Talk:Human rights in Israel/Archive 4

message: I added the weasel tag primarily because of the following phrase: "Amnesty International has been accused of having a double standard when it comes to its assessment of Israel.". Accused by whom? Israel? Doesn't sound neutral to me.62.142.46.22 10:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be sourced (many people have said that, among them Israeli officials), but there's no nuetrality problem here. The article doesn't say Amnesty has a double standard, it says it's been accused of that, which is a fact. okedem 11:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. If the source is specified it is not weasel. The accusers of AI are plainly listed as NGO monitor, there is no weasel issue at all. -- Avi 15:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  weasel words.... 

message: ===Take 1===
This is relevant to Freedom of Speech, but was reverted by Moshe Silverburg.  The source I was using, The US State Dept referred to him as a whistleblower.  This label differentiates him from some guy just violating state secrets.   For those that don't know:  Vanunu revealed Israel had a secret WMD project in which it had developed nuclear bombs to the British Gov't.  Sarastro777 23:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But why is it a violation of civil rights to incarcerate someone lawfully and legally convicted of treason? -- Avi 00:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you serious?  Presumably because the law under which he is convicted is considered to be unjust.  Nelson  Mandela was "lawfully and legally convicted" of crimes for which he was imprisoned, too. john k 14:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was kidnapped from Rome by the Mossad and then 'lawfully tried'.  Amnesty International considers him a "Prisoner of Conscience" -- so added that to make clear what the opinion of the human rights groups are on the matter (our own views don't count). Sarastro777 18:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you think that other countries would imprison someone who gave away state secrets? Is Jonathan Pollard a prisoner of conscience?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here we go again.  It doesn't matter what I think.  That would be Wikipedia:OR.  The information given is from a Human Rights Group that is cited.   Your gripe is with them.  Maybe you should call Amnesty International and ask them about Jonathan Pollard if it is an area of personal interest for you.  Sarastro777 18:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed it's not a good comparison, but I do believe Vaanunu's actions would constitute Treason in most western countries. okedem 20:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on how you view the state secret he revealed.  If it was a legitimate state secret, then he's a traitor.  If not, then he's a whistle-blower.  It seems to me that it's at a muddy intersection, and I'm not sure what I think - I'd have to know more about the particulars.  It could very well be treason, but it's certainly a lot more morally ambiguous than the classic kind of for-hire-by-foreign-governments treason, of which Pollard is certainly a classic example. I do think that kidnapping someone from a foreign country in order to put them on trial is generally wrong, and usually frowned upon.  Not sure if it's a human rights issue, per se, though. john k 22:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Every country limits freedoms as it sees fit. Vanunu violated a law and was punished for that. The freedom of speech section should talk about press, assosiations, etc., instead of harping on one old criminal case. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because Amnesty International and other groups cited comment on it, it is not a business as usual 'limit of  freedom', a classification which is your own opinion and not backed by the human rights groups..   "Harping" is also POV, the point of the article is to document human rights issues.  Classifying every section with wording like besmirching, harping, etc is not helpful to the process.   I also ask you to examine your behavior which consists almost entirely of coming to this article and deleting material which you have not added.  Your justifications are not borne out by the facts, also as in this case.   I have not seen you add hardly one thing other than a table, in which you omitted to 'occupied territories', which showed a very poor rating, but did manage to list Israel.  Sarastro777 02:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ignoring your ad hominem for now. It's good to know I'm being watched. You are wrong on all points. Vanunu broke the law, end of story. The section on the Freedom of speech somehow managed to omit to mention that Israel is ranked #1 in the region.  ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Among two other edits of yours, yes, and if you were to re-engage the editors in discussion, and a consensus is reached that it does belong, then there would have been no need for a warning. But, I am sorry to say, you have a history of undeniably NPOV edits. -- Avi 18:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The issue at hand is this edit NOT my "history of undeniably NPOV edits" I have posted direct citations from a Human Rights Organization. If you or any other editors have citations that directly refute the aformentioned citation I this it is justified to remove it. No consensus is required when adding material that has direct citations.--Oiboy77 18:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oiboy77, do you insist that the history of your edits should be analyzed? ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Sarastro, please do not tell me that you are comparing racial purity laws with a soveriegn country's right to protect its military secrets(not to mention vanunu violated every pledge/oath he took when given security clearances)???? -- Avi 20:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can gather, what HS said above pretty much amounted to an argument that governments can decide to limit freedom of speech, and that such limits then do not constitute problems with freedom of speech.  Sarastro's counter-example was probably ill-chosen (it's a bad idea to bring the Nazis into things), but surely we can all agree that laws can be passed which violate human rights?  Whether this particular law does is a matter for debate, but the fact that Vanunu was tried and convicted of something that was a crime in Israel does not necessarily mean that he's not also a martyr to free speech, or what not.  For instance, how is what Vanunu did significantly different from the actions of Daniel Ellsberg?  He is generally viewed today as a hero of free speech in the United States.  What he did was certainly illegal, but is generally viewed favorably now.  It seems to simple to just say that Vanunu is a "traitor." john k 22:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Please see [] It is a clear citation. And clearly uses the verbage Human Right Violation in a un-birmirching way.--Oiboy77 18:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  1) Vanunu is not the case of freedom of speech, and 2) AI is not a WP:RS in this matter. Its credibility is highly disputed when it comes to Israel. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

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

message: This is relevant to Freedom of Speech, but was reverted by Moshe Silverburg.  The source I was using, The US State Dept referred to him as a whistleblower.  This label differentiates him from some guy just violating state secrets.   For those that don't know:  Vanunu revealed Israel had a secret WMD project in which it had developed nuclear bombs to the British Gov't.  Sarastro777 23:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But why is it a violation of civil rights to incarcerate someone lawfully and legally convicted of treason? -- Avi 00:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you serious?  Presumably because the law under which he is convicted is considered to be unjust.  Nelson  Mandela was "lawfully and legally convicted" of crimes for which he was imprisoned, too. john k 14:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was kidnapped from Rome by the Mossad and then 'lawfully tried'.  Amnesty International considers him a "Prisoner of Conscience" -- so added that to make clear what the opinion of the human rights groups are on the matter (our own views don't count). Sarastro777 18:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you think that other countries would imprison someone who gave away state secrets? Is Jonathan Pollard a prisoner of conscience?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here we go again.  It doesn't matter what I think.  That would be Wikipedia:OR.  The information given is from a Human Rights Group that is cited.   Your gripe is with them.  Maybe you should call Amnesty International and ask them about Jonathan Pollard if it is an area of personal interest for you.  Sarastro777 18:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed it's not a good comparison, but I do believe Vaanunu's actions would constitute Treason in most western countries. okedem 20:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on how you view the state secret he revealed.  If it was a legitimate state secret, then he's a traitor.  If not, then he's a whistle-blower.  It seems to me that it's at a muddy intersection, and I'm not sure what I think - I'd have to know more about the particulars.  It could very well be treason, but it's certainly a lot more morally ambiguous than the classic kind of for-hire-by-foreign-governments treason, of which Pollard is certainly a classic example. I do think that kidnapping someone from a foreign country in order to put them on trial is generally wrong, and usually frowned upon.  Not sure if it's a human rights issue, per se, though. john k 22:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Every country limits freedoms as it sees fit. Vanunu violated a law and was punished for that. The freedom of speech section should talk about press, assosiations, etc., instead of harping on one old criminal case. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because Amnesty International and other groups cited comment on it, it is not a business as usual 'limit of  freedom', a classification which is your own opinion and not backed by the human rights groups..   "Harping" is also POV, the point of the article is to document human rights issues.  Classifying every section with wording like besmirching, harping, etc is not helpful to the process.   I also ask you to examine your behavior which consists almost entirely of coming to this article and deleting material which you have not added.  Your justifications are not borne out by the facts, also as in this case.   I have not seen you add hardly one thing other than a table, in which you omitted to 'occupied territories', which showed a very poor rating, but did manage to list Israel.  Sarastro777 02:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ignoring your ad hominem for now. It's good to know I'm being watched. You are wrong on all points. Vanunu broke the law, end of story. The section on the Freedom of speech somehow managed to omit to mention that Israel is ranked #1 in the region.  ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Among two other edits of yours, yes, and if you were to re-engage the editors in discussion, and a consensus is reached that it does belong, then there would have been no need for a warning. But, I am sorry to say, you have a history of undeniably NPOV edits. -- Avi 18:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The issue at hand is this edit NOT my "history of undeniably NPOV edits" I have posted direct citations from a Human Rights Organization. If you or any other editors have citations that directly refute the aformentioned citation I this it is justified to remove it. No consensus is required when adding material that has direct citations.--Oiboy77 18:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oiboy77, do you insist that the history of your edits should be analyzed? ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Take 1

message: The Vanunu stuff seems to be being reinserted and removed by various editors over the last few days. I think this needs to be discussed here, rather than continuing the reversions.
I'm not convinced on the merits of including some mention of him or not, but if it is to be included, the current text isn't very good.  The "if he violates the restrictions" wording is very awkward, especially since the nature of the restrictions has not been discussed in the article.  There are two issues here: 1) his original imprisonment for treason; and 2) his current restrictions, and his status if he were imprisoned for violating them.  The current version does not clarify this distinction at all.  This needs to be done if a discussion of him is going to be in the article. john k 19:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sarastro, please do not tell me that you are comparing racial purity laws with a soveriegn country's right to protect its military secrets(not to mention vanunu violated every pledge/oath he took when given security clearances)???? -- Avi 20:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can gather, what HS said above pretty much amounted to an argument that governments can decide to limit freedom of speech, and that such limits then do not constitute problems with freedom of speech.  Sarastro's counter-example was probably ill-chosen (it's a bad idea to bring the Nazis into things), but surely we can all agree that laws can be passed which violate human rights?  Whether this particular law does is a matter for debate, but the fact that Vanunu was tried and convicted of something that was a crime in Israel does not necessarily mean that he's not also a martyr to free speech, or what not.  For instance, how is what Vanunu did significantly different from the actions of Daniel Ellsberg?  He is generally viewed today as a hero of free speech in the United States.  What he did was certainly illegal, but is generally viewed favorably now.  It seems to simple to just say that Vanunu is a "traitor." john k 22:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Please see [] It is a clear citation. And clearly uses the verbage Human Right Violation in a un-birmirching way.--Oiboy77 18:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  1) Vanunu is not the case of freedom of speech, and 2) AI is not a WP:RS in this matter. Its credibility is highly disputed when it comes to Israel. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't need your advices or approvals. AI's credibility is disputed. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Take 2

message: Warring parties - Moshe and Deuterium - please discuss this section here before reverting each other's work again. okedem 07:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On a topic other than the edit war, this should not be under "ethnic minorities".  Maybe a new section on "immigration" should be started because that is the topic.  Also, this very difficult decision was made because security problems were found after letting this type of immigration take place.  Maybe someone could dig up a quote on that.  We can probably handle this topic in a NPOV manner that makes both sides ok with it.  Elizmr 09:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It should be under the "ethnic minorities" section, because critics argue that the law is selectively targeting an ethnic minority, Israeli Arabs, because many are married to Palestinians and will be affected by this law (e.g. have families broken up). Deuterium 10:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality and Entry into Israel law 

message: The first paragraph, while a faithful rendition of the AI statement, is actually based on a slight misinterpretation of Rabbinic Law on AI's part. I will try to explain it as clearly as I can, and then we can discuss whether or not the article needs adjustment, and how to do so without violation WP:OR.
Biblical law allows male polygamy. Historically, this was a rarity, left as the perview of kings and wealthy men, as the biblical requirements of spousal support (financial, emotional, sexual, and child support to name some major responsibilities) were in general too demanding on men to fulfill with more than one wife. King David had 18 wives, and the Midrash brings down that this strained even he, the King of all Israel. Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with the Bible in theory, this explains the difference between the child's status if the father or mother was married. If we are not talking about one of the other forbidden relationships (incestual or otherwise) whose punishment is divine excommunication and early death from Heaven (Kares), and the only illegitamicy comes from the marital status of one of the partners, then if the man is the married partner, his having sex and a child from an unmarried woman is viewed as tantamount to marrying her (there are three biblical methods of entering a marriage, and having sexual relations with intent to consumate a marriage is one of them). A woman cannot use this loophole as she is not allowed to have two husbands, so perforce the child is a mamzer.
As mentioned, in practice polygamy was a rarity. In approximately the 10th century, one of the greatest of the European rabbinical leaders, Gershom ben Judah, impelented a prohibition against polygamy for 1,000 years. Although this is technically expired, most modern rabbinic authorities believe that this has taken on the status of a minhag yisrael, or an ancient minhag which is treated for the most part as halakha.
The heter me'ah rabbanan, or "Permission of 100 rabbis" is a loophole built into the rabbinic prohibition preventing polygamy, usually used in cases where divorce is impossible; for example, a woman who is declared insane cannot accept a Jewish divorce, as she must be of sound mind to effect the breaking of the relationship. As such, the husband is still required to care for her. However, as normal husband-wife interactions (emotional etc.) are impossible, he would be allowed, by obtaining this permission, to remarry. This is not a release from the marriage, but a legal instance of Jewish polygamy in the modern era. This is usually not secular/legal polygamy, as a secular divorce is granted, and the courts can break a marriage even with a woman who is not well.
So, the AI statement that this is a "release" is technically a misinterpretation and misunderstanding of Jewish law, but I have not changed the text, because it is what they wrote, and any correction I would make based on my own knowledge of Rabbinic law is considered original research.
Suggestions? -- Avi 14:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of those points where Wikipedia OR rules prove irritatingly bothersome.  There should not be a policy which prevents you from giving well-sourced citations about why AI is somewhat wrong about Judaic law. Sadly, the prevailing interpretation of WP:NOR seems to be that this is in fact forbidden.  I'm not sure what is to be done about this. john k 23:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rights of Women 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: False. okedem 09:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leftist Bias 

message: I came here from WP:3O.  I understand there are 2 disputes here:
# 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.
# A dispute as to whether :Image:Palestenian Human shield.jpg is fair use or is a copyright violation.  (There is also a possible middle ground, in which the inclusion of the image constitutes fair use under U.S. copyright law but may still potentially violate the Wikipedia fair-use policy).  This is a close call and should be referred to an expert for review.  In the meantime I have tagged the image for .
:69.140.152.55 (talk) 06:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion