Talk:Human rights in Israel

An outline to the article

I think it would be very important to include the following ideas in the article:

  * 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
  * 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 

As the DoS Report mentioned and discuss each of these subjects with some detail. Espicially the issue of "institutional" discremination against Arab Citizens. 195.229.241.187 15:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

I do not even know where to begin. The entire contents of the article are POV at the moment. Even the one sentence from the State Department report that provided some balance seems to have been removed, unless it has been buried among all the information about prostitution and human trafficking, which is a worldwide problem. And the intro seems to hedge its bets on whether Israel is actually a country or not. Anyone who thinks Wikipedia has a "slight pro-Israeli bias," please take note! 6SJ7 20:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a new article. Fred Bauder 02:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is being written, so let's leave the bias stuff off until we can at least get a few sections written. You need to be specific about your objections to the intro. I think it is written very objectively. We're not going to get into blatant POV arguments with Pro-Israeli radicals. The intro starts off "Israel is a small country.." and then gives a background of its history. Your claim that it "hedges its bets on whether .. is a country or not." is entirely specious and hardly even deserves a response. In fact a statement proclaiming it is a country is the very first thing written. Please get off your high horse and show some civility and evenmindedness. Sarastro777 20:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, save it for someone else. Anyway, I will leave the tag off for now, though I can't speak for anyone else. I did delete the second sentence of the intro, which was unnecessary and was causing the biggest POV problem -- that is, the biggest POV problem in the intro. 6SJ7 20:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

People won't understand what a settlement is, why Israel is condemned for occupation etc unless it is at least mentioned it is a multi-ethnic region with one ethnicity that won dominance. There was no POV unless you want to pretend only Jews live in Israel. If you want to refute this sentence on a factual basis, then you need to cite a source and not your personal opinion. Sarastro777 20:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Humus Sapiens insists on keeping this tag, even though he has now put in stubs essentially alleging that every major human rights organization and country is biased against Israel. Considering basically the entire world including the United Nations (of which Israel is a part) are all apparently "POV against Israel" there seems to be an inescapable logic trap here. Humus what exactly is POV? Please be specific and concise so we can see what you are talking about here. Sarastro777 05:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Human Rights Committee : Israel. 21/08/2003

With the existence of the second version of this document, perhaps the 1998 version should not be brought as it is outdated, and does not reflect progress made since then. -- Avi 21:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a more recent source and text from last month which seems to confirm this is still relevant in the eyes of the U.S. State dept. Sarastro777 22:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, that is relevant. Granted, the state department may be biased as well, but that willbe handled in its proper section. Thanks. -- Avi 13:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Human Shield

This seems to be an isolated event (AI only brings one case), which stands in contradisinction to the tens of cases of the PA and Hamas using children as suicide bombers and having bomb factories in civilian homes. I think that this is being given a bit too much weight in light of non-Israeli actions, and in my opinion this section is currently unnecessary and problematic. -- Avi 21:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think it was necessary to cite more than one specific instance as the point was made. According to that same source: "Israeli soldiers continued to use Palestinians as “human shields” during military operations, forcing them to carry out tasks that endangered their lives, despite an injunction by the Israeli High Court banning the practice" So it was a big enough/widespread enough practice to warrant an Israeli "high court" hearing on the matter. As far as the PA goes, that kind of stuff should prob. go in their article. Just mho. Sarastro777 22:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Avi above. It is a tremendous stretch to say that Israeli soldiers typcially use human shields. Given this is a major technique of others in the area, it is bizarre to discuss this in regards to Israel. I am tagging the sectionElizmr 22:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You need to provide sources showing this is a "tremendous stretch" as your own opinion does not count as justification for the tag. There are numerous cited instances of the practice. It is so widespread the Israeli Supreme Court had time/instances to actually consider and rule on the matter. All the material in the section is verifiable and sourced. The only "neutrality" issue based on what you just said is that it seems like a 'tremendous stretch' according to your personal opinion. Sarastro777 23:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sabra & Shatilla

Being that the article is using the Kahan report, which dod not find Israel responsible but Sharon et. al., does this belong here? It belongs in Sharon's article, but as a person, not as the country. If this article is about the COUNTRY's human rights record, this may be out-of-scope. Thoughts? -- Avi 21:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hrmmm... I see your point, but Sharon was an official representative of the State as a General of the IDF.. and was found 'indirectly responsible', keyword "responsible." I think the fact he was a gov't official, and later Prime Minister probably makes this human rights event highly relevant to Human Rights in Israel. To try to be fair I envisioned a scenario in which I might be more inclined to see things in that light, perhaps if he were just a citizen or a settler.. but in fact he was on the payroll of the State. I don't think it deserves particular prominence but probably at least a mention. Sarastro777 22:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't get why something that happened in Lebanon is here in this article. Fred Bauder 02:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure Sarasto included it because it was connected to Israeli's, but you have a good point. The article is about the state as a whole, not individual citizens. -- Avi 02:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahh the same Fred Bauder that gave an unbiased ruling in the abuses of Humus Sapiens arbitration case. Your presence here certainly explains the name-calling statements you made in the ruling. That particular part of Lebanon is now in control of the Israel gov't again, so timing makes it an auspicious time for you to make your incorrect assertion. Additionally the "massacre" is connected to the State of Israel through its army, its Generals, and its future Prime Minister. I am restoring the POV deletion that attempts to cover up the "massacre." as it was clearly explained and you have cited no facts to show how Israel was not involved through Ariel Sharon and the IDF in the incident OR through its continued occupation of Lebanon which makes this territory a defacto part of the State of Israel. Sarastro777 04:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Systemic Bias

Criticisms of individual organizations should go on the pages for those organizations. As it stands there is more material about Sudan and Alan Dershowitz carrying on than about the actual human rights information on Israel.

The POV tag is inappropriate as the entire article is just a stub that is not even mostly written at this point. The introduction is extensively off-topic Zionist information about Judaism and Israel. The topic of this article is human rights in israel. We only need a brief introduction to familiarize the reader with the context. The agonizingly long emphasis on Judaism is really completely ungermane to the topic. Please keep your religious bias to yourself.

This is also not the place for Zionist POV diatribes about every major human rights organization being anti-semitic.

Also redoing the organization so that the topic of the whole article is subheaded on the same level as these criticisms is really another POV tactic that needs to be avoided. The topic of the article is "Human Rights in Israel" not "Biased NGO's" There is no basis to make the former on a lower or equal level to that of what should be brief summaries of criticism.

Finally out of sheer curiousity does anyone here really think people are going to reasonably believe that every single major human rights organization and country is biased against Israel (including the United States?)

Sarastro777 04:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Second, YOU (Hummus Sapiens) added a section entitled "Status of freedom, political rights and civil liberties in Israel " Your quotation is not a quote of anything i wrote.. the real quote was from the World Bank saying "..[Israel is] one of the most fraudulent [countries] in the world." citing "unstable and inefficient government and its relatively high level of corruption among its leadership, as well a low ranking in law enforcement" this relates to "Status of Political Rights" and "Status of Freedom." Surprised to see you upset to have data added in this section you created. Sarastro777 07:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

1. You remove Human Development Index because it is not related to human rights, but right away you add corruption allegations because this does. I see no logic.
2. Are the territories a part of Israel? Is it a WP policy? Or you are doing it here simply because it serves your political agenda? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Per edit note: the HDI measures "poverty, literacy, education, life expectancy, childbirth" - what is the relevance? Please discuss why that is relevant to "Human Rights in the State of Israel" or your subject "Status of freedom, political rights and civil liberties in Israel" I wasn't able to make any kind of connection which was why I removed it with a quesiton mark. It appeared you hadn't read the page of the organization that put out the rating, and weren't completely versed in what it was. Didn't you say the UN was biased against Israel? I'm surprised to see you including things you feel are biased. Sarastro777 14:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If the source is biased, it doesn't mean that it cannot be trusted. For example, Iranian, Saudi or N. Korean press cannot be trusted when it criticizes USA, but imagine that it criticizes their own leaders. That would be trustworthy. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sudan

User:Sarastro777 wrote:

Criticisms of individual organizations should go on the pages for those organizations. As it stands there is more material about Sudan and Alan Dershowitz carrying on than about the actual human rights information on Israel.

Firstly, the criticism belongs in both places. If we are discussing Human rights violations, and bringing reports from biased organizations in this article, we must be NPOV and show that those reports may be colored in this article.

Further, if there is more validly sourced and pertinent material about the bias, doesn't that in and of itself say something?

You were the one worried about vandalism of this article, to the point that you accused me of deleting properly sourced information, which I did not. The Lebanon issue is one we need to discuss if it falls in the scope of this article. However, my data on AI is most definitely in the scope of this article, and you removed it. Please afford other editors the same courtesies that you expect. -- Avi 14:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge, I left more than half a page on Sudan and all the statistics comparing the abundance of criticism of Israel while little on Sudan. I thought this made the point you were trying to make. ALL of that information was not relevant and needed to be summarized. If I made an edit mistake and deleted something else, then I apologize -- it was not my intention. Sarastro777 14:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Bias of reporting organisations

This is all irrelevant to this page, and might be better placed on those organisation's articles. This article is supposed to be about human rights in Israel. Evercat 14:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see what I wrote above. If the allegations supporting the article may themselves be biased, then that fact indubiably belongs in this article. Otherwise it is absolute WP:POV -- Avi 14:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Oiboy77, saying that there exists an Anti-Israel bias does not mean that the organization as a whole is Anti-Israel, like Hamas or Hezbolah. Rather, it means that there exists a tendency to judge against Israel, which is uphelp by the facts that I have brought and will continue to bring. -- Avi 14:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it can/should be mentioned if there are citable sources. However this is not the topic of the article and should not become so. Also, I think it's going to appear bizarre to have a section on why every major group/organization is biased against Israel. It's just not credible, but if someone wants to include it... I am not going to oppose it. Sarastro777 14:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sarastro, maybe the truth is bizarre. I think that it is just as bizarre to have quadruple the citations on Israel than Darfur, and to blame the Israeli government for Palestinian men raping Palestinian women. No one is suggesting to submit baseless allegations of bias, but where sourced information can be found, I think it is important for WP:NPOV that it be listed in the article that is based on these organizational reports. -- Avi 14:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The citations issue could simply be a result of the fact that as a developed country which is reasonably safe for westerns, it's a lot easier to get information out of Israel than out of Sudan. And the information provided gives no evidence that AI blames the Israeli government for Palestinian men raping Palestinian women - in fact, it specifically lists "norms, traditions, and laws which treat women as unequal members of society" as an independent cause of the problem from anything relating to Israel. john k 17:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing. This should not become a focus of the article though.. brief verifiable statements about possible bias. If it is that huge of an issue, then it needs an article of its own. Sarastro777 15:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. A brief discussion that AI and other groups have been accused of anti-Israel bias is appropriate. A long discussion of these claims is not. An entire section paraphrasing an Alan Dershowitz polemic is certainly not. john k 17:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

Review WP:NPOV. Surely the Declaration of Independence which guarantees the rights and freedoms is absolutely relevant. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to review it, maybe you do. The parts you are quoting have nothing to do with human rights. Please remove statements like "historic connection between the Jewish people and Eretz-Israel" -- what does this have to do with Human Rights? "...open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles" I don't see a problem with showing that Israel has a belief in human rights but this intro is way overdone and needs to be condensed, starting with eliminating the religious stuff that has no place. Sarastro777 05:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: Leave the opening few lines, then include "The countries declaration of independence makes several statements regarding rights and equality, including: "[Israel] will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations."[1]"

Would that be so horrible? Other than it doesn't distract from the body of the article? Sarastro777 05:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It is already condensed enough. Israel is a country of refugees and exiles who returned to their homeland. Like or not, the Declaration of Independence is of the utmost relevance. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ummmm no those are not the only citizens of the country. Your romanticism for the demographics of Israel (whether right or wrong) are not the subject of the article. Please fix it to be on topic. The only part that is of utmost relevance is what directly addresses human rights. Sarastro777 06:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This was from the editor who just added "economic corruption". LOL. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

First, that does not relate to keeping the intro on topic. Please address that. But yes, "LOL" was really a good attempt at distracting from the point at hand and discrediting me :P Sarastro777 14:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sarastro777, I don't think you need to worry: nobody can discredit you any more than yourself. So far you picked any dirt in order to present the subject in the worst possible light and use WP for political soapboxing. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Freedom House Table

Humus Sapiens has included a table with statistics on "Israel, Egypt, Jordan and the Netherlands" -- ostensibly showing that Israel is on par with the Netherlands. What he didn't note is that on pg. 13 of the source, other areas controlled by the State of Israel .. i.e. the "ISRAELI-Occupied Territories" are rated as "Not Free." I added this, but it was deleted and he said I must have added it for my "political agenda". Please explain why it is more relevant to "Human Rights in Israel" to include a statistic on the Netherlands while omitting information from the same report on the "Israeli"-Occupied Territories. Sarastro777 14:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts. 1) this is why this article needs to be moved to Human rights in Israel and the Occupied Territories. 2) obviously it's ridiculous to include that table without including the occupied territories, which is of course where most of the attention on Israeli human rights violations is focused. john k 16:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The slippery slope is that with that heading it will turn into an article bashing "Hamas" and wrought with the word "terrorist" and become something about Palestinians. This is already done elsewhere. The point of this article was as a "main article" for a Human Rights stub on the State of Israel article. I don't have a problem changing the wording as long as it still serves the purpose, which would be to document the institutional/governmental/political human rights record of the State of Israel, including as represented by its activities elsewhere by agents of the state and elected/appointed representatives. Sarastro777 18:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the slippery slope at present would appear to be that Humus, et al, are trying to remove any discussion of the Occupied Territories because they're not part of Israel. It seems to me that it's absolutely essential to talk about the Territories in this article. john k 18:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say that since the issues mentioned are still being done by the State of Israel, the particular setting is not particularly important. It's still the octopus no matter where the tentacle happens to be. Certainly Guantamo has reflection on the U.S. record even though it is technically in Cuba (leased by treaty). There is no State of Palestine, it is not a defacto sovreign nation. It is controlled in virtually all aspects, including tax collection by the State of Israel. Sarastro777 18:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"Human rights in Israel" implies human rights within the State of Israel, I think. john k 20:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I might propose "Human Rights and Israel" then if it is going to be moved. That would be more concise and still fit within the original aim of the article. Sarastro777

That would be inconsistent with every other article in the series "Human rights in XXX". This aricle, "Human rights in Israel", should talk about its immediate subject: Israel. It is not up to WP to assert that WBGS + the Golans are parts of Israel. Other article(s) may cover human rights situation in those other areas. Also, please see WP:NC#Lowercase second and subsequent words. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to separate out human rights in Israel proper from actions by the Israeli government in the Occupied Territories, the latter of which is the main thing that most people think of when they think of Israel with respect to human rights. I will sugest again that we move the article to Human rights in Israel and the Occupied Territories, which surely, HS, would address your concerns? john k 03:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Israel's actions in the territories should be mentioned, just as Iraq is mentioned in the article about Human rights in the United States. Israel is responsible for its actions, regardless of their geographical location. I would definitely like to see articles about this subject in the surrounding countries. It does seem as though Israel is being singled out, even though its human rights condition is far superior to that of its neighbors. okedem 10:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Human rights in Syria, Human rights in Lebanon, Human rights in Islamic Republic of Iran, Human rights in Iraq (actually a disambiguation page for three separate articles), Human rights in Saudi Arabia, Human rights in Turkey, Human rights in Libya, Human rights in the United Arab Emirates, Human rights in Algeria, Human rights in Morocco, Human rights in Sudan. It's true that some of these articles (the one on Syria, notably) are basically stubs, and that some notable countries (Egypt, Jordan) don't have articles yet. But it seems inaccurate to say that Israel is being singled out. What I think does need to be done is that this article needs to note the ways in which Israel's human rights record is good. This is why I suggested separating out discussion of Israel proper (where Israel's record is fairly good) from the Occupied Territories (where it is, er, not nearly as good.) This would allow both the strengths and weaknesses of Israel's human rights record to be a lot clearer. The article as it stands now is half a kind of "throwing everything we possibly can at Israel" mess, and half a "let's launch specious attacks on human rights organizations for being anti-Israel by quoting Alan Dershowitz" mess. I'd prefer to take out the latter almost entirely, and to make the article balanced by focusing on the pluses and minuses of Israel's human rights record in a fair way. john k 10:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Something to ponder: It's 1940, we don't discuss Auschwitz in "Human Rights in Germany" because it is technically in Occupied Poland. Sarastro777 02:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, someone mentioned the Nazis! We all knew this moment would come... okedem 05:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sarastro777, see Godwin's Law. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody was compared to Nazis, which is the requirement of the law. It seems you don't have a comprehension of much of what you quote. In fact "nazi" or "hitler" was never mentioned. It's important to consider the extreme situation in order to make the underlying principle(s) more clear. There are not other countries that have a well-known extended period of occupation of disputed land for which we could find a parallel. Sarastro777 17:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

There is Morocco in Western Sahara. In that case, the Human rights in Morocco article mentions this issue in passing, and there's a Human rights in Western Sahara article to deal with Western Sahara in more detail. This would be one route to go with this discussion. john k 23:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps the People's Republic of China, occupation of Tibet. Of course that also is mentioned in the Human rights in China article. I guess that answers our question of if occupied territories are also addressed in other similar articles, eh? Sarastro777 03:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

World Bank

In sourcing a quotation on corruption in Israel, which relates directly to status of civil liberties and freedom, I quoted the World Bank. Humus Sapiens left the relatively vanilla preceeding stat which I added, but deleted the seemingly critical one as "irrelevant" (?) I am just wondering why this took place and how it is in anyway not consistent with behavior pushing a solely non-critical POV.

FYI the quote he deleted was: "The World Bank called the country "..one of the most fraudulent in the world." citing "unstable and inefficient government and its relatively high level of corruption among its leadership, as well a low ranking in law enforcement. "

Discuss.

Sarastro777 15:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this a human rights issue? It doesn't seem particularly one to me, but perhaps you can further elaborate on why you think it's appropriate. john k 17:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

On the face of things, I can see cause for confusion.. but Humus Sapiens added a beginning section on Status of "Freedom, Political Rights, Liberty." Widespread and deep corruption certainly pertains to all aspects of these three areas (i.e. it stands in opposition to them). Also the statement on law enforcement pertains. This was a good faith effort to bring in a credible outside source that is specifically not a "Human Rights Group" so as to attempt to appease the arguments that HRW, the United Nations, Amensty International, et al are all Anti-Israel.

Sarastro777 18:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the context of the World Bank's statement? What particular aspects of Israel is it describing? john k 18:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Link to Main Page

I'm thinking of linking to this article from the main Israel page. Any objections?Smitty Mcgee 14:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe this was the whole reason this was started... because the material was too extensive to include all of it just in that article alone. Sarastro777 16:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Amnesty International

So the double-standard is that they are reporting more on Israel violating human rights than other countries? So they (as a human rights organization) should turn a blind eye to human rights violations in Israel to "be fair" ... or they are inventing human rights violations? This is not made clear. Dershowitz's example is about activity taking place in Israel's area of control. Since there is no "State of Palestine", and Israel's military seized 85% of the PA gov't and has them in jail, it obviously controls this area. Why should they not be held responsible for what takes place in their territory? This is the same as any other country. Sarastro777 16:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Are we systematically endorsing the position that the WB+GS+GH are parts of Israel, or only when it suits certain agenda? I think we need to mention these areas but not dedicate a significant part of this article to them. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to endorse anything here. It's plain human rights violations are happing in the occupied territories by Israel by Israeli military personnel. These territories do not belong to Israel (you can find more information here and here). The problem with this article is that it's titled "Human rights in Israel" so logically these violations shouldn't be included here. I realize this may sound as a strange argument to make but I feel it's important to keep the facts straight.

Tone it down everyone

I think the point is not to ignore what AI is saying because what they are saying is important; however, I think it is relevant to note that some people believe that AI is biased, and they have evidence for it, just like if someone has evidence that Israel has made human rights abuses. I think criticism of AI is relevant in the article because it shows the two opposing sides to the debate. On another not, I think we need to tone down the arguments on this page until it is fully completed. The whole point of creating this article was to have an unbiased look at Human Rights in Israel, just to see if it was possible and maybe so an eventual merger with the Israel article can take place (See the talk page of Israel). Let's try to be fair here everyoneand turn off the insults and the anger. Everyone be rational! It's just wikipedia for gosh sakes. -Alcarcalimo2364 03:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

A few points.

1. There needs to be a clear discussion, towards the beginning, of the differences between Israel proper and the Occupied Territories in terms of these issues. I would suggest that the article be moved to Human rights in Israel and the Occupied Territories, and that it be organized on the basis of a separation between the two. The section on Israel could discuss the situation in Israel itself - that it is basically a liberal democracy, but has certain problems with, for instance, the treatment of Israeli Arabs as second class citizens, and the like. It could note that such problems are, in many ways at least, comparable to such problems in most developed countries. The second part should be about the Occupied Territories, and should discuss issues unique to them - the Settlements, bulldozing of homes, all that jazz.
2. The introduction is bad. I think there should be a discussion of Israel as a liberal democracy, and the ways it does live up to that billing, but I don't know that a long extract from Israel's independence declaration in the introduction is the best way to do that. I think the introduction should, well, introduce the article. It should mention Israel being a liberay democracy, its status as a Jewish state, and its position as occupying power in the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights. More specific material about Israel's founding principles could go elsewhere.
3. There's problems with glittering generalities elsewhere. The section about property rights is particularly bad. There's no need for a quote from John Locke about property rights. That's silly. This is not an article about human rights in general. We already have an article on that. It is an article about Human rights in Israel, and should presume basic familiarity with the categories of issues that fall under that rubrik.
4. The long section about sex trafficking seems unbalanced. Isn't this a problem in most developed countries? We need to be sure to distinguish between issues that are relatively unique to Israel, and issues that Israel shares with other countries. the sex-trafficking business, I think, falls into the latter category, and should probably be summarized briefly. It certainly shouldn't be discussed before the settlements.
5. The section on criticisms of Amnesty is silly. If that belongs anywhere, it is in the article on Amnesty. We can perhaps briefly note that pro-Israeli advocates have accused Amnesty and other human rights NGOs of bias against Israel, but that's as far as we should go. Half the article shouldn't be about the Sudan. Beyond that, the issue seems pretty phony to me. Among other things, Israel's openness as a society makes it a lot easier for human rights monitoring groups to know what's going on. That's going to mean there are more reports about Israel than other countries.
6. Ditto the section involving Alan Dershowitz. None of this stuff has any relevance to human rights in Israel. It is rather material about human rights groups, and whether they are biased or not. A lengthy discussion of this issue seems inappropriate here.

Anyway, that's all. john k 16:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the well-thought out and constructive points. I don't want to waste space responding to everything.... but re: John Locke, I added this because it appeared the property demolition was deleted by another editor as being irrelevant. This gave the source of the relevance of property ownership and its protection as necessary element of any legitimate gov't (according to Locke and Western Humanist Philosophy, and thought). It's also part of the UN Declaration of Human Rights and many other things, I didn't quote. The historical aspect of it might make it seem more out of place than the UN Declaration. Perhaps we should consider swapping? Again because it is alleged here that the UN is Anti-Israel, I was trying to substitute other sources. In this case the State of Israel did not exist when he made his statements, so it seemed to recuse him of these sort of accusations.

The information on sex-trafficking does seem to show it is a serious problem. Israel is ranked as "tier 2" (out of three), with countries such as Angola, East Timor, and Iran. [[1]]. Even if it takes place in other countries, I would say it is still a very pressing human rights issue that should be discussed thoroughly in any relevant human rights article. There is a lot of source material on that particular element in Israel so it was easy to provide good documentation, which probably at least partially explains the length (though it is still shorter than the recounting of the Israeli Declaration of Independence and a story about Sudan). Also it has made Israel be put on a special watchlist by the U.S. gov't for lack of action on the subject.

I address the issue of moving the article above in the section on H.S.'s table. Sarastro777 18:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

In terms of the tiers, just wanted to note that Switzerland and Finland are also in Tier 2. Obviously not good, and most of the leading developed countries get to be in Tier 1, but Israel is better than, notably, Greece. Tier 2 would seem to be the "this is a serious problem" but not a "this country is particularly bad about it" level, which would be "Tier 2 Watch List" and Tier 3. john k 20:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If something is generally understood to be a human rights issue, the fact that one editor deleted it as irrelevant should not warrant turning to John Locke. The UN might be better, but I'm unconvinced that this is necessary. And the UDHR was written, in any event, in December 1948, which is rather too early for it to be accused of anti-Israel bias - the state of Israel had just been created by the UN, more or less, and the war with the Arabs was still ongoing, so the permanent dispossession of the Palestinians would not have been clear yet. If the person wants to know generally about human rights, they should turn to human rights. This article should apply what is in that article to what human rights groups have criticized about Israel. In terms of sex-trafficking, thanks for the further information. I agree (or think, perhaps) that it's odd that this article seems, at present, to mostly consist of a) a long extract from the Israeli declaration of statehood; b) a section on sex-trafficking; c) a section about how human rights groups wrote more reports about Israel than about the Sudan (I really think that, at the very least, we should also try to see how human rights groups actually compare Sudan and Israel in comparable formats - for instance, their annual reports, or in qualitative rankings or lists. Otherwise we're just presenting one fact completely out of context); and d) a section about something Alan Dershowitz said. john k 19:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is a few days old, and is a wrok in progress. Eventually, it will be fleshed out more. Remember, all sides of the issue need to be aired for POV purposes. -- Avi 19:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

True, hopefully. Certainly I hope we end up having more about the settlements and the wall than we do about sex trafficking or Alan Dershowitz. But I'm not sure about "All sides of the issue need to be aired for POV purposes." I mean, yeah, sure, in a general sense. But we should also keep in mind proportionality. Attacks on human rights organizations for talking more about Israel than about the Sudan aren't really much of a defense of Israel's human rights record. john k 20:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Extrajudicial killing

While this is certainly a significant issue, I don't think that the Israelis killing somebody in Syria is a very good example of this, at least if we're trying to illustrate human rights violations. This seems like a violation of international law, and of Syria's sovereignty, neither of which is necessarily about human rights. An example of this in the Occupied Territories, if possible, would be better. john k 23:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Aren't Palestinian terrorist attacks on Israeli citizens an example of extra-judicial killing? It is hard to imagine any due process when the victims are untargeted and random. This should be mentioned, as it is happening in Israel, no? -- Avi 03:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes Avi you are right. Feel free to add that in an article about Palestinian Terrorists. The difference between terrorists and government extra-judicial killing is that Israels attack on Syria and the Occupied Territories is that one is State Sponsored (military) and one is not.--Oiboy77 05:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

An extrajudicial killing has to be ordered and carried out by the state, as I understand the term. A murder is not an extrajudicial killing. (Nor does military action within the laws of war constitute extrajudicial kiling) john k 13:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Some might see the action in Syria as an "extrajudicial killing", some might see it as a justified action in a war being waged against Israel. And that is assuming that it was actually carried out by the Israeli government. If so, it was done in Syria because Syria was harboring a terrorist. People die in wars. The point is that it really doesn't belong in this article because it has nothing to do with human rights in Israel. In fact the whole section is original research and is full of unverified claims and should be deleted. 6SJ7 14:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The United nations is quoted (and certainly there others we can quote). That's not what Original Research is. The point is verifiable through the sources used and a notable opinion. Therefore it stays according to policy. This is also done in Israel. I haven't had time to add other examples yet but there are PLENTY. I think I already have about 4 references/examples lined up. Sarastro777 16:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it's original research, and my understanding is that assassination is not considered a valid means of waging war according to the laws of war. It seems to me that this is a violation of international law, but not a human rights issue. Israel conducting assassinations in areas under its own control would probably qualify, however. john k 20:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

From the Hasbara Handbook

"Despite constant attempts by the Palestinians to enlarge the role of the UN in the conflict, and to introduce UN observers, Israel has resisted. This is due to a lack of trust in the impartiality of the United Nations, and a desire to negotiate directly instead of internationalising the conflict." (p.105)

Practical Pointers

• "Screen a video, or run a poster campaign, featuring Palestinian children with guns." (p.88)
• "Lobby politicians to include Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hizbollah, and their ilk on lists of terror organisations."(p.88)
• "Hold a demonstration or vigil for peace, calling on the Palestinians to return to negotiations." (p.81)
• "Enter a team as Israel for a model United Nations, and do well, or enter one as Syria and be deliberately poor." (p.107)

The Hasbara Handbook also contains 'the pro-Israeli POV' on issues such as the "Palestinian Refugee Issue", "Israeli Settlements", and "Arabs in Israel". Thus it (see also http://giyus.org/) could be a valuable resource for this article. Bergerons 04:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Human rights in occupied Palestinian territories

I'm not surprised to find no mention whatsoever about UN resolutions 242 and 446. Israel illegally occupies the Palestinian territories, this is a verifiable fact. Israeli military forces control countless check points in these territories, this is also a verifiable fact. Many sources (including this one [2]) claim Israeli military personnel harras Palestinians by disallowing them to pass to their homes, work and hospitals. This to me clearly constitutes as human rights violation by Israel (Freedom of movement) in territories occupied by Israel, albeit illegally. Technically these violations do not occur within the borders of the Israeli state so I'm not sure this belongs in here. Any thoughts?

The title of this article is, as far as I can read, "Human rights in Israel." Are you proposing that these territories are in Israel? --Leifern 03:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Though that can be mentioned in a Extra-Judicial section. State policy and mandate, that effect other nations human rights is still an Israeli human rights issue.--Oiboy77 05:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

This article is a mess. It is a jumble of issues related to Israel's domestic policy and practice; military actions outside of Israel; West Bank and Gaza; critiques of Amnesty International; etc. Ideally, it should be placed in the context of "Human rights in..." for numerous countries. --Leifern 03:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur, I think. john k 13:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Humus Sapiens Blanking Sections

Please account for the deletion of the entire section for: "Status of Rights of People With Disabilities" in your edit: (cur) (last) 10:57, 30 July 2006 Humus sapiens (Talk | contribs) (1) - →Status of freedom, political rights and civil liberties in Israel - antoerh attempt to reorganize and cleanup this section; 2) ==Declaration of Independence==)

Sarastro777 17:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

See #Psychiatric hospitalization. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like I added the section, then Avraham brought up a question of context. The matter was discussed, Avi added a statistic, and then you came along and deleted the entire section. Am I missing something? I think I already said that above. What we are missing is WHY you deleted the section. (?) Sarastro777 22:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. You took the quote out of context. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence

I disagree with the statement that there is consensus on the addition of this. It is quite important in a human rights article to give some context about the greater societal framework. It matters for interpretation about what comes next. Here's an example of why. In the US, where I live, there is a huge outcry when the government does something like wiretapping for security reasons, in a totalitarian gov't, this might be completely routine and hardly worth mentioning. I vote for putting the D of I back in the article. Elizmr 17:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Context is appropriate, but is this the best way to provide it? john k 19:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with how it is currently written? It mentions the declaration and summarizes the parts relevant to human rights. the rest of it is judeo-romanticism and not relevant to this article. I don't think it is appropriate to verbatim recount the whole thing. You did notice that the source notation in the intro there would provide a ready link to anyone simply wanting to read the declaration? Sarastro777 07:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"the whole thing" was not quoted here. Surely a short paragraph about the declaration is of crucial importance to the subject. The namecalling and repeated removal of relevant information that doesn't serve certain political agenda should stop. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Keyword "short paragraph", something which your edit did not bring to the table. You are the only person on this page doing any namecalling. See Psychological projection. It's a written record on here, so you can't deny it. See above section which documents you deleting the "Rights of Mentally Diasbled" section in its entirety under the cover of another edit. Your "State Dept" piece was in a section on "Liberty Ratings" and not relevant. See discussion below. Sarastro777 15:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

1) Sorry if I was not clear: "judeo-romanticism" was the namecalling. Would it be fair to call you "Israel hater"? 2) I see that someone already explained where you were wrong and you admitted "I'm not qualified to know off-hand if this is misleading things..." 3) FYI, I don't do "under the cover" edits. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

So you are upset because my characterization of parts of a document amounts to "namecalling"? And you are taking exception on behalf of the inanimate object which I have allegedly insulted? I don't even know where to start on that. Please tell the declaration, I sincerely apologize for any offense for which I have caused.

I don't see how discussing a new statistic somebody added and saying I was not familiar with it/qualified makes me "wrong." I guess maybe some of us have our egos more personally invested in Wikipedia than others. Please try to tone down the rhetoric and remain civil. Sarastro777 22:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarification needed

Is this article about Human rights in the state of Israel? In which case Palestinian terror attacks in the state of Israel need to be included, or is this about the human rights record of the state OF Israel, in which case the title is wrong? -- Avi 22:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It is about anything Israel has done which is bad. Isn't that clear to you? Elizmr 22:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asking about the apparent POV of some of the main editors, I am asking about how those of us who still have a scintilla of faith in the wiki process should behave. And yes, you seem to have keyed in to the subcurrent that I have been picking up as well. -- Avi 22:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the title "Human rights in Israel" (emphasis added) is what it's about. It seems to me that certain editors want the territories to be part of Israel when it suits their purposes, yet not when it doesn't. This is complicated by the fact that human rights aren't only a function of government policy. I also wish - for the sake of the people there - that as much effort was put into writing about human rights in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iran, etc., as for Israel. --Leifern 22:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

As to your second sentence, isn't that pretty obviously true of people on both sides? I think the basic issue is that those who created the article wanted to discuss the human rights record of the State of Israel, but the format for human rights articles is "Human rights in X". The idea of an article on human rights violations by the Israeli government seems perfectly reasonable, but given the way other articles on the subject are organized, the article couldn't really be titled in that way. Given the fact that most of Israel's human rights abuses do not occur in Israel proper, this makes for difficulties. I have repeatedly suggested that the article be changed to Human rights in Israel and the Occupied Territories. If this is not done, I'd be happy to suggest moving most of the material on the Occupied Territories to its own article, but only so long as there is some mention of the Occupied Territories here, as there is, for instance, of Morocco's behavior in Western Sahara in Human rights in Morocco. john k 00:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

And you are of course free to right on the human rights situations in other countries - Human rights in Iran is in a somewhat better state in this article, but still needs a lot of work. Human rights in Syria and Human rights in Lebanon are merely stubs. There are no articles on Human rights in Egypt and Human rights in Jordan. It would, of course, be excellent to have articles on those subjects. But that those articles aren't in a good state is no particular reason that we shouldn't try to write a good article here. john k 00:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

May be worth investigating if these editors are pushing a particular POV, no? -- Avi 23:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the sarcasm. Elizmr 23:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

In terms of Palestinian terrorism, I'm not sure that it's a human rights issue, per se. Human rights in the United Kingdom does not discuss IRA terrorism as a British human rights problem - it only discusses the government's reaction to terrorism. As I understand it, a discussion of human rights is understood to refer to the policies of the government. Some level of discussion of Palestinian suicide bombings, etc. is probably in order, but it should not be the focus of the article. (Nor, I think, should things like "de facto discrimination against the disabled" and supposed problems with sex trafficking, which are surely not things that get very many people upset about Israel's human rights record). I'd prefer that discussion of Palestinian terrorist actions come in the form of giving context to Israel's response, rather than be discussed in a tit for tat kind of way. That is to say, rather than having separate sections, one about "Horrible things Israelis do" and one about "Horrible things Palestinians do," we try to make the article into more of an organic whole, that discusses the actions of each group as being related to each other. I don't think it's fair to talk about Israeli human rights violations without noting that they come in the context of considerable provocation in terms of Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians. But i still tend to feel the article should be focused on what Israel does, rather than what Palestinians do. But I could have my mind changed. Ongoing civil wars do receive treatment as human rights issues in other wikipedia human rights articles. Part of the problem is that wikipedia articles on human rights by country are mostly pretty terrible. It's hard to find one that could serve as a decent model, which is what we really need here. john k 00:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Psychiatric hospitalization

It is fascinating what one can uncover with a little research. A figure of 70 patients sounds horrible, and it is, but in the context of over 18,000 hospital admissions, or a rate of under one-half of one percent, it takes on a different tone, does it not? The context is critical to presenting the statistics in an NPOV manner. -- Avi 23:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

One half of one percent seems like a fairly high rate for such things. What kind of rates would you expect? The real question would be how this compares to other developed countries. john k 00:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Aaaah, but I thought that Oiboy and Sarastro were adamant that this only be about Israel? :lol: Of course, I know where they are coming from. Regardless, I would be VERY happy to compare Israel's human rights record on ANY category with ANY of its neighbors. Oh, you mean they are not developed? Even with all of OPEC's oil money? Too bad. Let's compare its record to such developed countries as France, Russia,, Germany, Italy, etc. Be my guest. I don't think the two editors I mentioned will be too happy with that. What do you think? (note the liberal use of dry good-natured humor that couches a point or three) -- Avi 01:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

A figure like this is entirely meaningless without some means of contextualizing it, as nobody has any gut sense of what a good figure or what a bad figure would be. I personally have no idea if this is a good figure or a bad figure, which is why I suggested comparing to other developed countries (a comparison to Jordan or Syria would seem completely useless - I'm sure Israel is better than them, but I don't think that's saying very much). john k 01:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Just as meaningless as the 70 people, is it not? Some context is necessary, and one based on population or population of psychiatric patients, seems appropriate. -- Avi 01:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

And, I mean, the comparison in question seems dubious. What does "18,000 hospital admissions" mean? Why is it meaningful to compare this number with the number of patients in hospitals who should've been released? It seems arguable that by creating this "rate", you are engaging in original research, and original research of dubious validity - plugging the wrong numbers together can create some seriously dubious statistics. john k 00:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Very simple. We are looking at the number of ALLEGED illegal retentions, to what should that be compared with not the total number of admissions? Do you have a better statistic? The number 70 in a vacuum means nothing, SOME context must be shown. If there were 18,000 hospital admissions, and only 70 could be found that were illegal, that is different than 70 out of 700. -- Avi 01:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, what about the total number of people in a hospital at any given time? At any rate, my point that this is OR still stands - you have put two numbers together to create a new statistic not found in any secondary source. That's blatantly OR. john k 01:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

After looking up WP:OR, I have to thank you for pointing this out. You are absolutely correct in that the 0.38% is a new synthesis, and as such against wiki policy. I have changed the sentences to remove the synthesis. Thanks! -- Avi 01:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Avi, I know you are well intentioned, but I am not following the logic. Should it not count as a human rights issue because it is only 70 people? How many people is it acceptable to lock away for profit in mental hospitals? But more to the point, according to the sources I have found it is considered relevant to Human Rights in Israel. The number of people mistreated in other countries doesn't really nullify mistreatment in Israel. Nor do our own viewpoints on this.. as we are documenting these points through verifiable sources.

If it's a perception I think Israel is the only country with Human Rights violations, I can assure you this is not my own personal conviction. This perception prob. comes as a result of my work on this article which I have dilligently worked to keep verifiable through major sources and on topic. Sarastro777 03:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying to remove the section; I agree that the only acceptable number is 0. But to say 70 people, and not give context, is to implicitly paint a POV picture. Leave the statement in, but let it be seen in the greater context of the entire Israeli in-patient psychiatric system. -- Avi 03:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This seems a valid approach. I'm not qualified to know off-hand if this is misleading things... but I would think we will come across more as we research sources further. Sarastro777 07:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Avi on this point, throwing out a figure does little to contexualize it. Throwing in countries with "poor human rights records" against it is POV. Can someone find a world average or something? Take a look at GDP stats for countries. The stats mean very little without some form of comparison on a global perspective. That said, It would be wrong and very POV to compare to specific countries. I think global averages with suffice.--Oiboy77 16:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

A global average would be useful, as, I think, would be a global average of developed countries, since Israel is generally considered to be a devveloped country, assuming such a thing exists. 86.217.1.50 16:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC) [this was me, I somehow got signed out. john k 20:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)]

I don't think there's any such thing as a global average on this. There is also no gold standard on what is too long or too short for a psychiatric hospitalization; it is very individualized. I'm actually finding the debate kind of amusing. As a primary care doc in the US, the biggest issue with psychiatric hospitalization is that insurers do not want to pay for it and it is hard to KEEP anyone in the hospital for long ENOUGH. To drag a very beleaguered country through the mud because some private hospital kept 70 people in the hospital for TOO LONG and government oversight was not what it maybe should be seems to be a really minor thing to mention in a encyclopedia outline of Human rights in a whole country. This thing should be deleted from the article Elizmr 23:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

State department report

Sarastro777, so far you've demonstrated extreme POV, incompetence and inabillity to collaborate with other editors. You are making it very hard to assume good faith. Can you explain your wholesale removal of US SD report? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If you read the edit notes, or followed procedure you would already know why. The section the State Dept. piece was in, is entitled "Liberty Ratings." The State Dept. Report you quoted was not a rating, and therefore was not relevant to the section. Secondly the way you quoted it with bullet points and the rest overemphasized that single source and the format did not lend itself to clarifying the way you excerpted in a misleading way. Whereas the rest of the article devotes a sentence or a few to a single source, you had the single largest piece of the whole article from only one report of only one source in an in an inappropriate place. You also left out the criticism from that article, making the entire thing unabalanced. Sarastro777 15:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

S777: wrong, wrong and wrong. It is a comprehensive report form a reputable source, (BTW, not too favorable to Israel). Earlier, you inserted a highly critical quote (BTW, out of context, as you do with almost all your quotes) from its 2000 report. If the more up-to-date 2005 report does not follow your political agenda, too bad. Wherever you got your idea of "thing balanced", you got it wrong too. BTW, care to explain why did you insert outdated quotes? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know which quotes you are referring to, but I would imagine you are calling them outdated because they don't match what you would like to see, as you seem to be quite emotional at the moment. Do you think it is really appropriate to have now readded your State Dept. article under its own subsection? If we follow this pattern then every individual source will need its own subsection. You need to rework this to fit the format of the article. The others points I raised still stand. The bulleted list does not lend itself to putting counter information from other sources..especially when you have titled the whole subsection solely with the name of that one source. Also giving too much space to only one source. As stated above, we mostly use a source for one or two sentences, not a quarter of the length of the entire article. Please offer suggestions to improve this or go ahead and implement them, or risk having another Editor handle the matter. Sarastro777 22:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if a reputable report is quoted in subsections. You have inserted this [3] outdated US SD quote. You don't own this article, try to collaborate with others. "we mostly use a source for one or two sentences" - is there a policy for that?

Sidenote: By now I have assumed good faith and ignored your ad homs, please refrain from that in the future. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a nice summary. As the rest of the article fleshes out to include most of the major issues, perhaps it can be deleted but for now it provides an overview that the article does not. Elizmr 23:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There was an overview, but it was deleted and replaced by the Declaration of Establishment, over, and over, over :-) Sarastro777 23:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't switch the topic. A short 1-paragraph summary of relevant parts of DOI belong here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Freedom of Speech

I commented out a section that says that the OT are under miliatary law which prohibits this. I believe this applies only pre Oslo. Cities are now under PA control and protests are quite common. Elizmr 12:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Introductory Statement

I have removed the links to human rights articles of other countries in the region. None of the linked articles have a link to this article on their page, so this juxtaposition seemed extremely unfair. Anyone interested in the human rights records of these countries can look them up. To link to these articles is obviously a POV move, as if to say, "Before you criticize Israel, make sure you look how bad its neighbors are."Smitty Mcgee 16:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Human rights in Syria has a template at the bottom which links to this page, e.g. That would be appropriate, right? john k 16:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Having a template listing countries a the bottom of a page and adding comparison between the human rights records of specific countries in an introductory paragraph is two very different things. I agree with User:Smitty Mcgee on this one. It has no real place in an article about Israeli Human Rights. It doesn't really do anything for the article and just is an attempt to dillute what in cited within the article.--Oiboy77 16:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Although, a link to the PNA article is most likely warranted, even up top, as they are indelibly linked. -- Avi 17:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just saying that a template at the bottom is appropriate. I wasn't completely clear on what Smitty was saying. john k 17:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Some not-so-original reaseach

Here are some links to "not so original" research that may help with the article. [[4]] [[5]] [[6]] [[7]] [[8]] [[9]] [[10]] [[11]] (mostly official UN reports) Hope this helps! --Oiboy77 16:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The UN CHR was so messed up that even unreformed UN admitted it and recently disbanded it. It was notoriously bad in this particular area. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Proper jurisdictional issues

We're having a discussion over at the recently created Talk:Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority article over the question of what exactly should be in this article, and what in a prospective other article about the Palestinian Territories, or what not. I think a lot of the arguments we've been having (certainly not nearly all of them, but a lot) have revolved around the question of what exactly this article should cover. Hopefully, if we clarify this issue, we will have less disagreement on what exactly each article should cover, and can focus more on improving the actual content of the article, so all input is welcome. john k 20:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

What the article should cover: Israeli Gov't and its Human Rights issues or lack thereof. Above we already found analogous articles about Morocco/Western Sahara, and China/Tibet that include info on human rights of occupying state in "occupied territories." The title is merely a matter of the naming conventions. Clarification to this point has been at the top of the article since the onset in case the naming conventions were confusing. Sarastro777

Tibet is explicitly part of China, and has been recognized as such internationally for hundreds of years (since the 18th century), although effective control was only estalibhsed in 1951. Beyond that, the naming conventions should not be some kind of abstract thing separate from the content of the page. Also, I pointed to the other talk page for a reason, because I posted in a lot more detail over there on this subject... john k 23:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Tibet used to rule parts of China, but became Buddhist and renounced military warfare. Out of respect of and in gratitude of its spritual advice the Emperors of China used to extend it military protection so that it could remain peaceful. I've never heard anyone outside of Communist Party officials calling it part of China in a historical sense. The Dalai Llama and the Tibetans certainly don't see it that way... but back to the point.. what ever became of "Human Rights in State of Israel and Occupied Territories"? That seemed to serve the purpose as long it was understood the subject matter would be Israel and not Hamas Sarastro777 23:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)