Human rights in Libya, Human rights in the United Arab Emirates, Human rights in Algeria, Human rights in Morocco, Human rights in Sudan.  It's true that some of these articles (the one on Syria, notably) are basically stubs, and that some notable countries (Egypt, Jordan) don't have articles yet.  But it seems inaccurate to say that Israel is being singled out. What I think does need to be done is that this article needs to note the ways in which Israel's human rights record is good.  This is why I suggested separating out discussion of Israel proper (where Israel's record is fairly good) from the Occupied Territories (where it is, er, not nearly as good.)  This would allow both the strengths and weaknesses of Israel's human rights record to be a lot clearer.  The article as it stands now is half a kind of "throwing everything we possibly can at Israel" mess, and half a "let's launch specious attacks on human rights organizations for being anti-Israel by quoting Alan Dershowitz" mess.  I'd prefer to take out the latter almost entirely, and to make the article balanced by focusing on the pluses and minuses of Israel's human rights record in a fair way. john k 10:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, someone mentioned the Nazis! We all knew this moment would come... okedem 05:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sarastro777, see Godwin's Law. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There is Morocco in Western Sahara. In that case, the Human rights in Morocco article mentions this issue in passing, and there's a Human rights in Western Sahara article to deal with Western Sahara in more detail.  This would be one route to go with this discussion. john k 23:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Freedom House Table

message: In sourcing a quotation on corruption in Israel, which relates directly to status of civil liberties and freedom, I quoted the World Bank. Humus Sapiens left the relatively vanilla preceeding stat which I added, but deleted the seemingly critical one as "irrelevant" (?)   I am just wondering why this took place and how it is in anyway not consistent with behavior pushing a solely non-critical POV. 
FYI the quote he deleted was: "The World Bank called the country "..one of the most fraudulent in the world." citing "unstable and inefficient government and its relatively high level of corruption among its leadership, as well a low ranking in law enforcement. "    
Discuss.
Sarastro777 15:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the context of the World Bank's statement?  What particular aspects of Israel is it describing?  john k 18:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: World Bank

message: I'm thinking of linking to this article from the main Israel page.  Any objections?Smitty Mcgee 14:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to Main Page

message: So the double-standard is that they are reporting more on Israel violating human rights than other countries?  So they (as a human rights organization) should turn a blind eye to human rights violations in Israel to "be fair" ... or they are inventing human rights violations?   This is not made clear.  Dershowitz's example is about activity taking place in Israel's area of control.   Since there is no "State of Palestine", and Israel's military seized 85% of the PA gov't and has them in jail, it obviously controls this area.   Why should they not be held responsible for what takes place in their territory?   This is the same as any other country.  Sarastro777 16:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we systematically endorsing the position that the WB+GS+GH are parts of Israel, or only when it suits certain agenda? I think we need to mention these areas but not dedicate a significant part of this article to them. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no need to endorse anything here. It's plain human rights violations are happing in the occupied territories by Israel by Israeli military personnel. These territories do not belong to Israel (you can find more information here and here). The problem with this article is that it's titled "Human rights in Israel" so logically these violations shouldn't be included here. I realize this may sound as a strange argument to make but I feel it's important to keep the facts straight.
===Tone it down everyone===
I think the point is not to ignore what AI is saying because what they are saying is important; however, I think it is relevant to note that some people believe that AI is biased, and they have evidence for it, just like if someone has evidence that Israel has made human rights abuses. I think criticism of AI is relevant in the article because it shows the two opposing sides to the debate. On another not, I think we need to tone down the arguments on this page until it is fully completed. The whole point of creating this article was to have an unbiased look at Human Rights in Israel, just to
see if it was possible and maybe so an eventual merger with the Israel article can take place (See the talk page of Israel). Let's try to be fair here everyoneand turn off the insults and the anger. Everyone be rational! It's just wikipedia for gosh sakes. -Alcarcalimo2364 03:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Amnesty International

message: I think the point is not to ignore what AI is saying because what they are saying is important; however, I think it is relevant to note that some people believe that AI is biased, and they have evidence for it, just like if someone has evidence that Israel has made human rights abuses. I think criticism of AI is relevant in the article because it shows the two opposing sides to the debate. On another not, I think we need to tone down the arguments on this page until it is fully completed. The whole point of creating this article was to have an unbiased look at Human Rights in Israel, just to
see if it was possible and maybe so an eventual merger with the Israel article can take place (See the talk page of Israel). Let's try to be fair here everyoneand turn off the insults and the anger. Everyone be rational! It's just wikipedia for gosh sakes. -Alcarcalimo2364 03:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone it down everyone

message: #There needs to be a clear discussion, towards the beginning, of the differences between Israel proper and the Occupied Territories in terms of these issues.  I would suggest that the article be moved to Human rights in Israel and the Occupied Territories, and that it be organized on the basis of a separation between the two.  The section on Israel could discuss the situation in Israel itself - that it is basically a liberal democracy, but has certain problems with, for instance, the treatment of Israeli Arabs as second class citizens, and the like.  It could note that such problems are, in many ways at least, comparable to such problems in most developed countries.  The second part should be about the Occupied Territories, and should discuss issues unique to them - the Settlements, bulldozing of homes, all that jazz.
#The introduction is bad.  I think there should be a discussion of Israel as a liberal democracy, and the ways it does live up to that billing, but I don't know that a long extract from Israel's independence declaration in the introduction is the best way to do that.  I think the introduction should, well, introduce the article.  It should mention Israel being a liberay democracy, its status as a Jewish state, and its position as occupying power in the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights. More specific material about Israel's founding principles could go elsewhere.
#There's problems with glittering generalities elsewhere.  The section about property rights is particularly bad.  There's no need for a quote from John Locke about property rights.  That's silly.  This is not an article about human rights in general.  We already have an article on that. It is an article about Human rights in Israel, and should presume basic familiarity with the categories of issues that fall under that rubrik.
#The long section about sex trafficking seems unbalanced.  Isn't this a problem in most developed countries?  We need to be sure to distinguish between issues that are relatively unique to Israel, and issues that Israel shares with other countries. the sex-trafficking business, I think, falls into the latter category, and should probably be summarized briefly.  It certainly shouldn't be discussed before the settlements.
#The section on criticisms of Amnesty is silly.  If that belongs anywhere, it is in the article on Amnesty.  We can perhaps briefly note that pro-Israeli advocates have accused Amnesty and other human rights NGOs of bias against Israel, but that's as far as we should go.  Half the article shouldn't be about the Sudan.  Beyond that, the issue seems pretty phony to me.  Among other things, Israel's openness as a society makes it a lot easier for human rights monitoring groups to know what's going on.  That's going to mean there are more reports about Israel than other countries.
#Ditto the section involving Alan Dershowitz.  None of this stuff has any relevance to human rights in Israel.  It is rather material about human rights groups, and whether they are biased or not.  A lengthy discussion of this issue seems inappropriate here.
Anyway, that's all. john k 16:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In terms of the tiers, just wanted to note that Switzerland and Finland are also in Tier 2.  Obviously not good, and most of the leading developed countries get to be in Tier 1, but Israel is better than, notably, Greece.  Tier 2 would seem to be the "this is a serious problem" but not a "this country is particularly bad about it" level, which would be "Tier 2 Watch List" and Tier 3. john k 20:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The article is a few days old, and is a wrok in progress. Eventually, it will be fleshed out more. Remember, all sides of the issue need to be aired for POV purposes. -- Avi 19:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, hopefully.  Certainly I hope we end up having more about the settlements and the wall than we do about sex trafficking or Alan Dershowitz.  But I'm not sure about "All sides of the issue need to be aired for POV purposes."  I mean, yeah, sure, in a general sense.  But we should also keep in mind proportionality.  Attacks on human rights organizations for talking more about Israel than about the Sudan aren't really much of a defense of Israel's human rights record. john k 20:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few points. 

message: While this is certainly a significant issue, I don't think that the Israelis killing somebody in Syria is a very good example of this, at least if we're trying to illustrate human rights violations.  This seems like a violation of international law, and of Syria's sovereignty, neither of which is necessarily about human rights.  An example of this in the Occupied Territories, if possible, would be better. john k 23:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't Palestinian terrorist attacks on Israeli citizens an example of extra-judicial killing? It is hard to imagine any due process when the victims are untargeted and random. This should be mentioned, as it is happening in Israel, no? -- Avi 03:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes Avi you are right. Feel free to add that in an article about Palestinian Terrorists. The difference between terrorists and government extra-judicial killing is that Israels attack on Syria and the Occupied Territories is that one is State Sponsored (military) and one is not.--Oiboy77 05:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: An extrajudicial killing has to be ordered and carried out by the state, as I understand the term.  A murder is not an extrajudicial killing. (Nor does military action within the laws of war constitute extrajudicial kiling) john k 13:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some might see the action in Syria as an "extrajudicial killing", some might see it as a justified action in a war being waged against Israel.  And that is assuming that it was actually carried out by the Israeli government.  If so, it was done in Syria because Syria was harboring a terrorist.  People die in wars.  The point is that it really doesn't belong in this article because it has nothing to do with human rights in Israel.  In fact the whole section is original research and is full of unverified claims and should be deleted.  6SJ7 14:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see how it's original research, and my understanding is that assassination is not considered a valid means of waging war according to the laws of war.  It seems to me that this is a violation of international law, but not a human rights issue.  Israel conducting assassinations in areas under its own control would probably qualify, however. john k 20:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extrajudicial killing 

message: "Despite constant attempts by the Palestinians to enlarge the role of the UN in the conflict, and to introduce UN observers, Israel has resisted. This is due to a lack of trust in the impartiality of the United Nations, and a desire to negotiate directly instead of internationalising the conflict." (p.105)
Practical Pointers
*"Screen a video, or run a poster campaign, featuring Palestinian children with guns." (p.88)
*"Lobby politicians to include Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hizbollah, and their ilk on lists of terror organisations."(p.88)
*"Hold a demonstration or vigil for peace, calling on the Palestinians to return to negotiations." (p.81)
*"Enter a team as Israel for a model United Nations, and do well, or enter one as Syria and be deliberately poor." (p.107)
The Hasbara Handbook also contains 'the pro-Israeli POV' on issues such as the "Palestinian Refugee Issue", "Israeli Settlements", and "Arabs in Israel". Thus it (see also http://giyus.org/) could be a valuable resource for this article. Bergerons 04:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  From the [http://www.wujs.org.il/about/publications/hasbara_handbook.pdf Hasbara Handbook] 

message: I'm not surprised to find no mention whatsoever about UN resolutions 242 and 446. Israel illegally occupies the Palestinian territories, this is a verifiable fact. Israeli military forces control countless check points in these territories, this is also a verifiable fact. Many sources (including this one ) claim Israeli military personnel harras Palestinians by disallowing them to pass to their homes, work and hospitals. This to me clearly constitutes as human rights violation by Israel (Freedom of movement) in territories occupied by Israel, albeit illegally. Technically these violations do not occur within the borders of the Israeli state so I'm not sure this belongs in here. Any thoughts?
:The title of this article is, as far as I can read, "Human rights in Israel." Are you proposing that these territories are in Israel? --Leifern 03:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though that can be mentioned in a Extra-Judicial section. State policy and mandate, that effect other nations human rights is still an Israeli human rights issue.--Oiboy77 05:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human rights in occupied Palestinian territories 

message: This article is a mess. It is a jumble of issues related to Israel's domestic policy and practice; military actions outside of Israel; West Bank and Gaza; critiques of Amnesty International; etc. Ideally, it should be placed in the context of "Human rights in..." for numerous countries. --Leifern 03:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, I think. john k 13:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup needed 

message: Please account for the deletion of the entire section for: "Status of Rights of People With Disabilities" in your edit:  (cur) (last)  10:57, 30 July 2006 Humus sapiens (Talk | contribs) (1) - →Status of freedom, political rights and civil liberties in Israel - antoerh attempt to reorganize and cleanup this section; 2) ==Declaration of Independence==) 
Sarastro777 17:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See #Psychiatric hospitalization. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly. You took the quote out of context. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Humus Sapiens Blanking Sections