Talk:Human rights in Israel

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2

Lebanon

I think a section on civilian deaths in the recent conflict with Lebanon would be appropriate, since it constitutes a human rights violation on behalf of the Israeli military. We could link to: Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.Smitty Mcgee 15:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Technically, it may not be because it is under debate if the areas are being targeted because they are civilian, or because they are military targets which were placed there by Hezbollah to use the civilians as Human Shields, in which case it is not a violation but part of the acts of war (ala Dresden, Tokyo, Berlin, etc.) -- Avi 15:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point, but regardless of the motives, the massacre of civilians that occured in Qana, for example, was an act of terrorism. The argument that it was somehow justified by the firing of rockets close by is ridiculous. The fact is, a building known to have civilians in it was targeted.Smitty Mcgee 15:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I always thought Dresden was pretty clearly a war crime. Certainly it's arguable. john k 16:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you know that, or were terrorists targeted and they were in that building using human shields, which may nt be a violation, or even more likely, the missles/bombs did not target that particular building. Do we know the ordinance used, was it precision guided? If so, was there a flaw in the guidance mechanism, was it wire-guided, laser guided? It's WP:OR for you to make that observation at this point. -- Avi 15:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I heard a radio program last night discussing whether Israel actually blew up that building at all, or whether it was one of several other scenarios, i.e. armaments being stored there by Hezbollah exploded. So maybe it would be a good idea to let some time pass and find out what actually happened before connecting what happened in a war to "human rights violations." Such a connection would be original research anyway. I also think there is a distinction between "war crimes" (not to imply that any have occurred in the current war) and "human rights violations" which generally are committed against a government's own citizens. So, at this point, and probably permanently, nothing from the current military actions belongs in this article. 6SJ7 16:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree strongly with the above. The exploitation in the media of "massacres" etc which later turn out to be not israel's fault is documented. Elizmr 16:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Does that include the '96 massacre? (no quotes necessary there)--Smitty Mcgee 16:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That was an accident - an artillery shell is not an accurate weapon. All of these allegation always miss one point - these event are not good for Israel! The exact opposite is true - it ruins Israel's international support. To call it "Terrorism" is a blatant misuse of the word - it was not intentional, and serves no purpose for Israel.

By the way, everyone is shocked when Israel accidentaly kills civilians, but no one seems to care about the fact that the Hezbollah has fired over 2,000 rockets at civilian targets, for the stated purpose of killing Israeli civilians. okedem 16:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that Hezbollah has also claimed to be seeking military targets, but also that its missiles are incredibly inaccurate and can't possibly avoid civilian targets. Nonetheless, Hezbollah's actions obviously constitute a war crime, just as Israel's do. Beyond that, I will note that Hezbollah has killed something like twice as many Israeli soldiers as civilians in the present conflict, while Israel has had nowhere near so favorable a ratio...It seems strange to me that Hezbollah's "purposeful targeting of civilians" results in so many fewer civilian deaths, and a so much better ratio of military/civilian kills, than Israel's "accidental" killing of civilians...At any rate, I agree that we should not describe these Israeli actions as "terrorism," as this is not the term generally used for aerial bombing of civilian areas, even if it results in massive death to civilians. john k 16:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard that claim ("...seeking military targets..."). Hezbollah says outright its purpose is to kill civilians, and destroy the Zionist "settlements" like Naharia, Tiberias etc. The reason Israel has relatively few civilian casualties isn't from Hezbollah's lack of trying. Hundereds of thousands of people spend most of the day/night in bomb shelters, and many others have left the Galilee altogether, living at hotels or with family away from the rockets' threat. Lebanon has relatively many civilian causalties because of a lack of bomb shelters, because people don't leave the war zone (like these people in Qana, who stayed despite repeated warnings by Israel, and despite the bombs all around them), and because Hezbollah launches rockets from the middle of town, even placing launchers in the yards of Mosques. okedem 17:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, read here, under "Views". okedem 17:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say that while the violence in Lebanon is unfortunate, Israel has the right to defend itself against Hezbollah. Unfortunately Hezbollah likes to hide amongst civilians, or civilians willingly help Hezbollah. Israel has warned everyone in Lebanon that if you're working with Hezbollah, watch your back. They've dropped leaflets, they've had press conferences, they've done this, and they've done that. The point is that it is war. Civilians are going to get hurt, especially if the enemy hides among them. Hezbollah, however, intentionally fires rockets at civilian targets, knowing that they're not going to destroy any military stucture, yet no one seems to criticize Hezbollah or the fact that they started it in the first place. If you're gonna throw a punch, be prepared for the punches coming.--Alcarcalimo2364 00:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation format

In general, one a citation is given a name in the ref tag as so <ref name = "foo"> Blah </ref>, further citations only have to bring <ref name = "foo" />. Less complicated that way. -- Avi 15:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the ref formats, Avi. Elizmr 16:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

reorg

I moved the state dept report stuff into relevant sections and then deleted it. I put all stuff related to Israel proper in the top section, and all stuff related to the territories in the territories section and labeled it as such. I think this makes the article more NPOV overall. Elizmr 16:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Oiboy, please look at the article carefully, and especially at footnote 4, before jumping to conclusions. -- Avi 18:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to work/clarify things right now. The only pitfall I can see is that there will be duplicate subsections on areas that are of concern in both territories. I guess we address that when we get to it. Sarastro777 18:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Eretz-Israel

Sarastro, if you look at the text, that is in quotation marks, that means it is a direct quote, which you may verify for yourself here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Establishment_of_the_State_of_Israel

So that must stay in the quote. Thanks. -- Avi 18:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Pointing out the quotations make it clear.. thank you Avi. However I will add [Land of Israel] to clarify the translation, since it should all be in English. This won't subtract anything for the others, and the Hebrew speakers already get it. Unusual for a "translation" to do that, unless there is not a word in the other language. For my own interest, I would like to see another translation into English besides the one on Wikipedia. Sarastro777 22:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A bit of balance

I recognize that the justifications I added are small and in no way serve to balance out the one-sided nature of the section on human rights in the occupied territories. Still, I hope they can serve as a starting point for building some context in this section. Israel's actions don't seem quite so heinous when viewed outside of a vaccuum, and we have a responsibility to provide some degree of context so readers can come to informed conclusions. Schrodingers Mongoose 03:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize a purpose of a Wikipedia article was to make Israel's actions seem "not so heinous outside of a vaccuum." Sounds like agenda pushing. 68.6.254.16 03:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Not pushing an agenda...trying to achieve balance. ANYTHING can be made to look terrible without context. Example: "The United Kingdom and the United States firebombed the city of Dresden in 1944, destroying 85% of the homes and killing at least 35,000 civilians." Now, even with context, it might be safe to say this could be interpreted as a heinous act. However, WITHOUT mentioning that this occured in WWII as the Nazis were bombing and killing thousands in Britain and elsewhere, this would sound like unmitigated genocide. I am not pushing an agenda. I am saying that context matters. To recite only criticism of Israeli actions without also listing the stated reason for these actions creates a default bias. Schrodingers Mongoose 03:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

So despite what the facts bear out, you have a need to write the article in a way to make things "not look terrible" or as you also call it, "balanced" ? Do you think that is a reasonable approach for academic articles on subjects like Josef Stalin or HIV? As you originally put it "...the justifications I added" -- "Justifications" attempt to justify behavior, not provide NPOV facts documenting events or conditions. I find that troubling. 68.6.254.16 03:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to provide more than ONLY criticism of Israel in this section. I'm not trying to delete the criticisms or even edit them...just provide something to say why the Israelis have done some of the things they've done. I'm not saying they're right or wrong. Friankly, what I've added doesn't come close to balancing this section. Do you believe only anti-Israel statements are appropriate? Schrodingers Mongoose 03:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Bias Alert

The Israeli gov't has hundreds of thousands of people working in coordination to propagandize websites like Wikipedia. We need to be on alert for these "cyber agents" attempting to alter this article.

Israel backed by army of cyber-soldiers http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2289232,00.html [[1]]

68.6.254.16 15:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"hundreds of thousands"? So no one does anything else in Israel? Everybody just sits around, editing Wikipedia? Of course the article itself never mentions any such number, nor do they mention wikipedia, or propagana...

This article is already heavily edited and scrutinized. The editor's bias is irrelevant, only the facts. okedem 15:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to say that this pro-Israel cyber-army, if it exists, is not very effective, at least where Wikipedia is concerned. 6SJ7 17:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess they didn't do a very good job at reboot-camp... okedem 17:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't read the article. "The Foreign Ministry has ordered trainee diplomats to track websites and chatrooms so that networks of US and European groups with hundreds of thousands of Jewish activists can place supportive messages." It's a worldwide propaganda operation. Anything else "not in the article" you didn't read that you would like to make factual statements about? Sarastro777 17:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I stand by it. The article doesn't say these people work for the government. The article only says some diplomatic trainees do. Simple. okedem 17:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you can refute the claim that nobody made: "these people work for the government" and just pretend like you didn't say: "the article itself never mentions any such number." We'll just sweep that under the carpet. Hahaha Sarastro777 19:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Another global Jewish conspiracy foiled. Yawn. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 19:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. The same sophomoric lies about Jewish conspiracies and secret control...I always said it was only a matter of time before someone accused the Jews of owning the internet. I can't believe I saw it here first. Laughing too hard to be disgusted. Schrodingers Mongoose 00:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Owning the internet, I don't know, after all, Al Gore invented it and he is a Baptist I believe. 6SJ7 00:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC) (Ok, I realized that given the lack of sense of humor I have seen around here, I need to point out that I know Al Gore (1) didn't invent the internet and (2) never said he invented the internet and (3) is, nevertheless, a Baptist, or some other Protestant denomination. 6SJ7 00:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC))

"I took the initiative in creating the internet" - Al Gore, March 1999 Schrodingers Mongoose 04:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Civil rights

user:Sarastro777, similar to the debate here in the US, if a constitutional amendment is passed defining marriage as between a man and a woman, then ipso facto there is no violation of civil rights for the refusal to allow same-sex marriage. It is a matter of law, not religion. he current legal statutes of Israel have to be investigated before such a statement is made. By defining it a violation prima facie without looking at the statutes pre-supposes a "civil rights" code that supersedes the legalities of the state, and is classic NPOV. Who defines such a code? Not you, not I, not anyone. So it is not a religious POV of mine that is behind my reversion, but a lack of evidence from a legal standpoint for your opinion-based claim of “there can't be "full civil rights" if there is no marriage allowed. It's second class status compared to heterosexuals” which I believe is based on nothing more than YOUR POV re: same-sex marriage. We both have to take care to make the edits reflect FACT and not OPINION. -- Avi 17:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

1) "marriage" does not have any reference to "same-sex" or "different-sex". It is even used with inanimate objects, such as in alchemical texts, etc. It just means a union... EXCEPT for various religions which have a specific subset of meaning. This is confirmed in the Wikipedia article on marriage

To quote the US Supreme Court "..separate is inherently not equal." so providing some quasi-marriage alternative does not grant the same rights, certainly not "Full Civil Rights" if there is a different set of people that have different or more rights because of their sexual orientation. To say they have "full civil rights" is misleading at best, though they do have significant civil rights compared to other countries which is what the edit I made showed. Sarastro777 18:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The subject of gay rights is very difficult to deal with in an article on "human rights," given the lack of a standard approach worldwide. Plus, there already is an article on Gay Rights in Israel, to which this article links. But in any event, the terms I saw being debated between Avi and Sarastro were "equality" and "full civil rights." The latter term is meaningless for much the same reason that I have just discussed. What is the standard? Notice that, for example, the U.S. State Department does not appear to include "gay rights" in the list of factors that it looks at, probably because on the federal level, the U.S. government itself does not do a very good job of affording equal protection to sexual minorities. (I suspect there is already an article about that somewhere as well.) Israel provides more protections and rights for gay people than does the U.S., for example the right to serve in the military and the right to equal employment opportunity (which is protected by the laws of some U.S. states but not others, and not on the federal level.) So Israel compares pretty favorably. Nevertheless, gay people in Israel do not have "equality" in all areas, because they cannot get married... which is of course true in all but four countries in the world (Same-sex marriage). Even in the U.S. state of Massachusetts, where gay people may marry, they still do not enjoy full "equality" because of the lack of other legal protections on the federal level, for example gay people in Massachusetts are not given the opportunity to serve in their nation's military. Personally I think that if the article to going to say that Israel does not have same-sex marriage, it needs to say that only four countries do have it. It probably also should mention the number of countries (18 plus some states in Australia and the U.S.) that, like Israel, recognize some form of same-sex union other than marriage. I also have to say that a lot of issues could be handled much more smoothly if certain editors (I count two, there may be more) were not trying to make Israel "look bad" in almost every sentence and paragraph of this article. 6SJ7 23:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It might also be easier without "a hundred thousand Jewish activists from around the world" trying to make it look great, coordinated through "Operation Megaphone." (see above). If things are given citations from reliable sources, it is not the editor making the subject look bad.. it is the source or the subject itself for warranting such a source. Please don't shoot the messenger. Sarastro777

Oh please. The same few editors are editing this article, and all of us have wiki histories much older than that piece you quote. Personally, I find it insulting. If anything, it is you who are the new editor here (with Oiboy) and it is you whose edits are predominantly, if not exclusively, on Israeli-Palestinian topics, with an agenda as clear as day. Please treat your fellow editors with the respect you would like to be treated with. -- Avi 23:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, many human rights groups consider gay rights to be a civil rights issue. Obviously, Israel would share this issue with most other countries in the world, and that should be noted. All information should be provided in a way which allows people to understand it in context. john k 23:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What is my agenda? What was my agenda when I said "they do have significant civil rights compared to other countries" (above), removed "Alleged" from the Anti-Israel bias section, or translated Eretz to make the Declaration more understandable? Moshe has broken 3RR and I am not reporting it, because I try to be fair. What is my agenda there? I have more sources for one paragraph of my edits than most entire articles have, and without a doubt they are deleted by Israelis saying POV. A whole slew of properly documented additions were all deleted below. Let's quit playing like I am the biased one here. We all know what is going on, this article is full of people that don't want to see any documentation for anything that could be perceived as negative about Israel -- whether or not the country has really done the things. One way to rationalize this is to accuse people like ME of having the agenda. Look in a mirror (not you personally, I consider you among the more level-headed of the others). Sarastro777 23:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

See also

I think a see also or an article template specifically for the PNA belongs at the top, since the two are much more closely linked than Israel with Jordan, Syria, etc. Humus, you disagree? -- Avi 18:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I would much prefer that the relation (if any) is explicitly explained or simply listed at the bottom. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 19:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Christians

“Christians frequently point to the Israeli Government's lack of protection…” One incident is frequently? Just curious, how manysuch incidents a year are there? -- Avi 20:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the source I listed, the Armenian Archbishop, it occurs "daily." I also provided another example, so that we would not have the argument that one source was insufficient. Sarastro777 21:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Moshe Silverburg also reverted the following, calling it a massive POV rewrite:

During 2003, after raiding Bethlehem, the Israeli Defense Forces canceled all outdoor Christmas decorations and festivities. The developments led Christian civic and religious leaders to stage a formal protest. The Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem said: "It is not impossible to love...even the Israeli soldiers who impose upon us siege, curfew and humiliations." - - - Christians frequently point to the Israeli Government's lack of protection and seeming double standard towards members of their faith. During 2004, a Jewish religious student spit at the Armenian Archbishop during a religious procession near the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. In an ensuing brawl, the Archbishop's 17th century medallion was broken. Police questioned both, but banned the student from the Old City for 75 days. In response the Archbishop, Nourhan Manougian stated: "Israeli leaders must speak out about the daily abuse [against Christians]. When there is an attack against Jews anywhere, the Israeli government is incensed, so why when our religion and pride are hurt, don't they take harsher measures?" - - The Director of a centre for Christian-Jewish dialogue, Daniel Rossing commented that there had been an increase in such events as "part of a general lack of tolerance."

This was added to the "Freedom of Religion" section. On what grounds are you deleting this? Sarastro777 23:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Mordechai Vanunu

This is relevant to Freedom of Speech, but was reverted by Moshe Silverburg. The source I was using, The US State Dept referred to him as a whistleblower. This label differentiates him from some guy just violating state secrets. For those that don't know: Vanunu revealed Israel had a secret WMD project in which it had developed nuclear bombs to the British Gov't. Sarastro777 23:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

But why is it a violation of civil rights to incarcerate someone lawfully and legally convicted of treason? -- Avi 00:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? Presumably because the law under which he is convicted is considered to be unjust. Nelson Mandela was "lawfully and legally convicted" of crimes for which he was imprisoned, too. john k 14:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Amnesty International considers him a "Prisoner of Conscience" -- so added that to make clear what the opinion of the human rights groups are on the matter (our own views don't count). Sarastro777 18:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Azmi Bishara

Why is it 'skewed' to list that he was arrested for making 'pro-hezbollah' statements in the 'freedom of speech section'? It's sourced from a human rights article section on freedom of speech. There's obvious relevance, and I basically lifted the wording from the report. I don't understand what the problem is, unless you are upset it is an obvious limitation on Israel's "Freedom of Speech" ? Sarastro777 23:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Criminal Justice Reverts

Moshe, it looks like you are in violation of 3RR.

Also reverted were the following additions, updates to the older Dept. of State bulletin points.

It was stated that the were no political prisoners. I followed with: However more recent data shows the Government of Israel arrested more than 40,000 Palestinian prisoners since the beginning of the Al-Aqsa Intifada in 2000. It continues to hold more than 369 Palestinians who were jailed before the Oslo Accords and currently holds 9,400 Palestinian prisoners in more than 30 jails located across Israel. Of these 330 are children, and 70 are considered seriously ill due to lack of "basic medical attention."

Also mentioned torture was illegal. I added: On December 20, 2005 the Tel Aviv District Court rejected the Israeli State's petition to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Lebanese citizen Mustafa Dirani, who charged that Israeli security forces tortured and raped him during interrogations. Another former detainee alleged he was subjected to painful positioning, beatings, long periods of interrogation, threats, and food and sleep deprivation. An independent rights group verified "...the complainant suffered severe back pains and paralysis in his left leg from the abuse."

Again why are you reverting these?

Sarastro777 23:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The Palestine Center is as a reputable source as Baghdad Bob. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

really, do you have something that proves that, or is it just your opinion? Since the article quotes Dore Gold, a anti-muslim israeli ambassador I am surprised to hear complaints about a human rights group. 68.6.254.16 15:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)