Talk:Anne Bayefsky

Notability concerns

Seeing her titles, political activities and prominence, I must ask is it really her notablility that is under question? Googlehit is unreliable but 53,600 hits is another evidence of notablility. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

And Her Point of View?

To judge from her periodicals, Bayefsky has a marked Zionist or pro-Israel agenda. I don't say that's wrong or that it ought to be emphasized, but it should be noted in the article. She's not just a "human rights" scholar or activist in some neutral sense. Something ought to be said about the positions she's taken in print. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.10.198.105 (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

She is precisely a human rights scholar and activist in a neutral sense. She has a wide variety of opinions on various human rights issues and claims, and has, you are correct, spend a considerable amount of time and is known for her advocacy against the widespread emphasis on Israel's alleged human rights violations. This needs to be mentionned at some point, but surely not in the very first sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.218.76 (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that the above comment by a defender of Bayefsky says she opposes "the widespread emphasis on Israel's alleged human rights violations." Emphasis? This tactic is often seen - when presented with incontrovertible evidence of Israeli violations, say, well, everyone else is doing it too, why pick on us? Far too many people around the world are indeed committing human rights violations, but that doesn't make Israel's actions any less violations. Yet the smallest mention of them is too much "emphasis" for some people. My own writings have been censored as a result. I've added a paragraph pointing out that Bayefsky's views on Israel don't just clash with the views of critics, but with her own principles as a human rights scholar. My tax dollars (as I live in the same city) are going to support her human rights work, and she is hypocritically betraying the proud tradition of human rights. That's not just my opinion, but Bayefsky's own official opinion. That makes the short sourced paragraph I added essential to an accurate picture of her in the encyclopedia entry. I shouldn't be criticized for repeatedly inserting it - she should be for repeatedly removing it.Wombatjpw (talk) 01:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)wombatjpw

The emphasis Bayefsky opposes is the grotesque fixation of alleged Israeli violations of human rights, used as a pretext for deflecting attention from real violations, and as a political weapon used by Israel's enemies. Consider the UN commission on Human Rights, which for 30 years spent 15 percent of commission time on Israel and directed a third of country-specific resolutions on that country.

You haven't been censored (let alone by Bayefsky; if you think I am her, you are mistaken), your paragraph was removed because you failed to demonstrate the hypocrisy you charge her with.

The above post does nothing to demonstrate the inconsistency between her book and her positions on Arab refugees and Jewish settlement. Hence, your recent revert is still edit warring, which is not permissible. --Jonund (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No inconsistency? No hypocrisy? The first principle of human rights is that they are universal. Bayefsky has published books that view "forced displacement" as a great human rights crime, and that say its victims have the right to "return in safety and dignity." Yet when it comes to goring her own ox, when these crimes are committed by the ethnic group she identifies with, she takes the standard pro-Israeli view that the Palestinians deserved everything they got, and that return is an absurd impossibility that no one need lose any sleep over. Note that the ethnic cleansing that began in 1947 continues today, with Palestinians still being robbed of their homes and lives as if they were cockroaches. (See eg Harly Wegman, "Israel evicts 50 Palestinians from homes," Globe and Mail, Toronto, 3 Aug. 2009, p. A8.) People such as Bayefsky and people who refer to any mention of Israeli crimes as a "grotesque fixation" help make this continuing ethnic cleansing possible. For a "human rights scholar" to be complicit in this is completely relevant to any encyclopedia entry that is more than a subject-approved press release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wombatjpw (talk • contribs) 14:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I might add that the same person is making both partisan allegations ("grotesque fixation" on Israel) and supposedly neutral adjudications. (As when he or she rules on which party - the other one, not himself - has "failed to demonstrate" his point, is engaged in impermissible warring, and is therefore deserving of blocking.) This is a violation of fundamental justice, but maybe he or she believes that if that goes in Israel, it's OK over here too. Wombatjpw (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)wombatjpw

There is nothing on the refered pages that says what you claim. "Return in safety and dignity" is a requirement on the country where the refugee lives, in case that country wishes to send him back.

After careful weighing of the evidence, Israel's supreme court ruled that the residents of Sheikh Jarrah should be evicted from the houses they lived in, since these houses belonged to Jewish groups, and the residents had violated their rental terms. This was inevitable in a community founded on the rule of law. Foreign nations' appeal to political motives are irrelevant.

Nobody refers to "any mention of Israeli crimes" as a grotesque fixation. The reference was to UNCHR's documented obsession with Israel.

As a newcomer, you may be unfamiliar with WP policies and - it seems - with sound argument. I encourage you to get into the policies and into argumentation analysis. Good luck with future editing! --Jonund (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

How can the country where the refugee lives ensure a return in "safety and dignity" without the co-operation of the home country? And regarding the evicted Palestinians, what right do the Israelis have to evict anyone from occupied territory? Or to murder them there, as so often happens? Jerusalem organization Ir Amim notes on the eviction issue: "Israel must consider the future implications of the move, which allows Jews to claim rights over property dating back to before 1948, but prevents the execution of the same rights by Palestinian residents. A re-opening of all ownership cases by Palestinians and Jews in Jerusalem could place Israel in an impossible situation in the city." (Haaretz, 3 Aug 09). Indeed. Most of Israel is owned by Palestinian families, but Israel only recognizes the pre-1948 property rights of Jews, as in the Sheikh Jarrah case, so that it may "legally" steal the houses and farms of Palestinian families that do have clear title. If that's the rule of law, it's a racist rule of law! You pretend to be upset that a third of UNCHR resolutions concern Israel. Actually, you would be delighted if that went up to 50% or 80%, because, of course, the UN is powerless, and these figures make great propaganda where real power lies, in the U.S. Congress. Any denunciation of the UN appeals to white-power advocates in places like Texas, who see the UN as a hotbed of uppity wogs daring to question white power and the worldwide sway of the American empire. Perhaps if you weren't white, you would be less likely to see the white empire in the Middle East as just and natural. And you neglect to deal with the issue of how an open partisan on a controversial issue, such as yourself, can make supposedly impartial adjudications? Wombatjpw (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)wombatjpw

It seems that you have misunderstood international law. It does not prescribe, or recommend, that host countries shall send refugees back. What it says is that if they do that, they have to ensure that the refugees return in safety and dignity; otherwise they have to let them stay.

Sheikh Jarrah is off topic and WP is no discussion forum, so I leave that issue, but urge you to acquaint yourself with all viewpoints, not only those represented by Arabs and Jewish post-Zionists.

Your reflections about the color of my skin and about the proportion of UNCHR resolutions about Israel are, to tell you the truth, not very intelligent. Please, do study argumentation analysis!

I have, at the best of my ability, tried to advice you about WP policies and how to discuss the edits. I think my advices are uncontroversial - although it was you who began to talk about "supposedly neutral adjudications". If you think I have behaved improperly, you can always try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Jonund (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The second-to-last edit of this article unjustifiably removed Richard Falk's own words in their complete context and restored Anne Bayefsky's distorting critique. It has now been edited to give both Bayefsky's version and the accurate original rendition of Falk's words. Any edit that gives only Bayefsky on Falk but not Falk himself should immediately be undone; Falk's words should be read in their own right alongside the criticism, and not through the lens of the vehement critic alone.

Career - professor

Where is Anne Bayefsky a professor? It's not clear in the career section of the article. This bio says she has taught at "Columbia University Law School, Touro College, York University, and the University of Ottawa". In what sense is she a "professor"? Is she a senior, tenured professor at one of these universities, or is the term being used in the vague "teaches at universities" sense that seems to sometimes be used in the US and Canada? Geniune question, and something I think the article should clarify. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)