Talk:Human rights in Israel

Was this written by Isreal?

The whole thing reads like a brochure advertising Isreal. "Isreal is committed..."

I think it's fair and unbiased to say Isreal has been involved in Human Rights controversy. The whole article needs a rewrite, including some examples of significant events.

VALENTINE SMITH | TALK VALENTINE SMITH | TALK 23:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The correct term is 'has ratified' in relation to the treaties in question - whether or not it is actually committed to them remains unproven by the simple act of ratification. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The article does very much read like a brochure, especially with the image of BenGurion during the declaration of independence. DMH43 (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I also agree about the rewrite. There is an overemphasis on laws passed rather than analyses from human rights organizations. DMH43 (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit for review

This seems like a biased edit [1] which should be at least partially reverted.

Rather than revert it wholesale I place it here for discussion and review.

@פעמי-עליון. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

IOHANNVSVERVS, Can you explain what is biased in this edit in your opinion? פעמי-עליון (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

First, we would at least need a citation for the claim that israel is a democracy as described. Second it is challenged that Israel is a democracy, given its defacto annexation of the occupied territories and apartheid system recognized by virtually all respected human rights organizations. DMH43 (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The references probably shouldn't have been removed/replaced, and is it WP:DUE to add "Israel is seen as being more politically free and democratic than neighboring countries in the Middle East"? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Some additional comments:

1. "some of whom report discrimination" is vague and does not provide any details or a citation
2. "successive Israeli governments have" is unnecessarily wordy, "Israel has" is better
3. Criticism has been international and domestic and includes human rights groups

I would be fine keeping your revert about the basic law, although I think it should be elaborated on.

If there are no comments, I'll revert changes related to 1-3 above and keep the change about the basic law. DMH43 (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to remove "Attitudes towards Israel by human rights organizations, the media, and academia"

The section titled "Attitudes towards Israel by human rights organizations, the media, and academia" does not belong in this article. I propose we move this information to Criticism of Israel. Also the use of "attitude" is awkward in this context and to me indicates POV. DMH43 (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

State of emergency

Copy pasting some information from the hebrew version of this page which is not on the english site. It does not seem well sourced in Hebrew though, so it will take some work to incorporate it (from google trnslate):

Against the efforts to improve human rights in Israel over the years, it is necessary to note the permanent state of emergency in which it is and its effects on the realization and respect of human rights. The origin of this permanent state of emergency lies in the defense regulations (time of emergency) enacted by the British during the Mandate period and accepted as they are after the establishment of the state in 1948 , and their meaning is the existence of a permanent state of emergency in Israel, according to section 9 of the Order of Government and Justice (and later the Basic Law : the government ).

This state of emergency gives the Knesset and the Government of Israel the authority to implement unique arrangements ( emergency regulations ), sometimes in violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms .

Over the years, various laws and decrees have been enacted in Israel that reduce human rights while relying on the existence of the state of emergency. Among these laws can be mentioned the reduction of the rights set forth in the Working Hours and Rest Law , restrictions on leaving the country, seizure of real estate, the Emergency Powers Law regarding arrests (which allows for administrative arrests without trial), restrictions on freedom of expression , restrictions on the right to strike, and more. In total, over the years, the Knesset established nine laws and 165 restrictive orders that can be activated as a result of the activation of the state of emergency.

In 1999 , the Association for Civil Rights in Israel petitioned the High Court of Justice demanding the cancellation of the state of emergency in Israel. The High Court accepted the petition and gave the government several extensions to remedy the situation and, above all, to sever the link between legislation restricting rights and the declaration of a state of emergency. In 2008 , Supreme Court President Dorit Binish criticized the government's pace of work in dealing with these laws and orders. In 2013 , the High Court rejected the petition and stated that the decision to declare a state of emergency depends on political considerations and there is no room for the court to interfere in it. At the same time, the court noted that the petition played an important role in expediting the legislative procedures necessary to correct the situation. The Joint Committee on the Constitution and the Foreign Affairs and Security Committee It has been working since 2009 to reduce the state of emergency laws and as of 2017 there are 27 laws and orders remaining, some of which still violate various human rights. DMH43 (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Typo (can’t edit because I don’t have enough Wikipedia backlog

Israeli is misspelled as Ireali in the first line of the “Apartheid analogy” section TheMaddestHatter345 (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)