Talk:Human rights in Israel/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Declaration of Independence

I disagree with the statement that there is consensus on the addition of this. It is quite important in a human rights article to give some context about the greater societal framework. It matters for interpretation about what comes next. Here's an example of why. In the US, where I live, there is a huge outcry when the government does something like wiretapping for security reasons, in a totalitarian gov't, this might be completely routine and hardly worth mentioning. I vote for putting the D of I back in the article. Elizmr 17:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Context is appropriate, but is this the best way to provide it? john k 19:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with how it is currently written? It mentions the declaration and summarizes the parts relevant to human rights. the rest of it is judeo-romanticism and not relevant to this article. I don't think it is appropriate to verbatim recount the whole thing. You did notice that the source notation in the intro there would provide a ready link to anyone simply wanting to read the declaration? Sarastro777 07:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"the whole thing" was not quoted here. Surely a short paragraph about the declaration is of crucial importance to the subject. The namecalling and repeated removal of relevant information that doesn't serve certain political agenda should stop. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Keyword "short paragraph", something which your edit did not bring to the table. You are the only person on this page doing any namecalling. See Psychological projection. It's a written record on here, so you can't deny it. See above section which documents you deleting the "Rights of Mentally Diasbled" section in its entirety under the cover of another edit. Your "State Dept" piece was in a section on "Liberty Ratings" and not relevant. See discussion below. Sarastro777 15:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

1) Sorry if I was not clear: "judeo-romanticism" was the namecalling. Would it be fair to call you "Israel hater"? 2) I see that someone already explained where you were wrong and you admitted "I'm not qualified to know off-hand if this is misleading things..." 3) FYI, I don't do "under the cover" edits. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

So you are upset because my characterization of parts of a document amounts to "namecalling"? And you are taking exception on behalf of the inanimate object which I have allegedly insulted? I don't even know where to start on that. Please tell the declaration, I sincerely apologize for any offense for which I have caused.

I don't see how discussing a new statistic somebody added and saying I was not familiar with it/qualified makes me "wrong." I guess maybe some of us have our egos more personally invested in Wikipedia than others. Please try to tone down the rhetoric and remain civil. Sarastro777 22:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

What was the personal attack? Sarastro777 15:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarification needed

Is this article about Human rights in the state of Israel? In which case Palestinian terror attacks in the state of Israel need to be included, or is this about the human rights record of the state OF Israel, in which case the title is wrong? -- Avi 22:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It is about anything Israel has done which is bad. Isn't that clear to you? Elizmr 22:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asking about the apparent POV of some of the main editors, I am asking about how those of us who still have a scintilla of faith in the wiki process should behave. And yes, you seem to have keyed in to the subcurrent that I have been picking up as well. -- Avi 22:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the title "Human rights in Israel" (emphasis added) is what it's about. It seems to me that certain editors want the territories to be part of Israel when it suits their purposes, yet not when it doesn't. This is complicated by the fact that human rights aren't only a function of government policy. I also wish - for the sake of the people there - that as much effort was put into writing about human rights in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iran, etc., as for Israel. --Leifern 22:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

As to your second sentence, isn't that pretty obviously true of people on both sides? I think the basic issue is that those who created the article wanted to discuss the human rights record of the State of Israel, but the format for human rights articles is "Human rights in X". The idea of an article on human rights violations by the Israeli government seems perfectly reasonable, but given the way other articles on the subject are organized, the article couldn't really be titled in that way. Given the fact that most of Israel's human rights abuses do not occur in Israel proper, this makes for difficulties. I have repeatedly suggested that the article be changed to Human rights in Israel and the Occupied Territories. If this is not done, I'd be happy to suggest moving most of the material on the Occupied Territories to its own article, but only so long as there is some mention of the Occupied Territories here, as there is, for instance, of Morocco's behavior in Western Sahara in Human rights in Morocco. john k 00:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

And you are of course free to right on the human rights situations in other countries - Human rights in Iran is in a somewhat better state in this article, but still needs a lot of work. Human rights in Syria and Human rights in Lebanon are merely stubs. There are no articles on Human rights in Egypt and Human rights in Jordan. It would, of course, be excellent to have articles on those subjects. But that those articles aren't in a good state is no particular reason that we shouldn't try to write a good article here. john k 00:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

May be worth investigating if these editors are pushing a particular POV, no? -- Avi 23:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the sarcasm. Elizmr 23:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

In terms of Palestinian terrorism, I'm not sure that it's a human rights issue, per se. Human rights in the United Kingdom does not discuss IRA terrorism as a British human rights problem - it only discusses the government's reaction to terrorism. As I understand it, a discussion of human rights is understood to refer to the policies of the government. Some level of discussion of Palestinian suicide bombings, etc. is probably in order, but it should not be the focus of the article. (Nor, I think, should things like "de facto discrimination against the disabled" and supposed problems with sex trafficking, which are surely not things that get very many people upset about Israel's human rights record). I'd prefer that discussion of Palestinian terrorist actions come in the form of giving context to Israel's response, rather than be discussed in a tit for tat kind of way. That is to say, rather than having separate sections, one about "Horrible things Israelis do" and one about "Horrible things Palestinians do," we try to make the article into more of an organic whole, that discusses the actions of each group as being related to each other. I don't think it's fair to talk about Israeli human rights violations without noting that they come in the context of considerable provocation in terms of Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians. But i still tend to feel the article should be focused on what Israel does, rather than what Palestinians do. But I could have my mind changed. Ongoing civil wars do receive treatment as human rights issues in other wikipedia human rights articles. Part of the problem is that wikipedia articles on human rights by country are mostly pretty terrible. It's hard to find one that could serve as a decent model, which is what we really need here. john k 00:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Psychiatric hospitalization

It is fascinating what one can uncover with a little research. A figure of 70 patients sounds horrible, and it is, but in the context of over 18,000 hospital admissions, or a rate of under one-half of one percent, it takes on a different tone, does it not? The context is critical to presenting the statistics in an NPOV manner. -- Avi 23:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

One half of one percent seems like a fairly high rate for such things. What kind of rates would you expect? The real question would be how this compares to other developed countries. john k 00:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Aaaah, but I thought that Oiboy and Sarastro were adamant that this only be about Israel? :lol: Of course, I know where they are coming from. Regardless, I would be VERY happy to compare Israel's human rights record on ANY category with ANY of its neighbors. Oh, you mean they are not developed? Even with all of OPEC's oil money? Too bad. Let's compare its record to such developed countries as France, Russia,, Germany, Italy, etc. Be my guest. I don't think the two editors I mentioned will be too happy with that. What do you think? (note the liberal use of dry good-natured humor that couches a point or three) -- Avi 01:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

A figure like this is entirely meaningless without some means of contextualizing it, as nobody has any gut sense of what a good figure or what a bad figure would be. I personally have no idea if this is a good figure or a bad figure, which is why I suggested comparing to other developed countries (a comparison to Jordan or Syria would seem completely useless - I'm sure Israel is better than them, but I don't think that's saying very much). john k 01:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Just as meaningless as the 70 people, is it not? Some context is necessary, and one based on population or population of psychiatric patients, seems appropriate. -- Avi 01:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

And, I mean, the comparison in question seems dubious. What does "18,000 hospital admissions" mean? Why is it meaningful to compare this number with the number of patients in hospitals who should've been released? It seems arguable that by creating this "rate", you are engaging in original research, and original research of dubious validity - plugging the wrong numbers together can create some seriously dubious statistics. john k 00:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Very simple. We are looking at the number of ALLEGED illegal retentions, to what should that be compared with not the total number of admissions? Do you have a better statistic? The number 70 in a vacuum means nothing, SOME context must be shown. If there were 18,000 hospital admissions, and only 70 could be found that were illegal, that is different than 70 out of 700. -- Avi 01:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, what about the total number of people in a hospital at any given time? At any rate, my point that this is OR still stands - you have put two numbers together to create a new statistic not found in any secondary source. That's blatantly OR. john k 01:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

After looking up WP:OR, I have to thank you for pointing this out. You are absolutely correct in that the 0.38% is a new synthesis, and as such against wiki policy. I have changed the sentences to remove the synthesis. Thanks! -- Avi 01:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Avi, I know you are well intentioned, but I am not following the logic. Should it not count as a human rights issue because it is only 70 people? How many people is it acceptable to lock away for profit in mental hospitals? But more to the point, according to the sources I have found it is considered relevant to Human Rights in Israel. The number of people mistreated in other countries doesn't really nullify mistreatment in Israel. Nor do our own viewpoints on this.. as we are documenting these points through verifiable sources.

If it's a perception I think Israel is the only country with Human Rights violations, I can assure you this is not my own personal conviction. This perception prob. comes as a result of my work on this article which I have dilligently worked to keep verifiable through major sources and on topic. Sarastro777 03:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying to remove the section; I agree that the only acceptable number is 0. But to say 70 people, and not give context, is to implicitly paint a POV picture. Leave the statement in, but let it be seen in the greater context of the entire Israeli in-patient psychiatric system. -- Avi 03:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This seems a valid approach. I'm not qualified to know off-hand if this is misleading things... but I would think we will come across more as we research sources further. Sarastro777 07:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Avi on this point, throwing out a figure does little to contexualize it. Throwing in countries with "poor human rights records" against it is POV. Can someone find a world average or something? Take a look at GDP stats for countries. The stats mean very little without some form of comparison on a global perspective. That said, It would be wrong and very POV to compare to specific countries. I think global averages with suffice.--Oiboy77 16:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

A global average would be useful, as, I think, would be a global average of developed countries, since Israel is generally considered to be a devveloped country, assuming such a thing exists. 86.217.1.50 16:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC) [this was me, I somehow got signed out. john k 20:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)]

I don't think there's any such thing as a global average on this. There is also no gold standard on what is too long or too short for a psychiatric hospitalization; it is very individualized. I'm actually finding the debate kind of amusing. As a primary care doc in the US, the biggest issue with psychiatric hospitalization is that insurers do not want to pay for it and it is hard to KEEP anyone in the hospital for long ENOUGH. To drag a very beleaguered country through the mud because some private hospital kept 70 people in the hospital for TOO LONG and government oversight was not what it maybe should be seems to be a really minor thing to mention in a encyclopedia outline of Human rights in a whole country. This thing should be deleted from the article Elizmr 23:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Imprisoning patients in a Psychiatric ward for profit (when not medically necessary) constitutes a Human Rights issue. It doesn't matter what your personal opinion on the matter is in terms of the article. The material has been cited through a verifiable source. 64.186.246.122 18:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

State department report

Sarastro777, so far you've demonstrated extreme POV, incompetence and inabillity to collaborate with other editors. You are making it very hard to assume good faith. Can you explain your wholesale removal of US SD report? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If you read the edit notes, or followed procedure you would already know why. The section the State Dept. piece was in, is entitled "Liberty Ratings." The State Dept. Report you quoted was not a rating, and therefore was not relevant to the section. Secondly the way you quoted it with bullet points and the rest overemphasized that single source and the format did not lend itself to clarifying the way you excerpted in a misleading way. Whereas the rest of the article devotes a sentence or a few to a single source, you had the single largest piece of the whole article from only one report of only one source in an in an inappropriate place. You also left out the criticism from that article, making the entire thing unabalanced. Sarastro777 15:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

S777: wrong, wrong and wrong. It is a comprehensive report form a reputable source, (BTW, not too favorable to Israel). Earlier, you inserted a highly critical quote (BTW, out of context, as you do with almost all your quotes) from its 2000 report. If the more up-to-date 2005 report does not follow your political agenda, too bad. Wherever you got your idea of "thing balanced", you got it wrong too. BTW, care to explain why did you insert outdated quotes? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know which quotes you are referring to, but I would imagine you are calling them outdated because they don't match what you would like to see, as you seem to be quite emotional at the moment. Do you think it is really appropriate to have now readded your State Dept. article under its own subsection? If we follow this pattern then every individual source will need its own subsection. You need to rework this to fit the format of the article. The others points I raised still stand. The bulleted list does not lend itself to putting counter information from other sources..especially when you have titled the whole subsection solely with the name of that one source. Also giving too much space to only one source. As stated above, we mostly use a source for one or two sentences, not a quarter of the length of the entire article. Please offer suggestions to improve this or go ahead and implement them, or risk having another Editor handle the matter. Sarastro777 22:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if a reputable report is quoted in subsections. You have inserted this [1] outdated US SD quote. You don't own this article, try to collaborate with others. "we mostly use a source for one or two sentences" - is there a policy for that?

Sidenote: By now I have assumed good faith and ignored your ad homs, please refrain from that in the future. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a nice summary. As the rest of the article fleshes out to include most of the major issues, perhaps it can be deleted but for now it provides an overview that the article does not. Elizmr 23:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There was an overview, but it was deleted and replaced by the Declaration of Establishment, over, and over, over :-) Sarastro777 23:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't switch the topic. A short 1-paragraph summary of relevant parts of DOI belong here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

So the quote: "A landmark decision by the High Court of Justice in September 1999 prohibited the use of a variety of abusive practices, including violent shaking, painful shackling in contorted positions, sleep deprivation for extended periods of time, and prolonged exposure to extreme temperatures." is outdated because why?? Have they reinstated torture? I don't understand your criticism.

Here's the guideline you sought, which pertains to making an entire subsection on only one report. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight

Finally, I don't care about you as an individual so therefore would have no need to attack you on that level. However you have been making a dilligent effort to pester me, including leaving the usual comments on my userpage. It's against policy, but if it makes you feel like the bigger person then go ahead. Sarastro777 23:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how does the WP:NPOV#Undue weight apply: the quoted text includes assessment of various aspects of the subject, including plenty of criticism. We are still to see an explanation why do you quote old reports and insist on removing the latest ones. And again, WP:NPA. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I respond above. You apparently don't read what others have said before you post. Perhaps you should reread my reply carefully and do the same thing with the Undue Weight article as well. You just *might* find your answer. Sarastro777 03:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Freedom of Speech

I commented out a section that says that the OT are under miliatary law which prohibits this. I believe this applies only pre Oslo. Cities are now under PA control and protests are quite common. Elizmr 12:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Introductory Statement

I have removed the links to human rights articles of other countries in the region. None of the linked articles have a link to this article on their page, so this juxtaposition seemed extremely unfair. Anyone interested in the human rights records of these countries can look them up. To link to these articles is obviously a POV move, as if to say, "Before you criticize Israel, make sure you look how bad its neighbors are."Smitty Mcgee 16:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Human rights in Syria has a template at the bottom which links to this page, e.g. That would be appropriate, right? john k 16:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Having a template listing countries a the bottom of a page and adding comparison between the human rights records of specific countries in an introductory paragraph is two very different things. I agree with User:Smitty Mcgee on this one. It has no real place in an article about Israeli Human Rights. It doesn't really do anything for the article and just is an attempt to dillute what in cited within the article.--Oiboy77 16:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Although, a link to the PNA article is most likely warranted, even up top, as they are indelibly linked. -- Avi 17:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just saying that a template at the bottom is appropriate. I wasn't completely clear on what Smitty was saying. john k 17:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• A template at the bottom is appropriate.Smitty Mcgee 15:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Some not-so-original reaseach

Here are some links to "not so original" research that may help with the article. [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] [[6]] [[7]] [[8]] [[9]] (mostly official UN reports) Hope this helps! --Oiboy77 16:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The UN CHR was so messed up that even unreformed UN admitted it and recently disbanded it. It was notoriously bad in this particular area. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Proper jurisdictional issues

We're having a discussion over at the recently created Talk:Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority article over the question of what exactly should be in this article, and what in a prospective other article about the Palestinian Territories, or what not. I think a lot of the arguments we've been having (certainly not nearly all of them, but a lot) have revolved around the question of what exactly this article should cover. Hopefully, if we clarify this issue, we will have less disagreement on what exactly each article should cover, and can focus more on improving the actual content of the article, so all input is welcome. john k 20:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

What the article should cover: Israeli Gov't and its Human Rights issues or lack thereof. Above we already found analogous articles about Morocco/Western Sahara, and China/Tibet that include info on human rights of occupying state in "occupied territories." The title is merely a matter of the naming conventions. Clarification to this point has been at the top of the article since the onset in case the naming conventions were confusing. Sarastro777

Tibet is explicitly part of China, and has been recognized as such internationally for hundreds of years (since the 18th century), although effective control was only estalibhsed in 1951. Beyond that, the naming conventions should not be some kind of abstract thing separate from the content of the page. Also, I pointed to the other talk page for a reason, because I posted in a lot more detail over there on this subject... john k 23:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Tibet used to rule parts of China, but became Buddhist and renounced military warfare. Out of respect of and in gratitude of its spritual advice the Emperors of China used to extend it military protection so that it could remain peaceful. I've never heard anyone outside of Communist Party officials calling it part of China in a historical sense. The Dalai Llama and the Tibetans certainly don't see it that way... but back to the point.. what ever became of "Human Rights in State of Israel and Occupied Territories"? That seemed to serve the purpose as long it was understood the subject matter would be Israel and not Hamas Sarastro777 23:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you looked at maps from the 19th century? They all show Tibet as part of China. It is not part of Han China, but then neither is Inner Mongolia, or East Turkestan. Beyond that, Tibet is internationally recognized as a part of China, while the territories are not considered by either Israel or the world community to be part of Israel (for somewhat different reasons, natch). Beyond that, I'm not sure what your last question means. And I think that human rights issues with respect to Palestinian violations of human rights are a perfectly valid topic for an article. The important thing is to figure out the best way to organize it so that everything gets covered in a fair and comprehensible way. If you'd go over to the other page and read what we've discussed there, and gave your input, that would be helpful. john k 00:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Amnesty's annual report on Israel includes a section about Palestinian terrorist violence in Israel. It would seem appropriate to include a discussion of this, no matter whether this articles ends up being just about Israel or about Israel and the territories. john k 00:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Original research and proper sourcing

I've removed some blank sections, and some original research from the page. We can't decide for ourselves that certain things are Human rights violations, and then list them; instead we must quote recognized Human rights bodies and list their allegations. For example, whether or not Israeli settlements are illegal under international law is an interesting debate for legal scholars, and could even go on the Israeli settlements page, but this page is about allegations of Human Rights abuses. As well, we cannot include a speech by the Palestinian ambassador to the U.N. as a reliable source regarding alleged Israeli Human Rights violations. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The "blank sections" are "stubs" that we are working to fill-in. So you removed them .. because? Wikipedia:Verifiable does not require a specific type of entity, i.e. human rights body as a source. And UN Proceedings are not notable, because the man was Palestinian or representing Palestine? Is that not a slight bit of bias bordering on racism? Also a quotation is not Wikipedia:Original Research Sarastro777 00:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and this is an encyclopedia article; if you want to work on something, please use your User space, not the article space, and insert it when it is ready for viewing. For the purposes of WP:V, WP:RS defines what is reliable - and the statement of the Palestinian ambassador to the U.N. is not a reliable source when it comes to allegations of Human rights violations on the part of Israelis; ambassadors are supposed to represent specific political interests, they are not experts in human rights violations. In addition, quotations are indeed original research, if they are used to present an argument or thesis that is not found in reliable sources. If you want to include information about Human Rights in Israel, then you need to quote bodies that at least have some expertise in the area. And finally, your claims of "racism" are completely out of place, and, in fact, are violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Please edit within policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Palestinian ambassador is not a reliable source when it comes to facts in the way that human rights groups are (although I'm a bit uncertain as to how to compare his status with that of the US State Department's human rights reports - I can see that the latter is less self-interested, but surely the US government has its own interests in the issue, which could be thought to influence the report). The Palestinian ambassador could, however, used as a source for what the Palestinian government claims about Israeli human rights abuses, which is surely notable for inclusion in the article. john k 00:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to note, before anyone else does, of course the US State Department report is put out by non-political career civil servants whose job it is to right basically non-political reports on human rights, while the Palestinian ambassador is a politician whose job it is to advance Palestinian interests as understood by his government. Nevertheless, the State Department reports are put out by a government foreign ministry, of the same sort that employs ambassadors who are not reliable sources. I think the distinction is tenable, but it becomes complicated at the margins. john k 00:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

In terms of settlements, Jayjg, Amnesty in its 2005 annual report mentions settlements and the wall in the introduction to its report on Israel/Occupied Territories, noting "Israel continued to expand illegal settlements and to build a fence/wall through the West Bank, confining Palestinians in isolated enclaves cut off from their land and essential services in nearby towns and villages." The HRW report contains an entire section on the wall, which includes discussion of settlement expansion. Which would suggest, between the two, that settlement expansion is considered a human rights issue by Amnesty and HRW, no?

By the way, both Amnesty and HRW produce annual reports on human rights, which include sections on Israel and the Occupied Territories. I think these would serve as useful models for our article. Here's the full Amnesty International summary, so people don't have to go looking for it:

The Israeli army killed more than 700 Palestinians, including some 150 children. Most were killed unlawfully — in reckless shooting, shelling and air strikes in civilian residential areas; in extrajudicial executions; and as a result of excessive use of force. Palestinian armed groups killed 109 Israelis — 67 of them civilians and including eight children — in suicide bombings, shootings and mortar attacks. Stringent restrictions imposed by the Israeli army on the movement of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories caused widespread poverty and unemployment and hindered access to health and education facilities. The Israeli army destroyed several hundred Palestinian homes, large areas of agricultural land, and infrastructure networks. Israel continued to expand illegal settlements and to build a fence/wall through the West Bank, confining Palestinians in isolated enclaves cut off from their land and essential services in nearby towns and villages. Israeli settlers increased their attacks against Palestinians and their property and against international human rights workers. Certain abuses committed by the Israeli army constituted crimes against humanity and war crimes, including unlawful killings; extensive and wanton destruction of property; obstruction of medical assistance and targeting of medical personnel; torture; and the use of Palestinians as “human shields”. The deliberate targeting of civilians by Palestinian armed groups constituted crimes against humanity.

There follow sections describing 1) "Killings and attacks by the Israeli army;" 2) "Human shields," 3) "Killings and attacks by Palestinian armed groups;" 4) "Attacks by Israeli settlers in the Occupied Territories;" 5) "Impunity;" 6) "Destruction of Palestinian property in the Occupied Territories;" 7) "Collective punishment, closures and violations of economic and social rights;" 8) "Detainees and releases;" 9) "Violence against women;" and 10) "Discrimination." john k 01:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the AI figures are much in excess of what the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group estimates for 2005 by about double. Elizmr 03:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A discrepancy which should be discussed in the article. john k 10:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

John k, you quoted AI as saying - "Israel continued to expand illegal settlements...". I want to note that it's not clear (to me, at least) whether they mean all settlements, or just the ones considered illegal according to Israeli law - a bunch of people just placing some mobile homes on a hill, without any permits, and sometimes on land owned by Palestinians. There are something like a hundred of these. This is a major issue in Israel, and the problem is that the government, on the one hand, supports these illegal settlements (building roads, connecting them to water and electricity, etc.), and on the other hand - promises to remove them (and sometimes does so). okedem 05:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems unlikely to me that illegal (in Israel) settlements. All of the settlements are, as I understand it, illegal under international law. Given that the settlements are being described as being expanded by Israel (i.e., by the government of Israel) and that they are discussed in context of the wall, it seems likely that this is referring to settlements in general. HRW's report goes into more detail on the same subject, in its section on the wallL

The construction of the wall and settlement expansion essentially have cut off East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank. In June the Israeli cabinet approved the final details of the 60-kilometer fence around Jerusalem that will cut off some fifty-five thousand Palestinian Jerusalem residents from their city. Israel also has announced plans to build in the three thousand acre

piece of West Bank land between Jerusalem and the West Bank settlement of Maaleh Adumim, known as E-1, and to surround the entire area with the wall. This will effectively sever the northern and southern West Bank.

This seems to be discussing "legal" settlements. Obviously, it's not necessarily the same thing the AI report is discussing, but it seems plausible that it is. john k 10:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you, but I just wanted to make it clear that in hebrew there are two seperate terms, "settlement", and "illegal settlements", though the legal status of all of them is dubious at best. okedem 11:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Jayg, the "present an argument or thesis that is not found in reliable sources" would be the OR. Not the quotation. If you disagree on what is a reliable source, then that is an edit disagreement not OR. One could argue your suggestion that a viewpoint cannot be presented because the source is Palestinian was the violation of civility, not me calling you on it. BTW I said it was borderlining on racism and stand by that. The reliability of sources is not dictated by the race/nationality/or origin of the speaker. Sarastro777 03:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody ever said it was dictated by the race or nationality of the speaker, in fact nobody even came close to implying it. The speaker's job was to represent a political entity, he obviously is not going to be neutral or unbiased and so is obviously not an acceptable source. Your constant personal accusations and attacks on this page do not help your argument, you have shown nothing but contempt for good faith, civility, and indeed reason and common sense, I implore you to begin reading wikipedia policy before you make even one more contribution as you have become a literal nightmare to deal with.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sarastro, calm down. It's perfectly fair to say that the ambassador is not a reliable source because he's basically a political player in this, whose job is not to report fairly, but to support his own government's interests. That said, we normally take statements by government officials to be reliable sources for the views of said government, and the views of the Palestinian government would be appropriate to discuss in this article. john k 10:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

So, why is it okay to delete "Palestinians officials" as unreliable, but we are allowed to quote "Israeli officials" and even have part of their declaration of establishment? It looks like a double standard to me. And I agree, one would expect there might be some objectivity issues on both sides. Though in the Palestinian excerpt the quote was stated as coming from the "Palestinian Observer" (region where the alleged war crimes took place), where in the Israeli officials' quotes nothing is mentioned on their positions which would cause the same bias. In fact the Palestinian source was deleted without discussion while the others remaain.Sarastro777 15:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Which "Israeli officials" are quoted, and where? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ummm..okay I will play along. Let's start with "Ambassador" Dore Gold (former Israeli Ambassador to UN) (wow is that not overlap?). I believe he also wrote a book called "Hatred's Kingdom" -- referring to the capital of Islam, Saudi Arabia. You might also better recognize him through his "official" status as adviser to Ariel Sharon. Sarastro777 22:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sarastro777, please follow the link of that source, it is an extremely well sourced and documented journal article, not a speech. Further, that source is ONLY used to support the historical fact that Jordan refused Israel access to the Western Wall; nothing else. The comparison is COMPLETELY flawed. -- Avi 22:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Israeli official being quoted, that was the question. At least the other UN edit actually did a literal quotation and attributed it, so that the reader could ascertain any "reliability" issues. I can't see how the only official international represenative of the Palestinians to whom the abuses were allegedly done is not relevant for a properly attributed quotation (without even a discussion before deletion), but "Hatred's Kingdom, Ambassador Gold" is acceptable even if he is being summarized and not quoted directly (which could be even more misleading). Sarastro777 22:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Gold is a former ambassador; he was not an "Israeli official", as he was not working for the government when he wrote that article. In addition, this fact is well attested from other sources. For example:

• Although the formal UN armistice agreement (signed on April 3, 1949) partitioned Jerusalem and guaranteed Jews access to the Western Wall, no Jew would stand in prayer before its ancient stones for the next 19 years - H Paul Jeffers, "The Complete Idiots Guide to Jerusalem", p. 167.
• Among the articles of the armistice agreement was one, Article VIII, under which Jordan guaranteed Israeli Jews free access to the Wailing Wall. In fact, during the nineteen years of Jordanian rule in East Jerusalem, no Israelis were allowed to visit this site which was most holy to them - Martin Gilbert, "Jerusalem in the Twentieth Century", p. 241.
• He was clearly referring to the fact that Jordan barred entry of Jews to the Holy places under Jordanian control, including the Western Wall, Judaism's most sacred site. - S Slonim, "Jerusalem in America's Foreign Policy", p. 166.

See also [10] Do you seriously dispute this fact? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you dispute the "fact" in the quotation you deleted? I thought we were discussing reliability of sources. So Ambassador "Hatred's Kingdom" Gold can be included as a reliable source, but the Palestinian Observer is not because he is a UN Official and Gold is not an official working for Israel? As to his status as an official, you are standing on shakey ground. In 1991 he was an advisor for the State of Israel. In 1996-1997 he was a foreign advisor for Benjamin Netyanhu. 1997-1999 he was a UN Ambassador to the United Nations for Israel (the same position that made you delete the Palestinian source as unreliable). From 2002-2004 he was a paid advisor for Ariel Sharon for the State of Israel. But it is okay to use him as a reliable source, but delete a Palestinian diplomat as unreliable? This doesn't add up. Dore Gold is a careeer politician FOR ISRAEL. If there are so many sources documenting your facts, then why did you not delete the "unreliable one" like you did with the Palestinian subject, and include these instead? Again, it's a double standard... where the Palestinian diplomat has his quote deleted out of hand for being an ambassador, but "Hatred's Kingdom" Career Diplomat "Ambassador" Gold is considered completely reliable. Sarastro777 03:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit war and 3RR

Please stop now or this will get reported and protected. Use talk page for your proposals to improve the article. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The system wasn't working right a few hours ago when I kept trying to edit the article but for some reason it wouldn't register, when it started working again all the previous attempts must have appeared at the same time. I guess Sarastro was doing the same thing I was and so it looked like a revert war when both of us thought we were only making one reversion.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes :-) no edit war, just a database failure. Sarastro777 15:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad we can agree on that ;)- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

article tagged

This unbalanced article is specifically written to make Israel look bad. Reference, the State Dept bullets which are arranged to put all the bad stuff first. The stuff on the territories belongs in the article, or somewhere on Wikipedia, but the presentation is completely and totally unbalanced. The article treats Israel as a corrupt evil wicked entity which harms innocent Palestinains because they want to and because they can. It gives no sense of any other forces which might be part of the problem. This tag should NOT be removed until these problems are solved. Elizmr 13:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

My recent edits have ameliorated some of this, but more needs to be done on the territories section. There are important security reasons behind some of Israel's actions and these need to be commented on. Also, the record of Israel regarding its Arab minority compares very favorably to the Arab countries records regarding their Jewish minorities. This needs to come into the article before it can be deemed NPOV and the tag can come off. Elizmr 16:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

overformating in the election system.

Someone broke the political parties and election section into three chunks to set off controversial party names. the intent of this section is not to offer a description of all of the political parties participating in israeli elections. this would be appropriate in an article about israeli political parties. This, however, is a human rights article. The point of the Kach stuff is to point out that the openness of the system has limits--when a party arose that was blatantly racist (ie--interfering with human rights), it was disallowed from participation in the election system. anotehr controversial party (which wanted to abolish the character of israel as a jewish state) was also disallowed, but this judgement was not felt to be sound and the decisioni was was overturned by the judicial system.

OK, I can agree with that. -- Avi 15:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

THANKS Elizmr 16:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

HTML tags

Please don't use <p> tags in the article. If you would like a new paragraph, keep a blank line in between. The WikiMarkup Language will take care of the rest. -- Avi 15:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, sorry Elizmr 16:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Search

Just a quick question: What must be entered in the search box to hit this article? I typed "human rights in Israel", but it didn't seem to turn up.Smitty Mcgee 15:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Human_rights_in_Israel we need to fix that :-) Sarastro777 15:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It worked fine for me, Smitty. Did you spell it properly? -- Avi 15:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried it again with the same result. But perhaps it works for most people.Smitty Mcgee 15:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It's case sensitive. Make sure you capitalize the "I" for Israel and the "H" for human rights, the rest lowercase. 64.186.246.122 18:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)