Talk:Israel

This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when responding to comments on this talk page.

Archives
Israel and the Occupied Territories Jerusalem as capital 2002 – 2003 Aug 2003 Aug 2003 – Apr 2004 Apr 2004 – Sep 2004 Oct 2004 – Jan 2005 Jan 2005 – Aug 2005 Aug 2005 – Sep 2005 Sep 2005 – Oct 2005 Oct 2005 – Apr 2006 Apr 2006 – Jun 2006 Jun 2006 – Jul 2006 Jun 2006 – Jul 2006

---

Added a Section on Human Rights Abuse

Please help me by adding well sourced content with citations. --Oiboy77 08:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE REFRAIN FROM PERSONAL ATTACKS and POV discussion. Waynepl107

Don't bother, it doesn't belong here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Why, doesn't bone breaking policy and the jailing of teenagers ring a bell? I might actually contribute. 195.229.241.187 10:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

See WP:SOAPBOX. This article is about a country and not about the conflict. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It is sure about the government of this state and the policies it executes. The article should address this issue. 195.229.241.180 11:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at this (http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/gaza/) This is not propaganda as you implied this is well documented by Independent Parties. 213.42.2.25 11:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Belarus also states :The Belarusian government is also criticized for human rights violations and its actions against NGOs, independent journalists, national minorities and opposition politicians.[14] During the rule of the current administration in Belarus, there have been several cases of persecution, including the disappearance or death of prominent opposition leaders and independent journalists. So if its legal there why not on that page? --Stone 12:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point. 213.42.2.11 12:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Such a section would do a lot to legitimize this article.Smitty Mcgee 15:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please Refer to http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61690.htm 195.229.241.181 17:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The government generally respected the human rights of its citizens; however, there were problems in some areas, including the following:

   * 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 (see annex)

   * 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 
 

Form the introduction, of the report 195.229.241.181 17:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That should give you something to start with. 213.42.2.23 17:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

How do you fix the formatting? 213.42.2.25 17:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we compare that to the charges against the PA on the same page? - MSTCrow 00:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

   * torture
   * arbitrary and prolonged detention
   * poor prison conditions
   * infringement of privacy and freedom of speech
   * insufficient measures to prevent attacks by terrorist groups either within the occupied territories or within Israel
   * numerous instances of violence against Israeli civilians, resulting in deaths and injuries in the West Bank, Gaza, and Israel
   * corruption and lack of transparency
   * domestic abuse of women
   * societal discrimination against women and persons with disabilities and child labor 

Who said that these things also shouldn't be included in the PA's article as well? PA isn't Findland or Sweden, you know. 213.42.2.28 07:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In most articles abour a country there are sections on human rights issues if there are issues regarding human rights to remove my section without just cause citing your own POV as the reasons; even though I legitimate references for it is a violation of your administrative powers. Which I see you are abusing to fufill your "protection" of this article. Wikipedia is not about "protecting" [b]your[/b] personal viewpoint.--Oiboy77 15:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why a balanced, NPOV discussion of human rights issues with respect to Israel would be out of line. Emphasis on "balanced" and "NPOV," though. john k 16:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact it would seem to be a matter of bias to NOT have such widely known information at least mentioned with good sources. The point of an encyclopedic article is to not just give propaganda which only portrays the subject in a 'good' light. Sarastro777 20:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel has one of the best human rights records in the world, and the best by far in the region. Is this a legitimate criticism of some, if any, human rights violations by Israel, or simply another attempt to single Israel out as a result of anti-Jew animus? - MSTCrow 23:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, wonderful. The issue of Israeli treatment of the Palestinian population in the Occupied Territories, and so forth, is well known and well documented as an important human rights issue. All you are doing is poisoning the talk page by trying to make any discussion of criticism of Israel into anti-semitism. Please note the top stories at this moment on the Amnesty and Human Rights Watch websites - the current mess. Also note lengthy discussions of human rights in Israel and the occupied territories at both groups' websites. Compare with, say, HRW's discussion of Sweden. john k 00:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You can't say with a straight face that HRW isn't known for it's anti-Israel agenda. http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6258 will catch you on it. Amnesty is little better, see http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/Amnesty%20Internationals%20Extremely.html from NGO monitor. If you can find evidence from an organization not infamous for its anti-Israel polemics, then that would be of interest. Until then, I won't lend any credence to your attempts. - MSTCrow 00:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Still more wonderful. Using a David Horowitz site as evidence! Brilliant. My point, for anyone interested (MSTCrow, I can assume, is not), was that there are plenty of reputable groups (and, even if one is critical of Amnesty and HRW, they are certainly reputable human rights monitoring organizations) who have cited problems with Israel's human rights record. Whether these groups are right or not, and whether they are biased against Israel or not, is not terribly important. It is significant that major human rights monitoring groups have frequently criticized Israel, and it would not be original research to include this in the article. MSTCrow's arguments are entirely circular - anyone who criticizes Israel is anti-Israel, and thus their criticism of Israel is unreliable and cannot be used as a source. Plus he cites David Horowitz. Can we ignore him? john k 01:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the US State Department also makes comments critical of Israel's human rights record in the territories, although much more muted than HRW or Amnesty's. They note the following issues in Israel proper:

• 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 (see annex)
• 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

In the Occupied Territories, passing over the comments on PA abuses, we see the following listed as human rights abuses by IDF occupying forces:

• damage to civilians in the conduct of military operations
• numerous, serious abuses of civilians and detainees
• failure to take disciplinary action in cases of abuse
• improper application of security internment procedures
• use of temporary detention facilities that were austere and overcrowded
• limited cooperation with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)

But I suppose all those Arabists in the State Department are notoriously anti-Israel, so they don't count either. john k 01:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to assume you have no clue about the Department of State beyond what you've pasted here. Please read up on the history and policy of the US Department of State, you're accidentally self-parodying yourself. - MSTCrow 02:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so the Arabists in the State Department do make it an unreliable anti-Israel source. I was not accidentally parodying myself, I suspected you would dismiss the State Department. But it's still ridiculous. Basically, in your judgment, the United Nations, the foreign ministry of Israel's closest ally, and the two leading human rights NGOs in the world are not acceptable sources on whether or not Israel violates human rights because they are all "anti-Israel." This is completely ridiculous. If anyone is a "self-parody" it is you - you are a grotesque parody of the more-Zionist-than-the-Israelis-anyone-who-criticizes-Israel-is-an-anti-Semite American Ultra-Zionist. 11:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the article on Israel. What is encyclopedic for Israel is not really dependent on what other editors have had time to add for other countries. All those citations and rights groups... seemed like a well informed suggestion for addition to me. What is the parody? On the other hand calling people "anti-jew" because you disagree with them did not seem particularly helpful. As has been suggested, I would support ignoring the objection that any criticism makes someone "anti-jew" or that David Horowitz is a stronger source on Human Rights than Amnesty International, The U.S State Dept, or HRW. These type of statements are obviously colored by unsubstantiated personal opinion. Sarastro777 03:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, you have not been paying attention, because people are not anti-Semites simply because I disgree with them. - MSTCrow 03:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That's true. Would that you would behave this way. john k 11:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There are human rights problems in israel. This is a fact. But I think neither side on this talk page is able to write a NPOV chapter about the issue. The stuff I read was harsh and agressive and by this terms NPOV. Deleting it is also wrong, because the human rights problems have to be mentioned, so deleting is also NPOV.

With people having this much anger and violence should wait and let other people do the article. The Israel-Arab conflict is anoing me for a long time, but I think peoples who are so stupide not seeing that violence is leading to the total destruction of the whole area deserve to live in fear and getting killed by each other. The cause of the violence is irrelevant because it has already happened. The Future has to be the peaceful, but the majority is simply to weak or to stupid to act.--Stone 06:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That sounds rather like advocating the genocide of both sides. - MSTCrow 07:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

advocating the genocide NO but fatalism agains political stupidity.--Stone 08:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I really think that the people demanding a section about "Human rights abuses" in this article really need to see the WP:NPOV policy. It is just not okay to change a nation's article to better reflect your own personal pov.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read the citations above. It is not our own point of view, it's documented by many independent parties. US Dept of State for example.195.229.241.181 10:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is it personal POV to note that many outside observers, including the two leading world human rights groups (Amnesty and HRW), the United Nations, and the US Department of State, have noted violations of human rights on Israel's part, and to briefly summarize what they are? The idea that Israel commits human rights violations (particularly in the occupied territories) is a major POV, and the whole idea of NPOV is that we represent all significant POVs. The same is true of the long-held Arab/Palestinian position that the State of Israel is an illegitimate state. It would obviously be insanely POV for wikipedia to assert this was true. But for wikipedia to neutrally report and explain this widely held position seems essential. john k 11:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you find a source without a long and well-known history of being anti-Israel? No. The best you can find is a list of vague accusations that pale in comparison to most other nations. You are singling Israel out because most of them are Jews. The UN has had a nasty habit of giving free rein to anti-Semitism (Durban anyone?) while Amnesty and HRW slander Israel's human rights record while remaining mostly silent on atrocities committed against citizens living in Arab states. Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for such venomous bile against the State of Israel, and Jews in function. - MSTCrow 11:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Amnesty and HRW are most certainly not silent about atrocities committed in Arab states. That's a ridiculous statement for which you can provide no support, because it's completely false. At any rate, Amnesty and HRW (and, to an extent, the UN) are considered to be respectable sources. Whether or not their criticisms of Israel are accurate, and whether or not they are biased against Israel, they are significant enough to deserve mention in the article. Beyond this, your dismissal of the US State Department, for God's sake, as anti-Israel shows that, essentially, you are going to criticize any source that criticizes Israel's human rights record as having a "long and well-known history of being anti-Israel." What about domestic human rights groups in Israel itself? I'm not familiar with what such groups exist, but I would assume there are some, and I would assume they are similarly critical of Israel's human rights record in the Territories. But, then again, such groups are presumably formed mostly for the purpose of criticizing Israel, so that, even though they are composed of Israelis, they have "long and well-known histories of being anti-Israel." It's impossible to win against you, because you can just define any group that is critical of Israel as "anti-Israel", and thus not worthy of notice. So, here's my basic point - even if these groups are anti-Israel, it makes not a lick of difference. There is absolutely no rule saying that we can't use "anti-Israel" sources, and when they are as well-established as the US State Department, HRW, Amnesty, and the United Nations, they are significant whether or not they have an anti-Israel bias. john k 12:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous statement for which you can provide no support, because it's completely false. Go go circular reasoning... - MSTCrow 12:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What's the circular reasoning? It's rather rich that you of all people would accuse someone else of this. My point was that it's not true that Amnesty and HRW ignore human rights violations in Arab countries. You can find reams of reports where they discuss these issues. Your statement is false. That's all I meant to say. I fail to see how this is circular reasoning. john k 15:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

John K, Please refer to http://www.rhr.israel.net/israeli-ngo-human-rights-organizations which is a list of NGO Human Rights Groups. Sorry, But .IL sites are blocked were I live. So you have to find out citations on your own, hope this helps. 195.229.241.180 12:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Human rights by country an article there would also help, because Israel is missing there.--Stone 13:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It is my considered opinion that there are people here on Wikipedia who are [paid?] representatives of the state of Israel, and who jump on any mention of human rights abuses or anything else critical of that state. They are guarding this article 24/7 and react within minutes to the slightest change, with threats and banning, how Israeli! The lie that Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 as some kind of act of peace is contradicted by all observers including the media, Hezbollah drove the Israeli army out of Lebanon, but that's just too much for Zionists and their fellow travellers here to stomach. I am exceedingly disappointed that Wikipedia has been captured in this way, it is abuse of freedom, abuse of everythingI thought Wikipedia stood for, and yet, when anyone demures, they are attacked as being partisan or even anti-semitic, the usual way Israel deals with criticism. Someone should do something about this, it really is very important, crucial even. Especially while Israel is killing children in their hundreds, and - unspeakably - getting Israeli kids to sign the shells they are firing into Lebanon to kill Lebanese kids. Shame on you all who support this in any way shape or form. The petition which was linked momentarily from here was http://fromisraeltolebanon.info/, I found it an interesting site, well worth visiting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.113.80.35 (talk • contribs) .

...getting Israeli kids to sign the shells they are firing into Lebanon to kill Lebanese kids? You're a total anti-Semitic wackjob. Odd that your only post is this one. Stop the sockpuppets! - MSTCrow 13:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5350/2376/1600/israel.jpg hmm??

The above post is very emotional and heartfelt, but it ignores some important facts on the ground. Israel did not start this offensive. It started wtih the near simultaneous attacks on Israeli sovereign territory involving killing and capturing of soldiers by Hamas and Hezbollah, two groups which sit on the governments of the PA and Lebanon. Apologists for these groups blame this kind of action on the "military wing" of these groups as opposed to the "legislative" wing without proving any evidence that there is any disconnect between these "wings" in terms of their belief and goals. Essentially, these attacks and captures were a pure and simple act of war by organizations which believe that every inch of Israel is occupied territory. Israel is NOT targeting any civilian in this offensive. The blame for civilian deaths lies with Hezbollah and Hamas (and other groups) operatives who hide militants and instruments of war in civilan houses and areas and use little kids as human shields and started this in the first place. If the militants did not want civilians to get hurt, they would make sure to keep anything Israel is targeting away from them. Israel has never targeted purely civilan targtets for the sake of killing civilians. This is actually the MO of the suicide bombers who have done exactly this, killing kids eating pizza or dancing and religios Jews celebrating a sacred holiday to them. If the latter is considered ok for any reason, why not call it antisemetic? Also, in terms of human rights, what human rights do women or gays have in any Islamist country? What rights do Jews have in any Islamist country? In Israels, Arabs can serve in the government, women have equality, and gays can live openly. Please answer these questions before you talk about human rights in Israel and civilian deaths in this Gaza and Lebanon mess. 72.72.84.239 14:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel is NOT targeting any civilian in this offensive. The blame for civilian deaths lies with Hezbollah and Hamas (and other groups) operatives who hide militants and instruments of war in civilan houses and areas and use little kids as human shields and started this in the first place. BRing Citations. Mine are http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=lebanon+casualties+israel&ie=UTF-8. Look who is speaking propaganda. Do you think in Qana the UN Headquarters bombed was actually a Hizbollah HQ , eh? Sheesh, 195.229.241.182 15:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, in terms of human rights, what human rights do women or gays have in any Islamist country? For women look at this http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-06-21-muslim-women-edit_x.htm as for the heterophopic psycologically ill people we here try to help them instead of claim that this is natural. 213.42.2.22 15:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I looked at that State Department report with the laundry list of problems, and clicked around on a random sampling of other countries, and found something very interesting. Every country I looked at had at least some "problems" identified -- even the U.K., Netherlands and Sweden had a few each. France's list of problems is almost as long as Israel's, actually it is as long if you delete from Israel's list the attacks on Israel by terrorists. What all of these nations have in common is an overall statement that they "generally respect" the human rights of their citizens -- including Israel. Many other nations, however, do not get such a rating, and are instead rated "poor" in respecting their citizens' rights. Egypt's overall description is poor, with no progress reported. Saudi Arabia's is poor, with some progress reported. Mexico (just to pick one out of the blue) is mixed, with a favorable rating for the national government but serious problems at the state and local levels. Russia's rating cannot be described in one word, but it is less than the favorable rating given to Israel and most of the Western European nations. The point is, are we going to put the human rights record of every country into the article on that country? Or if you want to leave out the nations with the "best" records, how about omitting those with a "generally respects" description and fewer than five problems reported? That still gives you a section on Israel, but also sections in the articles on Egypt, Saudi Arabia, China (poor and getting worse, though I suspect China's article already says something about human rights abuses) and most other countries in the world -- including France. Then there would need to be a note in each of those sections about the overall State Department report, so that people don't think any one country is being singled out. Don't single out Israel, which compares favorably to many other countries in this report. 6SJ7 14:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel is an occupation force, France ceased to be that long time ago. And as an occupation force its practices must be described and per the independent rights watch groups. And this, if not the country's substantial internal prolems like "intitutional discremination against Arab citizens", should be included to draw to the reader an accurate factual picture of the state and what it faces. 213.42.2.28 14:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No, actually the list recited near the top of this section concerns Israel's human rights record within its own borders, not the occupied territories. There is a separate section of the State Department report about the occupied territories, which also is mentioned above, but that would belong in one of the many articles about the occupied territories/Israeli-Palestian conflict, etc., not the one on Israel itself. If you want to have a section on how Israel treats its own people -- including Arab citizens -- then fine, as long as the article on France has the same thing, including the discrimination that exists there. And the articles on Mexico, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, China, Azerbaijan, etc. etc. It is exactly the same thing. The U.K., Netherlands, Norway etc. are negotiable. 6SJ7 15:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I see an article on Human Rights on The USA, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_States. It addresses not only domestic Human Rights Issues But also The USA Armed Forces Practices abroad in countries like Iraq and Afganistan. So any section or article added should discuss both issues together, Same thing applies to any section added to any article. 213.42.2.11 16:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I also quoted, you'll note the list of Israel's human rights violations in the Territories. The article on Israel sasy that most of Israel's human rights problems are in the Territories. I would basically agree that Israel's issues within the Green Line are probably not significantly worse than those of any western country. But the Occupied Territories are their own matter, and deserve discussion. And I don't see how Israel's behavior in the Occupied Territories is out of line for discussion in this article - the issue of the Occupied Territories is incredibly important for a discussion of Israel, and at least some brief mention of these issues is worthwhile. I'd add that the treatment of Israeli Arabs is worth discussing in this article, but not necessarily in a section about human rights. The Occupied Territories stuff is certainly appropriate, although of course there should be more detail in other articles. john k 15:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well MSTCrow try this http://fromisraeltolebanon.info/ I am no anti-semite, and I have no idea what a wackjob is, or a sockpuppet for that matter, I assume they are slang words the extreme right wing like to throw about in their usual virulent way. This isn't my only post by the way, but with this level of intellectual debate, it could be my last. What do you do to relax, count the beds in the ward? I was making a serious point, and no one has cared to address it, let alone deny it. This whole issue is an extension into Wikipedia of Israel's bullying and self justifying protestations. It is never in the wrong, it's the rest of the world, and I find it deeply disturbing when idiots like you try to escalate a debate into shrill invective. But then I guess you know no other way, being a mentally challenged psycho with a small dick. There, has that got the blood racing, are you all fired up now I've responded in kind?

And...

Israel is NOT targeting any civilian in this offensive. The blame for civilian deaths lies with Hezbollah and Hamas (and other groups) operatives who hide militants and instruments of war in civilan houses and areas and use little kids as human shields and started this in the first place. is pretty deranged, of course militants are in civilian houses, if they had a barracks like the Israeli army, it would have been wiped out already. They are living with their families, as all resistance fighters do. Israel has been planning this action for two years, it was quite deliberate and in no way a 'response', they were waiting for an excuse. Both sides are deranged and guilty, so stop trying to excuse one side. Do you think people choose to be terrorists totally out of the blue? Do you think people choose suicide because they have a good life free from worry like, I suspect, everyone posting here? Try thinking for once in your life, really thinking, rather than regurgitating these tired old Zionist lies. There are many [the majority probably] of good people in Israel who want no part of this, just as with Lebanon. Why do you hate so much? It is no answer to Israel's attacks on Lebanon to justify it by saying look at Islamist countries, Lebanon is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious, modern, progressive country, so why is Israel bombing it into the past? Perhaps so they can occupy it for the people's good? All on behalf of two soldiers???? Get a grip.

A sockpuppet refers to one person using multiple ip addresses, often for the purpose of vandalism. But... wackjob? I like your arguement, so I guess I'm a wackjob, too.Smitty Mcgee 17:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You agree to the hideous lie that the IDF is having children sign missiles headed for launch? Israel is not a country that abuses children's rights, although I'll mention the Palestinean Terrorists have a nasty habit of using them as homocide bombers, cannon fodder, and murdering their own when it suits their purposes. - MSTCrow 22:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoever wrote the above statment, starting with the caps, is clearly biased as evidenced by his/her use of phrases like "Zionist lies", is clearly violating Wiki policies like WP:NPA with stuff like "but I guess you know no other way, being a mentally challenged psycho with a small dick", and "try thinking for once in your life". There are also unsupported slurs like, "Israel has been planning this action for two years, it was quite deliberate and in no way a "response", they were waiting for an excuse" If you're going to contribute here, please try to honor the rules, OK? Elizmr 00:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you just use the phrase "homicide bombers"? Do you even think about what you're saying, and realize it doesn't make any sense, or do you just do whatever Fox News tells you to? All bombers are "homicide bombers." Using the phrase as a substitute for "suicide bomber" just makes everything completely unclear. john k 09:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

On topic please. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

==No personal attacks==

Regading some the comments above: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia.

Some suggestions:

• Discuss the article, not the subject;
• Discuss the edit, not the editor;
• Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
• If you feel attacked, do not attack back. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I`ve read all the arguments and I`m trying to be a mediator here. It`s not POV to say that major human rights NGOs have noted human rights violations; there is nothing biased about that. It`s an important fact and doesn`t imply that the NGOs are right. If the people who deny the NGOs` allegations want to cite another credible source that criticizes Amnesty et. al. for this, then they are free to do so. This is simple Wikipedia procedure. Both sides of the argument have been out of line at different points in this talk. So again: we need to represent both views and therefore we need to try to find a good source supporting MSTCrow`s position. IF that can`t be done, then that`s unfortunate. We still need to show the facts about the NGOs. This is just how Wikipedia and neutral POV works. Thanks. --DoItAgain 03:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to change the article...the two soldiers captured by Hezbollah were in fact captured on lebanese soil whilst the Israeli army were trying to raid a vilage on the Lebanese side of the border (Aitaa al-Chaab). This clearly means that Israel in fact provoked the attack and not Hezbollah. ----- http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=9401

I am going to ask the obvious questions: Is that source all that credible, and do you have any obviously credible sources reporting on this? --DoItAgain 13:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If you notice the flurry of edits I did in the Human Rights section, chalk it up to my inept citation coding and tiredness. The net result was a mention of Amnesty and a couple citations to back it up. Maybe we should mention one or two of the specific countries that the article states have criticized Israel, so the reader can judge for him-/herself what said countries motivations may have been, etc. --DoItAgain 13:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Lockdown

Why can't the head editors and the main POV watchdogs do a soapbox of the article let it get viewed for a while then let it be settled with word spars and put the everyone-is-happy article on Lockdown

I think you need to change the article...the two soldiers captured by Hezbollah were in fact captured on lebanese soil whilst the Israeli army were trying to raid a vilage on the Lebanese side of the border (Aitaa al-Chaab). This clearly means that Israel in fact provoked the attack and not Hezbollah. ----- http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=9401

Anti-Semitism

The only arguement against placing a section on human rights violations in this article is that every independent research group is anti-Semetic. Unless a legitimate arguement is made, I see no reason not to include such a section. Plenty of sources have been listed above.Smitty Mcgee 17:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, unless you have facts to discredit the citations the section on Human Rights will be added--Oiboy77 18:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll say what I said on this before it was deleted for some reason...to single Israel out as a human rights abuser would require, for fairness, sections on human rights abuses in practically every country in the world, given that Israel's human rights record is infinitely superior to all of its neighbours and comparable to the western countries from which groups like HRW operate. Such a section is unecessary and highly prejudicial. Schrodingers Mongoose 20:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to add a human rights section to any article you please as long as you can cite reference. This is not a debate. The section will be added, Unless you have factual evidence discrediting the submissions.--Oiboy77 20:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

How many and which country's main articles have a human rights section in them? can anyone give this info? --TheYmode 20:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The section will not be added as the consenus is very much against it at this time. - MSTCrow 21:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As this is an article about Israel, it is the logical place to place a section on human rights. Saying 'oh but x is better than y' is irrelevant. And no-one has a right to instruct other users as to what they can and can't add in terms of sections. Such behaviour is not how articles are written. Please MSTCrow, restrain your orders. You do not own this article and cannot just issue instructions like that. You can debate, challenge, deny, fight edit wars, but you cannot issue orders. Even Jimbo Wales cannot. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I can't issue plenary instructions, but if you think our God-King can't issue orders, or else, well, that's just wrong. - MSTCrow 22:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

When I post articles on the Isreal page they almost immedietly disappear and I'm banned. See

[[1]] This article is obviously being owned by certain people. --Oiboy77 23:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should adhere to Wikipedia policy and cease your vandalism and attacks. That may help. Also, you're whining because you keep slapping cite tags all over the place, and then sources are immediately and easily found by other users? Stop doing that to common knowledge items. - MSTCrow 23:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If facts are found why are they not tagged and added to the article? Why are my citation tags just deleted without citations actually linked to the article? Isn't that vandalism?--Oiboy77 23:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Littering an article with multiple "citation needed" tags is disruptive and not helpful to the development of the article. In this case, it looks like disruption to prove a point; for example, what's the point of adding a fact tag to After Jews established agricultural settlements, tensions erupted between the Jews and Arabs.? We don't have to include a reference for every single factual historical statement; that's what article references are for. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The example you linked to did very clearly have a citation linked to the article (that's the ref tag). Are there any cite tags you have used that have been removed without a citation link? - MSTCrow 23:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the comment earlier about China's article not having a section on human rights abuses is important. There has to be some sort of standard for this, and certainly Israel doesn't have human rights problems that even approach those of China. That being said, perhaps this sort of information could be placed in the article regarding allegations of Genocide in Israel/Palestine...with the article to be renamed something along the lines of "alleged human rights abuses in Israel and the Palestinian Territories". Such an article could include descriptions of Israeli restrictions on Palestinians' movement and other freedoms, as well as the stated justification for those restrictions. Furthermore, this article could include information on the oppression of gays and women in the Palestinaian territories, as well as the state-sanctioned murders of suspected collaborators. Any thoughts? Schrodingers Mongoose 03:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Any criticism of Israel is anti-Semetic... that country can do no evil... after all the old man is the sky gave it to them right? lol There is no use trying to argue with the religious fascists who have taken over this article.. they won't let you put one fact that in ANY way might make the great and glorious and wonderful country known as Israel look bad ... oops I shouldn't state the facts... I forgot .. that is anti-Semetic... GASP!24.6.23.248 12:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The human rights record is not controversial. B't Salem, hardly an antisemitic organisation, is in concurrence with nearly every other human rights organisation in the world. That is, Palestine was ethnically cleansed, and is being ethnically cleansed right now. Israel is the only UN nation to have legalized tortured, kidnapping, and the use of human shields, although the later has been struck down in the courts. As Chris Hedges, also not an antisemite, has documented, as have the major human rights organizations, that Israeli soldiers often provoke violence with children by calling them racial slurs and then responding to rock throwing with gun fire. Three times as many Palestinian civilians have been killed in then last five years as have Israelis. In fact the number of Israeli civilians killed is roughly equal to the number of Palestinian children killed in the same time period. (This information does not include the recent incursion into Gaza or Lebanon) If this article does not include a section on human rights than it is nothing more than propoganda for the state of israel. Nearly all criticism of Israel is perceived to be antisemitism. This is intellectually dishonest, and grotesquely false. I expect more from Wikipedia.

Regarding the USS Liberty

The section currently reads: "However, as set forth in James Bamford's book Body of Secrets (regarding the NSA), the Liberty was an NSA spy vessel that Israel intentionally destroyed in order to prevent it from documenting war atrocities commited by Israel in Egypt at the onset of the Six-Day War. President Johnson did not want to embarass Israel, so the truth was never told." Is this established as a fact, or is this speculation on Bamford's part? If there is solid evidence for this claim, something more than its presence in a book ought to be cited. If not, that makes it speculation and it should be noted as such.Infinitenoodles 21:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's complete speculation. The only "secret" I've found is that the Israeli's bombed the USS Liberty intentionally as it was providing intelligence ot the Egyptians, but I've only found that in one source, so not willing to go all the way on it. - MSTCrow 21:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a main article about this (USS Liberty incident). But I doubt very much if this even belong in here, I mean one incident involving one ship in a history section that depicted entire wars in a very short summery, and of course only one theory involving war crimes out of many that are out there(see main article) is singled out exclusively, can you say POV? --TheYmode 22:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Remove it, it's OR. - MSTCrow 22:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly not OR - whoever wrote the passage is citing a book. That's the very definition of "not OR". It is, however, blatantly POV to set out the claims of one book on a controversial subject as if they are fact, and probably POV to really discuss this incident at all in the Israel article, beyond, perhaps, a bare mention of its existence. john k 22:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct. And TheYmode: there is a significance, since this involved an attack by Israel on US military forces. That makes it very important, much more than attacks on Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese naval vessels. --Daniel575 23:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's too specific to be in the article, it should have a mention in the IDF article, perhaps. - MSTCrow 00:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The USS Liberty was not a NSA spy ship. It was flying identifying flags and numerous fly bys throughout the day proceeding the attack evidenced that Israeli Military commanders were well are that it was a US Ship. Israeli pilots attacked it in cold blood. It is a real shame that the US President didnt impose a full military trade embargo on Israeli and ban trade with it as a result. Israel is a terrorist nation, happy to attack people in international waters for its own purpose.

That is quite possibly the most uninformed retarded thing I have ever read in my life. The official reasons for the attack sound quite plausible. If there had been more to it, I'm sure the US military would have done something. A tragic accident it seems. --Chronocore 03:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

So let me get this right, MST Crow knows nothing about this situation then decides hey lets throw it out because it conflicts with my rosy picture of the state of Israel. Then Chronocore goes on to specualte that the Israeli story sounds plausible. Well plausible doesn't cut it. Evidence: do you have any? If not than calling something retarded doesn't constitute a refutation.

This is a huge deal. Israel attacked the US and nothing was done about it. Can anyone imagine this happening if it had been say Lybia that had done the attacking? No of course not. Many believe this is clear evidence that the Jewish lobby in the US is so powerful that the IDF can attack US militaryt personelle without any repercussions. Whether or not the author is right in his speculation about the motive of the attack it is significant, and should be mentioned. Are we going to sugar coat everything so that Israel looks like stalwart defenders of justice and Arabs are nothing but snarling monsters who hate jews. This is absurd. This is supposed to be truthful right not just the convenient truth as ordained by the Jewish Right Wing.

Deletion of content & comments

Okay, I'm really confused now. I posted a comment the other day asking why the content on the invasion of Lebanon had been removed from this article without comment or discussion. This then resulted in my COMMENT being deleted without comment or discussion. So, I place it here again, with a request that no one arbitrarily delete it; what happened to the invasion of lebanon section of the main article? Why was it deleted without comment or any information or discussion on the subject? I was trying to use it as a resource for an article I'm writing yet the arbitrary deletion of it has thus ruined that thought, Wikipedia is usually a good resource, but sheesh, what's going on here? 211.30.80.121 00:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted because it was a fact... and (shhh! don't tell anyone) but it made Israel look bad and that's a No No... cause it is anti-Semitic ...GASP! Wikipedia is usually a good source except when it comes to any article even remotely connected with religion... like this one that are taken over by the religious fascists. Just about all of them are worthless.24.6.23.248 12:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Oddly, all I had asked was, "Why was the article subsection <name> deleted without any discussion? I was trying to cite it but it was missing." .. the motivation for deleting such a simple question is beyond me. I only hope which ever editor did it in his POV pushing psychosis where he thinks I even CARE enough to have an opinion on the matter realises what an ass he's been. [sigh] 211.30.80.121 18:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Barak map. 2000 Camp David talks. 73%? 82%? 90%?

Clinton-Arafat-Barak negotiations in 2000. I would like to see a better summary concerning the 2000 Camp David talks. I see info here:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_2000_Summit

I see some maps of the Barak 2000 offer on these pages:

• http://www.geocities.com/tents444/counters.htm?200621#maps
• http://www.mideastweb.org/campdavid%20orient.htm

I don't know if they are public domain maps, though. This current cycle of violence seems to have much of its roots in the failed 2000 Camp David talks. I, and many others probably, would like to understand all viewpoints on this. Currently all there is in the article is this:

"The Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak and Yassir Arafat once again conducted negotiations with President Clinton in Camp David on July 2000. However, the talks failed to bring about anything new. Barak's offer to form a Palestinian State on 90% of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was rejected.

"After the collapse of the talks, Palestinian officials began a second uprising, known as the Al-Aqsa Intifadah just after the leader of the opposition Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. The failure of the talks and the outbreak of a new war caused many Israelis on both the right and left to turn away from Barak and also discredited the peace movement."

Looking at the maps of the Barak offer, I believe 90% is too high of a number. From the maps it looks like less to me. There is also this: "In reporting the proposals different sources give percentage values to designate the land area to be returned. The percentages vary. In part this depends on whether they include a large area surrounding Jerusalem, to be annexed by Israel according to the proposals, as part of the West Bank. This area may account for about 7% of the total area of the West bank." Source:

• http://www.mideastweb.org/campdavid2.htm

I do not have access to the references and footnotes section of the page, or I would add the above link to that section, combined with a footnote bookmark. Instead I put a link at the end of the sentence with the new percentage number. Someone "higher up" can put it as a footnote instead? :)

I may take up some of these issues on the Camp David 2000 wikipedia discussion page, too. From that page there is this: "The proposal offered by Barak and Clinton at Camp David would have meant the Israeli annexation of 9-10% more of the West Bank. Another 9-10% of the West Bank would be placed under indefinite "Temporary Israeli Control..." That is a total of 18 to 20% retained indefinitely by Israel. Since it is a wikipedia page it probably is a more authoritative number, so I changed the number here to 80-82%. --Timeshifter 14:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There is an important point of confusion here. When the term "90% of the west bank and gaza" is used, I believe it is meant to mean 90% of that total area, not "90% of the west bank and all of the gaza strip". Most sources concur that Barak offered 90% of the total area. Can we agree to reword the statement in the article such that the disctinction is clear? Schrodingers Mongoose 19:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I assume the percentage numbers in the Camp David 2000 wikipedia page were talking about the total area in the West Bank and Gaza that were enclosed by the 1967 borders. I do not understand what you are referring to. I think we should use the numbers from the Camp David 2000 wikipedia page since it has survived some vetting there. Do you have some more links? I would like to see more maps, sources, etc. and to link to them from the relevant wikipedia pages. I would eventually like to add some more public domain maps to clarify all this. Obviously there is some confusion about all this which is why I got involved. Barak may have been offering 90% of the remaining total area left after already keeping the 9-10% for the existing Israeli settlements (under indefinite "Temporary Israeli Control"). If so, then 80-82% is still the more accurate number since most people mean the West Bank and Gaza as defined by the 1967 borders. I believe also that is what UN resolutions use when discussing the West Bank and Gaza. --Timeshifter 09:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

--Timeshifter 11:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC). After reading several conflicting viewpoints I found this:

• http://www.mideastweb.org/campdavid2.htm

4. Land Area of Palestine.

The initial area of the Palestinian state would comprise about 73% of the land area of the West Bank and all of Gaza. The West Bank would be divided by the road from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea and a corridor on either side of it. This would form two relatively large Palestinian areas and one small enclave surrounding Jericho. The three areas would be joined by a free passage without checkpoints, but the safe passage could be closed by Israel in case of emergency. According to Palestinian sources, there would be another division between the area north of the Ariel and Shilo settlements along the trans-Shomron highway built by Israel.

In later stages (10-25 years) Israel would cede additional areas, particularly in the mountains overlooking the Jordan valley, to bring the total area to slightly under 90% of the area of the West Bank (94% excluding greater Jerusalem).

The major settlement blocks adjacent to Jerusalem and in the Jerusalem corridor would be annexed to Israel: Efrat, Gush Etzion, Ma'ale Edumim. The town of Ariel and the corridor along the trans-Samaria highway would be annexed to Israel. The Jewish settlement town of Qiriat Arba would remain under Israeli administration in the heart of Palestinian territory, with a single road through Palestinian territory reaching it from the south. Isolated Jewish settlements including the settlement in Hebron, would come under Palestinian jurisdiction and would probably be abandoned.

I will add a sentence summarizing this to the article. --Timeshifter 11:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

--Timeshifter 19:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC). I guess it is OK to say that Barak offered 100% of Gaza (in effect) at the Camp David talks in light of the info below. It is hard to find more specific info on Gaza percentages offered during the Camp David talks. It seems that in the Taba negotiations in January 2001 that followed the July 2000 talks in Camp David that Gaza was to be 100% in Palestinian hands soon after agreement. This page written about Taba seems to be respected:

• http://www.mideastweb.org/moratinos.htm

"This EU non-paper has been prepared by the EU Special Representative to the Middle East Process, Ambassador Moratinos, and his team after consultations with the Israeli and Palestinian sides, present at Taba in January 2001. Although the paper has no official status, it has been acknowledged by the parties as being a relatively fair description of the outcome of the negotiations on the permanent status issues at Taba. ...

"Neither side presented any maps over the Gaza Strip. In was implied that the Gaza Strip will be under total Palestinian sovereignty, but details have still to be worked out. All settlements will be evacuated. The Palestinian side claimed it could be arranged in 6 months, a timetable not agreed by the Israeli side."

Human Rights

First of all, a search of "China" brings up Chinese history. However, when viewing the page of the People's Republic of China, their is clearly a human rights section. Secondly, many human rights articles are linked to from their country's main article. See List of human rights articles by country. To be fair, a section such as this must be created and linked to from the "Israel" article.Smitty Mcgee 15:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think an article on Human Rights in Israel would be fine if it follows NPOV, RS and other policies, especially in light of the fact that there are "human rights" articles about a number of other countries. Please note however, that List of human rights articles by country is somewhat misleading. I clicked on a few of the articles and found two where there was no article at all (Canada, South Africa (although obviously there is an article on South African apartheid as we know)), and one stub (Mexico) that barely even qualifies as a stub, it really just says there will be an article there in the future. Several of the other listed articles seemed pretty comprehensive. I noticed that the UK's has a POV tag though I did not read it to find out why. I think that all of these articles should summarize at least the introductory paragaph of the appropriate page in the U.S. State Department report, as these provide a common frame of reference, with the one flaw that there is no page in that report on the United States. Some of the articles may already have it, and I believe there was an attempt yesterday to put some sentences from the Israel section of the State Department report into the Israel article, although it was not cited and the excerpting was not very well done. (The paragraph has since been deleted.) 6SJ7 17:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see a more balanced and detailed source than the US Department of State. - MSTCrow 00:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, the US Department of State is a terribly unbalanced source when it comes to Israel, especially upon considering that Israel is the number one recipient of US foreign aid. An independent human rights organization such as Amnesty International would serve as a better source of fair criticism.Smitty Mcgee 01:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Smitty, your previous comments and accusations against Israel show that you are not working in good faith, but instead attempting to paint Israel, which can be rightly proud of its human rights record, as some sort of evil totalitarian country. Israel bashing will never get beyond here. - MSTCrow 02:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Debate the issue, do not resort to ad hominem attacks. This article is in need of a brief section on human rights and a link to a full article on human rights in Israel, which does not yet exist.Smitty Mcgee 02:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You've done nothing but smear and slander Israel with ad hominem attacks. - MSTCrow 03:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• I have debated the issue from a position different than your own. While many other users may disagree with my assertions, you seem to be the only one insistent on launching personal attacks against me. I ask that you kindly stop.Smitty Mcgee 03:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You haven't debate an issue, you've made baldly anti-Semitic attacks against Israel that have no basis in reality. You have a heavily anti-Semitic POV, which isn't desired or required. - MSTCrow 03:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Nor are your personal attacks, MSTCrow. Calling someone an anti-Semite is a personal attack, regardless of whether you think it is true. Please desist. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I have not called anyone an anti-Semite, only their POV and smear attacks as being anti-Semitical in character. - MSTCrow 07:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

In this section, at least, Smitty has said nothing even vaguely anti-semitic. I haven't read everything he's written, but I haven't noticed anything obviously anti-semitic. Being sympathetic to Palestinians does not make one an anti-Semite. john k 10:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The idea that the US State Department is too anti-Israel to be an acceptable source is completely ridiculous. It is obvious that there is no source critical of Israel which MSTCrow would accept on this subject, and I think those of us who are reasonable should ignore him. An article on human rights in Israel should use the State Department stuff, and also the annual Amnesty and HRW reports, and any other material from reputable organizations. john k 10:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Cease and desist from personal attacks, john k. You're making comments just to provoke people. - MSTCrow 23:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Rather that name calling, editors may consider starting a section on Human rights, in which we can describe the state of human rights in Israel as described by reliable sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Assuming both sides can agree on what constitutes a reliable source. - MSTCrow 01:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That should not be a problem. State Dept reports, Amnesty International, International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, the Human Rights Committee, etc, are citable sources, even if some of us may disagree with their findings. We can even describe Israel's government position in this matter. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider all of those credible sources, apart from their position on Israel. - MSTCrow 01:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It does not really matter what you or I think. As per NPOV, we are here to describe what reliable sources have to say on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This is brave, but hopeless, Jossi. For Crow, none of these groups are "reliable sources" because they criticize Israel. This conveniently leaves us with no reliable sources to report on Israel's human rights record (except perhaps David Horowitz's widely respected human rights reports, I would imagine). It is useless to try to get Crow to act constructively in writing a human rights section to this article, because all he is trying to do is to prevent such a section from being written by a priori rejecting all possible sources for such a section as "anti-Israel." john k 20:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

(Remember that he's already said that the United States Government (or, I suppose, to be fair, one particular part of it) is too anti-Israel a source to be validly cited in this article. If that's the starting point, I just don't see how we can possibly get anywhere. john k 20:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

john k, I have already repeatedly stated that not all sources are unacceptable. You are attempting to generate prejudice against users who are not convinced by your argument. If you are incapable of convincing anyone of your POV, at the very least do not then turn around and disparage them. - MSTCrow 21:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Given that you've rejected both the foreign ministry of Israel's closest ally, the United Nations, and the leading human rights NGOs as being unacceptable sources, I think it's fair to say that you are pretty much unwilling to accept any sources as legitimate. It seems to me that whether or not you agree with the conclusions of the State Dept, the UN, AI, and HRW, they all constitute reliable sources in the sense we use the term in wikipedia (where it is, I guess, something of a term of art). I don't see how this is even arguable. I am not saying that we should report what any of these organizations say as though it is the gospel truth. But we can certainly say something along the lines of "International human rights monitoring groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have said such and such." If you'd be willing to accept such formulations, then perhaps we have been merely talking past each other. If not, can you name any groups which would be acceptable sources on Israel's human rights record? All you seem to do is criticize every source anyone has brought up as being "anti-Israel" and thus unacceptable. john k 22:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If you ever make a human rights section page please include this article. "For Homosexual Palestinians, Israel Is Their Best Shot at Safety". --66.68.115.39 01:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Too Few Opinions Tag Added

I have added a too few opinions tag to the page as there has been NO Consensus among editors, and only one side has been represented on the page.--Oiboy77 18:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"no consensus" doesn't mean you get to impose your view. Please list a specific objection and maybe we can deal with it constructively. Schrodingers Mongoose 18:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Mongoose and Slim Virgin seem to think a consensus needs to be reached to use {{toofewopinions}} on a page. The OPPOSITE is actually true. You need consensus to remove it. --Oiboy77 18:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

That is incorrect. You have to discuss your specific objections here. See Category:Too_Few_Viewpoints, which reminds you to "follow through" on the talk page. Furthermore, if you add the tag again without discussing it you will be violating 3RR. Schrodingers Mongoose 18:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The {{toofewopinions}} is used when all significant viewpoints are not included in the article. If an editor wants to add that tag, it is expected that a summary of the ommitted significant viewpoints are stated in talk, so that these can be discussed and their significance assessed by editors. Dispute tags are not there just to make a point. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

My thoughts exactly. Schrodingers Mongoose 20:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I readded it, and the outline of lacking major information is in the section above on human rights. The information has been omitted because all the major human rights groups are accused of anti-semitic bias. Since obviously this is not true, we are experiencing some systemic bias in the article. (Please discuss above in appropriate section). I applaud Jossi for the point she made that the material can be mentioned as notable, and include balancing verifiable objections (i.e. not your own opinion) to its authenticity. Sarastro777 23:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Being that there is now an article on Human rights under development, there is no reason for the re-addition of the template, and I will remove it, pending Smitty giving a valid reason for his post. -- Avi 16:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Specific Objection

My specific objection is that the article does not have a section on human rights, nor is there an article entitled "Human Rights in Israel", to which we could link. The fact that one or two editors refuse to recognize the neutrality of independent human rights organizations should be of no matter. While I do feel that the article as it stands now is in need of a tag, a human rights section would be a permanent improvement.Smitty Mcgee 02:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comments' only purpose is to provoke users, and will be ignored. - MSTCrow 02:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat an earlier suggestion in this regard. There is a small article called Genocide and ethnic conflict in Israel and Palestine, but it isn't really about that...it's about allegations of human rights abuses on both sides. I think there is a great opportunity here to rename it and use it to showcase the strengths and weaknesses in human rights issues in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. To me, this is vastly superior to including a section in the Israel article itself, since this is not common practice for country articles, and since it would not include human rights abuses by Palestinians. I think we should try to reach a real consensus on this and build a balanced article that highlights both the good and the bad on all sides. For this to work, though, we need co-operation from a lot of people with wildly differing views. Anyone up for it? Schrodingers Mongoose 02:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

A section with a short summary about this issue can be worked out, if editors are willing to work together. Both sides of the dispute are missing to appreciate the power of WP:NPOV. One good exercise is to "write for the enemy". The pro-Israel faction can do the research about what sources are critical about the human rights record of Israel, and the anti-Israeli faction can research the sources that have a positive outlook on that record. Try it. You may be surprised at the results. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Questionable Credibility of Sources Cited

While reading through very flattering and amazing "facts" about the state of Israel, including the claim that it is the only nation to enter the 21st century with a net gain in the number of trees (one wonders just who goes about keeping tabs on this kind of thing), I checked the sources. And guess what? The sources were Internet-based, and they had not provided any sources themselves! Unless better sources can be cited, I elect to delete these "facts" that cast such positive light on Israel without credible justification.

To me, this kind of thumping-one's-own-chest article, so obviously written by a pro-Israeli editor, is a perfect illustration of how biased Wikipedia can be. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.42.24.126 (talk • contribs) .

You know, those could have been good points until you inserted your own bias into your complaint. Nevertheless, I'm having trouble finding the trees fact you cited...where is it in the article? Schrodingers Mongoose 03:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

So what that there are only online sources for these things? They are true. There are several organizations in Israel (JNF, KKL) which are especially active and famous in this area. Concerning who keeps tabs on such things: Israel is a very weird country in some respects and it is not at all unthinkable that there are indeed people who keep tabs on the number of trees in the country. I know it sounds weird, but well, that's just Israel. And your bias is horrible. It was written by a pro-Israeli editor, so it is unvalid?! Well, I am getting an ever stronger urge to start working on the articles about the PA. Which you, as a pro-Palestinian editor, should be forbidden from editing if you propose that I be forbidden from editing this article. --Daniel575 08:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the obnoxiousness of the last sentence of the anon's post, that doesn't change whether or not the first paragraph makes a good point. If the source given is indeed bad, we should find a better one. john k 11:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I could not find a sentence in the article about trees... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, assuming that the anon did not himself remove it, that does rather change whether or not the anon was making a good point. john k 20:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

These pages are not made available to make a point, but to discuss this article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? I was discussing whether the anon "made a good point" in the sense that if, indeed, there were poorly sourced statements about, for instance, trees in Israel, they should either be sourced or removed. If, as you say, there are no such claims, then the anon was not making a good point, but was rather talking nonsense. I don't see how WP:POINT comes into this at all. john k 11:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't surprise me... remember this article is a panegyric of Israel...any criticism of that great, glorious, wonderful and amazing country is anti-semitic..GASP.. so don't bother with the facts.24.6.23.248 12:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

WE NEED TO STOP NAME CALLING AND FINGER POINTING. PLEASE INCLUDE A HUMAN RIGHTS SECTION IF YOU CAN USE CREDIBLE SOURCES. IF NOT THEN STOP DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW SOMEONE HAS BUTCHERED THE ARTICLE. AMNESTY AND HRW ARE CREDIBLE SOURCES REGARDLESS OF YOUR FEELINGS TOWARDS THEM. YOU CAN ALWAYS PLACE A SIDE NOTE WITH SOURCES INDICATING POSSIBLE BIAS HRW MIGHT HAVE TOWARDS ISREAL. Waynepl107

The truth about Israel

According to their own accounts, the kingdom of Israel lasted about one hundred years from around 1030-1020 BCE until approximately 930 BCE-920 BCE when it split into the independent kingdoms of Israel and Judah. These independent kingdoms (lasting about two hundred years) were destroyed around 720 BCE by the Assyrians. So the independent kingdom of Israel (according to their own accounts which are not substantiated by archaelogy or reliable historical records) lasted for 300 Years.

2668 years later they come back and claim it is their land ..... I tried added these facts but they were deleted because facts aren't allowed in this article... sounds perfectly reasonable to me ....

The Europeans were criticized for establishing colonies in Africa, Asia, the Middle East etc. and they eventually left all those places ..... but somehow it is okay if Jewish people colonize land...

The only other country that still has colonized regions (China stills occupies Tibet, Eastern Turkestan, etc.) is strongly criticized by most people for continuing its imperialistic policies... but if your Jewish you are given a free pass.... to steal land... sounds perfectly reasonable to me .... oops Oh My God.. what am I saying...am I criticising Israel? Isn't this anti-Semetic? GASP! 24.6.23.248 12:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• What suggestions do you have for improving the article? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Your "facts" are ridiculous and conveyed nothing but bias, which is why they were deleted. I'm not even going to bother correcting you beyond pointing out that regardless of the existence of "kingdoms", Jews have had a continuous presence in the area for thousands of years, much as they did in other Middle Eastern countries before being driven out en masse when Israel became a State in 1948. Schrodingers Mongoose 14:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is an articke about the country not the "controversy" around it. Waynepl107 23:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This is absurd ... a colony is a remote location away from your country of origin that you "colonize" ... for example, the British in India, or the Portuguese in Brasil ... when it is the people's home, as in the case of Israel, it is not colonizations, it is settlement.

What possible difference could it make whether Israelis have to get on a boat or not to go occupy someone else's land. Where do palestinians come from? Well my personal suspicion is Palestine. The Jews emmigrated [key word] from Europe. I have relatives in Israel, but our mutual great grand father is not from Israel, he is from Amsterdam.

The salient point is that Palestinians feel their land has been taken from them and they are being controlled by a hostile governement which will not allow them to return but will allow some schmuck from New Jersey to come live in their house. As a man once said to the NY Times, "I don't care about politics, I care about dignity." When Americans (British) swept accross the continent stealing land, raping and killing, this is called colonialism. The same is true of the Spaniards, the Dutch, et al. The establishment of the State of Israel is, without question an act of colonization. If this simple fact cannot be agreed upon then no reasonable solution can be made.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnDavidBurgess (talk • contribs)

Please stay on topic

Note to all editors

This page is not a discussion forum to debate Israel's foreign policy, it is a page for discussing the article's content. If off-topic comments persist, these will be refactored out of the page. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If considering the truth, the population of Israel tuday counts between 5 and six million. The density of the population is greater in the north then in the south. If we consider the radius of the attacks of Hizballah's missiles over the north of Israel as about 80 Km, so its impossible that just "tens of thousands forced to hide in fall-out shelters" as written in the article. The population of Haifa alone is over 250.000. In fact there are at least over 1.5 million of citizens hidding in shelters. Another fact to be taken in cosideration, is that near a half of the population of the north of Israel, escape to the center of the country from the Hizballah attacks, so there is a number of over 750 thousands of refugees in Israel--88.155.219.191 21:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC).→→Mauricio Sadan←

Usage of Terrorist

I can guess the consensus among the Jewish Israelis on this word... BUT I would point out that Muslims/Palestinians probably just as strongly consider people labeled as "terorists" on this article as "freedom fighters." If the criteria is that unrelated/innocent civilians are killed in vast numbers by bombings/explosions then unfortunately many Israeli soldiers also meet this definition. I would propose we arrive at an alternative so the wording does not convey a solely Jewish-Israeli POV. The media often uses "militant." I see for the Rabin Assassin the wording is "militant Jewish nationalist" .. if we started getting into "militant Islamic nationalist" and all that, I think it is too wordy. Just "militant"?

Sarastro777 23:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

None of the above. If we say "terrorist" we need to attribute that distinction to a reliable source. If we say "freedom fighters", or "militants", ditto. If there are (as it is the case) controversies on how to label these people, we need to describe these controversies as well. See WP:NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disgree with discontinuation of the word terrorist. Just because someone might consider people who strap bomsb to themselves with the sole intention of murdering civilians does not mean they have should not be labeled terrorists. Under the standard being applied, nothing qualifies as terrorism and no one qualifies as a terrorist. The word "militant" is just as offensive to those who condemn suicide bombers as the word "terrorist" is to those who support them. Palestinans who blow themselves up on buses and bash in the skulls of 4-year-old girls are terrorists. Jewish extremists who attack palestinian civilians in their cars are also terrorists. Please tell me how this is not is not the case...or is terrorism a figment of my imagination? Schrodingers Mongoose 02:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

One doesn't have to prove terrorism exists or not to realize the usage is POV. The "terrorist" is always the other person... in order to eliminate that, Jossi is right. What exists are the acts. The reader then decides and is not fed the POV of the editor. That's the meaning of the NPOV article, to my understanding. Sarastro777 04:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem in using the term terrorism, if that term is attributed to a reliable source. For example, I really believe as Schrodingers Mongoosem does, that these are act of terrorism. But Wikipedia is not a place to assert my views, but to report on what reliable, verifiable sources say about a subject. So, we can say "According to several sources [add sources here], these Palestinian groups peform terrorist attacks on the civilian population of Israel", which can be followed by: "Other sources [cite sources here] assert that these are not terrorist acts, but acts of resistance against occupation". That is the way an NPOV article is written. (For the record, I lived in Israel for 13 years, and I have relatives in Naharyah, the town that is being bombarded by the Hizbollah, so do not see me as an Israel basher, as I am not). ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sarastro: I will just assume that you live in the US. Why don't you start with redefining Osama bin Laden and Timothy McVeigh as "militants" and "freedom fighters"? Bin Laden is not a terrorist. Terrorism is what Americans call his acts - but there is no consensus on that at all. Afghans think he is a hero who liberated them from the Soviets. Why would he be a terrorist?! --Daniel575 05:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't need to have the argument. In a NPOV encyclopedic article you would write "Osama bin Laden blew up the WTC" and leave it at that. Then you personally can call him whatever you want. I call him whatever I want.. but the article is free of our points of view. This is more informative than something like "the evil bloodthirsty terrorist Osama bin Laden.." It's obvious :-) You have to realize one can advocate neutral phrasing without condoning the behavior. The point is article objectivity. Coincedentally the Osama article itself seems to have labeled him with "militant" and "fundamentalist" but not "terrorist" These type of things are not so objective as "he is 6ft tall" so it is prone to bias.Sarastro777 06:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

---

The IRA articles set the standard for this one, the IRA are now 'paramilitary' and not terrorists. It may be a historical whitewash considering the IRA killed thousands of innocent men, women and children all funded by the United States, so an attempt to legitimise another CIA terrorist organisation, or it may just be the new thing. If that's the case, every terorist organisation may now be deemed 'paramilitary'. Even if there is no military body in force which they are supporting (which is the definition of the word paramilitary). Feel free to review this debate in the IRA articles for full citation. 211.30.80.121 18:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

--- I agree one should be very careful to use the word terrorist. As an example, Hezbollah is considered to be a terrorist organization by 3 countries (US, Israel and Canada). In addition UK,Australia and Netherlands consider a security branch of it to be a terrorist organization. The rest of the world, including the UN and EU, does not consider it to be a terrorist organization. Here is a quote from the Hezbollah wikipedia article that explains it pretty well: "As Edward Peck Deputy Director of the Reagan White House Task Force on Terrorism expressed: the terrorist, of course, is in the eye of the beholder."

Militant is a much more neutral word than terrorist or freedom fighter. cvik 00:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Norman G. Finklestein has pointed out that when an Israeli general blows up an apartment building he says I was trying to get the terrorist inside, but imagine if Hamas blew up a bus full of civilians and said I wasn't trying to kill civilians just the bus. It is insane as Qana is a testament to. http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2622/465/1600/latuff_norm_says_1.gif.jpg (this file is from my blog: http://www.johndavidburgess.blogspot.com. It is originally from www.normanfinklestein.com)

Criticism

I think perhaps a criticism section would be appropriate on an article about Israel, detailing why it has recently come under fire (recently beeing the last 50 or so years), who it has come under fire from, and the like. Not that the section would not include rumours, and everything would have to be sourced, but it might just put an end to the vandalism, and the systemic bias Wikipedia has in favour of its demographics. Ideas/ Comment? HawkerTyphoon 13:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this sort of thing is better suited for separate articles. Country articles do not tend to have a lot of criticism (or praise) built into them. Though Israel has obviously had a tumultuous existence, adding explicit criticism of the state to this article would be to submit to those who feel their hatred of Israel justifies vandalizing the article. Criticism of Israeli actions, on the other hand, certainly has its place in other articles about specific incidents or modern Israeli history. Schrodingers Mongoose 15:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You're advocating violating policy..Wikipedia:NPOV

All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. '

POV forks

A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.

So no, taking anything that might reflect negatively and putting it in a separate article is not acceptable. This article suffers from systemic bias. Sarastro777 17:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't "systemic bias" meant to indicate things like why we have more coverage of Pokémon characters than African history, or whatever? That is, I always thought systemic bias was the term of art for "wikipedia's coverage is uneven because we have a lot of tech and sci-fi geeks, and not as many people interested in serious scholarly things." This would seem to be a case of normal bias. I would add that Israel is a fairly unique state in the extent to which a significant portion of the world views its entire existence as illegitimate. The only vaguely similar case I can think of is the PRC/ROC issue in China, and of course our Republic of China issue puts a lot of emphasis on that stuff. It seems to me that, whether one agrees with the Arab view of Israel as illegitimate or not, it is a pretty basic fact of Israel's existence, and needs to be discussed in the article. Israel is also fairly unique in that it occupies and administers a wide swathe of land which is not generally considered to be part of its sovereign territory. The only comparable instance I can think of is Morocco in Western Sahara. Israel's actions in these areas are also important, and deserve to be discussed in this article. Like it or not, Israel is an almost uniquely controversial country, and as such it is not a POV violation to discuss that controversy in the article. john k 21:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether a subject should be talked about or not. This is an encyclopedia. I believe there should be a section about Human Rights because there are sources from Amnesty Int. and HRW but the "controversy" surrounding the Israeli state does not belong here. Waynepl107 17:29, 25 July 2006 (EST)

I have absolutely no idea what your first two sentences mean. At any rate, the fact that the Arab states have, for fifty odd years, claimed Israel to be an illegitimate state is one of the basic facts about the State of Israel, like it or not. I don't see how some discussion of this can be avoided. john k 22:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree with your position on the basis that every country can be deemed controversial. Look at the USA, for example, The arab world criticises the USA in unambiguos terms. But there is no "criticism of the USA" in the United States of America article. So rather than complain about what does not work, I would appreciate proposals on how to better the article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The Arab world criticizes the United States, but it does not question the legitimacy of the United States as a state in the international state system. It's not a comparable situation. The entire history of Israel over the last 58 years has been determined by the fact that its neighbors believed it to be (and, for the most part, still do, to an extent) an illegitimate state. This was the story of the 1948 war, and it informed Israeli-Arab relations at least until the Camp David accords. It still remains the official position of many Arab governments. The PLO only changed its charter to remove that statements a few years ago. And even though various Arab governments have now recognized Israel, it still remains pretty strongly the general viewpoint of the Arab public. I don't know that this should be discussed in a specific section, but I don't see how the Arab rejection of Israel can be avoided as a topic in this article. That Arabs don't like the United States is a detail that has nothing much to do with the United States as an entity. That Arabs don't like Israel is a basic existential fact of Israel. john k 23:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

see PLO#PLO National Charter -- it is disputed that the PLO Charter was ever changed. Rabbi-m 03:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, even more so, then. john k 01:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

John k: You need to re-read WP:NOT. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't patronize me. How is my opinion that this article should mention the rather unique fact that, since its creation, a significant portion of the world has thought the state of Israel to be an illegitimate state, an example of me not understanding what wikipedia is not? Looking quickly over that page, I don't see how anything I've said falls under any of those categories. Perhaps the soapbox one is the one you have in mind? But I'm not advocating that wikipedia say that Israel is not a legitimate state. That would be ridiculous. I'm just saying that wikipedia should note the issue, and discuss the arguments that Arab states have made on this subject in an NPOV way. john k 01:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is this even an issue? john k is following policy that is pretty standard: no POV forking. It's impossible to avoid a section discussing criticism because it's a basic fact of life for Israelis, and it has led to much bloodshed on both sides of the issue. It's going to painful, much work will be needed, and we won't be able to please everyone- but we must try to add a Critism section. Let me put it this way: every country article should be an FA- they're the bread and butter of any encyclopedia- but this article lost it's good status, and is nowhere near FA staus. We have to set aside our biases (notice that I haven't mentioned what side of the conflict I'm on, even though I, like every interested party, am on a side) and work towards making an article that strikes the right balance. That means that all of us must be prepared to include details that we may or may not agree with, but are documented facts (or documented opinion, as the case may be). We can do this, I know it. It won't be easy, but it will be worth it when this article gets a pretty gold star next to its name. --Ringmaster j 09:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Why Israel? Why the Jews?

Every article related to Jews, Jewish ideals or Zionism always says at the top,"Due to recent vandalism ..." I'm so damn tired of this. Do we really need these racists on Wikipedia, who, even though they don't really know what it's like to be a minority, still has to vandalize these articles. I'll tell you right now what's real crap: Albert Einstein, a Jewish scientist, up there with Darwin, Da Vinci and Galileo, is considered a "controverisal topic"., Surely you can't deny it was because he was Jewish. These sock puppet accounts used by these narrow-minded bigots need to stop, we can't let personal ideals come into unregarding to the NPOV rule. Israel is being vandalized, as everyone can see, for being edited by these damn skinheads and surely we can all agree that this needs to stop.

24.216.71.36 21:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Tromboneplayer

Skinheads? You're referring to Muslims. Their Internet Jihad is constant problem at Wikipedia.

While vandalism by anti-semitic ######## is obviously a problem, it's not really that big a problem - straight out vandalism is easily reverted. It's obviously unfortunate that there's so much of it, but it doesn't really hurt our actual articles. More complex POV pushers (on both sides!) are a more serious problem in terms of actually improving our articles on zionism related subjects (in particular - I don't think other Judaism related subjects have nearly the same level of actual controversy, even if they also suffer from vandalism). john k 22:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is hopeless there is just too much up for debate here. From the use of the word "terrorist," the creation of the official state of Israel, to the POV attacks on Israelis, Palestinians, Jews, Muslims. We will just have to wait till this controversy dies off to get a fairly non-biased article (probably not in our lifetime). Waynepl107 19:04, 25 July 2006 (EST) (I don't like UTC)

I would disagree wit such pessimistic view. I have seen article as contentious as this one or more, arriving to an NPOV state. But it requires collaboration, patience, civility, and most important, to check or biases at the login page. Wikipedia is not a battleground of ideas. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I disagree -- Wikipedia is a battleground of ideas when it comes to contentious topics, or when racists seek to push their POVs.--Izaakb 15:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have always thought the same thing. But truly, this is beyond Wikipedia's control. Anti-semitism will never stop. In my opinion however, Anti-Semitism is what keeps the Jewish people's vitality. If the Jewish people were to die off, it will not be from anti-Semitism, but from acceptance. Kabbalah teaches us to find the hidden good in all things, and I do believe that there is a postive side effect to hatred; unity and hope. Masterhomer File:Yin yang.png 02:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the underground groups

The underground groups section did not address the fact that most of their actions were against Arabs and civilians too, it seems that (from the author's POV) that those groups targeted the brits only, which is historically not accurate, also it was not mentioned that the heads of those groups where elected as prime ministers of the state of Israel.

• From Wikipedia's own article: "All told, Irgun attacks against Arab targets resulted in at least 250 Arab deaths during this period." I agree, the section is very misleading as it stands.Smitty Mcgee 14:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem Here is with Wikipedia Conventions

Hi folks, I am a new "editor" on Wikipedia, my SN is Eliot1785. I just wanted to chime in and say what, from my new user's perspective, I believe to be the cause of the current controversy over the Israel article.

Basically, it seems that Wikipedia's conventions (not rules, but how things are actually done) are to not allow POV sections in countries' entries. I think before the current debate about the Israel article can be resolved, there will have to be broader changes in how countries are treated in Wikipedia articles.

The folks who are posting here in defense of Israel do have a point - it would seem to be biased and unfair to add a "Criticism" section to Israel when no other countries seem to have it. And creating separate articles to contain points of view isn't just POV-forking, it also inherently degrades those points of view by cutting them out of the main article.

What Wikipedia needs is to break out of the conceptual box wherein articles about countries cannot include criticism of those countries, and start doing that. Once *OTHER* countries have criticism sections, it will make a lot more sense to add such a section to Israel. Then everybody with a point of view on the country can make sure it is listed, and their detractors can post the standard responses to those points of view.

One other thing - I don't think you should simply create a section called "criticism." I think that criticism sections should somehow be divided by topic, for example, "Criticism of Foreign Policy" or "Criticism of Socioeconomic Conditions." That will make sure things stay on topic and the section doesn't become an all-out struggle for the legitimacy of the country.

My $0.02 User:Eliot1785

(note: please sign by using four tildes ~~~. Thanks) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A section called "Criticism of Israel" would be silly and POV. But having a section on human rights in Israel would be fine, so long as the section itself is NPOV. Having material critical of Israel, or presenting POVs which are critical of Israel, should be fine, so long as it's presented in a balanced, NPOV way. Part of the problem is that many of the people who are eager to add such material are not capable of doing this, which allows people supportive of Israel to just bollocks the whole idea. john k 01:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, including criticism in a country article seems like an unusual step. Wouldn't it be better to go to articles about specific events and ensure that criticism and support for certain actions is included? Once again, it feels like Israel is being singled out simply because its neighbours hate it. Schrodingers Mongoose 03:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Are we also going to have a human rights section in Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, and so on? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

As I've noted before, I would say that Israel's human rights record in Israel proper is probably comparable to that of other western countries, and doesn't warrant discussion here. Israel's human rights record in the Occupied Territories is rather unique, and quite possibly warrants a brief discussion here (if it could fit in some already existing section, that would be fine), and its own article. There's a human rights section in People's Republic of China, as a sub-section of "Government and Politics." Why wouldn't this be appropriate for Israel? john k 12:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Reading over the human rights section in People's Republic of China, it seems to me that this is a good model, and would be appropriate to add into numerous articles. If someone wants to right a human rights section on Germany or Australia, and uses good sources and does so in an NPOV way, I don't see why that's a problem. Israel's unique position in the Territories makes human rights a more salient issue there, and I think a section modeled on the one in the PRC article would not violate any wikipedia policies that I'm aware of. john k 12:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Even though I am a strong supporter of Israel, I think a human rights section is warranted since there are a number of people who believe it is an important topic to be discussed. However, it is blatantly obvious here that none of us are able to keep an unbiased tone when discussing Israel. My suggestion is for someone to start a separate page about Israeli human rights issues, and if we can all do a good job and keep it unbiased, maybe we can eventually merge it with the main article. Alcarcalimo2364 17:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This might be a good way to proceed, with the caveat that the human rights article should stay where it is, and that a short summary of it, with a link, should be what is added to the main article here. That said, while the difficulties of not getting carried away by emotion on Israel issues are always present, they haven't stopped us from having a large number of articles and so forth about Israel/Palestine issues. I don't see why human rights should be any different from anything else. The clash of POVs, when conducted by people acting in good faith and assuming good faith in one another (which is often a tall order), can sometimes actually help make an article better - certainly articles on Israel/Palestine issues are much better sourced than articles about, say, the Buffyverse. john k 18:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

John, you didn't really address the issue. Have you added human rights sections to any other country articles, and if not, why are you starting with Israel? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I, if you will read above, am not starting with Israel, and I've actually written nothing on the subject. I am saying that it would be valid to add such a section in this article. It would be valid to add such a section to virtually any article, so long as it is well sourced and NPOV. I was not aware of anything in our NPOV rules saying that an article is POV because it's organized in a different way from another article. If so, then obviously the PRC article is POV, in that it has a human rights section when other country articles do not. john k

You're still not addressing it. My question is: why are you here with this idea, and not on some other country page first? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm here because this is a page I happen to watch, and somebody else suggested it on this talk page. Or possibly because I'm a self-hating Jew. Take your pick. john k 22:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

John, China is still a Communist dictatorship, although a paradoxically capitalist one; it doesn't really make sense to compare it to Israel. The article on Russia, which is rife with Human Rights issues, has no Human Rights section. Nor does that of Mexico, Indonesia, Malaysia, Chile, etc. Even countries like Australia and Canada, known for decades of abuse of their indigenous populations, and the United States, which not only oppressed indigenous peoples, but also African-Americans and even Hispanics, has no section. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me that if it is acceptable to have a human rights section in the China article, it would be acceptable to have one in other articles. And where do we draw the line? Given the radical inconsistency between wikipedia treatments of different subjects, I don't see how we can say that because other articles aren't organized in this way, it would be POV to organize an Israel article in this way. It might not be the best way to do it, but just because it's not how other articles are organized, doesn't seem like a good argument. And I think human rights sections in articles on Russia, Mexico, Indonesia, Malaysia, Chile, Australia, Canada, the United States, and so forth, would all be perfectly acceptable, if someone wants to write them. john k 21:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps as a gesture of good will, you could do that, in case anyone thinks you're simply out to make an anti-Israel point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

And perhaps you should assume good faith. I have no particular interest in myself writing a section on human rights in any article. But even if I was just interested in writing one on Israel, that is not an indictment of me, any more than if I, say, was interested in making a list of Kings of England, but not of Kings of France shows my pro-English (or possibly anti-English) bias. People have specialized knowledge. You can't require people to write about subjects they may not know about or have any interest in simply to prove that they are even handed. john k 23:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat (yet again) an earlier suggestion in this regard. There is a small article called Genocide and ethnic conflict in Israel and Palestine, but it isn't really about that...it's about allegations of human rights abuses on both sides. I think there is a great opportunity here to rename it and use it to showcase the strengths and weaknesses in human rights issues in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. I think we should try to reach a real consensus on this and build a balanced article that highlights both the good and the bad on all sides. For this to work, though, we need co-operation from a lot of people with wildly differing views. Schrodingers Mongoose 20:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving that article to Human rights in Israel and the Occupied Territories might be a good start. A well-developed article on the subject would also make it much easier to have a brief summary in this article, if we are so inclined. john k 21:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to note, in case it isn't clear, that I am not among those who thinks this article is POV because it doesn't contain a section on human rights, and I think that noting that other articles don't contain such a section is a perfectly good defense against the idea that the lack of such a section in this article shows a pro-Israel POV. But that doesn't mean that such a section would be POV. It obviously very easily could be POV, but it isn't inherently so. john k 21:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It is inherently so, if it appears that Israel is being singled out in any way. Your argument would be a lot stronger if you would first of all write such a section on, say, Australia. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

And your argument would be a lot stronger if you would first of all argue that the human rights section in People's Republic of China needs to be removed. Also, wouldn't all of these arguments you are giving apply equally to my writing a section on human rights in Australia? One could just as easily say, "well, look, Israel and Indonesia don't even have sections on human rights, and they're much worse than Australia. I suspect anti-Australia bias." If one thinks there ought to be human rights sections in country articles, one has to start somewhere. Why shouldn't it be Israel? john k 22:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Because Israel gets singled out far too often, as you know, because you're one of the people who does it. Australia has quite a serious human rights problem. Once you've written a human-rights section there, it'll be easier to take your claims of neutrality seriously. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, "You can't require people to write about subjects they may not know about or have any interest in simply to prove that they are even handed." Beyond that, I take some issue to the claim that I "single out Israel far too often." I'll admit that, on wikipedia, I have, on a number of occasions, argued against a pro-Israeli position on a number of issues. As far as I am aware, almost all of these discussions were on subjects specifically relating to the Israel/Palestine conflict already. I can't think of any instances where I have insisted on the insertion of discussion of Israel somewhere where it was not discussed, or anything of the sort. My involvement in the current discussion is only because I happened to clean out the page and got looking at it again. Normally I avoid these subjects, and the vast majority of my work on wikipedia has nothing to do with this stuff. You are accusing me of bad faith, and I've done nothing to deserve it. Also, I have no need to demonstrate my "neutrality" any more than you do before I can propose changes to this article (and you are obviously not any more neutral on Israel/Palestine issues than I am). We all have a POV, that's unavoidable. My POV is no less valid than yours. Ideally, our differing POVs would complement each other, and allow us to work together to improve articles, but your attitude that my POV is invalid, and that I have to prove that I'm not motivated in what I say by "anti-Israel bias" before I can edit here. Being motivated by anti-Israel bias is no more invalid than being motivated by pro-Israel bias, so long as one keeps a clear head and follows wikipedia policy. If I wanted to write articles about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict because of my passionate commitment to the Palestinian cause (I generally don't, and I don't think I'm passionately committed to the Palestinian cause, but, for the sake of argument...), that would be just as valid as any other reason for editing an article. (BTW, Human rights in Australia, while recognizing some serious abuses in the past with respect to Australia's immigration policies and treatment of the Aborigines, does not identify any outstanding issues comparable to Israel's human rights record in the Occupied Territories). john k 13:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest creating seperate articles for human rights allegations? I think the category in China is also misplaced. There should be seperate articles for these issues because human rights issues are extremely transient in the historical sense. This might allow a forum for human right issues outside of the central article. Waynepl107 17:56, 1 August 2006 (EST)

Revert as much as you want

But never say you have my permission to attack LEBANON

In any case, anonymous user, Wikipedia is no place to discuss your personal ideals. Ariedartin JECJY 15:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ariedartin, who asked you? And who cares?

You posted publicly, which is an implicit request for comments. If you don't want people posting their opinions on your opinion, then keep your opinion to yourself.--Izaakb 18:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hamas not terrorists?

I find it unusual that there is a debate regarding the Hamas group being terrorists.

Considering that several Hamas members are on the InterPol arms embargo, travel ban and asset freeze list, as well as terrorist watch lists for most European countries, and the United States, it seems inarguable. --Izaakb 15:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's a matter of perspective. To put it simply, to the groups that the Hamas are helping, they aren't terrorists, but to the groups that are victimised, they are terrorists. Ariedartin JECJY 15:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, seems to me that they could also be terrorists who are being helpful. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

to Ariedartin-- to the caged bird that you feed and care for, does he care that you are a murderer? Yet, he is still just a caged bird. Even the murderer and gangster Al Capone wrote to his mother regularly and signed it "your loving son"--Izaakb 18:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not quite the same unless Capone were to be sending his mother money or information that she needed with the letter. I think you are mistaking the issue of kindness vs. a perceived need. The American Revolution was undertaken by terrorists is a very viable sentence from one perspective. Generally though in the U.S. we refer to them as revolutionaries or heroes. I believe that is the point being made. The real issue is that terrorist and terrorism are overused words, because they really refer to any person/group which instills fear in another, and this description is applicable to an enormous amount of the worlds groups and people. Speaking without bias would be to describe their actions (both good and bad, though the bad may outweigh the good) and not refer to them with a term which doesn't convey any facts, but feelings.

Clean up this talk page!

This is ridiculous. Nobody can make a good argument on this page anymore because stuff is all over the place. I say it's high time we clean slate it and start over... Alcarcalimo2364 22:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. And it's only been ten days, too!. If we clean now, we'll have two or three archive pages devoted entirely to debate in July 2006. john k 22:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever goes on this page is going to affend someone. I may have already missed it but I think the article should have the two points of view to make it a neutral point of view. --MrBobla 12:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, you're wrong. -- tasc ^words_deeds 12:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, despite my fear of being told that I am wrong, I must say that Mr. Bobla has a point. The article as it stands describes Israel from the stance of its supporters. In order to balance out this bias, a voice must also be given to the nation's detractors.Smitty Mcgee 14:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Unsupported assertions are neither an argument nor a proof. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Support can be found in the arguments above, as well as in the pages of human rights reports issued by countless non-governmental organizations. It would be an unjustified bit of censorship to leave out this information.Smitty Mcgee 15:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

More unsupported assertions, mixed with emotional scare-words like "censorship". Jayjg ^(talk) 16:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What exactly are the unsupported assertions being made? That the article "describes Israel from the stance of its supporters"? john k 18:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That's one of the main ones. "Countless NGOs" is hyperbole, and misleading. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, lots of NGOs have criticized Israel's human rights record. Although, one should note, most human rights NGOs criticize everyone's human rights record (except, apparently, Iceland). john k 20:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That, in fact, is what is misleading; NGOs criticize everyone (though they do seem to have a ###### for Israel, shared by the U.N., and prompted by a number of unfortunate and unsavory factors). Jayjg ^(talk) 20:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, one could disagree about the motivations (for the NGOs, at least). Human rights organizations function by shaming countries into doing a better job. Israel, as a democracy, seems like it should be a more effective target for shaming than, say, the Sudan, or Myanmar. What does Kim Jong Il care about what HRW says about his regime? Monitoring a country like North Korea is, of course, useful, but it's understandable why less effort would be put into it - because there's not much an NGO can accomplish there. It seems fairly understandable that a democracy with some serious human rights problems, like Israel, would be potentially a more desirable target of action than a brutal, insular dictatorship that doesn't give a damn what human rights NGOs say about them. john k 22:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an article about the country Israel. To describe Israel politics, society, economic, history, religion, etc., we have other articles. I would argue that specific aspects such as controversy about separation of church and state, human rights, etc. can be explored on the relvant sub-articles. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

To describe Israel's politics, history, society, economy, religion in detail we have other articles. But surely all of these things should be (and are!) summarized in this article? john k 20:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Main details about the country should be here. But specific controversies, not necessarily. You may want to check how this is addressed on other countries' articles. Treating this article different from any other country would not be wise. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

May I also remind you of what Wikipedis is not? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep throwing that at me? I don't even know what you're specifically referring to. And we would not be treating Israel differently from the article on every other country to have a section on human rights - there are such sections at People's Republic of China, North Korea, and Cuba, for instance. Are we only allowed to have such sections in articles on communist countries? And while North Korea is probably uniquely bad, I think it could easily be argued that wikipedia is showing bias against the PRC and Cuba by having such sections in their articles, but not in articles about, say, Sudan, Syria, Iran, Uzbekistan, and so forth...surely Sudan's human rights violations are considerably worse than Cuba's? Are you arguing that we remove the human rights sections from the PRC, PDRK, and Cuba articles? john k 20:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to imagine why someone would think that the Human Rights situation in Israel is in any way comparable to that in China, North Korea or Cuba - at least, why someone who was at all familiar with these countries would suggest that. Spain would be a better comparator. Or the United States. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Way to knock over that straw man. That's not what I was saying. I don't think that having a section on human rights in a country is, in and of itself, an indictment of that country's human rights record. I think it would be acceptable to add a well-researched and NPOV human rights section to any country article. I don't think that this needs to be done in some sort of hierarchical order of worst to best. You however, seem to think that we cannot have a human rights section on a country until all countries with worse human rights records have such articles. This is not only rather silly, but also is directly at odds with the current wikipedia situation, in which Cuba and China have sections for pretty workaday political oppression, while a country with an ongoing genocide (Sudan, again) does not have a section on human rights at all. Why is it unacceptable to have a section on human rights in Israel because there aren't such sections about Australia and Indonesia, but it is acceptable to have a section on human rights in Cuba even though there aren't such sections about Sudan or Myanmar? Why does the issue of whether this article is NPOV have to be tied up with a comparison to 190 other articles? john k 22:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's the problem; other countries could get normal articles, but when it's about Israel people want to create one-sided fiascos like this: [2] Jayjg ^(talk) 22:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. A balanced discussion of the true state of Human rights in Israel should be welcome by all Wikipedia editors for the good of the project. The intent of the above is to propagandize and attack. Elizmr 23:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem terribly fair to attack an article for being POV when it is first created. This is what the wikipedia process is about - working on the article back and forth until a good article is created. It would seem to me that it would be more constructive to try to improve our coverage of these things, and make sure they stay NPOV, than to use it as an example of why our normal rules should be abandoned when it comes to Israel. Basically, my issue is this - there seems to be a mindset that because there's a lot of anti-Israel editors who are stupid and incompetent, and who create articles or sections that suck, that means that we have to develop this whole set of far more stringent rules when dealing with issues of Israel. I don't think that's right. I think we should use the same rules. The fact that people create ###### articles can be perfectly well dealt with using the ordinary rules of wikipedia, and the article you point to has been the subject of considerable debate over the course of the day, with a lot of changes (not sure how good all of it is). I understand the concern that anti-semitic (or, at least, anti-Israel) garbage can get into wikipedia, but the way to deal with that is not to set some kind of good will test, where I have to prove that I don't have any ulterior motives by writing an article on human rights in Switzerland or what not before I gain the right to deal with Israel, as SV apparently suggested earlier. The whole point of wikipedia is that it shouldn't matter if we have ulterior motives. So long as we take care to verify our information with reliable sources, to avoid original research, and to insure that all points of view are represented in a way to give each its due weight, it shouldn't matter that editors have POVs - editors are supposed to have POVs. And sure, Middle East topics attract more than their fair share of bad editors, but we can't condemn something on the basis that it would be done badly. Certainly that's not how wikipedia works for any other topic. john k 23:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

<<<< We have an article on Human rights in Israel. As per WP:FORK, we could simply summarize that article in a sentence or two and link to the main article with the {{details}} template. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, that would be my suggestion as well, although I'd say "a short paragraph" rather than "a sentence or two." I didn't mean to suggest I favored anything else. I will say that that article is pretty #### right now, and it may take a while before it's in a state to be summarized. john k 02:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

So, we can take a break from this, wait until that article is stable and then summarize here. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

J Kenney--I see what you are saying in the long quote above, but actually according to Jimmy Wales it is every editor's duty to maintain balance at all times. See my user page for his discussion on this. OK? Elizmr 14:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, every editor should strive to achieve NPOV. But every editor also has their own biases which color their view of what wikipedia is. There is not and has never been an injunction that one has to be unbiased to edit wikipedia - the very idea is, at any rate, absurd. Everyone is biased in one way or another. Notice that Jimbo says that it is incumbent on all of us to try to achieve balance in our writing. That is to say, we should try to overcome our biases and be fair-minded when trying to write for wikipedia. We should not come to wikipedia with the purpose of writing one-sided polemics, even if we feel like the people we disagree with are doing this. But what SlimVirgin seems to be demanding is that, on Israeli/Palestinian topics, at least, one has to prove beforehand that one has no "bias" against Israel before one can contribute. I know perfectly well that, at least compared to the Zionists who seem to populate wikipedia articles on this subject, I have a "bias" against Israel (I don't think I'm reflectively anti-Israel in any way, but i find the Israeli government's actions to be frequently repugnant, and I think the origins of the State of Israel are morally questionable at best). But I don't think those views, even if they can be characterized as "anti-Israel" (which I think is an unfair characterization, at any rate), should in any way disqualify me from editing and discussing articles on the subject, any more than being sympathetic to Israel disqualifies one. What is required is an ability to be open to opposing points of view, and to be fair minded in trying to insure that NPOV is met. This is the point of Jimbo's comment that neutrality is not "best achieved by warring camps." The point isn't that people can't have opinions, it's that people shouldn't be writing in bad faith in a way to purposefully promote their POV. john k 15:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, John, This is Wikipedia, where a Nazi can edit the article on The holocaust, and an christian fundamentalist can edit the article on Islamism. But that would only be possible, if we discuss the article a not not the subject, or our ideas on the subject, keep our cool, and make extraordinary efforts not to use these talk pages as a battelground of ideas. For example, your comments above about your views are absolutely unnecessary. I do not care a about your views. All I care is: can you edit this article and add value? So far I have see a lot of smoke, but not fire. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I only mentioned my own views as an example, because SlimVirgin seems to feel that people need to prove that they don't have "bias against Israel" before they can edit this and related pages. As to editing this article, as I think we both agree, there's not much to be done here at the moment. If you'd like at my comments at Talk:human rights in Israel, I think you'll find that I've been trying to moderate positions on both sides, and that I don't agree with the "propaganda of one side will be balanced out by propaganda from the other side" perspective. My most recent comments here have been in response to the rather bizarre idea that SV has expressed that one has to prove one's good faith by writing sections on human rights in Australia before one has earned the right to advocate for a section on human rights in Israel here. As I think I've stated before, I'm not terribly interested in writing articles about human rights (although now that I've gotten myself into the Israel mess, I feel some responsibility to make an effort to see that it doesn't end up a complete POV disaster), but I find most of the general arguments against such a section to be dubious, and I have ever right to point this out in talk if I want to. As to my personal views, I was merely stating them for the purpose of explaining my biases, which can, I think, be useful, in that it reveals where everyone's coming from. I'm glad that you don't care about my views. I don't particularly care about your views, either. At the same time, it's always useful to know where somebody is coming from, as it helps you judge what they are saying. In particular, it keeps you on the look out for statements against interest, which can be useful in judging whether somebody is being fair-minded. But, anyway, as usual, I find this exhausting and deeply dissatisfying. I don't want to have to write long essays in defense of general wikipedia principles, but articles on this particular subject seem to be so full of strange attitudes towards things like NPOV and original research that I tend to spend much more time than I'd like doing this kind of thing. Anyway, I'm done with this. This is tiring and all it seems to result in is SlimVirgin accusing me of being an anti-semite (or something...) and you repeatedly telling me to look at "What wikipedia is not". I'm going to keep looking at the human rights article, in hopes that a little sage guidance from me will help move things in the right direction, but ovverall I find the whole thing exhausting. john k 16:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking at WP:NOT from time to time, is a good thing, and I do that myself to remind me that this is an encyclopedia and not a place for advocacy journalism, a battleground of ideas and a myriad of other things. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Many wonder why Israel is in the critical state it's in today, what are the roots of the current crisis and of the crisis before that and the one before that...unfortunately great part of it is due to European racism, or rather the racism of European Jewry. Jews in Europe suffered horrendously before, during, and immediately after WWII in great part because of entrenched anti-semitic and racist views held not only in Hitler's Reich and in Mussolini's Italy, but also in France, Russia, England, and even the US. Tragically many of Israel's own "founding fathers" held similarly racist and anti-semitic beliefs regarding Arabs and Muslims in general, these views of course were in no way original or limited to the European Jewish intelligentsia, they were the views of the "civilized world," of the West as a whole. These beliefs and the colonialism they cyclically fed from and nourished have had grievous consequences for the West, and today we in Europe and America are reaping the whirlwind, the intergenerational holocaust that was bloodily planted by our forefathers: Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and Roosevelt. But in Israel it is worse still, there the woe of its people the madness that is colonialism is being put on display, as it was before in Indochina, Algeria, and South Africa. A European minority entrenched and armed to the tooth, indoctrinated with notions of religo-racial superiority, and caught in the grasp of social and political ultraism, is doomed to implosion–this was the lesson of the American South, Haiti, Angola and South Africa. Yet, in the case of Israel its history and its lessons will prove doubly tragic, for if European Jewry had, beginning with the first settlments in Ottoman Palestine, demonstrated a respect for its Palestinian neighbors and a willingness to live in conditions of equality and fraternity with Arab Muslims then the seeds of a multi-ethnic and multi-denominational state would have been laid. Such was the only way, such the only viable Israel.

Maimon (found this essay, I think it particularly relevant today)

Congratulations, that is as irrelevant as it is false and disgusting. Do you have anything of value to add or just vicious Jew-hatred? You need to read a history book or two....it was not the Jews who attempted to eradicate their neighbours in a 1948 war of aggression. The tolerance you insist the Jews of the 40s should have shown to their peaceful Arab friends would have resulted in a Holocuast-proportion bloodbath. Schrodingers Mongoose 02:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You call that vicious Jew hatred? I saw nothing in those comments which is anti-semitic, although it's clearly fundamentally anti-zionist. The statement has nothing to do with improving the article, and as such isn't a useful contribution to this talk page, but neither is your comment. And perhaps you should read a history book as well, instead of just the Israeli propaganda version of its history. john k 13:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"A European minority entrenched and armed to the tooth, indoctrinated with notions of religo-racial superiority..." <-- Jew-hatred and disgusting racist rhetoric. As for your "Israeli propaganda" comment, which part did you mean? The part where Israel's neighbours tried to eradicate it (and its people) in 1948? I don't need propaganda of any kind to tell me that this is simply factual. Sorry for shooting my mouth off though...I know it isn't helpful but lines like the one I just quoted are pretty upsetting. Schrodingers Mongoose 01:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Maimon or the essayist is talking about the 40s, the essay describes a racist precedent set by European Jewish settlers pre-WWI, and in a Palestine still part of the Ottoman Empire.

Marsiliano 20:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

wasnt tel aviv its capital

wasnt tel aviv its capital at some point of time, nids 12:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe in 1948-49 it was the provisional capital. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Tel Aviv IS the capital of Israel as recognize by the UN. Only Israel (and two other contry: Costa Rica and Salvador) consider Jerusalem as their capital. As a consequence all the embassy are situated in Tel Aviv.

Countries do not have to ask the rest of the world for permission to designate their capital. The law of Israel says Jerusalem is the capital, and the headquarters of all of its branches of government are located in Jerusalem. Jerusalem is therefore the capital both "de jure" and "de facto", meaning it is the capital, period. 6SJ7 17:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The current situation, with Jerusalem listed, but footnoted, with the footnote giving an explanation of the controversy, is fully appropriate. john k 15:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy and Neutrality Tag Added

Given all the above, it seems pretty clear why this is needed. The article on Palestinian refugees (a link from this page) has it loud and clear at the top, as do many other links from this page. It seems self-evident then that this page should too. For example, this page claims that the Palestinian "fled" in 1948 rather than were forced out. Some people may agree with this and some people may not, but it is obviously a statement whose factual accuracy is not accepted by everyone. In fact, these "factual accuracy" tags should also be semi-protected from vadalism (in this case, vandalism is removing them) simonhartigan 12:45, 30 July 2006 (EST)

Agreed--Oiboy77 05:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

See WP:POINT. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out the factual accuracy of the earth being round is also factually disputed. Is that a POV that should be left out of a Wikipedia article or equally balanced?Michaelh613 12:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)michaelh613

Certainly many Palestinians fled, although some were also forced out. This is more of a POV issue than a factual accuracy issue, if it's an issue at all. john k 13:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"Fled" is a good NPOV word to use here. People "flee" both voluntarily and under duress. To say "left voluntarily" or "were forced out" would be POV and would warrant editing or possibly the tag. The tag is certainly not warranted for the use of this word. Schrodingers Mongoose 01:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this seems sensible. john k 14:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Human Rights Criticisms

Humus Sapiens deleted the ONLY sentence in this section that hinted at any criticism... which was: "These viewpoints are contested for various reasons by the U.S. Department of State, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, The World Bank, The Association for Civil Rights in Israel, and the United Nations Human Rights Committee." It had EIGHT sources for the one sentence.

Mischaracterization of Dept. of State In its place, he put: According to 2005 US Department of State report on Israel, "The government generally respected the human rights of its citizens; however, there were problems in some areas..." [22] If you go to the source, the complete sentence is: " however, there were problems in some areas, including the following:

• 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 (see annex)
• 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

"

We can start listing specific areas of criticism, as this edit completely mischaracterizes the reality of the situation -- but I thought we wanted to keep this brief here? Or the fact that since your outdated source was created, Israel has been placed on a special Human Rights watchlist by the Dept. of State?

Freedom House

He also added: "In 2005, the Freedom House rated political rights in Israel as "1" (1 representing the most free and 7 the least free rating), civil liberties as "2" and gave it the freedom rating of "Free". [23]" -- We already documented on the Human_rights_in_Israel page that this report considered Israel and its "occupied territories" separately. Again, if this is considered then the rating is "6, 5, Not Free."

Please stop this blatant POV pushing. It is outrageous to delete the single critical Human Rights sentence and then include two mischaracterizions. What you edited to is not reflected by the citations either here or on the Human Rights in Israel article.

Sarastro777 16:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

In this list I think I've finally figured out why I'm just not happy with this whole section. Listing all the human rights abuses that go on in Israel and in the Palestinian territories (not counting those perpetrated by the Palestinians themselves) makes Israel look pretty bad. But the problem is you could make a list like this for any country on the planet and make them look bad...most a lot worse than Israel. I'm not disputing that Israel does bad things when it comes to adhering to a universal code of human rights. I'm saying that any list like the one above is naturally and automatically prejudicial. It would only be fair to include such material if a massive amount of context could be established, and I'm not sure we have that kind of space in this article, or if any of us have the ability to do it in a fair and unbiased manner. Schrodingers Mongoose 04:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is problematic. Problems like "de facto discrimination against the disabled," and "government corruption" in particular, seem not terribly important. I think if we have a section, it should touch on major issues - Palestinian terrorist violence, Israeli army violence in the territories, destruction of homes, settlement expansion and the wall, perhaps discrimination against the Palestinian population in Israel proper. Before getting into this stuff, we could also mention that Israel is a liberal democracy, with civil rights and liberties, and such being generally observed within Israel itself, and such like, to mitigate the bad. It should not be in the form of a bulleted list, but of text, and should link to the main article which, at some point, would hopefully be an actual good summary, rather than the mess it is now. john k 11:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from but I remain concerned. Again I think it comes back to context. Take, just for example, the west bank barrier. It would be easy to simply list the ways this imposes hardship on the wesk bank population and has been condemned by external organizations. However, there are extremely compelling arguments for the barrier....not the least of which is that it has been demonstrably effective in thwarting suicide bombers from crossing into Israel to target and kill civilians. In general, whenever an Israeli abuse against the Palestinians is cited, I find myself asking what any other democratic state would do in the face of murderous acts against its civilians (or its soldiers for that matter). There is a growing movement in the US southwest, for exmaple, to build a similar barrier to stem the tide of illegal immigrants from Mexico. What would America's reaction be if those Mexicans were blowing themselves up in restaurants and churches in Phoenix? How would any of us react? Context is tough. Schrodingers Mongoose 14:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue people tend to have with the wall is not the existence of the wall per se, but the way it is built not on the Green Line, but in such a way as to include as many settlements as humanly possible, and thus not only protects the settlements, which are illegal under international law, but makes life very difficult for the Palestinians whose freedom of movement is greatly impeded. There wouldn't be nearly this level of protest against the wall if it had been built along the Green line, or even with moderate adjustments from the Green Line. I'd oppose my country building a wall along the border with Mexico, but let's note that a full analogy would involve the American government occupying northern Mexico and using its occupation to subsidize the construction of illegal American settlements in northern Mexico on land owned by Mexicans, all while disenfranchising the Mexican population and not giving them American citizenship (stuff which happened in the Palestinian Territories before there was any serious indigenous terrorism in the West Bank and Gaza). I don't think that the discussion here needs to go into much detail with justifications. The history section discusses the history. I'm happy to mention Palestinian terror attacks as part of a discussion of human rights. I kind of see where you're coming from that any discussion is going to be short on context, and thus problematic, but I think that there's plenty of context on the conflict in the article as a whole, and hopefully there will be an entire article on human rights which can give context. john k 14:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Statistics

Do the actual stats(population, area... etc)include the WB/Gaza?

There should be a section on Israeli state-sponsored Terrorism & the Apartheid System Legally used in Israel

• There should be mention of Israeli state-sponsored terrorism
• There should be sections in this article dealing with the Apartheid system of Israel
• The citizens of Israel are classified based on religion and race, inlcuding rights. Why is this not mentioned?
• The funding of Israel and the Israeli economy by foreign subsities is also not really mentioned

69.196.164.190

• POV
• POV
• Citations please
• If people feel Israel's receipt of foreign aid is relevant, perhaps it could be discussed. Of course this would probably necessitate a section on foreign aid given by Israel, including its well-established global disaster response teams.

Schrodingers Mongoose 17:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting subject. Finklestein has in the past rejected the characterization of Aapartheid to Israel claim some significant differences in the way the two systems are/were set up. Since then he has changed his mind. The governement of south africa has initiated an embargo as a result of a perceived similarity between their own racist past and Israels racist present. I think there should be a section. Perhaps it should be put under the heading of right of return which should also be a heading or sub heading.

History section disproportionate.....

I personally feel the history section has been laid out incorrectly and with not enough emphasis on Israel's modern history (ie. 1970--->), which it seems is what everyone argues about and is constantly a source of interest and discussion. There is too much emphasis on the all of the events leading up the creation of a Jewish state, the immigration, underground groups, indepedance and so on and so on. I personally think all of this is far outweighing current or recent political and social developements that are occuring in Israel, that are far more relevant to today's world politics.

I mean I see a brief outline of Israel in the Lebanese Civil War, a few quote's about Peres' leadership, one mention of the Al-Aqsa Intifada then one, two, skip a few and where upto 2006. All of the recent political and social events that happened in the last 20 years involving Israel are having severe rammifications and consequences in Middle Eastern and world politics than anything 60 years ago.

Not to say we shouldn't focus on Israel's creation, which is obviously why we have such a delicate and tense political atmosphere in the Middle East now, but we need definately more mention of recent events which is what people are hearing and seeing in the media and unfolding the future of relations and politics in the Middle East and so on.

Personally I haven't got the time to rewrite this article, but if a knowledgable, good natured person could include some more recent history, I think the article would be more informative.

--211.26.45.85 17:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)AmarP89

The article should provide a pretty basic overview of history, and not go into much detail. Most of the basic occurrences of the last 25 years are discussed. Why do we need more than that? john k 20:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I wrote about this months ago. It seems that everyone has something to say on the subj. not realizing that this is only a summary. I won't be surprised if soon this section will be longer than the article it supposed to summarize. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)