Talk:Human rights in Israel

POV section tag

I've tagged the Allegations of bias in human rights organizations section with a POV-section. The section does not appear to comply with WP:NPOV. Responses to the allegations of bias are required to improve compliance. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

In fact, it's not clear to me what this section is doing in this article to begin with? --Dailycare (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that criticism of human rights organizations isn't relevant to an article about human rights violations committed by the Israeli government. Also, the linked press release from Human Rights Watch does not support the assertion that HRW has criticized the UN for a disproportionally negative focus on Israel. Lagringa (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Your claim that the article is about "human rights violations committed by the Israeli government" is as biased as anything. The article is about accusations of human rights violations allegedly committed by the Israeli government, and criticism of such accusations promptly belongs in the article. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the claim that HRW had agreed with Freedom House criticism because the reference does not support it. Lagringa (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I looked at dozens of human rights country pages, and none include a section like this. I'm sure that every government in the world can find a way to criticize the human rights organizations who are critical of them. This section has no place in this article. Lagringa (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this section seems particularly strange and perhaps should be reworded to "Reaction by Israeli groups"... though thats too vague. Most of the "Allegations of bias" are from pro-Israel groups like UN Watch, NGO Watch, or strongly pro-Israel professors like Alan Dershowitz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.107.140 (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, almost as strange as the fact that most human rights violations accusations come from strongly pro-Palestinians... wow, demagogy has never failed to amuse me. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hearfourmewesique, please don't remove tags when issues haven't been resolved. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you like to actually contribute to the discussion (and the section) instead of playing mediator? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The main problem with the "Claims of bias against Israel" section in this article is that it doesn't actually touch on anything concerning human rights in Israel. Criticizing the critics is not the same thing as advancing a different understanding of the issues (something the other sections of the article tackle proficiently). It's all about how the UN/AI/etc pick on Israel, not about how Israeli policies are right or even that the allegations are wrong. The UN and other NGO's very well may focus on Israel excessively but that information is better suited to the main articles on the groups. Sol Goldstone (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The anti-Israel bias has a direct influence on the world view of the human rights issue in Israel. Therefore, excluding this section is akin to contributing to the bias in the article itself. You cannot write about alleged violations without covering the neutrality (or lack thereof) of such claims. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I get what you are saying but I can't help feel that all of this would be better off in the criticism of the U.N. article etc. Nothing in the section advances a perspective on human rights in Israel or invalidates past criticisms, it simply claims that there is an excessive amount of attention paid to Israeli human rights issues. That's an issue with those groups, not with Israeli human rights. It doesn't warn the reader that the article's information (or information from the groups concerned) is unreliable, just that there is a lot more of it than on other countries. That's interesting and noteworthy, but it doesn't seem relevant to the subject of the article. Sol Goldstone (talk) 06:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You're almost right... except that you're wrong because the bias also includes blaming internal Palestinian violence on Israel. Many of those human rights violations are either indirectly or directly caused by Hamas and its extensions, either for reassuring their reign, enforcement of Islamic law or scapegoating Israel – the latter applies in all cases. Again, disregarding this in an article about human rights in Israel would be completely ignoring the Israeli aspects of the crisis and therefore, POV pushing. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand basic NPOV policy. You cannot have an entire subsection that does not present any opposing viewpoints. There are a variety of sources which take the view that the Zionist platform of establishing a Jewish national home "secured by public law" has been corrupted, because Israel has violated the provisions of public international regarding the creation of the state, and acquisition of sovereignty over the territory and the indigenous national minorities - including the initial obligation to adopt constitutional human rights protections. See for example Yvonne Schmidt, "Foundations of Civil and Political Rights in Israel and the Occupied Territories", GRIN Verlag, 2008, ISBN: 3638944506, page 98 [1]; Hayim Gordon, Israel today, Peter Lang, 2007, ISBN 0820478253, page 23, [2]; and Senate Judiciary Committee, The Colonization of the West Bank Territories by Israel pages 49-50 (pdf file pages 53-54 of 188) [3]

According to Adam Keller, Israel is singled out because it, and it alone, is in obvious default of a fundamental obligation, an obligation which was the condition for Israel coming into being in the first place. See Adam Keller, "Is Israel singled out – and why?, 1 Aug 2010, The Israeli Occupation Archive (IOA) [4] Are there any objections to adding this material? harlan (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If we had a big section about how Israel was responsible for internal Palestinian domestic violence I could see how the Dershowitz section would provide a good counter balance. But we don't (probably because the claim makes little sense), leaving us with a counter point to an argument not made here. Much like how the claims of excessive focus on Israel by NGO's would be a good counter point to a section saying that Israel must be bad/evil/whatever because so many reports are issued on it. The bias of groups doesn't negate the facts they report and aren't these facts the subject of the article? It's all interesting information but it's like having a section in the BP spill article criticizing the New York Times for not reporting on the Exxon spill enough. Sol Goldstone (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Dershowitz is an expert in criminal law. It's unclear why his views on Amnesty International are of any interest whatsoever. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The Council of the League of Nations adopted a resolution in 1931 on the requirements for the termination of a mandate regime. It included a requirement that the governments of the new states accept the same minority rights treaty obligations as the states that were created by the Versailles Peace Conference and the Concert of Europe (in the Treaty of Berlin). See Luther Harris Evans, The General Principles Governing the Termination of a Mandate, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Oct., 1932), pp. 735-758 (esp. pages 751 and 756) [5]

States that are created with the assistance of the international community have legal responsibilities with regard to their national minorities that are different from other states. That was documented in an Aide-memoire during the Versailles Peace Conference. quoted here. Shabtai Rosenne mentioned the legal differences when he was a member of the International Law Commission. See page 33 paragraph 6 [6]

The Declaration of Independence subsection of this article explains that minority rights were placed under the protection of the United Nations by a minority protection plan contained in a chapter of the UN partition plan. The United Nations has only terminated two mandate regimes, i.e. Palestine and Southwest Africa. Li-ann Thio noted that those international law norms developed in the inter-war years by the League of Nations are still in use today. Thio specifically cited the Palestine and Bosnian Partition Plans as post-war examples of the practice of conditioning recognition of statehood on human rights, democracy, and minority protection guarantees. See the discussion on pages 97-98 and footnote 353 in Managing Babel: The International Legal Protection of Minorities in the Twentieth Century, Li-ann Thio, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, ISBN 9004141987 [7] The UN has spent a comparable amount of time on the resolutions and ICJ cases dealing with the mandate/apartheid in Southwest Africa/Namibia and the resolutions/Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunal dealing with the former Yugoslavia. harlan (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Harlan, so if I'm reading this correctly you are saying that the increased UN attention on Israel is because Israel was a UN mandate state with associated obligations towards its minority groups? Or is that totally wrong? Sol Goldstone (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you can read about the discussions regarding the minority rights protections in the partition plan that took place during the hearings on Israel's membership in the UN. The representative of Lebanon, Mr Malik, raised the subject at the forty fifth meeting. See A/AC.24/SR.45, 5 May 1949 At the fiftieth meeting the representative of Cuba asked if Israel had provided the required declaration, but Mr. Eban asked for permission to submit a detailed reply at a later date. At the fifty first meeting Mr Eban was asked if the undertakings had been constitutionally embodied as the fundamental laws of state, and he replied in the affirmative. He cited the Declaration of Independence that had been promulgated as law and published in the official Gazette pending the adoption of the draft constitution by the Knesset. See his reply starting on page 6 [8] Israel has never adopted a constitution and the rights contained in the Declaration have never been formally entrenched as the fundamental law of State.

UN GA resolution 273(III) noted "the declarations and explanations made by Mr. Eban" during the 45th-48th, 50, and 51 sessions.[9] The Permanent Court of International Justice considered the Declarations made before the League Council to be tantamount to a treaty. See International Human Rights in Context, Henry J. Steiner, Philip Alston, Ryan Goodman, Oxford University Press US, 2008, ISBN 019927942X, page 100 [10] BTW, the General Assembly recognized the 1988 Declaration of the State of Palestine "inline with resolution 181(II)", so the PLO/PA have comparable obligations.

...and the relevance of any of that to today's Israel (considering all the uncalled-for Palestinian violence) is? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The partition plan is available online. You can read the Chapters on the Declaration and Constitution for yourself.[11] The rights of minorities were placed under UN protection and disputes were made subject to ICJ jurisdiction. I suppose you've noticed that the human rights organs of the UN and the ICJ have weighed-in from time to time on the Question of Palestine, the "Sacred Trust of Civiliation", the permanent responsibility of the UN, and etc. You been discussing the time spent on those issues here on the talk page harlan (talk) 08:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Address the question above please. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 08:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't have to. Israel's obligations as a mandate state aren't contingent on Palestinian behavior. If you can find a source arguing otherwise then go for it but Harlan doesn't have the burden of proof. Sol Goldstone (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Now naïve of me to think I can have a real talk here. Yes, he has to, because this issue ceased to be one-dimensional as soon as Palestinian authorities started abusing their freedom to target random Israeli civilians (and not to get to terrorists hiding behind them, like the other way around). If you want real justice, you must ask "why" and not just "what". Therefore, the bias claims are more than just and they directly correlate with allegations of human rights violations. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If Israel wants to treat Palestine like a state, with the usual rights and responsibilities, it should join the many other states which already recognize that Palestine is a state subject to the norms of international law. For a number of years, the US has been in the nonsensical position of publishing a list of "States that sponsor terrorism", that has never mentioned Palestine out of deference to our ally Israel.

Israelis have their own government to blame if the ICC Prosecutor doesn't investigate allegations of war crimes committed by the Palestinians. The Palestinian Authority and the UN General Assembly have endorsed a recommendation that the situation in Palestine since 2002 (including the rockets launched into Israel & etc) be investigated, and the responsible parties prosecuted. harlan (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I've put up merge tags on the criticism sections. These discuss groups that issue reports on Israel and not Israeli human rights. It's good information but it fragments the article. What about linking them under the "See Also" section? Either way Harlan's information should be included for the sake of balance/NPOV. Hearfourmewesique, if you want to back up those assertions you are welcome to but I'm not going to shoulder the negative burden of proof for your amusement. Harlan's links answer your question. Sol Goldstone (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think its relevant, but note that there is no Claims of bias against Israel article. And searching Wikipedia for "claims of bias against Israel" yields some interesting results. -Stevertigo (t | log | |c) 01:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the section must be kept for NPOV, it is relevant and should be named "Claims that Human Rights Bodies are Biased Against Israel" (who renamed it?) Marokwitz (talk) 07:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"Bias against israel" part. is biased?

I find this part totally irrelevant it seems like someone have imposed his or her's political view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

All facts habibi. Keep wishing it away as long as you want, it won't cease from existence (I really want to relay the oh-so-transparent allegory, but I don't feel like sparking a needless – and mindless – debate). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well you are not solely to judge if it fits here or not, so dont get over yourself. I dont think it fits here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That's your own POV and as such, doesn't belong here. As I said, all those are facts, backed up by more than plenty reliable sources. Get over yourself. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You seems to missunderstand, this article is about Human rights in israel and this part about bias is just a way for people to try to conceal the real deal. Its like giving place for holocaust deniers on the main holocaust article. So give this a thought or two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

How clever... strum on the Holocaust nerve ends to make the Jew understand the Arab. Well... not really, no. No one denies anything here, the criticism focuses on UN and such deliberately ignoring the Israeli aspects of the crisis. Citizen safety, terror organizations deliberately endangering the Arab population to have more reasons to blame Israel, Palestinians rallying against Israel out of intimidation by Hamas, Pallywood... the list goes on and on. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 11:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The principle is the same, the deniers try to shift focus and conceal the real deal. Lets say I go and add some information about holocaust deniers on the very holocaust article, do you really think it would stay? Absolutley not. Its the same thing here. Also there is no "israeli aspects", there are however individuals, with that being said, they dont necessary represent the state of israel, regarding their (israel) official views.

Saying that there are no Israeli aspects is the denial here. Read my answer above and address my points, which are pretty specific. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

<- I suggest you both stop this discussion in this section. It isn't going to go anywhere good for either of you. Please focus on the issues raised in the Talk:Human_rights_in_Israel#POV_section_tag section above so that we can keep discussion in one place. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The law

In the marriage law section, it states:

"Critics argue that the law is racist because it is targeted at Israeli Arabs who are far more likely to have Palestinian spouses than other Israelis; defenders say the law is aimed at [[preventing terrorist attacks]] and [[preserving the Jewish character of Israel]]."

The goal of the law is said to be twofold, namely the two goals which are shown in brackets. The first goal, "preventing terrorist attacks" is easy enough to link to anti-terrorism. What article does "preserving the Jewish character of Israel" link to? -Stevertigo (t | log | |c) 05:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hatred towards Arabs in Israel

Marokwitz, you have reverted my edit claiming that the sources (Haaretz) are not reliable. Could we discuss that here? Why you think Haaretz might not be a reliable source?-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 16:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Your second source is an op-ed. The first one also seems to be one, but even if it isn't, it doesn't support the edit you made. I notice you regularly use such non-RS to make contentious edits. Perhaps you should reacquaint yourself with WP:RS. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Jim, perhaps you should take the sources to RSN. Or rather I suggest you rewrite it to be closer to the sources and then take it to WP:RSN. Both Levi and Rachlevsky write for Haaretz regularly, they are very well known, Haaretz is an RS and WP:RS has a section "Statements of opinion" on the use of this kind of material...although I'm not sure Levy's reporting fits into that category in this case. People at RSN can advise if and how this material can be used. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, take it to RS/N. And if you have the time, try to also write it to correctly represent the sources you're using. I find some consolation in the fact that at least this time you weren't using the Historical Boys' Clothing site as a source. [12] No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy your sentence "in the fact that at least this time you weren't using the Historical Boys' Clothing site as a source" - should that be understood by me as a scoff on me?-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 18:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It should be understood by you as a request that you adhere to WP:RS. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

But why you also gave a link? And you could have written in my Talk Page. I see no other reason that you wanted to discredit me. Pls remove it.-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 19:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The diff is there in case someone was wondering if you really used the Historical Boy's Clothing site to support an edit. I wouldn't want to make such an accusation without supporting it with a diff. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to say, if you do not remove it, I will have to refer to administraors, so that they will judge your intentions. I think you do not mind.-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 20:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and do what you need to do. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Op-ed articles are not reliable sources for anything but the opinion of the writer. Marokwitz (talk) 09:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't tell you whether a specific piece of a source can be included with attribution or can't be included at all. It also depends on the nature of the column and the writer. That's why I suggested that Jim take it to RSN. Jim, you need to specify at RSN exactly what content you want to include from those sources or else people can't answer your question other than by saying 'it depends'. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

As agreed and advised, I have been taken yesterday the sources to WP:RSN at [13]. Another question is why the sourced edits are reverted while the reliability of sourcesv is being discussed? I found this to be destructive? and as such violated wikirules. Moreover, if there is doubt about reliability of the source, then a good faith editor would rather post "non-reliable souce?" tag, but not to revert it right away.-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 14:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

No, NPOV is one of the pillars of Wikipedia, and introducing such obviously non neutral text as encyclopedic facts, without any attribution, based on sources which are effectively opinion articles and thus non reliable, and without any attempt to offer the reader a balanced view, should be reverted immediately. Marokwitz (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that even if the sources were acceptable, they don't support the text you wanted to add. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Marriage counseling

Sorry, but I got married in Israel under 2 years ago, and though you cite a source, I never saw such a brochure, and to the best of my knowledge neither did my husband. I also have friends who married in Israel more recently, and others who did so before us, and no one has ever mentioned this kind of brochure. The "counseling" to which you refer does not even have to take place in Israel. You can just have a talk with the wife of a rabbi in another country (or in Israel if you prefer), she signs that you talked with her, and that's it. You even choose the person for yourself. Same goes for the men, with a rabbi. (I'm not even sure it has to be a rabbi for the men or a rabbi's wife for the women, just a person of the same gender knowledgeable in the laws of marital relations). As far as "Orthodox family roles" you show a great bias here and assume this means discrimination towards women. The men are actually instructed to "honor your wife more than yourself". The instruction is just to give the couples an opportunity to learn about a set of specific Jewish laws relating to marital intimacy and sexuality, not generally telling them how to behave towards one another, though the idea of respecting one another in the area of sexuality and elsewhere is emphasized. I have to say that the article in general seems very biased. Since I found it searching for a topic relating to Jewish marriage, I focused on these inaccuracies, but if I had time to go into it right now, there are many more throughout the piece. It's clear you do not approve of Israel, but an article presented as fact should not be a channel through which to express your personal opinions. 85.65.51.53 (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)ara

Feel free to edit the article, don't afraid of making mistakes - there are enough experienced and friendly editors around to fix them, but please follow the rules. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 12:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)