Talk:Refusal to serve in the Israel Defense Forces

celebrity refuseniks

I am surprised that the article does not contain any mention of celebrity refuseniks. I am Israeli, so this controversy is realy close to my heart. Celebrity refuseniks are celebritys (mostly around recruitment age) that refuse to serve not for pacifist reasons and such, but for career driven motives. An example for this case is the cast of the Academy Award nominated film Beaufort (film). The movie is a war film set in the last days of the South Lebanon conflict (1982–2000). However, the three leading actors Oshri Cohen, Itay Tiran and Itay Turgeman have not fully completed their military services. Another example is the case of Israeli Popstar, named Maiah Booskila, who claimed that she is a Haredi Jew to get away from her military service (though she finally enrolled to the Israel Defense Forces at the age of 24!). The true problem is not the case itself, but the impact it has on young people who idellize those celebritys. Those teens copy their favorite stars and become refuseniks.

conscientious objection vs. refuseniks

It is unclear whether this page covers the phenomenon of conscientious objection. Usually such people are not called , yet the first example (Zichroni) reads like conscientious objection. The history of conscientious objection in Israel would be a worthy addition to this page if it was agreed that it belongs here. --Zero 03:05, 28 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I guess there are other reasons for refusing to serve than consientious objection, but I would preffer that as a title - any objection?The Fellowship of the Troll 21:38, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I object. Almost all of the fuss is about people who are not conscientious objectors as the term is defined in most countries (and in Israel). That is, they are not opposed to violence and war on principal, but instead are opposed to using violence in support of certain policies of the Israeli government. --Zero 13:50, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No Sense in Stats

Gil Regev's comment: "He said that 18 reserve soldiers and 8 officers had been imprisoned for refusal in 2003 compared to 100 reservists and 29 officers in 2003, a decrease of 80%." Can it be fixed please?

What should it be fixed to? Jayjg 20:28, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Don't know. I'm not the one who came up with these stats. If no one knows the source I guess it should be deleted. --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 15:28, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The second 2003 should be 2002. My typo (probably). It says that the figures were 129 in 2002 and 26 in 2003. 26/129=0.202 so the fall is pretty close to 80%. --Zero 15:41, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

The results of refusal to serve and the concommitant increase in suicide bombings are not covered on this page. Lance6Wins 18:15, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The book, "The Seventh War," by journalists Avi Yisacharov of Voice of Israel Radio and Amos Harel of Haaretz, is based on comprehensive investigations and interviews with Hamas terrorist leaders in Gaza and Israeli prisons.

Yisacharov told Channel 1 Television yesterday that Hamas leaders had told him clearly: "It was the Israeli left and your peace camp that ultimately encouraged us to continue with our suicide attacks."

Yisacharov said he was told as follows:

"We tried, through our attacks, to create fragmentation and dissention within Israeli society, and the left-wing's reaction was proof that this was indeed the right approach. When we heard about the 'Pilots' Letter' [written and publicized last year by 27 Israel Air Force pilots who refused to take part in bombing missions against terrorist leaders in Arab towns], and the elite soldiers who refused to serve [in Judea, Samaria and Gaza], it strengthened those in our camp who promoted the idea of suicide bombers...

"The disengagement from Gaza is proof of our victory. The fact is that Sharon is willing to withdraw unconditionally, and is essentially raising a white flag and retreating. Only by force can we teach the other side what to do."

I think this position should be stated, but certainly not at the great length that it is given here. Would you like me to try? Jayjg 19:15, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is my POV that direct quote are preferable to my, yours or anyone's interpretation. How about this:

Resulting increase in suicide bombing (purposely unbalanced here to prevent highlighting)

Avi Yisacharov of Voice of Israel Radio and Amos Harel of Haaretz conducted extensive interviews with Hamas terrorist leaders, both in the Gaza Strip and in Israeli prisons. Their book "The Seventh War" is based upon those interviews. In a television interview regarding the book, Avi Yisacharov, stated that Hamas leader told him clearly "It was the Israeli left and your peace camp that ultimately encouraged us to continue with our suicide attacks....When we heard about the 'Pilots' Letter', and the elite soldiers who refused to serve, it strengthened those in our camp who promoted the idea of suicide bombers..." [citation]

Lance6Wins 20:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This doesn't specifically refer to refuseniks, though, does it? Jayjg 20:38, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It specifically refers to two items mentioned on this page: 'Pilots' Letter', and the elite soldiers. I will restore the quote. Lance6Wins 14:28, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, but the quote is far too long to begin with, and the claim made is far too strong. I'll try to work on something more balanced in a few minutes. Jayjg 15:11, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

All right, I've put the information in, and provided a link. Also, please do not re-order this article in the way you have attempted to do. Logically the article must first describe the movement, and then describe reactions to it, not the other way around. Jayjg 15:48, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg, I reordered the article to reflect (hopefully) intro/overview, history, results, and finally a detailed list of each group. It seems that this move from the general to the more specific is suitable. Lance6Wins 13:35, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The order didn't make sense. First you describe the movement, in summary and detail, and then you describe opposition to it. As it was, you were describing the reactions to the Pilot's Letter before you even mentioned what the Pilot's letter was. Jayjg 15:44, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would also like to include the quote from Yisacharov. The premise of the statement, that refusal contributed to an increase in suicide bombings, is at odds with the widely held preceptions in the West. We should provide people the detail so that they can make there own judgement regarding the matter. Lance6Wins 13:35, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The idea is there in the article, and pounding people over the head with what you believe are their misconceptions is fine for a sermon, but doesn't belong in an Encyclopedia article. Also, lengthy quotes are not required, particularly as they are secondary quotes; that is, the author saying what he claims the Hamas leaders said. If you actually quoted a Hamas leader saying that, it would be more valuable. As for the detail, the article with the detail is linked to. Jayjg 15:44, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A single, simple statement is not "pounding people over the head with what you believe". It is clearly reporting what Yisachrov states with a minimum of editorializing. Selective inclusion of news can be POV.

[[1]] was just an error on my part...."who" is much better than "wh". Thank you for catching it. Lance6Wins 18:09, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yisacharov's views are represented accurately, and in general it's best to avoid lengthy quotes. The quote is too long, not necessary, and not particularly notable. As I said before, if a Hamas leader were quoted saying it it would be much more notable. Jayjg 18:38, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

conscientious objection

I think "pacifism" or "conscientious objection" should be mentioned in the introduction. "Refusal to serve in the Israeli military includes both refusal to obey specific orders and refusal to serve in the Israel Defense Force (IDF) in any capacity due to disagreement with the policies of the Israeli government as implemented by the army" - this statement is (purposely?) ignoring pacifism as a motive for refusal to serve. Also, the linking of refuseniks in the paragraph does nothing to remedy this as that article does not mention pacifists or COs (conscientious objectors) either, and merely points back to this article. I propose something like this:

Refusal to serve in the Israeli military includes both refusal to obey specific orders and refusal to serve in the Israel Defense Force (IDF) in any capacity due to pacifistic views or disagreement with the policies of the Israeli government as implemented by the army. People who refuse to serve in either capacity are sometimes called refuseniks (Hebrew: סרבנים, pronoune sarvanim).

This makes the phrase after the "or" sound somewhat lengthy. Any help is more than welcome. I think this addition is more than reasonable, if there are no objections I'll probably add it in sometime soon. -Jrka 14:33, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

21 (band) grassroots/low profile refusal movements

What to do with 21 (band)? Should a See also section be created at this page, and a reference to the band placed there? It surely would look like a sore sticking out completely from the other portion of the article. Maybe, someone knowledgeable enough can create a small section on grassroots refusal movements, with other things in it as well? The reason I ask is that I unlinked 21 (band) today from the IDF page, where it was REALLY an eyesore; there was a red-link to profile 21 there, placed by the same new user User:21 that created the band page, and I assumed that if and when such a page is set up (by the same user?), it would include the link to the band. Meanwhile, my unlink created an orphaned article, and of all the places on the WP I believe that Refusal to serve in the Israeli military is the most appropriate place to link it back in. (Personally, I have never heard about the band). BACbKA 19:43, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, I think I have found a perfect place for the orphaned links. This lowers the priority of the above request drastically as far as I am concerned. BACbKA 19:53, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• 21 (band) is presently nominated for deletion: see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/21 (band). I'm suggesting merging it as BACbKA outlines above.

Edit war

Hey, guys - you all know better than to carry out debates over a single word via a revert war. I realise that this has carried over from elsewhere, but it's sad to follow this discussion on the edit summaries. You are all reasonable people, I know you can do better. Please? Guettarda 01:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The URL shows the phrase "Occupied Territories" being used. SlimVirgin and Jayjg don't want to used source quotes and would rather put their own POV in the article. FuelWagon 01:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense - the people are quoted exactly, including the phrase "Occupied Territories" in more than one direct quote - you specifically included the quotes so you could push the phrase into the article, you must remember that. And there's no reason for you to bring your beef with SlimVirgin to this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The courage to refuse group refuses to serve in the occupied territories, that's what their own URL says, that what the article should say rather than putting your spin on things. There is no beef here, only NPOV policy. FuelWagon 02:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to see an end to interpretive editing on the part of some of the editors here. We should present views in Wikipedia, not refract them through the lens of our own bias. The editors who do not think that the territories that Israel is occupying are being "occupied" must accept that they hold a minority view and cannot expect it to be the basis for neutral articles. Grace Note 03:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia uses its own terminology, except in direct quotes, rather than whatever terminology some group prefers to use. By your argument the Foreign relations of Iran article should refer to the Israel as "the Zionist Entity" since this is the term Iran consistenly uses for Israel, and all articles referring to Hamas should describe it as a "terrorist" group, since this is the term that the United States, Canada, and E.U. have agreed on. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

"Zionist entity" is the name used by a small minority, Jay. I'm all for using the common names for things with explanations that the principals of the article do not call them that. I don't agree that Wikipedia should use its "own terminology" -- it should not interpret its sources at all. I invite you to read the policies of Wikipedia and get clear in your mind what exactly Wikipedia is. It is not the intention that it should reflect the world through the preferred wording of editors such as yourself. You are happy enough to argue this elsewhere, where you feel that you can find plenty of sources for your view, and yet, when you want a certain wording preferred, and cannot, ho hum, it's out the window.

As for Hamas, its listing as a terrorist group is given in the introduction and it is in the category "terrorists".

I draw your attention also to the following paragraph.

"The indictment states that Salah received $50,000 which was used over the course of the following three months to help Hamas finance eight terrorist attacks that resulted in the deaths of numerous Israeli civilians [13]"

I don't see you rushing to correct that to "acts of violence" or any other terminology. Why not? Grace Note 03:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

So I take it you've changed your mind, GN, and we should now use the word "terrorism" and "terrorist" liberally to describe Palestinian and Islamic groups, because most people do? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe we should stick to quoting people calling people names, Slim, instead of doing it for them. Clear enough for you? Perhaps you'd encourage Jay to answer the question, or answer it yourself? Why are you not changing the quote I gave above? Grace Note 07:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Come on, GN, answer the question. Do you believe we should call Palestinian and Islamist groups "terrorists" just because the term is widely used of them? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I gave you an answer. I think it's unacceptable that you are hectoring me because you don't like the answer I did give. Perhaps you might now answer the question I asked? Grace Note 00:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The groups listed in this article are a very "small minority" in Israel, yet you insist on using the terminology they use because they use it. As well, Iran officially refers to Israel as "the Zionist entity", refusing to use any other term - again, by your logic, articles about Iran's relations with Israel should also refer to it as "the Zionist entity", rather than "interpreting its sources". As for Hamas, the article on it doesn't describe it as a "terrorist group", but rather notes that other people list it as one. You certainly don't see the group described as "the Hamas terrorist group" or "the Hamas terrorist organization", even though many people and many governments describe them that way. Your inconsistencies are most troubling. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Jay, I'm not insisting on anything except that we follow the policy on NPOV.

I have not suggested anywhere that a tiny minority view should prevail, Jay. I have argued the complete opposite, if anything. I think, yes, that if Iran calls Israel the "Zionist entity" (good lord, that must make them Nazis or antisemites, no?) then we should report them doing so, and not substitute Israel for what they actually called it. But the commonly used term in English for the area bounded by Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Gaza Strip and the West Bank is "Israel" and I have no problem with writing English.

The problem with describing Hamas as a "terrorist group" is internal, Jay, more than anything. The difference between "terrorism" and "occupied territories", for instance, is that no one agrees on what the former is (the UN failed again, I note, to agree a definition) so that it tends to have the character of an epithet rather than a descriptive term, while the whole world bar your tiny faction agrees that the territories in question are the "occupied territories". As a matter of interest, Jay, given that there is a clearly identified minority that thinks that the term Israel is disputed, do you feel that the article Israel should be renamed? It's okay, Jay. It's purely rhetorical. You can "not bother to answer" that one. Grace Note 07:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, this is most surprising. Two rather experienced editors aren't familiar with a wikipedia concept called NPOV. Since it is really is quite simple, I'll explain it here for you. The point of view of a group should be reported from their point of view, using their words. Say you're writing an article about two people in a protracted dispute. Alice doesn't like Bob and Bob doesn't like Alice. NPOV would say to report Alice's view using her words, not Bob's words, and not some Editor's words. So, if Alice said that Bob is a "mass murderer", you as editor would not report that Alice thinks Bob is a "big meany", rather you would use Alice's words to report her point of view. The "Courage to Refuse" group says in the URL that they will serve except in the "Occupied Territories". That is their point of view, including the phrase "occupied territories". An editor isn't allowed to "sanitize" someone's point of view or "rephrase" their point of view to water it down. If the view uses inflamatory language, their view should be reported using their inflammatory language. Since NPOV is apparently new to some of you, you probably didn't know that you were breaking policy. But that's OK. Now that you know policy, it should be pretty straightforward to follow it. I'm glad we were able to clear this up. FuelWagon 02:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Remarkable and shameful

It seems that, in order to avoid using a term that certain people don't like, the portion of the Pilots' Letter quoted in this article had been convoluted to the point that a certain amount of guesswork and connecting of dots is required to figure out exactly what they are refusing to do. Strong work, MPerel. Marsden 21:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, yes -- and this while approximately tripling the number of words quoted. Marsden 22:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with avoiding "terms people don't like". And neither should it be about promoting terms people *do* like. The point is to represent viewpoints accurately. This is usually best done by letting people's own words speak for themselves, rather than having others put words in their mouths for them. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

This isn't the sort of thing we should have to be arguing about. Let's just use a quote where the group explains why they refuse to serve in the "Occupied Territories", and then explain what territories they mean under that somewhat variously-defined term (do they include the Golan, for example?).--Pharos 22:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. In the pilots letter, what they actually declared was a refusal to carry out air force attack orders against civilian population centers. They also condemned the ongoing occupation as illegal, immoral, and corrupting all of Israeli society. They weren't mincing words. But it doesn't appear they explicitly declared in their letter any refusal to "serve" in the "Occupation Territories", so to state it in those terms is to make assumptions. For example, it's not clear whether they were/are willing to fly over the territories for routine surveillance purposes (or whatever other kinds of duties "serving" implies). Anyway it's safest not to make assumptions, but just repeat what they said. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

censoring the sources

It's actually quite funny how much some editors are willing to dance around the language of the letter from the reservists to avoid a term they don't like. i.e. "Occupied Territories". The word "occupied" and "occupation" occurs a total of five times in the actual letter. In reporting this letter, it should be represented in proportion to the language it uses. and "occupied territories" is how they describe where they serve as reservists, and "occupation" is how they describe what they are being ordered to do. There is no other way to look at attempt to misquote and misrepresent this letter as anythign other than POV pushing on the part of editors who don't like the term "occupied territories". It is not our job to censor the point of view of the sources we quote. FuelWagon 22:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I see Jayjg and SlimVirgin are backing each other up as revert buddies again[2][3]. Nice to see the POV pushing team is still working like a well-oiled machine. Never mind the fact that "Occupied Territories" is used in the letter, is quoted in the article, and represents the view of the source being reported in the article. No, what's important here is to present their view in a format that is friendly to the personal POV of the editors who have taken ownership of this article. Note, that I insert a verbatim quote from the source itself, and there is a URL to verify its accuracy, allowing the authors of hte letter to describe themselves as they describe themselves, in their words, and the POV tag-team refuse to allow it. NPOV policy has been buried by article ownership. FuelWagon 22:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, thanks for the chuckle. Your edit summary made me smile: "this issue has been settled, stop POV pushing". Nice. I don't recall being invited to vote in any sort of "poll" on this. And even then, consensus does not override NPOV. And your attempt to misrepresent the reservists letter as if they never use the term "occupied territory" is laughable. We are required to report the views of the sources, not selectively quote a source to misrepresent their views. They use the term "occupied" five times in their very short letter. not using that term is laughable misrepresentation of their view. Calling me "POV pushing" for trying to accurately report their view is even funnier. Thanks for the chuckle. I've put this article on my watch list. FuelWagon 22:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

You put this article on your watchlist long ago. Remember? It was in a previous bout of wikistalking and reverting. Your personal attacks on and harrassment of other editors are simply not acceptable, please desist. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Yawn. If you have any specific statemetns by me that are "personal attacks", please point them out. But of course, yet again, you do not. Accusations without a shred of evidence. Don't you get tired of that sort of thing? I know I do. Anyway, I took the page off my watchlist a long time ago. I thought the Courage to Refuse thing had been settled. I haven't edited, or even looked at, this article in a long time. I was looking through archives on my talk page today and had a link pointing to the page though and thought I'd check it out for old times sake. Good thing I looked. The Courage to Refuse letter is (again) totally misrepresented in the article now. They use the term "occupied" five times in a short, one-page letter, yet, their view is misrepresented by completely hiding what they call where they serve (the occupied territories) and what they've been ordered to do (occupation). FuelWagon 23:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge 'Refusenik (Israel)'

Other article contained information better listed on the main Ometz Le'sarev article, and otherwise much more expanded already in this main article. --Shuki 20:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material

I added this material to this page, and it's been reverted, without discussion, and with the claim that it is "The twisted information from that site is not a 'proof'".

Whereas I'd think that quotes from serving IDF personnel were entirely proper - I think it should go back. Is my information wrong, has the "Black Flag Defense" ever worked in the 50 years since it was made legal?

>>>>> Although Israeli servicemen are theoretically entitled to a "Black Flag defense" against obeying (illegal) orders to kill civilians (created in the wake of the 1956 Kafr Qasim massacre), this has never worked to acquit any of them eg [4] <<<<<< — Preceding unsigned comment added by PalestineRemembered (talk • contribs)

Two things: A) The personal testimony on a web page is not proof of a historical event, certainly not worthy of backing up a claim that the 'black flag' defence has never been used, affirmed, and/or relevant again. B) It is insulting to the dead and quite misleading to compare the 'black flag' Kafr Qasim massacre with the blanket conscientious objection to serve in the army as a 'black flag' itself.

On the other hand, the 'black flag' issue might be worthy of it's own article if developed properly to document any 'black flag' claims that have occured since. --Shuki 20:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's wholly unnecessary to provide any further evidence ("prove a negative") that the "Black Flag Defense" has never been successfully invoked in 50 years. The refuseniks themselves must know the score, they've told us it's worthless in the cases they're fighting! (I note you make no attempt to suggest that the "Black Flag Defense" has been used successfully).

The honourable thing to do would be to put that edit back into the article, not try and provoke an edit war. PalestineRemembered 21:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The honourable thing would be to read WP:OR. --Shuki 21:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

An alternative way to improve this article would be for someone to explain:

a) Why the claim doesn't belong in an article on "refusing to serve", when it's presented as a fact by the very people who are "refusing to serve".

b) Why a claim made by Israeli servicemen is not reliable.

c) Why it might not belong on this page for some other reason. PalestineRemembered 21:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That's the whole point. It is only a 'claim' and not verifiable at all from the link you provide. Anyone can create a web page and present 'facts'. This doesn't prove anything. We need a reliable source like a newspaper, an academic article, or a link to the army webpage with this information. It's presented as fact by one side of the issue, but that site does not refer to any other credible site. In order to add information on wikipedia, it must be verifiable. Please read wikipedia guidelines. I have no problem with this information being on the page, I already wrote above that the black flag issue deserves to have an article, but in trying to keep this article informative and credible, we must make an effort to make it so. --Shuki 22:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with what you say about web-sites. And we should be particularily suspicious of a "campaigning" web-site of this nature.

However, in this case, the indications must be very strong that the fact quoted is genuine, to a certainty better than a handbook on refusal, a history book on service, or even a book on Israeli law. Serving Israeli soldiers, threatened with considerable (sometimes consecutive) prison terms for a form of consciencetious objection are hardly going to broadcast the fact they have no defense acceptable to a military court, unless they are very, very sure this is the case.

Furthermore, a discussion (or this statement) about the "Black Flag Defense" surely must belong either in this article or the one about the 1956 Kafr Qasim massacre (if not both?). Perhaps you could suggest which one, and there should be a link to the other. PalestineRemembered 22:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

evict vs remove

When any government (local, national, or otherwise) or security organization (Ex: police) remove a resident from a certain domicile using the law, the proper term is evict, and/or eviction.

EX: When a tenant doesn't pay rent and the landlord wins court proceedings, the tenant is evicted from the property. Likewise, the settlers were evicted from the area by the disengagement plan tabled in the Knesset.

On top of that, adding an adverb - 'forcibly evicted', is also legitimate and not POV since the settlers refused to move themselves. 'Forcibly' does not infer violence. --Shuki 18:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

over 1/4 are not drafted

It is true that the linked refernce states the fact that 1 in 4 are not drafted - but it does not say or imply the POV that 1/4 do not enlist as a protest against the occupation or that they refuse to serve - which is this article's topic. Teh fact that this statement of fact appears in a relaibel source is not reason enough to include it here. that same source also says "Israeli men have to serve for three years in the army and are liable for reserve duty after that" - which is also factual, and sourced - but does not belong in the article any more than the other statement. Mr. Hicks The III 06:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

i figure that the information could be kept in as relevet despite the possibility of suggestion. howver, this phrasing is too sugestive and should be (1) clarified and (2) toned down on weasel terms such as "crept". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh, doesn't the context of the information matter in the slightest? The article is titled "Israeli 'draft dodgers' protest occupation", and the information appears in the third paragraph, right after "...growing group of young Israelis who are refusing to sign up for mandatory military service, often in protest over the Jewish state's occupation of Palestinian territory or because of last year's unpopular war in Lebanon." Furthermore, it doesn't say 1 in 4 "are not drafted" but 1 in 4 "do not enlist". It's not as if this information is stuck in the bottom paragraphs or on a chart off to the side. It's presented front and center, in the immediate context of refusal to serve for political reasons. Editors may feel that this information is not relevant to refusal to serve, but clearly the source feels that is is relevant to refusal to serve. In line with policy, the source takes priority over personal opinions. <eleland/talkedits> 04:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• The argument presented doesn't make sense - the ABC article is both written and entitled on the basis that "draft dodging" = "refusal to serve". We're here to report what sources actually say, there's no way we can avoid incorporating whatever POV they may have. (Is it a POV? If so, then it's both the POV of the article - and also a very main-stream Israeli POV!) We don't further discuss and attempt to neutralise what the writer of the article intended to say - that's what would be POV.
• And this particular clip is important because it's providing "good information", central to understanding the issues involved. If any editor is worried that an imbalance is being created, then they should rush to provide balance from their own research, not delete good, sourced, significant information because I don't like it. We must treat the statistic the same way as the article does (balanced with only the same caveats as appear in the RS).
• The words we're trying to paraphrase are these: "Army statistics show the number of young people who do not enlist for military service has crept up in recent years to more than one in four men in 2007 and more than 43 per cent of women - and the proposal is this: "By 2007, the number of young people who do not enlist for military service, for any reason, had crept up to more than one in four men and more than 43 per cent of women.". If there's a problem with the precise wording we're using, then please suggest a variation. But I cannot see a problem - in fact, we're bending over backwards to be fair and incorporate the counter suggestion! PR^talk 10:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the sources are dripping POV or poorly written, or frankly, both. PR, no one bends over backwards for anyone else on WP. NPOV and something else about this actually being a community. The sources, written by 'professionals', are written worse than this article written by us amateurs. The sources are missing a lot of basic background information as well because they are news blurbs rather than in depth articles. --Shuki (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about what policies would exclude an article published by Australia's national broadcaster? What you are saying sounds awfully close to personal analysis / commentary not found in any reliable sources - as in WP:OR - and can't really be a basis to edit the article. <eleland/talkedits> 21:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

ABC source, 1/4, again

I notice that at least one editor is quite intent on removing this information, since "that is the number of non-drafted, not those refusing to serve." However, the cited source, titled "Israeli 'draft dodgers' protest occupation", is clearly placing that 1/4 in the context of draft dodging and refusal to serve. If the source has made some kind of mistake, we'll need to have other sources of comparable weight which demonstrate that. <eleland/talkedits> 05:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You should keep the discussion to the issue, not the editor, or even editors that have also made this issue (one lousy article) controversial. ABC didn't initiate the story, they probably got it off one of the Israeli media sources. I'm sure something more lucid can be found on jpost, haaretz, israelinsider, or other. --Shuki (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hamas statement

It says: Right wing politicians have claimed that the refuseniks' actions are helping the enemies of Israel in their anti-Israeli incitement. Some have even accused the refuseniks of treason during war-time. This viewpoint was given some support when the book The Seventh War, by Avi Yisacharov and Amos Harel was published in 2004; it contains extensive interviews with Hamas leaders, at least one of whom explicitly stated that the actions of the commandos' and pilots' letters encouraged to promote and continue the use of suicide bombers.

I think we should remove this statement because it's not well sourced.
The only source provided is some relatively unknown right wing web newspaper. I don't think it's enough to allow this claim unless there are more sources to prove that Hamas leaders really did say this.
This newspaper has a very low rating and is VERY right wing. It ISN'T neutral judging by the language it uses. I don't think it is a good enough source (or neutral enough that is) to use for such a statement. Northern (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)