![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Your edit summary: "→Treatment of prisoners - someone conveniently (my emphasis) deleted the 70 sick prisoners are in fact children, which was stated previously," assumes bad faith. If you read the quote, it is not clear if 70 of the total prisioners are ill or 70 of the minors are ill. I thought it was probably the former, but did not and would not "conveniently" delete anything. Assuming that everyone who doesn't agree with you is also unscrupulous is completely fallicious. There are people with and without scruples on every side of every issue. Elizmr 00:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
To quote the source: "According to the Bureau, 70 children are ill due to the lack of basic medical attention." It's not a matter of assumption when you feign confusion with such an obvious quote. Sarastro777 01:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
That is not only how it reads in the text, that is a direct quote which anyone can verify. The only personal attack was from you: "everyone who doesn't agree with you is also unscrupulous." Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks Sarastro777 01:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Sarastro, If you read above, (I'll find the link soon) you'll see that the Palestinian Beureu of Statsitics may or may not be a reliable source. If we can back this up with data from the Israeli beureu, I'd feel better about it. And I know, I could never spell beareu. -- Avi 01:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
LOL. I meant the talk page, here, hold on. Talk:Human rights in Israel#Political prisoners?. Please see John's response to me on this. -- Avi 02:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Now *I* called you unscrupulous? I did a search for that word and it comes up only in your edit or where I am quoting your edit. The line in question is a completely separate sentence in which the subject is the children. Was it the comma that confused you? What language are YOU speaking? It's not a greatly constructed sentence, but even if you were confused, why did you just outright delete it? (rather than look at the source which was there and immediately clarifies any confusion?) I just don't see where you thought you were going with the way you handled this, from a constructive/collaborative frame of mind and now attacking me as if I was the one that made the mistake. You are probably very well-inentioned, in fact I would assume you are... but since you did delete the line because you were confused and did not check the source, the description of convenient deletion is very apt. 5 more seconds of work would have made it unnecessary. Sarastro777 02:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Elizmr - the sentence as it was constructed was extremely unclear as to whether it was 70 children or 70 people. On the other hand, it probably would have been better to check the source first, before deleting, but it was obviously an honest mistake, and not some kind of conspiracy. Beyond that, I think Elizmr was saying that Sarastro accused him of being unscrupulous by "conveniently" deleting something, not that Sarastro accused him of being "unscrupulous," using that precise word. Really, everyone should chill out here. This one issue not that big a deal, and not worth an argument. john k 03:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Obviously you did do the 'convenient' thing, by not taking the extra time to check the fact and just deleting a cited sentence. Of course this is all the edit note ever claimed. I don't understand what you want. I never accused you of not acting in good faith. Definitely not worth an argument as Johnk said. Sarastro777 22:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I added the weasel tag primarily because of the following phrase: "Amnesty International has been accused of having a double standard when it comes to its assessment of Israel.". Accused by whom? Israel? Doesn't sound neutral to me. 62.142.46.22 10:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
Worth noting that Pollard was paid a lot of money by the Israeli government for his espionage work. Vanunu leaked information to the press. One can understand why the Israeli government wouldn't want people doing this, but the situation really isn't comparable to the Pollard situation. john k 20:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Besides the fact that this is not a HR issue, even according to YOUR OWN QUOTE it is not a problem, because you are hanging your hat on the AI articles saying, in April of 2005, that “If Mordechai Vanunu were to be imprisoned for breaching the restrictions imposed on him, Amnesty International would consider him to be a prisoner of conscience.” He has not been imprisoned as far as I can tell today in 2006, only the restrictions have been extended. So you have no leg to stand on, from your own article. -- Avi 05:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Acccording to Amnesty International which is a Human Rights Group this IS a human rights issue. See [ [1]] I quote verbatim "9. The SCM concluded that Amnesty International must now call for the release of Mordechai Vanunu, as a way to end his continued solitary confinement and as a way to redress the other human rights violations he has suffered." FYI this edit got me a NPOV warning from User:Avraham [2] -- Oiboy77 18:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The Vanunu stuff seems to be being reinserted and removed by various editors over the last few days. I think this needs to be discussed here, rather than continuing the reversions.
I'm not convinced on the merits of including some mention of him or not, but if it is to be included, the current text isn't very good. The "if he violates the restrictions" wording is very awkward, especially since the nature of the restrictions has not been discussed in the article. There are two issues here: 1) his original imprisonment for treason; and 2) his current restrictions, and his status if he were imprisoned for violating them. The current version does not clarify this distinction at all. This needs to be done if a discussion of him is going to be in the article. john k 19:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Please see section 10 above -- Avi 20:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
It is a little more understandable if the issue is the writing in the section, which can be addressed. I hope this is now the accepted viewpoint. The previous arguments being made to justify deleting the material consisted of "there is a law" or "there is a limit to freedom." Certainly the mere existence of some law does not ever morally legitimize any behavior by gov't. See: Nuremberg_Racial_Purity_Laws
Some sources on the matter: Another AI source: "The organization is also calling for his [Vanunu's] release from custody as redress for the persistent and past human rights violations to which he has been subjected." ^-- background on the "persistent human rights violations" are documented in [ [3]] Sarastro777 20:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, that source is as of 1998. -- Avi 21:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
So, Human Rights violations are erased from ever having existed after a period of time? Sarastro777 21:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The comparison is blindly claiming the existence of a law exempts gov't from human rights scrutiny, which has been done on this subject. In the obvious example above we can see that is a false argument. There are also wider issues of his status as Whistleblower, which means he was reporting behavior that could be considered illegal under international law. This is not a matter for us to decide, but there is a massive amount of Human Rights violations perceived by numerous organizations, basing around his 'freedom of speech.' This IS something that is relevant to this article. Sarastro777 20:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Amnesty International is a reliable organization. You need to quit pushing the excuses. I didn't see you worrying about reliability when quoting Op/Ed pieces by "Neo Cons" and David Horowitz, whatever you would call him. Sarastro777 01:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Awww.. that doesn't sound like an Administrator attempting to collaborate. I don't think we can devote anymore space to conspiracy theories on major human rights groups being anti-semitic. As it stands this is probably at least 1/4 of the bulk of "Human Rights in Israel." Sarastro777 06:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you kidding? AI's credibility is disputed? By who? Human rights violators. Is the UNs credibility also disputed to the point where any mention of their criticism of Israel can just be deleted. Is there any human rights organiation not directly run by the State of Israel who's record meats the Hasbarah crowd's standards? !!!!
I've added sources about Bakri's deposition that his film is not accurate, and that he did take "artistic liberty" in filming it. Are the sources false? Am I not using them correctly? okedem 08:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Warring parties - Moshe and Deuterium - please discuss this section here before reverting each other's work again. okedem 07:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The first paragraph, while a faithful rendition of the AI statement, is actually based on a slight misinterpretation of Rabbinic Law on AI's part. I will try to explain it as clearly as I can, and then we can discuss whether or not the article needs adjustment, and how to do so without violation WP:OR.
Biblical law allows male polygamy. Historically, this was a rarity, left as the perview of kings and wealthy men, as the biblical requirements of spousal support (financial, emotional, sexual, and child support to name some major responsibilities) were in general too demanding on men to fulfill with more than one wife. King David had 18 wives, and the Midrash brings down that this strained even he, the King of all Israel. Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with the Bible in theory, this explains the difference between the child's status if the father or mother was married. If we are not talking about one of the other forbidden relationships (incestual or otherwise) whose punishment is divine excommunication and early death from Heaven (Kares), and the only illegitamicy comes from the marital status of one of the partners, then if the man is the married partner, his having sex and a child from an unmarried woman is viewed as tantamount to marrying her (there are three biblical methods of entering a marriage, and having sexual relations with intent to consumate a marriage is one of them). A woman cannot use this loophole as she is not allowed to have two husbands, so perforce the child is a mamzer.
As mentioned, in practice polygamy was a rarity. In approximately the 10th century, one of the greatest of the European rabbinical leaders, Gershom ben Judah, impelented a prohibition against polygamy for 1,000 years. Although this is technically expired, most modern rabbinic authorities believe that this has taken on the status of a minhag yisrael, or an ancient minhag which is treated for the most part as halakha.
The heter me'ah rabbanan, or "Permission of 100 rabbis" is a loophole built into the rabbinic prohibition preventing polygamy, usually used in cases where divorce is impossible; for example, a woman who is declared insane cannot accept a Jewish divorce, as she must be of sound mind to effect the breaking of the relationship. As such, the husband is still required to care for her. However, as normal husband-wife interactions (emotional etc.) are impossible, he would be allowed, by obtaining this permission, to remarry. This is not a release from the marriage, but a legal instance of Jewish polygamy in the modern era. This is usually not secular/legal polygamy, as a secular divorce is granted, and the courts can break a marriage even with a woman who is not well.
So, the AI statement that this is a "release" is technically a misinterpretation and misunderstanding of Jewish law, but I have not changed the text, because it is what they wrote, and any correction I would make based on my own knowledge of Rabbinic law is considered original research.
Suggestions? -- Avi 14:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
So much for the marriage rights - can she sit in the front of the bus now.
159.105.80.63
18:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The section about the fence is in really bad shape - it's very POV, and doesn't even explain why the barrier was built. I want to make some changes there, but I'd like to see if there are any objections first.
okedem 10:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Way to go, you deleted the "wall" wording used in all the sources and by the international community and replaced it with the euphemisms used only by Zionists and the Israeli gov't. The whole section is so much less POV now that you "fixed" it. Sarastro777 05:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The sources list wall. Your opinion doesn't count for anything... and you certainly are not an authority above the International Court of Justice, Amnesty International, the United Nations, etc. None of them use YOUR wording. Sarastro777 01:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
reorged along the following lines:
please note NOTHING WAS DELETED--just reorged for clarity Elizmr 15:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
For some reason people keep removing this section. Could they please explain why they keep removing the following cited, relevant information:
In it's 2005 report to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women Comments by Amnesty International on the compliance by Israel with its obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), Amnesty International notes its concern about agunot (chained women): "Jewish religious divorce laws discriminate against women by making divorce for a woman conditional on her husband’s consent, whereas a man can be "released" from his marriage through the signature of 100 rabbis. Even though religious courts can take certain measures (including imposing fines and even prison sentences) against a husband whose refusal to grant a divorce to his wife is considered unjustified by the competent religious authorities, ultimately a woman whose husband refuses to grant her a get (divorce decree) has no recourse." [2] Amnesty International also criticizes the custom that the illegitimate children of married Jewish women are considered mamzerim who face restrictions and stigma, yet the illegitimate children of married Jewish men are not. According to Amnesty International, "These discriminatory laws prevent women who find themselves in unhappy marriages, or whose husbands beat them up, rape them or otherwise abuse them, to obtain divorce if their husbands refuse. These laws and their implementation violate the right to equality and the right to marry and found a family."
It's clearly about human rights in Israel and it's fulfillments of it's obligations to the UN human rights convention on the rights of women (CEDAW) and so is EXTREMELY relevant to this page. FuManChoo 10:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey Fu, It is true that the agunah problem is a serious one for some orthodox Jewish women and their kids. Many in the Orthodox Jewish feminist community are working to address it. However it is not an official Israeli policy; Isarig is correct. Respectfully, please consider investigating your facts before editing. Elizmr 02:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing that section, again. It's about rights of women in Judaism, not in Israel. If someone chooses to engage in a religious Jewish marriage, they accept these facts. Don't want to - don't get married like that. These problems have nothing to do with state laws, or rights. Besides, that section makes it look like Jews are the only ones in the country - anyone forgetting the 20% Arab minority? okedem 08:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The article completely and shamefully lacks another side of injustice: Israel persecuting conservative and religious activists and discriminating against Jews. It is a matter of common knowledge, supported by myriad sources, that Israel regularly keeps conservative Jews in administrative detention for half a year without bringing charges. That includes women and minors, as well as many known figures such as Federman, Marzel, Feiglin, ben Gvir, Tor. Israel also sentenced minors on purely political charges of protesting disengagement from Gaza. Israel routinely destroys illegally built Jewish homes, but almost never - any of the tens of thousands illegally built Arab houses. Israel requires pre-approving of Jewish real estate purchases in Hebron, using that time to discourage Arab sellers (selling houses to Jews is a capital offense in Palestinian Authority), but has no equivalent policy toward Arabs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.143.235.76 ( talk) 07:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
i suggest a further section about human rights in israel that is the human rights of israelis to live in peace. the article ignores totaly 60 years of arab/palestinian infringement of israeli human rights . i suppose you cannot understand the israeli so called crimes unless you balance that with arab crimes against israelis.the automatic majority the arabs get in UN institutions is used to stifle any attempt to make official what i describe here. so many documentations there are to prove what i mean,that there is no excuse to neglect the ordinary israeli citizen's human rights abuse by external forces. until these subjects be met,one cannot call the article objective or a high quality product. it is quite amateurish and misleading. even propogandish
I added a section on Israeli forces using sex as a weopon. THe sources are valid. HaAretz News - an Israeli newspaper, and YNetnews, which is used all over wikipedia by pro-Israel people. THese are mainstream sources. If it is removed without discussion again, I will report the Hasbarah agent who does it. You may clean up the language, and you can find other sourced information, but you may not remove sourced, germane, information simply because it reflects a reality you do not like. 82.81.234.133 10:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
YOu seem to have a fascist idea of what human rights are. Human rights violations ALWAYS happen against those who break the law. SOmetimes the law is just, sometimes unjust. THat really doesn't matter here. It becomes a human rights violation when the punishment goes beyond what is due to a human being engaged in that action. SMashing a man's testicles is a human rights violation. Threatening girls involved in civil disobedience with rape is a human rights violation. (Even if they were firing guns at the police, to threaten them with rape as a punishment is a human rights violation. These young women were sitting on the floor in an act of civil disobedience..) Having Homosexual Jews rape a Lebonese man is a human rights violation, and deserves mention in the section of the article discussing such actions. Not everyone reads an entire article. It could be somebody is interested specifically in how Israel uses homosexual assault and rape threats to control citizens and abducted foreignors. If you would like a parenthetical statement. (See other section of article for more detail) that is fine; in fact I will change it to read that a person should see the section on the rape to see another example. And the article is about human rights in Israel. SOmething that happened in the 50's is relevant because it happened in Israel. If you want to argue it doesn't happen anymore, fine. Put that in with a source. About good faith, the wikipedia policy is to ASSUME good faith. An assumption lasts only as long as it is not overturned. YOur other edits indicate you edit soley in apro-Israel hasbarah way. I do not have to continue to assume goodfaith after you have shown a propenstiy to use wikipedia to further your political stance. 82.81.234.133 08:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm also sick of a student sitting in the country under discussion single handidly erasing an entire section of an article that is important in getting an idea of the situation on the ground simply becaus he does not want the rest of the world to see that his country has problems it needs to work out. YOu edit only in a hasbarah way. THat is your only activity on wikipedia. 1) You have listed the problems with the 1950s case, and you have concocted them all. THe source is guilt and Pleasure, a reputable magazine. The fact that the article is about a group you don't like, or that the human rights violation took place in the 50's doesn't matter. It is a human rights violation of the sort the section you delete singlehandidly is about. 2)Because people are engaged in civil disobedience does not mean when they report something police did they are not believable. It may mean they must be listed as claims. Yes, but considering those police undoubtably and in photagraphic and video evidence are seen using brutality, including sexual brutality, and they are the police force of a nation with a negative human rights record, and were under the command of men who cannot leave the nation without being arrested for war crimes, the claims of dozens of girls who all claim to have experienced the same thing does deserve to be mentioned. Besides, and most importantly, if the claims were notable enough to mentioned ina news article, they are notable enough to mentioned here. 3) Thank you for repeating your Dirani argument again. As I said before. That is fine, and this time it will be placed in wording similar to :"For the famous case of Shin Bet's rape of Lebanese leader Dirani, see that section." I'm fixing and getting more sources then reposting the section. I understand you are in Tel Aviv, so I just ask that you be polite and not rape any of my relatives after I do. 88.154.234.14 08:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
BTW, you should not be editing this article at all, and if you continue to, I will report you. YOu are an adult citizen of the state of Israel, and thus, by law, have served in the IDF. Since you are a member of the organization under discussion, who may or may not be culpable in the crimes under discussion, you may not edit this page. You are not impartial. 88.154.234.14 17:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
This is not a [personal attack it is wikipedia policy. YOu are not permitted to edit this article because you are party to an outside conflict. You are a conscript or reservist in the IDF, which is under discussion here. As a party to an outside conflict you may not edit articles pertaining to that conflict as you cannot be impartial. I will report you if you continue to do so. 88.154.234.14 17:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Who said I live in Israel? And I'm sorry but WIkipedia policy is a party to an outside conflict (for example a soldier in the Israeli army) cannot edit an article concerning that conflict. 88.154.234.14 17:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as how any Israeli Citizen is possibly connected to the IDF. None of you should be editing this page as your objectivity is immediately put into question. I find it hard to believe that there is next-to-nothing of Israel's human right violations in this article, seeing as how not even the freest countries are free from such violations. Just because Amnesty or other such organization don't report on something, doesn't mean it does not exist. This article should not be taken objectively. 69.231.66.21 06:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
No matter how irrelevant you wish us to believe it to be, the identity of the editor brings the validity of their edits into question. Why would an Israeli consider something from an Arab source to be respectable? They wouldn't. And you've proven that with your utter disregard for others sources or claims that you are subjective, not objective, about what is reputable and what isn't. Mind you, I'm new to this discussion and came about this page through my research- Israel's human right abuses are widely known with or without this Wiki-article. My only point is that the reason Wiki is hardly taken seriously or objectively is because of edits like yours. But I imagine you don't care at all about objectivity in the first place, so it doesn't matter. I repeat: This article should remain disputed as an non-objective source. 69.231.32.51 08:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Is anyone opposed to moving this article to Human rights and Isreal (like Human rights and the United States), as a large portion of this article deal with events outside Isreal? — Christopher Mann McKay talk 21:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Returning to this article after sometime I noticed that editors are starting to ( probably have been doing this for some time ) delete embarrassing information. They are tending to call anything they don't like - abuse of something or even the dreaded vandalism or inappropriate blahblahblah. I remember this distinctly because I put a report from Haaretz? about a Jewish woman who was taking the bus company to court because she was being physically forced to sit in the back. I am sure I placed it here because the editors forgot to clear out the reference to it in my talk file ( have Jimbo get you guys to tighten this up - it starts to look sloppy. Anyway - foer an appropriate addition to the section on WOMEN'S STATUS, you might want to beef up the insipid thrip you have with some real info.
159.105.80.141 (
talk)
19:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I doubt there are too many academic studies on the Israeli bus system - help me if you know of any. Usually Haaretz is considered a reliable source - as I assume is the Israeli court system. However, the court case turns out, I doubt this will merit too many reliable academic sources. "Specific cases" - I believe this is all women ( Jewish, Christian, Muslem, etc ) who can not ride except in the back of the bus - maybe not de jure but ... no it's de jure if I recall correctly. 159.105.80.141 ( talk) 14:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Just out of curiousity I decide to surf the web and see how far down the memory/rabbit hole this "women in the back of the bus" story had been buried. Typying "israel women back bus" gave me mega hits - documented up the kazo as we say here. This is a major story in most Jewish communities - except of course for wiki - I am glad I decided to check it out and find that it is a fairly bad problem in Israeli society - and not just riding in the back of the bus it appears. Jewish women have websites, newspapers, etc fighting to get off the back of the bus in many areas. Thanks for the push. 159.105.80.141 ( talk) 15:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
"nothing can be done if a woman refuses to sit in the back" - then why does she have to go to court? It appears that her sitting up front was met with more than tsk tsk. Searching "israel women back bus" will clear this up quickly for those interested in the truth and getting some "reliable" sources. The "back of the bus" is only one minor problem. If the object is to minimize the "status" issue then maybe the article should just ignore it rather than say there are no problems. 159.105.80.141 ( talk) 12:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)PS Enjoy seeing Derchowitz defending - actually denying - activities that even rather uninformed Americans have seen for themselves on TV - he is always a pleasure to read about.
Sorry that one tough woman from NYC caused such a stink over in the Promised Land, but they should have quessed they were stepping in it when they forced her to the back. She was not the first - just she got a lawyer to clarify the law versus tradition ( it is unsure as to who will win). Always check - in many places - to verify whether "completely false accounts" and "things you know nothing about" and "deceive" are accurate - heck I was only looking for the status of Jewish women ( why bother with Palestinian, Christian,... that would be too distressing).
159.105.80.141 (
talk)
14:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Then the woman would not be able to go to court for a remedy. Unless Israeli law allows a person to go to court just for entertainment, she - and her lawyer - must be fighting an actual law. I think you should look up some info on this case - the internet, newspapers, a lawyer maybe ... should help. I hate to see a section with nothing in it and/or have it full of obvious garbage - particularly about my distant relatives.
159.105.80.141 (
talk)
13:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Good day - looked up Naomi Ragen - she has a website. Her personally you can put in the back of the bus with my blessings( after reading some of her junk ). You are right - partially, but not much. The government sit up segregated buses, and it turns out lots/few other segregated things ( gates to the Wall,etc - amuse yourself extend the list to your heart's desire or not). By the way there was a short lived stink when the Orthodox tried to not have female stewardesses serve them on flights here in the US a few years back - it was never publicized as to what finally happened ( I hope they were told to take a boat). I'll check next time I fly to see if the airlines quietly caved in or not. I guess Ms Ragen et al launched a lawsuit saying the government couldn't set up bus service that "discriminated". "Separate but equal" - echoes of S Africa and the good old days in the USA - it wasn't really the law here either ( Jim Crow ). The case should be decided soon I believe - it could be really embarrassing or traumatic depending on your views I guess.It is strange how in Israel you can take a nonlegal matter all the way to the Supreme Court - a civil matter if it is true that separate but equl is legal in Israel. Any info as to why/how the court took on a civil lawsuit? PS The section on women's rights should be a little more hefty - or just erased ( there my constructive hint for a better article. As it stands it just loooks evasive and goofy ( goofy is worse).
159.105.80.141 (
talk)
14:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Israeli wikipedia 'logic": A STATEMENT by the ADL or US Government run "Freedom House" re "the only democracy in the ME" is "fact". a PICTURE of a boy tied to a jeep, along with his name, and published by the BBC is a "claim by activists", and the picture itself CANNOT come in as evidence to prove that it is not a claim, but DOCUMENTED fact. A link to a website which hosts the same picture or videotape CANNOT be used because the site 'promotes hate" and in 'inherently unreliable". Boy, I'll get my arms around that one soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.234.121.15 ( talk) 21:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
here is the proof the image is rightful. ( Imad marie ( talk) 13:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC))
Schrodingers Mongoose, what is your objection to the caption? it says: "Activists claim Mohammed Badwan was tied to the jeep by police" which is neutral in my opinion, it is the same caption in the BBC site. ( Imad marie ( talk) 06:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC))
The content I added is sourced, notable, and relevant. Okedem, justify your removal of the content. Imad marie ( talk) 17:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you are not being objective in your discussions, HRW is a reliable source for sure and I think any admin would agree to that. And, sorry to tell you that, your personal opinion on this does not really matter here, what really matters is the material being cited in the reference. My advice for you, is to go through wikipedia policies, if you find that the content I added violates any policy, then please tell me and I will self-revert. Until then, I will add the content back, please do not remove it unless you are sure I have violated a wikipedia policy. Imad marie ( talk) 19:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Eleland has suggested that we restore the content, and then Okedem points to the "words" that thinks is dubious. I believe this is a fair starting point to resolve this dispute. Imad marie ( talk) 17:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I'm not going to get sidetracked into a procedural meta-debate about "stable versions" and "burdens of proof," etc. (Although, while we're wikilawyering, you're not supposed to use WP:TWinkle to edit-war in content disputes.) I'd like to deal with the specific content issues here. I'll start with the cluster bombs since I know a little bit about that issue.
First, while cluster bombs are not "prohibited weapons" per se, international law does forbid the use of legitimate weapons in an indiscriminate manner. For example, Hezbollah's shelling of Haifa with unguided artillery rockets was rightly condemned, even though Haifa contained many military and infrastructure targets of immense strategic importance (not least being a major fuel supply,) and some reports indicate that Hezbollah was clearly trying to hit them. The indisputable strategic value of those targets did not offset the threat to civilians; the method of attack could not discriminate between military and civilians.
As HRW put it, "Indiscriminate attacks [... include] those that employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by international humanitarian law. [...] The “means” of combat refers generally to the weapons used while the term “method” refers to the way in which such weapons are used." On the specific issue of cluster munitions, they said that "The wide dispersal pattern of cluster munitions and the high dud rate (ranging from 2 to 14 percent, depending on the type of cluster munition) make the weapons exceedingly dangerous for civilians and, when used in populated areas, a violation of international humanitarian law."
Perhaps the exact phrasing of "prohibited weapon" is problematic, but that indicates that a few words need tweaking, not that the entire contribution should be reverted.
Okedem, you have stated repeatedly that "this is about facts, not baseless claims." But it is a fact that HRW stated that Israel used weapons that, when used in populated areas, violate international humanitarian law. Wikipedia need not report that claim as necessarily true; but that the claim was made is itself a fact. WP:ASF. < eleland/ talk edits> 23:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Not confirm the war happened, confirm the human rights violations. I said before that I will not get into political discussions with you, I changed my mind: throughout the 1 month war, Israel got itself busy with bombing civilian targets, the intentional targeting of civilians was obvious, I don't think many would deny that. Israel killed 1,000 civilians and destroyed much of the Lebanese infrastructure in retaliation of killing 8 of its soldiers, isn't this crazy? you say civilian casualties has to happen in a war, well let's check the numbers: Israel killed 1,200 Lebanese among them are 1,000 civilians, the percentage is 83%. Hezbollah killed 158 Israelis among them are 41 civilians, the percentage is 26%, who is the war criminal? numbers talk. Katyusha rockets were only a response to the Israeli bombing and they were to stop as soon as the Israeli bombing stops, this was stated by Nasrallah. Just yesterday, Israel killed 61 Palestinians (many of them are children) in retaliation of killing one Israeli civilian, who is the war criminal? Stop defending your army, it has been accused of committing war crimes and those accusations have to be documented, and this article is the best place to do that. Imad marie ( talk) 06:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I created a new section that I suggest continuing the discussion there. Imad marie ( talk) 13:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I came here from WP:3O. I understand there are 2 disputes here:
(copied from Leifern's talk page by Eleland)
Care to explain how switching the order of two paragraphs is "well-poisoning?" [10]
I was only trying to make the article conform to the WP:MOS, as well as common sense. I think you need to lay off the revert button, and try to be a little less hostile. < eleland/ talk edits> 18:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I created a new section that I suggest continuing the discussion there. Imad marie ( talk) 13:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Your edit summary: "→Treatment of prisoners - someone conveniently (my emphasis) deleted the 70 sick prisoners are in fact children, which was stated previously," assumes bad faith. If you read the quote, it is not clear if 70 of the total prisioners are ill or 70 of the minors are ill. I thought it was probably the former, but did not and would not "conveniently" delete anything. Assuming that everyone who doesn't agree with you is also unscrupulous is completely fallicious. There are people with and without scruples on every side of every issue. Elizmr 00:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
To quote the source: "According to the Bureau, 70 children are ill due to the lack of basic medical attention." It's not a matter of assumption when you feign confusion with such an obvious quote. Sarastro777 01:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
That is not only how it reads in the text, that is a direct quote which anyone can verify. The only personal attack was from you: "everyone who doesn't agree with you is also unscrupulous." Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks Sarastro777 01:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Sarastro, If you read above, (I'll find the link soon) you'll see that the Palestinian Beureu of Statsitics may or may not be a reliable source. If we can back this up with data from the Israeli beureu, I'd feel better about it. And I know, I could never spell beareu. -- Avi 01:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
LOL. I meant the talk page, here, hold on. Talk:Human rights in Israel#Political prisoners?. Please see John's response to me on this. -- Avi 02:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Now *I* called you unscrupulous? I did a search for that word and it comes up only in your edit or where I am quoting your edit. The line in question is a completely separate sentence in which the subject is the children. Was it the comma that confused you? What language are YOU speaking? It's not a greatly constructed sentence, but even if you were confused, why did you just outright delete it? (rather than look at the source which was there and immediately clarifies any confusion?) I just don't see where you thought you were going with the way you handled this, from a constructive/collaborative frame of mind and now attacking me as if I was the one that made the mistake. You are probably very well-inentioned, in fact I would assume you are... but since you did delete the line because you were confused and did not check the source, the description of convenient deletion is very apt. 5 more seconds of work would have made it unnecessary. Sarastro777 02:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Elizmr - the sentence as it was constructed was extremely unclear as to whether it was 70 children or 70 people. On the other hand, it probably would have been better to check the source first, before deleting, but it was obviously an honest mistake, and not some kind of conspiracy. Beyond that, I think Elizmr was saying that Sarastro accused him of being unscrupulous by "conveniently" deleting something, not that Sarastro accused him of being "unscrupulous," using that precise word. Really, everyone should chill out here. This one issue not that big a deal, and not worth an argument. john k 03:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Obviously you did do the 'convenient' thing, by not taking the extra time to check the fact and just deleting a cited sentence. Of course this is all the edit note ever claimed. I don't understand what you want. I never accused you of not acting in good faith. Definitely not worth an argument as Johnk said. Sarastro777 22:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I added the weasel tag primarily because of the following phrase: "Amnesty International has been accused of having a double standard when it comes to its assessment of Israel.". Accused by whom? Israel? Doesn't sound neutral to me. 62.142.46.22 10:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
Worth noting that Pollard was paid a lot of money by the Israeli government for his espionage work. Vanunu leaked information to the press. One can understand why the Israeli government wouldn't want people doing this, but the situation really isn't comparable to the Pollard situation. john k 20:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Besides the fact that this is not a HR issue, even according to YOUR OWN QUOTE it is not a problem, because you are hanging your hat on the AI articles saying, in April of 2005, that “If Mordechai Vanunu were to be imprisoned for breaching the restrictions imposed on him, Amnesty International would consider him to be a prisoner of conscience.” He has not been imprisoned as far as I can tell today in 2006, only the restrictions have been extended. So you have no leg to stand on, from your own article. -- Avi 05:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Acccording to Amnesty International which is a Human Rights Group this IS a human rights issue. See [ [1]] I quote verbatim "9. The SCM concluded that Amnesty International must now call for the release of Mordechai Vanunu, as a way to end his continued solitary confinement and as a way to redress the other human rights violations he has suffered." FYI this edit got me a NPOV warning from User:Avraham [2] -- Oiboy77 18:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The Vanunu stuff seems to be being reinserted and removed by various editors over the last few days. I think this needs to be discussed here, rather than continuing the reversions.
I'm not convinced on the merits of including some mention of him or not, but if it is to be included, the current text isn't very good. The "if he violates the restrictions" wording is very awkward, especially since the nature of the restrictions has not been discussed in the article. There are two issues here: 1) his original imprisonment for treason; and 2) his current restrictions, and his status if he were imprisoned for violating them. The current version does not clarify this distinction at all. This needs to be done if a discussion of him is going to be in the article. john k 19:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Please see section 10 above -- Avi 20:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
It is a little more understandable if the issue is the writing in the section, which can be addressed. I hope this is now the accepted viewpoint. The previous arguments being made to justify deleting the material consisted of "there is a law" or "there is a limit to freedom." Certainly the mere existence of some law does not ever morally legitimize any behavior by gov't. See: Nuremberg_Racial_Purity_Laws
Some sources on the matter: Another AI source: "The organization is also calling for his [Vanunu's] release from custody as redress for the persistent and past human rights violations to which he has been subjected." ^-- background on the "persistent human rights violations" are documented in [ [3]] Sarastro777 20:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, that source is as of 1998. -- Avi 21:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
So, Human Rights violations are erased from ever having existed after a period of time? Sarastro777 21:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The comparison is blindly claiming the existence of a law exempts gov't from human rights scrutiny, which has been done on this subject. In the obvious example above we can see that is a false argument. There are also wider issues of his status as Whistleblower, which means he was reporting behavior that could be considered illegal under international law. This is not a matter for us to decide, but there is a massive amount of Human Rights violations perceived by numerous organizations, basing around his 'freedom of speech.' This IS something that is relevant to this article. Sarastro777 20:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Amnesty International is a reliable organization. You need to quit pushing the excuses. I didn't see you worrying about reliability when quoting Op/Ed pieces by "Neo Cons" and David Horowitz, whatever you would call him. Sarastro777 01:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Awww.. that doesn't sound like an Administrator attempting to collaborate. I don't think we can devote anymore space to conspiracy theories on major human rights groups being anti-semitic. As it stands this is probably at least 1/4 of the bulk of "Human Rights in Israel." Sarastro777 06:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you kidding? AI's credibility is disputed? By who? Human rights violators. Is the UNs credibility also disputed to the point where any mention of their criticism of Israel can just be deleted. Is there any human rights organiation not directly run by the State of Israel who's record meats the Hasbarah crowd's standards? !!!!
I've added sources about Bakri's deposition that his film is not accurate, and that he did take "artistic liberty" in filming it. Are the sources false? Am I not using them correctly? okedem 08:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Warring parties - Moshe and Deuterium - please discuss this section here before reverting each other's work again. okedem 07:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The first paragraph, while a faithful rendition of the AI statement, is actually based on a slight misinterpretation of Rabbinic Law on AI's part. I will try to explain it as clearly as I can, and then we can discuss whether or not the article needs adjustment, and how to do so without violation WP:OR.
Biblical law allows male polygamy. Historically, this was a rarity, left as the perview of kings and wealthy men, as the biblical requirements of spousal support (financial, emotional, sexual, and child support to name some major responsibilities) were in general too demanding on men to fulfill with more than one wife. King David had 18 wives, and the Midrash brings down that this strained even he, the King of all Israel. Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with the Bible in theory, this explains the difference between the child's status if the father or mother was married. If we are not talking about one of the other forbidden relationships (incestual or otherwise) whose punishment is divine excommunication and early death from Heaven (Kares), and the only illegitamicy comes from the marital status of one of the partners, then if the man is the married partner, his having sex and a child from an unmarried woman is viewed as tantamount to marrying her (there are three biblical methods of entering a marriage, and having sexual relations with intent to consumate a marriage is one of them). A woman cannot use this loophole as she is not allowed to have two husbands, so perforce the child is a mamzer.
As mentioned, in practice polygamy was a rarity. In approximately the 10th century, one of the greatest of the European rabbinical leaders, Gershom ben Judah, impelented a prohibition against polygamy for 1,000 years. Although this is technically expired, most modern rabbinic authorities believe that this has taken on the status of a minhag yisrael, or an ancient minhag which is treated for the most part as halakha.
The heter me'ah rabbanan, or "Permission of 100 rabbis" is a loophole built into the rabbinic prohibition preventing polygamy, usually used in cases where divorce is impossible; for example, a woman who is declared insane cannot accept a Jewish divorce, as she must be of sound mind to effect the breaking of the relationship. As such, the husband is still required to care for her. However, as normal husband-wife interactions (emotional etc.) are impossible, he would be allowed, by obtaining this permission, to remarry. This is not a release from the marriage, but a legal instance of Jewish polygamy in the modern era. This is usually not secular/legal polygamy, as a secular divorce is granted, and the courts can break a marriage even with a woman who is not well.
So, the AI statement that this is a "release" is technically a misinterpretation and misunderstanding of Jewish law, but I have not changed the text, because it is what they wrote, and any correction I would make based on my own knowledge of Rabbinic law is considered original research.
Suggestions? -- Avi 14:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
So much for the marriage rights - can she sit in the front of the bus now.
159.105.80.63
18:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The section about the fence is in really bad shape - it's very POV, and doesn't even explain why the barrier was built. I want to make some changes there, but I'd like to see if there are any objections first.
okedem 10:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Way to go, you deleted the "wall" wording used in all the sources and by the international community and replaced it with the euphemisms used only by Zionists and the Israeli gov't. The whole section is so much less POV now that you "fixed" it. Sarastro777 05:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The sources list wall. Your opinion doesn't count for anything... and you certainly are not an authority above the International Court of Justice, Amnesty International, the United Nations, etc. None of them use YOUR wording. Sarastro777 01:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
reorged along the following lines:
please note NOTHING WAS DELETED--just reorged for clarity Elizmr 15:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
For some reason people keep removing this section. Could they please explain why they keep removing the following cited, relevant information:
In it's 2005 report to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women Comments by Amnesty International on the compliance by Israel with its obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), Amnesty International notes its concern about agunot (chained women): "Jewish religious divorce laws discriminate against women by making divorce for a woman conditional on her husband’s consent, whereas a man can be "released" from his marriage through the signature of 100 rabbis. Even though religious courts can take certain measures (including imposing fines and even prison sentences) against a husband whose refusal to grant a divorce to his wife is considered unjustified by the competent religious authorities, ultimately a woman whose husband refuses to grant her a get (divorce decree) has no recourse." [2] Amnesty International also criticizes the custom that the illegitimate children of married Jewish women are considered mamzerim who face restrictions and stigma, yet the illegitimate children of married Jewish men are not. According to Amnesty International, "These discriminatory laws prevent women who find themselves in unhappy marriages, or whose husbands beat them up, rape them or otherwise abuse them, to obtain divorce if their husbands refuse. These laws and their implementation violate the right to equality and the right to marry and found a family."
It's clearly about human rights in Israel and it's fulfillments of it's obligations to the UN human rights convention on the rights of women (CEDAW) and so is EXTREMELY relevant to this page. FuManChoo 10:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey Fu, It is true that the agunah problem is a serious one for some orthodox Jewish women and their kids. Many in the Orthodox Jewish feminist community are working to address it. However it is not an official Israeli policy; Isarig is correct. Respectfully, please consider investigating your facts before editing. Elizmr 02:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing that section, again. It's about rights of women in Judaism, not in Israel. If someone chooses to engage in a religious Jewish marriage, they accept these facts. Don't want to - don't get married like that. These problems have nothing to do with state laws, or rights. Besides, that section makes it look like Jews are the only ones in the country - anyone forgetting the 20% Arab minority? okedem 08:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The article completely and shamefully lacks another side of injustice: Israel persecuting conservative and religious activists and discriminating against Jews. It is a matter of common knowledge, supported by myriad sources, that Israel regularly keeps conservative Jews in administrative detention for half a year without bringing charges. That includes women and minors, as well as many known figures such as Federman, Marzel, Feiglin, ben Gvir, Tor. Israel also sentenced minors on purely political charges of protesting disengagement from Gaza. Israel routinely destroys illegally built Jewish homes, but almost never - any of the tens of thousands illegally built Arab houses. Israel requires pre-approving of Jewish real estate purchases in Hebron, using that time to discourage Arab sellers (selling houses to Jews is a capital offense in Palestinian Authority), but has no equivalent policy toward Arabs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.143.235.76 ( talk) 07:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
i suggest a further section about human rights in israel that is the human rights of israelis to live in peace. the article ignores totaly 60 years of arab/palestinian infringement of israeli human rights . i suppose you cannot understand the israeli so called crimes unless you balance that with arab crimes against israelis.the automatic majority the arabs get in UN institutions is used to stifle any attempt to make official what i describe here. so many documentations there are to prove what i mean,that there is no excuse to neglect the ordinary israeli citizen's human rights abuse by external forces. until these subjects be met,one cannot call the article objective or a high quality product. it is quite amateurish and misleading. even propogandish
I added a section on Israeli forces using sex as a weopon. THe sources are valid. HaAretz News - an Israeli newspaper, and YNetnews, which is used all over wikipedia by pro-Israel people. THese are mainstream sources. If it is removed without discussion again, I will report the Hasbarah agent who does it. You may clean up the language, and you can find other sourced information, but you may not remove sourced, germane, information simply because it reflects a reality you do not like. 82.81.234.133 10:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
YOu seem to have a fascist idea of what human rights are. Human rights violations ALWAYS happen against those who break the law. SOmetimes the law is just, sometimes unjust. THat really doesn't matter here. It becomes a human rights violation when the punishment goes beyond what is due to a human being engaged in that action. SMashing a man's testicles is a human rights violation. Threatening girls involved in civil disobedience with rape is a human rights violation. (Even if they were firing guns at the police, to threaten them with rape as a punishment is a human rights violation. These young women were sitting on the floor in an act of civil disobedience..) Having Homosexual Jews rape a Lebonese man is a human rights violation, and deserves mention in the section of the article discussing such actions. Not everyone reads an entire article. It could be somebody is interested specifically in how Israel uses homosexual assault and rape threats to control citizens and abducted foreignors. If you would like a parenthetical statement. (See other section of article for more detail) that is fine; in fact I will change it to read that a person should see the section on the rape to see another example. And the article is about human rights in Israel. SOmething that happened in the 50's is relevant because it happened in Israel. If you want to argue it doesn't happen anymore, fine. Put that in with a source. About good faith, the wikipedia policy is to ASSUME good faith. An assumption lasts only as long as it is not overturned. YOur other edits indicate you edit soley in apro-Israel hasbarah way. I do not have to continue to assume goodfaith after you have shown a propenstiy to use wikipedia to further your political stance. 82.81.234.133 08:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm also sick of a student sitting in the country under discussion single handidly erasing an entire section of an article that is important in getting an idea of the situation on the ground simply becaus he does not want the rest of the world to see that his country has problems it needs to work out. YOu edit only in a hasbarah way. THat is your only activity on wikipedia. 1) You have listed the problems with the 1950s case, and you have concocted them all. THe source is guilt and Pleasure, a reputable magazine. The fact that the article is about a group you don't like, or that the human rights violation took place in the 50's doesn't matter. It is a human rights violation of the sort the section you delete singlehandidly is about. 2)Because people are engaged in civil disobedience does not mean when they report something police did they are not believable. It may mean they must be listed as claims. Yes, but considering those police undoubtably and in photagraphic and video evidence are seen using brutality, including sexual brutality, and they are the police force of a nation with a negative human rights record, and were under the command of men who cannot leave the nation without being arrested for war crimes, the claims of dozens of girls who all claim to have experienced the same thing does deserve to be mentioned. Besides, and most importantly, if the claims were notable enough to mentioned ina news article, they are notable enough to mentioned here. 3) Thank you for repeating your Dirani argument again. As I said before. That is fine, and this time it will be placed in wording similar to :"For the famous case of Shin Bet's rape of Lebanese leader Dirani, see that section." I'm fixing and getting more sources then reposting the section. I understand you are in Tel Aviv, so I just ask that you be polite and not rape any of my relatives after I do. 88.154.234.14 08:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
BTW, you should not be editing this article at all, and if you continue to, I will report you. YOu are an adult citizen of the state of Israel, and thus, by law, have served in the IDF. Since you are a member of the organization under discussion, who may or may not be culpable in the crimes under discussion, you may not edit this page. You are not impartial. 88.154.234.14 17:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
This is not a [personal attack it is wikipedia policy. YOu are not permitted to edit this article because you are party to an outside conflict. You are a conscript or reservist in the IDF, which is under discussion here. As a party to an outside conflict you may not edit articles pertaining to that conflict as you cannot be impartial. I will report you if you continue to do so. 88.154.234.14 17:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Who said I live in Israel? And I'm sorry but WIkipedia policy is a party to an outside conflict (for example a soldier in the Israeli army) cannot edit an article concerning that conflict. 88.154.234.14 17:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as how any Israeli Citizen is possibly connected to the IDF. None of you should be editing this page as your objectivity is immediately put into question. I find it hard to believe that there is next-to-nothing of Israel's human right violations in this article, seeing as how not even the freest countries are free from such violations. Just because Amnesty or other such organization don't report on something, doesn't mean it does not exist. This article should not be taken objectively. 69.231.66.21 06:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
No matter how irrelevant you wish us to believe it to be, the identity of the editor brings the validity of their edits into question. Why would an Israeli consider something from an Arab source to be respectable? They wouldn't. And you've proven that with your utter disregard for others sources or claims that you are subjective, not objective, about what is reputable and what isn't. Mind you, I'm new to this discussion and came about this page through my research- Israel's human right abuses are widely known with or without this Wiki-article. My only point is that the reason Wiki is hardly taken seriously or objectively is because of edits like yours. But I imagine you don't care at all about objectivity in the first place, so it doesn't matter. I repeat: This article should remain disputed as an non-objective source. 69.231.32.51 08:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Is anyone opposed to moving this article to Human rights and Isreal (like Human rights and the United States), as a large portion of this article deal with events outside Isreal? — Christopher Mann McKay talk 21:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Returning to this article after sometime I noticed that editors are starting to ( probably have been doing this for some time ) delete embarrassing information. They are tending to call anything they don't like - abuse of something or even the dreaded vandalism or inappropriate blahblahblah. I remember this distinctly because I put a report from Haaretz? about a Jewish woman who was taking the bus company to court because she was being physically forced to sit in the back. I am sure I placed it here because the editors forgot to clear out the reference to it in my talk file ( have Jimbo get you guys to tighten this up - it starts to look sloppy. Anyway - foer an appropriate addition to the section on WOMEN'S STATUS, you might want to beef up the insipid thrip you have with some real info.
159.105.80.141 (
talk)
19:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I doubt there are too many academic studies on the Israeli bus system - help me if you know of any. Usually Haaretz is considered a reliable source - as I assume is the Israeli court system. However, the court case turns out, I doubt this will merit too many reliable academic sources. "Specific cases" - I believe this is all women ( Jewish, Christian, Muslem, etc ) who can not ride except in the back of the bus - maybe not de jure but ... no it's de jure if I recall correctly. 159.105.80.141 ( talk) 14:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Just out of curiousity I decide to surf the web and see how far down the memory/rabbit hole this "women in the back of the bus" story had been buried. Typying "israel women back bus" gave me mega hits - documented up the kazo as we say here. This is a major story in most Jewish communities - except of course for wiki - I am glad I decided to check it out and find that it is a fairly bad problem in Israeli society - and not just riding in the back of the bus it appears. Jewish women have websites, newspapers, etc fighting to get off the back of the bus in many areas. Thanks for the push. 159.105.80.141 ( talk) 15:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
"nothing can be done if a woman refuses to sit in the back" - then why does she have to go to court? It appears that her sitting up front was met with more than tsk tsk. Searching "israel women back bus" will clear this up quickly for those interested in the truth and getting some "reliable" sources. The "back of the bus" is only one minor problem. If the object is to minimize the "status" issue then maybe the article should just ignore it rather than say there are no problems. 159.105.80.141 ( talk) 12:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)PS Enjoy seeing Derchowitz defending - actually denying - activities that even rather uninformed Americans have seen for themselves on TV - he is always a pleasure to read about.
Sorry that one tough woman from NYC caused such a stink over in the Promised Land, but they should have quessed they were stepping in it when they forced her to the back. She was not the first - just she got a lawyer to clarify the law versus tradition ( it is unsure as to who will win). Always check - in many places - to verify whether "completely false accounts" and "things you know nothing about" and "deceive" are accurate - heck I was only looking for the status of Jewish women ( why bother with Palestinian, Christian,... that would be too distressing).
159.105.80.141 (
talk)
14:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Then the woman would not be able to go to court for a remedy. Unless Israeli law allows a person to go to court just for entertainment, she - and her lawyer - must be fighting an actual law. I think you should look up some info on this case - the internet, newspapers, a lawyer maybe ... should help. I hate to see a section with nothing in it and/or have it full of obvious garbage - particularly about my distant relatives.
159.105.80.141 (
talk)
13:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Good day - looked up Naomi Ragen - she has a website. Her personally you can put in the back of the bus with my blessings( after reading some of her junk ). You are right - partially, but not much. The government sit up segregated buses, and it turns out lots/few other segregated things ( gates to the Wall,etc - amuse yourself extend the list to your heart's desire or not). By the way there was a short lived stink when the Orthodox tried to not have female stewardesses serve them on flights here in the US a few years back - it was never publicized as to what finally happened ( I hope they were told to take a boat). I'll check next time I fly to see if the airlines quietly caved in or not. I guess Ms Ragen et al launched a lawsuit saying the government couldn't set up bus service that "discriminated". "Separate but equal" - echoes of S Africa and the good old days in the USA - it wasn't really the law here either ( Jim Crow ). The case should be decided soon I believe - it could be really embarrassing or traumatic depending on your views I guess.It is strange how in Israel you can take a nonlegal matter all the way to the Supreme Court - a civil matter if it is true that separate but equl is legal in Israel. Any info as to why/how the court took on a civil lawsuit? PS The section on women's rights should be a little more hefty - or just erased ( there my constructive hint for a better article. As it stands it just loooks evasive and goofy ( goofy is worse).
159.105.80.141 (
talk)
14:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Israeli wikipedia 'logic": A STATEMENT by the ADL or US Government run "Freedom House" re "the only democracy in the ME" is "fact". a PICTURE of a boy tied to a jeep, along with his name, and published by the BBC is a "claim by activists", and the picture itself CANNOT come in as evidence to prove that it is not a claim, but DOCUMENTED fact. A link to a website which hosts the same picture or videotape CANNOT be used because the site 'promotes hate" and in 'inherently unreliable". Boy, I'll get my arms around that one soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.234.121.15 ( talk) 21:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
here is the proof the image is rightful. ( Imad marie ( talk) 13:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC))
Schrodingers Mongoose, what is your objection to the caption? it says: "Activists claim Mohammed Badwan was tied to the jeep by police" which is neutral in my opinion, it is the same caption in the BBC site. ( Imad marie ( talk) 06:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC))
The content I added is sourced, notable, and relevant. Okedem, justify your removal of the content. Imad marie ( talk) 17:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you are not being objective in your discussions, HRW is a reliable source for sure and I think any admin would agree to that. And, sorry to tell you that, your personal opinion on this does not really matter here, what really matters is the material being cited in the reference. My advice for you, is to go through wikipedia policies, if you find that the content I added violates any policy, then please tell me and I will self-revert. Until then, I will add the content back, please do not remove it unless you are sure I have violated a wikipedia policy. Imad marie ( talk) 19:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Eleland has suggested that we restore the content, and then Okedem points to the "words" that thinks is dubious. I believe this is a fair starting point to resolve this dispute. Imad marie ( talk) 17:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I'm not going to get sidetracked into a procedural meta-debate about "stable versions" and "burdens of proof," etc. (Although, while we're wikilawyering, you're not supposed to use WP:TWinkle to edit-war in content disputes.) I'd like to deal with the specific content issues here. I'll start with the cluster bombs since I know a little bit about that issue.
First, while cluster bombs are not "prohibited weapons" per se, international law does forbid the use of legitimate weapons in an indiscriminate manner. For example, Hezbollah's shelling of Haifa with unguided artillery rockets was rightly condemned, even though Haifa contained many military and infrastructure targets of immense strategic importance (not least being a major fuel supply,) and some reports indicate that Hezbollah was clearly trying to hit them. The indisputable strategic value of those targets did not offset the threat to civilians; the method of attack could not discriminate between military and civilians.
As HRW put it, "Indiscriminate attacks [... include] those that employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by international humanitarian law. [...] The “means” of combat refers generally to the weapons used while the term “method” refers to the way in which such weapons are used." On the specific issue of cluster munitions, they said that "The wide dispersal pattern of cluster munitions and the high dud rate (ranging from 2 to 14 percent, depending on the type of cluster munition) make the weapons exceedingly dangerous for civilians and, when used in populated areas, a violation of international humanitarian law."
Perhaps the exact phrasing of "prohibited weapon" is problematic, but that indicates that a few words need tweaking, not that the entire contribution should be reverted.
Okedem, you have stated repeatedly that "this is about facts, not baseless claims." But it is a fact that HRW stated that Israel used weapons that, when used in populated areas, violate international humanitarian law. Wikipedia need not report that claim as necessarily true; but that the claim was made is itself a fact. WP:ASF. < eleland/ talk edits> 23:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Not confirm the war happened, confirm the human rights violations. I said before that I will not get into political discussions with you, I changed my mind: throughout the 1 month war, Israel got itself busy with bombing civilian targets, the intentional targeting of civilians was obvious, I don't think many would deny that. Israel killed 1,000 civilians and destroyed much of the Lebanese infrastructure in retaliation of killing 8 of its soldiers, isn't this crazy? you say civilian casualties has to happen in a war, well let's check the numbers: Israel killed 1,200 Lebanese among them are 1,000 civilians, the percentage is 83%. Hezbollah killed 158 Israelis among them are 41 civilians, the percentage is 26%, who is the war criminal? numbers talk. Katyusha rockets were only a response to the Israeli bombing and they were to stop as soon as the Israeli bombing stops, this was stated by Nasrallah. Just yesterday, Israel killed 61 Palestinians (many of them are children) in retaliation of killing one Israeli civilian, who is the war criminal? Stop defending your army, it has been accused of committing war crimes and those accusations have to be documented, and this article is the best place to do that. Imad marie ( talk) 06:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I created a new section that I suggest continuing the discussion there. Imad marie ( talk) 13:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I came here from WP:3O. I understand there are 2 disputes here:
(copied from Leifern's talk page by Eleland)
Care to explain how switching the order of two paragraphs is "well-poisoning?" [10]
I was only trying to make the article conform to the WP:MOS, as well as common sense. I think you need to lay off the revert button, and try to be a little less hostile. < eleland/ talk edits> 18:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I created a new section that I suggest continuing the discussion there. Imad marie ( talk) 13:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)