Talk:Human rights in Israel/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

3O two

Hello everyone;

I also see two issues. As to the issue, its fair use, because;
1. It is being used for a nonprofit educational purpose
2. No financial value is being derived from its use
3. Our licensing specifically bars commercial use by readers

As to the NPOV issue, I feel that the section in question should be included because under WP:VERIFY we are not here to discover the truth. We are here to add reliable information. Imad marie has met verifiability for his edit, because it is cited and neutral.

Geoff Plourde (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If this issue still is not resolved, file an RfC. If necessary, I will certify the basis. Geoff Plourde (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned that this is being certified as neutral when the organizations making the claim are being described as "activists". Neutral activists do not exist. Furthermore, when things are written with "allegedly" all over the place because the source provides no actual evidence, weasel words come into the picture as well. Sorry to keep on this, but this section absolutely should not remain without addressing its bias and lack of proof. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, well theres room for a refutation. Would you be willing to draft something? Geoff Plourde (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Documenting events that occurred outside of Israel

I suggest we continue the related discussions here Imad marie (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked over other articles of this kind ("Human rights in..."), and just like this one, they don't detail wars. They are always about the rights and violations in the country. Now, we add to this the situation in the Occupied Territories (except PA territory), since they are under Israel's direct control, and have been for 41 years, but events of a war aren't continuous, and aren't the "situation" people look for when reading about this kind of article. okedem (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the situation of Israel is different than the situation of other countries. Many wars have happened in the middle-east throughout the previous decades, in which Israel was involved in most of those wars. The claims of human rights violations during those wars is indeed relevant to this article, I really see no other place to discuss those claims in relation with Israel but this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imad marie (talk • contribs) 13:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

First off, no other wars are treated here, nor are they mentioned in the article for the other countries involved (Egypt, Jordan, Syria). Second, the issue is detailed in Allegations of war crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War, which is linked from multiple articles, including this one. okedem (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I will file an RFC for this. Imad marie (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

RFC - events that occured outside of Israel

Long discussions have happened here and here if events outside of Israel should be included in this article 13:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imad marie (talk • contribs)

There is no reason not to include the events that happened in the 2006 Lebanon war. When I read this article, I expect to find everything about Israel regarding the human rights, no need to censor any information. Imad marie (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Imad, considering the topic has its very own long and detailed article, and that this article links to it (and that was the version I reverted to), claims of censorship are not in place. This is an editorial decision, of focus and scope, not any attempt to censor information.

To the point, glancing at other similar articles, they don't mention wars, nor does this article mention any other war. This is probably because the scope of the article is the human rights situation in the country itself, meaning - what the people in the country experience, what rights they are given, and what violations of those rights are there. A cursory glance will reveal those classic topics in the headings: "Freedom of speech", "Freedom of religion", "LGBT rights", etc. The Lebanon War is not an ongoing situation. South Lebanon isn't under Israel's control. Whatever happened then has no bearing on the situation today, and no bearing on the people under Israel's control (in Israel proper, and in some of the territories). Thus, the topic of the war should remain in its own article, not seep into others. okedem (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The version I'm suggesting is here, as you can see it's a summary paragraph that links to the main articles. In my opinion the factor that should be decisive in including/excluding the suggested paragraph is notability, is the 2006 war notable enough? Yes it is, the war has brought world wide attention, it has been debated in the United Nations and was of an obvious attention of by multiple world leaders. About wars and human rights, take a look at the Human rights and the United States article, is discusses the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as they are notable enough. Imad marie (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Your version contains numerous falsities and misleading phrasings, as I've detailed above.
2. No one is saying the war isn't notable. Hollywood is notable too, but still has no place in this article.
3. Your claim about the US article is simply untruthful - the article makes no mention of the wars, only of the subsequent occupation, and only with regards to treatment of prisoners and renditions. The wars themselves aren't discussed at all. okedem (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think 2006 Lebanon War, Allegations of war crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War and other articles demonstrate that human rights issues taking place outside Israel can be handled outside this article. However, this article should link to those others where appropriate. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Very good, buy you have to write a summery paragraph, you cannot put a plain link or a single sentence, it's unencyclopedic. Imad marie (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Ground

Can we get ourselves on neutral ground and work from there? For example, can we get a list of issues in one place, so they can be dealt with once and for all. If no one objects I will try to mediate this out. As an aside, this is for anyone here who is losing friends in the current mess, I will be praying for a quick resolution and for all the people who have died or are suffering. Geoff Plourde (talk) 04:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe the only disputed issue now is whether this article should include events that happened outside of Israel. Imad marie (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, This article is titled human rights in Israel. If you are thinking of stuff done by the military, might it not be better suited to a section in the Israeli Defense Forces article? If I am missing your rationale, please correct me. Geoff Plourde (talk) 07:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This is my argument: when I'm reading this article, I'm expecting to find everything about Israel relating to the human rights. And in my opinion this article should be the centralized place to do so, not the IDF or any other sub-Israeli article, because suppose we have some arguments regarding the Mossad for example, then this article should be the centralized place to document this as well, without scattering the information in different articles. Imad marie (talk) 13:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

These are my arguments:

• Articles should serve to clarify, not confuse issues. An article about the human rights situation for people in (different parts of) Lebanon, Palestinians in various places around the world, etc., should include all factors that affect their situation, not just one.
• By the same token, events that affect people's human rights situation should be described contextually. People who live in war zones have much more difficult lives, even when they are not being targeted. Soldiers who serve in a hostile environment are more vigilant and jumpy.
• I have proposed that there be articles about the human rights situation for people on the West Bank, Gaza, Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan, and elsewhere, etc. This would include all the important facts and discuss what effect Israeli policies have on their situation. --Leifern (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Imad, would making articles on Palestine and such be acceptable?Geoff Plourde (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Suppose we are talking about Palestinians in relation with the human rights, and suppose the Palestinian army (which does not exist of course) has committed human rights violations in a neighbouring country, don't you think that this is notable enough to be included in the article? Imad marie (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, this is not supposing. Whether or not they call themselves an army, both Hamas and PNA (Fatah) have large armed forces with weapons capable of inflicting significant harm. And they commit human rights violations every day in neighboring countries, and not just Israel. --Leifern (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Imad, you're avoiding the issue here. This article is for a continuous situation, not singular occasions. This is the same for other articles of this kind ("Human rights in..."), and is true even for the example you falsely cited (the US). Wars don't belong in this article. okedem (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright then, since everyone thinks that this is not the place to mention war events. Imad marie (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

From the title, I would have to agree with Okedem. Maybe we should add a Human Rights section to the current conflict page and link it in See Also, would that be acceptable? Geoff Plourde (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get your suggestion. What conflict page you mean? Human rights in Israel or Allegations of war crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War? Imad marie (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You mean linking to Allegations of war crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War in the see also section, and we already have a single sentence linking to the article. Okedem are you OK with that? Imad marie (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. okedem (talk) 05:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I mean whichever conflict page the human rights violations occurred during. I.E. Israel starts shooting people at random in Lebanon during invasion, it goes in the relevant article and we link to it in see also. Sound like a plan from here on out? Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. Imad marie (talk) 06:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Reset indent. The issue is whether these should be articles about the alleged perpetrators or the alleged victims. As the misery endured by Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, or Jordan are a result of many different factors but still end up in misery, I think it's better to write articles about the victims rather than the alleged perpetrators. --Leifern (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

How about writing about both? Geoff Plourde (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Comparisons

The comparison of Israel with Israeli occupied territories and Territories under Palestinian National Authority (still controlled by Israel) is fair and warranted.

However the comparison with Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt is unwarranted. There is really no rationale (except these countries share a border with Israel). I could similarly suggest comparing Israel's freedom with countries who share the same GDP as Israel.

Ofcourse, if reliable sources make this comparison we may include it was well. But as of now I see no such sources.Bless sins (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I can't find another state with a similar section. Unless an excellent argument for its retention is put forward, I'll delete it. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Rights"

This article is about human "rights", not charity or festivities. Thus the following is inappropriate, esp. under Freedom of Religion:

In 2006, the municipality of Jerusalem made many preparations for the Muslim holy month of Ramadan including the purchase and firing of shells for a special cannon used to signal the start and end of fasting and prayer times, the adornment of the Old City’s gates with lights in honor of the holiday, and sanitary lamb-slaughtering facilities for use during the three-day Eid el Fitr celebration at the end of the month. In addition, the city's welfare department will be distributing holiday gifts to needy Muslim families ahead of the holiday.

While this discussion is relevant in Islam in Israel or Arab citizens of Israel, it has no place here, because we're discussing whether Muslims (and Jews and Christians) are granted their rights, not whether the government takes part in the celebrations.Bless sins (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It might be useful to discuss the allocation of funding to different religious groups here.Bless sins (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Reminder

This is a friendly reminder that this article is on "Human rights" in Israel. It is not the place for general criticism of Israel, nor general defense of it. Please limit sources to those that make claims about Human rights, and obviously they have to be relevant to Israel.Bless sins (talk) 05:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of war crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War

GHcool, this section was already more detailed than it is now, and then other editors objected to that and an agreement was made to shorten the section to this small summary, the agreement was made with okedem and other editors. Imad marie (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but a summary must include both sides of the story per WP:NPOV. Deleting it violates WP:CENSOR. Thank you for understanding. --GHcool (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you understand what I told you about previous consensus? previous consensus was made about this, if you want to change it, get a new consensus. Okedem, I hope you can clear things up. Imad marie (talk) 05:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

We agreed not to go into detail, as this article isn't about wars. I did not to object to a link to the article dealing with the war and the allegations.

I do think that when we mention the allegations, we should mention Israel's response (do they concede? Deny? Accuse the other side?). I don't think we should go into detail, but something should be mentioned about Israel's response. The current version is just stating an accusation, leaving a somewhat one-sided impression in the reader's mind. If I misunderstand the previous consensus, please correct me, but I don't think we ever discussed this point.

Both of you - please stop reverting each other. I'm sure we can come to some agreement here. okedem (talk) 07:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What GHcool and Tkalisky is trying to do here is to include the Israeli response details although the accusations details were not included in the first place. Saying something like "Israel says that it tried to avoid civilians, but that Hezbollah fired from civilian areas" without saying "Human Rights Watch condemned Israel for failing to distinguish between combatants and civilians in attacks" or without saying: "Human Rights Watch found no cases in which Hezbollah deliberately used civilians as shields to protect them from retaliatory IDF attack" is not neutral. If one side of the story is presented then the other sides should be presented too. Imad marie (talk) 07:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I know, I don't want the details either. Actually, I was just about to suggest a phrasing along the lines of "Israel has rejected...", and I see you did that already.

Two notes - first, the "In response" part is superfluous, I think. We can just say "Israel has rejected..." (obviously it's in response).

Second - your phrasing says: "Israel has rejected most of those accusations." (my bold) - why most? To the best of my knowledge, Israel rejected all of the accusations regarding this, either saying they're factually incorrect ("we didn't fire on..."), or justified ("yea, we bombed this area, but Hezbollah was using it militarily, so it lost its protection under the Geneva conventions"). okedem (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the Israeli point of view (which as far as I know is accepted throughpout most of Israel the western world) should be mentioned in order to balance the allegations. Please do not censor even if you don't agree. Thank you for understanding. Tkalisky (talk) 07:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, so are you fine with inserting the allegations? please take a look at this version. Imad marie (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion accusation in war crimes is something very serious and cannot be taken lightly. I added the Israeli response to these serious allegations and the reference that was omitted. Everything is shorter this time and I am sure everyone will agree that there is not over-detailing to any side.Tkalisky (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality in Article should be disputed

Neutrality in Article should be disputed 78.40.176.241 (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

And I believe you should explain what makes you think so. DrorK (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Alan Dershowitz is quoted but, Norman Finklestein is not. Both are Professors with numerous adherents. This seems Imbalanced. I think we should allot an equal number of words to both sides of the issue. I would like to quote Norman Finklestein, but I do not know what to quote. Can anyone help me here? Sellarsc (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"Palestinians living in the Golan Heights"

at the opening paragraph. there are no Palestinians at the Golan heights - the arabs that are living in the Golan are druze with Syrian citizenship and are considering themselves as Syrians. the source provided in the article supports my claim.--217.132.55.49 (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, of course. I've corrected the error, thank you. okedem (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Bakri's alledged admitance of inaccuracies throughout his film "Jenin, Jenin".

The alledged admitance by Mohammad Bakri of inaccuracies throughout his film "Jenin, Jenin" is based on article written by Aaron Klein in conservative WorldNetDaily. I have tried to find any original source of information that would support the claims made by Klein, but could not find any. Niether Mohammad Bakri nor, "Jenin, Jenin" wikiarticles mention anything close to Klein's claim. It seems that we are talking about defamation here made by Klein. Please try to locate the original source of information and cite the reference. Until then, I am putting citation needed tag. If the reliable, original source could not be located, it will be fair enough to delete the sentence. best Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 14:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Pls note, Aaron Klein has recently been accused of inventing a scandal about Wikipedia censoring. [1]Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 14:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That's nice. Jenin, Jenin was a manufactured crisis to begin with so promoting the believe of "Israel persecution" is largely undue. this page is not a vehicle to couch in any accusation and lashing against Israel - our focus is precise, meticulous data that is aimed at the state of Israel. The kind of freedom allowed in this article is unprecedented - if we were to do the same for Human Rights in the United States/Russia/Saudi Arabia they would be 50+ pages long. Wikifan12345 (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

To make things clear, I am concerned about accuracy of statements made in the article rather than about the content and politics around "Jenin, Jenin". If the claim is not accurate, it should be removed. best, Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if it's true or not: see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Mordechai Vanunu's claim of persecution for converting from Judaism to Christianity

Dear Colleagues, there is a dispute arised among Wiki Contributers on wheather to put or not, the statement of Mordechai Vanunu, a Moraccan jew, who was convicted of treason for disclosure to the West the Israeli highly-secret atom weapon research program. In a secretly held court trial, Vanunu was imprisoned for 18 years, 11 years of which, he spent in solitary confinement. After his release Vanuna asserted that he has been persecuted by the authorities in Israel because of his conversion to Christianity. Vanunu stated "I want to tell those who say I am a traitor, I suffered here 18 years because I am a Christian." regs, Jim Fitzgerald —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Fitzgerald (talk • contribs) 23:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

so what? That's what he claims - it's already in the article. Religious rights are protected under Israeli Law and his claims are relatively inconsistent with reality. Israeli's even provide security to the various holy sites, both muslim and christian. We cannot give too much weight to something so politicized. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

So he claim. I tend to believe that his problems with the law might be due to his treason, given that Israel is home to hundreds of thousands of Christians... okedem (talk) 05:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as you will see from below citations there is a problem with religious freedom in Israel. Especially worst situation is with exersizing religious rights by Jews for Jesus, to which Mordechai Vanunu belongs. In light of the statements in below, the passage "Freedom of Religion" has to be re-visited. Pls also be informed that assertions stated in the concerned passage contradict to assertions made in the article "Religion in Israel". Moreover the references cited in the passage DO NOT support the allegations made in the passage.

"Non-Jewish holy sites do not enjoy legal protection under the 1967 law because the Government does not recognize any non-Jewish sites as official holy sites. By the end of the reporting period, the Government had not responded to repeated High Court orders to explain its unequal implementation of the law."

"Societal abuses and discrimination increased against some evangelical Christian groups as well as Messianic Jews (persons who identify as Jews and follow Jewish traditions but who believe Jesus was the Messiah." "Despite harassment, the number of Messianic Jews and evangelical Christians has grown in recent years through both immigration and conversion."

"On May 15, 2008, residents of the Tel Aviv suburb of Or Yehuda publicly burned hundreds of Christian Bibles distributed in the community by missionaries. The incident was reportedly organized by the deputy mayor of Or Yehuda, Uzi Aharon. Aharon told the daily newspaper Ma’ariv that he sent students from a local Haredi Jewish school throughout the town to collect the New Testaments, which were subsequently burned in front of a synagogue. Aharon told Ma'ariv that the municipality operated a team of activists devoted entirely to uprooting missionary activity and that the book burning was a fulfillment of the commandment to "burn the evil from your midst."

"On November 8, 2007, a group of 13 visiting Austrian bishops, accompanied by the Austrian Ambassador, were barred from visiting the Western Wall, by the site’s chief rabbi because they refused to remove the crosses they wore around their necks. The rabbi, Shmuel Rabinowitz, told the press that while the site is open to members of all religious groups, the crosses worn by the bishops were “insulting and provocative.”

All citations in above are from: US Department of State, International Religious Freedom Report 2008. Israel and the occupied territories.

The Israeli claim of securing religious freedom to worship and to have easy access to the holy places for the followers of the three religions in the city of Jerusalem is a mere propaganda. Religious freedom has been restricted by the Israeli military since its illegal occupation of the city. Jerusalem, a holy city for the three major religions has been off limit to the local Muslim as well as Christian Palestinians but not to Jewish Israelis. Israel's Persecution of Christians by Elias Akleh, 6 May 2008

... anti-Christian feelings are literally exploding in Israel (and among Israel-worshipping Jews in Diaspora too) together with the increase of the Jewish fanaticism in all other areas too. Statement by professor Israel Shahak on the Jewish hatred towards Christianity. Professor Israel Shahak is an Israeli citizen, former concentration camp inmate during WW II, and the founder of Israel's Human Rights League. His new book "Jewish History, Jewish Religion" about Jewish hatred and contempt toward Gentiles

Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Breaking the Silence

The Israeli NGO, Breaking the Silence collected the testimony of IDF soldiers who served in the Gaza conflict, many agreeing that human shields were used. The practice was referred to as "the neighbour policy". The IDF is investigating the treatment of Majd Bed Rabbo, a civilian resident of Gaza, who claimed that Israeli soldiers held him at gunpoint and forced him to go walk front of Israeli soldiers as they searched through Palestinian buildings occupied by militants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsontheground (talk • contribs) 13:23 26 July 2009

No one is trying to hide those claims. There's already the AI report in the matter. The "Breaking the Silence" claims mainly contain hearsay (I read them) - a soldier saying he heard his sergeant saying that in some other platoon something like that happened. It's of little importance, and anyway redundant. The case under investigation means nothing when we don't have the results - so far it's just another claim, like the ones reported by AI. Also, individual cases are undue weight - we're not talking about a single person here, but about what's supposedly a common occurrence. okedem (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi okedem, to address your concerns please read articles "Can Israel dismiss its own troops' stories from Gaza?" and "IDF troops used 11-year-old boy as human shield in Gaza." Published in Haaretz already in March 2009. Small passage: "The IDF's ethical problems did not start in 2009. Such discussions also followed the Six-Day War. But a reserve officer who looked at the transcript Wednesday said: "This is not the IDF we knew." best, Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Those aren't my concerns. I'm talking from the editorial perspective, I'm not discussing whether of not such cases occurred - we have an entire section discussing this issue, and I have no objection to that. By the way, regarding the first article - those soldiers were later questioned, to find out exactly where these incidents happened - turns out, once you press them for details, they admit they didn't actually see it, someone told them, they inferred something happened but didn't witness it, etc. okedem (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Human shields allegation during Gaza War

1. Before IDF complete investigation - Israel Disputes Soldiers’ Accounts of Gaza Abuses: "Israel is pushing back against accusations of civilian abuse in its Gaza war, asserting that an overwhelming majority of its soldiers acted honorably and that the account of a killing of a woman and her two children appears to be an urban myth spread by troops who did not witness it...Officers are stepping forward, some at the urging of the top command, others on their own, offering numerous accounts of having held their fire out of concern for civilians, helping Palestinians in need and punishing improper soldier behavior...The army’s advocate general has opened an investigation and has not yet issued a report. But officers familiar with the investigation say that those who spoke of the killing of the mother and her children did not witness it and that it almost certainly did not occur. Warning shots were fired near the family but not at it, the officers said, and a rumor spread among the troops of an improper shooting."

2. IDF source: Charges of civilian shootings false: "All of the soldiers who were involved in the conference were questioned - not as a punishment - but in order to understand whether they had witnessed these things. From all of the testimonies we collected, we can safely conclude that the soldiers who made the claims did not witness the events they describe," the source said.

3. Allegations of IDF Crimes Refuted – But Only in Israeli Press: "Channel 2 TV’s correspondent Roni Daniel also filed a report refuting the claims. Daniel reported that the soldier who supposedly witnessed the sniper shoot a mother and two of her children told his brigade commander: “I didn’t see it myself. There were stories like this. I wasn’t in that house and everything I said was only on the basis of rumors. At the gathering it was a friendly talk, and that's how I related to it.”

4. Official investigation: IDF: Case closed on Gaza testimonies: "Judge Advocate-General Brig.-Gen. Avichai Mandelblit exonerated the IDF on Monday and closed a Military Police investigation into accounts of alleged serious human rights violations during Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip earlier this year...During his interrogation, the IDF said, Aviv admitted he had never witnessed such an incident and that he'd based his statement on a rumor he had heard...Aviv admitted that he had not witnessed additional incidents he had described during the conference".

5. An article written by Danny Zamir himself: Personal code of IDF soldier: 'May our camp be pure': "It was as if the media were altogether so eager to find reason to criticize the IDF that they pounced on one discussion by nine soldiers who met after returning from the battlefield to share their experiences and subjective feelings with each other, using that one episode to draw conclusions that felt more like an indictment. Dogma replaced balance and led to a dangerous misunderstanding of the depth and complexity of Israeli reality. The individual accounts were never intended to serve as a basis for broad generalizations and summary conclusions by the media".

6. ...and this is what Danny Zamir told JPost correspondent: Rabin Academy head: Isolated vandalism not war crime: "The whole story spun out of control," Zamir said. "From an internal discussion where soldiers talked about what was difficult and painful in the war, and which I took to the army because I expected them to deal with the issues raised, the international media turned the IDF into war criminals...Zamir said he had no way of knowing whether the alleged shooting incidents ever took place, though he felt isolated incidents of vandalism described by soldiers did occur...I think that some of the acts of vandalism inside homes were done, but you have to put it in context. That doesn't turn them into war criminals," he said. "When the American army conquered Fallujah three years ago, tens of thousands of people were killed. When the Russian army conquered Chechnya in 2000, it turned Grozny into dust"

7. IDF soldiers rebut claims of immoral conduct in Gaza: another kind of evidence was collected from several soldiers who took part in the fighting, that rebutted claims of immoral conduct on the military's part during Gaza War.

End of part I. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 07:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Testimonies - Human Sheild - In the report published by human rights NGO Breaking the Silence in July 2009, two testimonies were dedicated to alleged cases of using Palestinian civilians as human shields who were forced to enter suspect buildings ahead of troops. (Side remark - the first testimony is a bunch of reflections on what happened, not a real testimony, no specific incident, nothing except "I don't believe him when he says he's not aware of this happening on the ground")

2. Golani commander: Soldier 'wasn't in field at the time'. Golani Brigade commander Col. Avi Peled said in response that one of the soldiers had not been in combat at the time and that his testimony is based on what he heard happened. Peled added that at no point was there any civilian who was sent in ahead of Israeli troops to any place.

3. Europeans funding 'Breaking the Silence: The report did not represent a cross-section of the army, but rather they were troops who had approached the group or were reached through acquaintances of NGO members.

4. IDF soldiers give testimonies to counter Gaza war crimes claims, 'Breaking the Silence' vs. 'Soldiers Speak Out' on Cast Lead - In response to the report by Breaking the Silence, dozen English-speaking reservists who served in Gaza delivered signed, on-camera counter-testimonies via SoldiersSpeakOut group, about Hamas "use of Gazans as human shields and the measures they took to protect Arab civilians".

End of part II. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 10:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding point 2 above, forcing civilians to go in front of Israeli troops is not how Amnesty claims Israel forced civilians to act as human shields, or at least not only how. --Dailycare (talk) 10:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

bullet #2 above does not deal with Amnesty report, but with Breaking the Silence report. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 18:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The reports regarding the use of human shields by the IDF and Hamas were noted in the 256 page "Report of the Independent Fact Finding Committee On Gaza: No Safe Place".[2] The committee was an international panel of experts commissioned by the Arab League.

According to the ICC prosecutor, the Arab League has already presented his office with their report on Israel's illegal activities during Operation Cast Lead and requested an independent criminal investigation. [3] The State of Jordan ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on April 11, 2002, and the State of Palestine has also accepted the jurisdiction of the Court. Both are member states of the Arab League.

ICJ Justice and UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Palestine, John Dugard, was the head of the independent fact finding committee. He wrote an Op-Ed for the NY Times explaining why he thinks the ICC should accept the case. [4]. By the way, the Hamas-ruled district of Gaza is located in the jurisdiction of the State of Palestine, which is not technically "in Israel". harlan (talk) 10:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Freedom of movement

Reading this article [5] made me look for a discussion of freedom of movement issues. There is some of this in Israeli West Bank barrier, but it seems like the issue should be discussed more broadly, it certainly predates the barrier and as [6] illustrates, it's not all about the physical barrier. Rd232 ^talk 12:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

CounterPunch is not a reliable source and is comparable to CAMERA as far reliability is concerned. You are aware holocaust deniers right for CP, right? Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's an unjustified smear based on CounterPunch publishing articles by Gilad Atzmon, who as (wrongly) been accused of Holocaust denial. Further, CAMERA is a lobby organisation and Counterpunch is a newsletter. Finally, are you suggesting I think this is the only source in the world on this topic?? Rd232 ^talk 08:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

CounterPunch is a partisan activist site that does not even remotely qualify as a reliable source. Here's a less biased assessment: PA Only' visa enrages visitors. The article by Jonathan Cooke is rather dishonest in that it does not differentiate between PA-controlled WB and Israel-controlled WB. The system is aimed only at Palestinian-authority in the WB, and is likely in response to the surges in foreign nationals participating in Palestinian militancy. Ironically, that too violates the Oslo Accords. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not an "activist" site - that's just wrong. Your claim that Cooke ignores the difference between PA and Israel controlled-WB just shows you haven't read it [7]. Rd232 ^talk 09:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

UNGA resolutions on the Arab-Israeli conflict in comparison with other conflicts

This table caught my eye so I made an assessment based on the content of resolutions. Firstly, a few observations:

1) 55 is the first session that we should include (the year 2000 onward). 2) The keyword "middle east" catches a few resolutions every year which address the threat of nuclear proliferation in the middle east. Similarly the UNGA passes resolutions each year on the right of return of the Palestinian refugees, their right to compensation, the illegality of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, etc which relate neither to the Intifada or the Lebanon war. Also a resolution on Jerusalem is passed annually, which just re-iterates that the "annexation" of Jerusalem is rejected and embassies should be moved away.
3) Many of the resolutions make a lot of sense (and so make for poor evidence of bias), such as 57/188 and 58/155 which involve the urgent situation of Palestinian children.
4) Many of the resolutions on this list are resolutions that the GA passes every year that deal with the situation in Palestine, that only mention the intifada as "recent tragic events" but which don't primarily deal with the intifada.
5) It isn't clear if the resolutions on the needs of Palestinian children from this period count as "intifada" resolutions. They're counted as such here.

Here is the list I managed to compile (Note, I scanned the contents and may have missed a few)

55: 173, 130, 133(?)
56: 111, 62, 59
57: 188, 147, 127, 124, 121 (Jenin), 110
58: 155, 113, 99, 96, 16
59: 173, 124, 121, 117(?), 56,
60: 126, 107, 104
61: Lebanon: 154. Intifada: 135, 119, 116

Total: 28 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dailycare (talk • contribs) 22:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Total is actually 63. Word search "Palestine" and count. The resolutions, regardless of whether or not they are "annual", is disproportionate. The rights of Palestinian children are well met, compared to say...the millions of children in Congo who are eating each other, or the thousands of children that have been raped by Arab Islamists in Darfur, or the 1.2 million Sudanese (many children) who are stuck in Egypt and are in much worse conditions than the Palestinians, or even the honor killings in Gaza/West Bank (2/3 of all domestic murders are honor killings) which are routinely ignored over settlements. SOAP aside (and I mean this), the table suggests a strong bias in favor of the Palestinians relative to the suffering of others who receive a fraction of the humanitarian and financial aid the UNRWA is entrusted with. I'm thinking about extending the table from 1948-2009 to provide a more accurate portrait. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, searching by "Palestine" in the titles will turn out many, many resolutions calling for Israel to allow the 1948 refugees to return, calling for a peaceful settlement to the Palestine issue and other resolutions not relating to the Second Intifada or Lebanon war. If you want to correct my figure, please identify the resolutions you feel should be included in addition to the ones I listed above. I also re-iterate (in clarified terms) my earlier point: If the UNGA calls for aid to be sent to Palestinian children, I can't quite wrap my brain around the idea that this resolution would be evidence of bias against Israel. --Dailycare (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a violation of no original research policy. Rd232 ^talk 16:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The UN resolutions revolve around the current Israel-Palestinian conflict. The demands for right of return is a crucial part of the current peace-process, the UNGA passes a resolution sending more aid to the Palestinians, that too is a resolution that revolves around the Israel/Palestine conflict. Whether or not the UN is explicitly condemning Israel is not is not what the chart is detailing. This is not about a bias against Israel but a bias in favor of the entire Israel/Palestinian war - which is pales in comparison the Angola wars, Algerian Wars, Congo Wars, Sudanese wars, etc...all of which have received a fraction of attention. That is what the chart is saying. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Assassination

I think the assassination source [8] does belong here, but maybe just used as a source to support the fact of targeted killings sometimes killing bystanders. Rd232 ^talk 09:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Two problems.

• There is no confirmed organization of "assassination" squads as the article implies.

• Second, the article is interviewing an nameless Israeli commando - hardly reliable.

• Third, there is nothing revealing about Israeli's targeted killings. The very intro of the article makes it seem as if this is a new phenomenon. Imad Mughniyah being one of the most high-profile as of late. Assassinations is a loaded term to begin with.

Also, I don't really see the problem in including the reference somewhere but Israel's targeting killing policy is far more competent the United States'.

Israel is 30/1, where as the Coalition Forces in Afghanistan and Iraq are 14/1.

Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wiki rules are clear. We have an "interesting" text from the RS, we had an unbalanced subsection, which needed some "other points" to include. So, here we go. Wikifan, we are not discussing the US, or 30/29, our discussion is exactly on Israel's targetted killing policy. Now, if you suggest to shorten my edits, you please do it, but the essence should remain there.--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 10:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

We cannot merge in every little article about Israel's extra-judicial killing. The section is bloated enough and merging in an nameless interview is beyond undue. If anything, the section lacks rationale from the Israeli government and how extrajudicial killings are sorted through. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Human shields again

Okadem, you have recently rv-ed the below passage from the section on "Human shields", you have summarized your edit saying that "that isn't "human shields"-no claim is made that the IDF tried to use their presence for defence". It seems you have used your personal judgement about the article, whereas the text from the source clearly mentions 'human shield' accusations. I am not quite sure but it seems that your revert is based on OR. I welcome any discussion on this edit.--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

On July 1, 2009, Amnesty International stated that Israeli troops forced Palestinians to stay in one room of their home while turning the rest of the house into a base and sniper position, "effectively using the families, both adults and children, as human shields and putting them at risk," the group said. "Intentionally using civilians to shield a military objective, often referred to as using 'human shields' is a war crime," Amnesty said. AFP. "Amnesty accuses Israel of using human shields in Gaza."

The second removal on the basis of "doesn't fit the majority definition of 'human shields' - not just putting at risk, but actual intent to use for shielding, and that's not seen here" [9] would seem to be unsupported by any source, either for the definition or for that not being seen here. Rd232 ^talk 21:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Ethiopean Jews in schools

I've reverted the addition of that issue, because it's giving undue weight to a one story; the government is acting against those schools, and threatened to revoke their partial public funding; and it's already been mostly resolved - only a small number of pupils remain out of school today (second day of the school year in Israel), and the parties say it's simply due to some bureaucratic issues (clerical errors and confusion), and nothing else. Most pupils have been accepted to the schools, and officials say the rest will be in in the next few days, once they sort out registration. If this remains an issue a week or two from now, we can talk about this further, but not now - we're not a news site, and shouldn't report specific incidents, that are being resolved anyway. okedem (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I have included another issues into the newly created subsection on "Education". Most of the commentators, (you will see in the references) seem to agree that there is an ignored problem of segragation of education system in Israel since 1948. I am sure, that this topic deserves to be placed in the article. Moreover, the problem grows even bigger in recent years (pls. see sources), so that Gov.Isarel spends on an Arab Israeli student nine(!) times less than it spends on an Jewish Israeli student. Jim Fitzgerald ^post 10:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm reverting those additions, since they are mostly false, or misleading. Suggest them here first, please.

1. There's no Jewish/Aarb segregation in the school system, that's just a lie. There is a system of Arab-language state-schools, where the pupils study in their native Arabic, and study their own culture and history, alongside the general topics, like the Hebrew-language schools teach Jewish history. However, no one is forced to use either system, and some Arab parents choose to send their children to Hebrew language schools - sometimes it's just closer, if an Arab family lives in a mostly Jewish city, and the nearest Arab school is far away, or if they want their child to have better Hebrew language skills, to help them integrate in society. Personally, I can tell you there was an Arab (Muslim) kid in my high-school class, in my Hebrew high school. The separation is voluntary, based on language, and isn't "segregation".
2. There's no segregation between Jews of different origins in the state school system. Some Ultra-orthodox school do that, and the state, in response, withholds the partial funding they get. It's not a public school, and the discrimination certainly isn't sponsored by the state. There's no discrimination in the secular system, despite what some paranoid people might feel.
3. Blogs and not RSs, and you should know that by now. Use real sources.
4. "Electronic Intifada", I guess I have to clarify, isn't an RS either, but, obviously (just read the name) a partisan political site. There is a disparity in government spending, but you have to use real sources for that. Also, one must explain the reasons for it - the school system is funded partially by the government, and partially by the municipal authority. Unfortunately, the Arab municipalities don't bother collecting taxes, against the law, and so can't afford to invest in the school. (there are state-determined discounts for poor people, Jew or Arab, so that's not the reason for the low collection rate. It's just corruption). A lot of funding needs to be matched - if the municipality spends X, the government adds X, so if the municipality spends little, so does the government.
5. And again - we're not a paper, and don't discuss single, recent incidents which are already (mostly or fully) solved. If there's a wide problem with some private schools, that can be discussed, as such.

Please find real sources, learn something about the subject, and then present it here. I'm sure we can write something, at least about the issues in the ultra-orthodox system, but we need to discuss it first, with good sources. okedem (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Are Megamot and Haaretz RS? I hope yes. Jim Fitzgerald ^post 11:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

In August 2009 a new study published in journal Megamot by Prof. Sorel Cahan of Hebrew University's School of Education shows that the Israeli Education Ministry's budget for special assistance to students from low socioeconomic backgrounds severely discriminates against Arabs. The average per-student allocation in Arab junior high schools amounts to only 20 percent of the average in Jewish junior highs. The study supports the claims of institutionalized budgetary discrimination that Arab educators have long voiced. Ministry published town-by-town data on what percentage of high school students pass their matriculation exams, most Arab towns were once again at the bottom of the list. A rare exception was Fureidis, where 75.86 percent of students passed - the third highest rate in Israel.

Okadem, pls also tell me why you think that Haaretz, Jewish Ideas and Ideals (which claims the separation do exist in schools), EthioMedia, Electronic Intifada or even Jerusalem Post are not good enough as RS for this article?-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 12:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Haaretz and Jerusalem Post were used for the Ethiopean story, and are RSs - but that's not why I deleted that, but due to the reasons detailed above.
• "Jewish Ideas and Ideals" was established less than 2 years ago, and seems to be of zero importance. Anyone can go and establish an "Institute". It doesn't make it important or relevant.
• I've never heard of "EthioMedia". Their slogan, "Ethiomedia - alternative news and views", makes it clear they do not publish the mainstream views - but those are the ones we need to use the most. I've not seen any evidence of the site's importance.
• Electronic Intifada, as I've explained, is a partisan website, a political activism website, and cannot be used as an RS. It's like using the Kach and Kahane Chai site for news about Arabs.
• And you also used the blog "Bloomoon: My Time In Jordan; Thoughts scattered across the sand" (bloomoon.wordpress.com). Do I really have to explain why it's not an RS?
• Oh, and you linked to the wrong site regarding "Megamot". If you don't know the language, don't guess - you can just ask someone who does, and avoid these mistakes. Your linked to a financial firm website. The journal doesn't have a website, but there's an information page about it here, in the publisher's website, the Sald Institute (an actual institute, of some importance). okedem (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oh, and in the section below, please sign your name, and don't block copy-and-paste from another website. It's a copyright violation, especially considering you didn't bother framing it as a quote with proper attribution. okedem (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Okadem, it seems that you are not reading my inputs here carefully. First of all, I do speak some Jewish. The linking to Megamot was done for general information, since I could not find any wiki article on Megamot. I relied my edits on Haaretz article only, and the article did not have any reference to the exact Megamot page where the data was published. Secondly, if Jpost and Haaretz are RS, and Megamot (I hope) too, then I am going to edit the article based on references to these sources. I also totally disagree that "Electronic Intifada" and "Jewish Ideas and Ideals" are not RS. One may not judge the srouce based on its name.-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 12:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

And it seems you're not reading my comments at all.

• You "speak some Jewish"? I take it you mean "Hebrew"...
• I don't care why you linked to "Megamot" - you linked to a financial education company, instead of the journal - both have the same name, but no connection. If you don't understand what you link to - don't provide a link. I would have happily provided a link, as I did above.
• I don't think you understand the concept of an RS. A site isn't automatically an RS until it's proven not to be. It's the other way around - there are many millions of websites on the net, writing anything about everything, making any claim you could imagine. For a site to be considered an RS, one needs to show it's notable, objective, professional, etc. A blog isn't that. An anonymous institute isn't that. A partisan political isn't that. Please read WP:RS to understand this better.
• I take offense at your claim "One may not judge the srouce based on its name". I judge the sources by what they are, and reject your claims to the contrary.
• And I say again - your block quote from Bitton below is copyright infringment. Remove it, or cut it down significantly, frame it as a quote, and attribute it to source. The rules on this aren't any more flexible in talk pages than they are in articles. okedem (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I am not sure why education belongs here, and not Education in Israel. I agree with Okedem that the Ethiopian pupils story is a clear case of recentism. The Israeli education system is comprised of several sectors (secular, Arab, orthodox, etc.). Many people don't like it, but that doesn't mean we should start forking blog posts. -- Nudve (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Education belongs here because there is a discrimination in Israeli education system. It badly hits back to ethnic minorities even to the immigrant Jews, who arrived for better life. The discrimination is widely acknowledged by inside of Israel and outside media. Jim Fitzgerald ^post 17:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Then why are you quoting blogs, political sites and irrelevant "institutes"? okedem (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Jim, your latest edit is a blatant copyright violation from the source used (Haaretz). Either rewrite, or remove completely.

And about the subject itself - be fair, don't just mention one side, but also include the explanation (allocation method) and Ministry response, provided in the same article. I'm adding that now. okedem (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Discrimination and separation in education system in Israel

For the record. This subsection that I have included into the article, but was reverted by another wiki-editor. Jim Fitzgerald ^post 12:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Education

Since its founding in 1948, Israel has operated an education system almost entirely segregated between Jews, Arabs, Ashkenazi and others. A report published in March 2009 revealed that the government invested $1,100 in each Jewish pupil’s education compared to $190 for each Arab pupil.

In September 2009 dozens of Ethiopean Jewish children in Petah Tikva were refused the enrollment into the public religious schools and the so-called semi-private schools, despite the recent statement of Israeli Education Minister, that all children are to be admitted with no discrimination." The private schools, especially those identified with the national-religious stream, accept only a small number of Ethiopian students and are placing obstacles which obstruct the absorption of new students. Danny Kassahun, chief executive officer of Representatives of Ethiopian Jewish Community Organizations, argues that the incident not a localized community problem.

Israeli gov't's abuse of the human rights of the Jews living in Yesha

There is a gross omission in this article: The Israeli gov't's abuse of the human rights of the Jews living in Yesha (whom the secular media refer to pejoratively as "settlers"), by expelling them en massse from their homes and land, and consistently discriminating against them in favor of arabs, including allowing terrorist activities to continue at the expense of the safety of these Jews, and so on. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 03:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:V. If you have amendments in mind for the article then you are wasting your time and everyone else's unless you bring reliable sources to support your statements. Can you also please read WP:SOAPBOX, WP:TALK, WP:NPOV, WP:TERRORIST. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out those links; indeed, the one-sidedness and POV pushing in this article is very glaring. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources for the expulsion of the Jews from the Yamit salient, the Gaza strip, and parts of Samaria, are ubiquitous; nobody could possibly deny them. The Hebron Jewish community has extensive documentation of the continuous police harrassment of that community. One problem is that the so-called "reliable sources" of the press are of little use here: they do not report such news unless it is impossible to ignore, and they regularly do report invented stories of "settler violence", which are only sometimes successfully debunked, often years later. Anything sourced to the Hebron community will certainly be attacked here as "unreliable", and probably the same will happen to anything sourced to Channel 7. -- Zsero (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Remember that your comments need to focus on the article contents and how to improve them. As I said, statements without reliable sources are pointless. There is a reliable sources noticeboard at WP:RSN where you can check whether a particular source is regarded as reliable or start a new discussion about a proposed source. If something is not being covered by reliable sources then it can't be covered by Wikipedia as per the requirements of WP:V. If you think that the views of Hebron Jewish community for example are under represented then you need to find a reliable source (e.g. JPost) covering the issue and make a case for adding the information to the article. That's just how it is. There's no point complaining about it. You just need to deal with it. It's the same for any issue. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Table comparing UNGA resolutions on the Arab-Israeli conflict with other conflicts

This table is a clear-cut violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. It is against Wikipedia rules for editors to conduct their own research using primary sourcs. The footnotes clearly state that the statistics have been "compiled" by a Wikipedia editor; this is unacceptable.

If the table was produced by a secondary source then it might be acceptable. Factsontheground (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

A table only violates OR or SYNTH if any single datum presented in it is unsupported by the cited source (in which case the problem is with that datum), just like a paragraph would have to have statements that aren't supported by the cited source. There are countless tables on Wikipedia that were not "produced by a secondary source". Do you object to all of them, or only to this one? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It is OR in that it attempts to compare things that are not compared by reliable sources. It is comparison by juxtaposition and that is OR. nableezy - 06:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Jewish Agency asked the United Nations for assistance in repealing the 1939 White Paper, terminating the Mandate, and establishing a Jewish State. All of the new States that were established by the Berlin Congress and the League of Nations were required to provide formal guarantees to those international organizations with respect to religious and minority rights. They did that in exchange for recognition and grants of territory. The article explains that Israel had to accept a UN minority protection plan which placed religious and minority rights in Palestine under UN protection. How many of the other members of the United Nations shown in the table were created by similar acts of the UN General Assembly? harlan (talk) 12:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Jalapeno, but what you say is incorrect. WP:SYNTH clearly states:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research.[7] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Surely this applies to tables of data that are combined from multiple sources to advance an argument, as this one was. Factsontheground (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, if juxtaposition were OR, we wouldn't be able to write anything. FOTG, kindly point to the conclusion reached or implied in the table that isn't explicitly stated by any of the sources, and we'll fix it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly. The purpose of a chart is to compare data. That comparison is an analysis. If a reliable source has not made that analysis it is original research to do so. I would object to the same information being presented in text as it would read "x resolutions against Israel compared to y against ...". That would clearly be unacceptable. If there is a reliable secondary source making this comparison then include the comparison that the source makes. But as it is the table is simply making a comparison for which no secondary source has been presented to show the relevance. How is the number of UNGA resolutions directed against the Democratic Republic of the Congo relevant to human rights in Israel? How is the number of UNGA resolutions directed against Sudan relevant to human rights in Israel? The answer is they are relevant if a source makes them relevant, but no source has been presented that does. Not to mention the fact that we currently have a citation that reads "compiled from the corresponding Wikipedia articles". Now I dont know about you but I dont trust anything I read on Wikipedia without actually checking the source. To source something, anything at all, to "Wikipedia articles" is a problem. But let me ask you a question. If I were to add a column that lists "cumulative days territory held under belligerent occupation" would you have a problem with that? nableezy - 23:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The conclusion being implied is obvious -- that there are a disproportionate number of UNGA resolutions regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict compared to the other conflicts. None of the sources for the table state this conclusion. P.S. I am very surprised that you could not see this. Factsontheground (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this issue being raised on the original research noticeboard; Facts is absolutely right. Such an analysis might be legitimate if it was sourced to a reliable source (though plagiarism might be an issue with reproducing a table), but this is plainly personal original research by synthesis. The choice of countries in the comparison and the timeframe are due solely to the editor who compiled the table, not to any reliable source, and the compilation is clearly meant to advance an unsourced position on the issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

UNGA resolutions on the Arab-Israeli conflict in comparison with other conflicts

The following table compares the number of United Nations General Assembly resolutions on Arab-Israeli war to the number of casualties for some of the deadlier conflicts of the past decade.

A comparison of major conflicts, 1997-2006

Countries involved	War(s)	Deaths1	UNGA res2.
Israel, Palestine, Lebanon	Second Intifada (2000–present), 2006 Lebanon War (July 12, 2006 – August 14, 2006)	6,935	28
DR of Congo, Rwanda, Uganda, others	Second Congo War (1998–2003)	4,053,000	56
Sudan	Second Sudanese Civil War (1983–2005), Darfur conflict (2003–present)	2,300,000	14
Iraq, coalition	2003 invasion of Iraq (March 18, 2003 – May 1, 2003)	35,000	15
Afghanistan, coalition	War in Afghanistan (2001–present)	70,000	22

I pasted the table here so we don't have to keep going to the history to see what we're talking about. Re the synth argument, all three of you have made the appeal to motive fallacy without actually addressing my question: what conclusion does the table present that is not stated in any of the sources? The conclusion of disproportionality that FOTG alleges is not a conclusion presented in the table, but a conclusion he reached on his own; we can scarcely blame the table for that. The table just presents a bunch of data, the way a paragraph presents a bunch of sentences. I was somewhat amused by Chris' position, according to which it seems that no table could be included in Wikipedia: if it's not actually from a RS it would be OR/synth, and if it is, it would be plagiarism. Nableezy raised a good point of relevance, but the point is that the chart is relevant to the section it's in. I agree that tables inherently make comparisons, more than paragraphs do, but a comparison isn't a conclusion. Regarding your closing question, Nableezy, I would have a problem with it the same way I would have a problem with a column showing the number of clowns per capita. I wouldn't say it's OR or synth (unless it actually was), but I would say for example that it's irrelevant and thus undue. Finally, I agree with Nableezy's note that some of the content is not necessarily verifiable. Maybe whoever made the table would like to do some more work and source the data directly. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Bjmullan's revert

I'm not going to keep reverting here and continue with this edit war. Bjmullan's edit summary shows OR. I trust that reasonable editors understand this. Breein1007 (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

mos

Jim, see MOS:IMAGES -> "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other". Sean.hoyland - talk 09:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Latuff cartoon

I have removed the Latuff cartoon from the Human shields section here per WP:BRD. The image was added in October but I don't think it's inclusion has been discussed. I could be wrong. Since then the Daily Mail image has been added. Does the Latuff cartoon add value to the article and if so, how ? Sean.hoyland - talk 08:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

it is about the nation of 'israel' not foriegn coutries

The article about eplicity say israel not eygpt etc .the information used in the (freedom house2009)say only israel not eygpt etc look it up Freedom house israel 2009.This is difinite POV bias and creates you own synthesis which is not stated by article please refrian from doing this and follow wp. By adding other info like freedom house 2009(lebanon,jordan,eygpt etc)that nothing to do with the nation of 'Israel'.(This just show small part of the greater part of region .E.g Cypru(in EU) to israel northwest etc and Middle east which israel belongs to ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.173.56 (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC) 130.216.173.56 (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I assume the reason this information from other countries in the region is presented is to provide context so that readers can see the information about Israel in relation to some of it's neighbours. I didn't add this info by the way but I can understand why someone might see it as useful and relevant. I don't really understand why you would think that presenting human rights metrics in a regional context is 'definite POV bias' or a synthesis. It's just data. There is no POV. A synthesis requires a synthesised conclusion and there is no conclusion. It seems like a pretty smart thing to do in my opinion (although I agree that it's not clear how the other countries were picked). I don't have strong views on this issue but I think your removal of the material needed discussion, hence my revert. I would be interested to see other comments. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

good point made ,but like you said 'I assume the reason this information from other countries in the region is presented is to 'provide context' '.Who are we to decide context what should be the context (not really original reserch but kind of )thus unless it has a ref that compares all the nations ( also technically maybe it is syhthesis in what datas are presented that gives conclusion to the reader like and cyprus etc and eu to the west are not included ).Maybe it should temperary removed until an accademic context can be referenced 04:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.173.56 (talk)

Yes, I agree it should be a reliable source rather than wiki editors that defines the context i.e. the set of other countries. I wouldn't oppose it's removal in the meantime on that basis and until a proper source has been provided that defines the context. As you say, it's not really clear why certain other countries aren't there. The fact that only Israel's immediate neighbours have been included makes some sense but it shouldn't be wiki editors making the choice about which countries are included. I think it's been stable in the article for a long time though so I would like to hear other views. If nobody replies in the next day or so I guess you should just make your edit and we can see what happens. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok,thanks130.216.173.56 (talk) 05:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

POV: Pro-Israeli Bias

Many instances of human rights violations are given "justifications," which are inappropriate considering the nature of the article. In addition, this article seems to be generally an apologist's page for Israeli rights violations rather than an unbiased approach to the issue.76.1.142.88 16:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the article explains the background for the current situation, and why certain actions were/are taken. Just giving supposed human rights violations without any explanation would be un-encyclopedic, and extremely unhelpful to our readers. The article isn't "Human right violations in Israel", mind you. It's "Human rights in Israel", and so discusses the conditions of human rights in Israel, not just lists supposed infractions. okedem 17:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is hasbara, like most articles on anything vaguely pertaining to Israel on Wikipedia. Anyways, Shouldn't Vanunu be mentioned in "Treatment of prisoners," as he served an 18 yr. sentance in solitary confinement, and has just been sent back because he spoke to Western journalists. (How's that for free speach) Or the torture practices used on Palestinians. I think there is a wonderful series of drawings available. What about the blunt force castrations where Israeli soldiers grab peoples legs, spread them, and then a third soldier beats the victim between the legs with a club. There is video of this. Is video sufficient sourcing or is it not up to standards due to wikipedia:Hasbara rules. Shia1 18:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Vaanunu is a free man. He served his 18 year sentence, 11 years out of which in solitary. He was given a fair trial for his action, convicted, and sent to prison. Nothing special. Freedom of speech - yes, but not for revealing secrets. Again, nothing special.

"blunt force castrations" - Really? Do you have a reliable source for that, or just Palestinian propaganda sites?

The article is NPOV. It brings facts from reliable sources. okedem 19:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Do you consider Ynetnews a Palestinian propaganda site? It is a Settler propaganda site, but when those people stopped their warcrimes long enough to get upset about having to leave occupied territory, they put up a whole lot of anti-IDF video without realizing it would come back to bite them. SO .... Yes, there is video of Israeli troops seperating men's legs then beating them in the crotch dozens of times. Also, there is a Neutral Article on Neturei Karta called "We do not believe, we will not follow," which mentions this form of punishment was used against Rabbi Amram Blau. I'm puting it up. If you have reason to believe these things are doctored, prove it. By the way, Vanunu is back in jail for speaking to journalists, which he was ordered by a military court not to do. (He is a civilian.) And he did not get a fair trial. He was abducted from Rome, tried by a military court despite being a civilian, without his lawyer being able to know exactly what he was charged was, and then spent 11 years in solitary confinement. And what "secrets" did he betray? He told the guardian Israel had made 300 nuclear weapons. Israel denies it has nuclear weapons. SO is he a Novelist or a Traitor? 88.154.231.162 07:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Neturei Carta are a fringe group, and not an RS. Show me actual sources.

Vaanunu deserves no mention. He broke the law and the agreements of confidentiality he signed, and paid for it. okedem 08:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is ABOUT neturei karta, not written by them. Vanunu was abducted from another nation in violation of international law, and was held in solitary confinement in violation of humanitarian law, and the BBc broadcast about him interviews several people on the phone who have been intimidated with threats by Israeli police. I'm getting stuff together than it is all going up. Stop Hasbara. 88.155.134.126 10:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't an article about individual cases or people.

If you have relevant material about Israel's Human Rights record as a whole, we can discuss it. okedem 14:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that those who have served in the IDF SHOULD NOT be allowed to edit any articles that have to do with Israel. That's just a rediculous idea, and completely undermines any honest intentions at a good and unbiased article. What has to be done to stop former and current IDF members from editing this page and others that have to do with the IDF and Israel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.137.34 (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Then I say Arabs shouldn't edit the article.

Oh, wait, that completely goes against everything Wikipedia stands for, right. Easy to get confused.

Edits rely on sources, not the people who make them. The person's opinions, nationality, ethnicity, religion, organizational affiliation, and any other characteristics are not relevant. Only the sources, and correctly representing them. If you think you can start dictating who's allowed to edit what article - I suggest you move along to another site. okedem (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with this statement: "When analyzing Israel's human rights records, most observers agree that it is important to maintain the distinction between Israel proper and the territories that it currently occupies ". What a load of BS. Who are "most observers"? What's going on in the occupied territories, where the borders are fluid and Israeli authorities collect taxes, control movement, issue people identity cards, detain, torture and execute people without due process, and build Jewish only colonies is applicable. It might need its own section, but until Israel's occupied territories and the people living there have citizenship and a nation, they are Israel's responsibilty as the occupying force according to international law and "most observers" I know. If you are going to filter out the areas where Israeli authorities commit the worst atrocities, then you should rename this article, "human rights in the the parts of Israel where the authorities don't commit war crimes and crimes against humanity." --Fiolou (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Freedom of speech bill

Okedem reverted the material about the following bill, claiming that it had not been passed. However, this is what the source actually says : "Among the proposed legislation mentioned in the report is a bill that would jail for a year anyone who publishes or says something that would "bring contempt upon or discomfort to the country." That proposed bill was passed in a first reading in the Knesset." Clearly the bill has been passed, not just proposed, if you actually read the source. Perhaps Okedem should read sources in future before reverting? Factsontheground (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Had you known anything about law making in Israel, you would have known that every proposed bill has to pass four readings to actually "pass" and become law. Many absurd proposals manage to scrape enough votes to pass the preliminary vote ("kri'a tromit"), and soon forgotten. This proposal is one of them. okedem (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

BBC article

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7345025.stm

Maybe someone wants to incorporate it. Dorftrottel (warn) 18:10, April 13, 2008

West Bank deportation order

These may be of interest.

Sean.hoyland - talk 13:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Article Name

The Occupied territories are not "in Israel". International humanitarian law and international human rights law are separate but related subjects. Israel has always claimed that international human rights laws are not applicable to the occupied territories, and that in any event Israel is not responsible for human rights protection in the West Bank and Gaza because they are not part of Israel's sovereign territory and jurisdiction.

I'd suggest the article be renamed something like Human rights in Israel and the Occupied Territories. harlan (talk) 06:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I support the move, much of the material here relates to Gaza, the West Bank, Golan and Jerusalem. --Dailycare (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It makes sense and that's how human rights sources tend to deal with the issue I guess. However, the article is already quite large so I wonder whether a split to a separate article called human rights in the israeli occupied territories is a better approach. A copy of the lead from that article could be placed in this article together with a main article link. On the other hand perhaps it's more neutral to have them combined here. Not sure. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

All your amenities come from Israel (minus taxes) so suck it up. Israel it remains. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Stop trolling. I see your point about not all of this actually taking place in Israel, Sean. There is an article for [[10]] which some parts could be merged into although it seems reasonable to keep large portions here as they relate to human rights activities by the Israeli government. Sol Goldstone (talk) 01:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If stating facts is trolling then we have nothing to talk about here. Hamas recently refused an offer, in which Gaza would become an entirely independent entity, just so that Israel keeps supplying them with everything they have. The article can be found here. Your weasel tactics won't shut me up. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 08:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless international borders are now decided based on who supplies amenities then I don't think we are in the realm of fact. Sol Goldstone (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

International borders do not apply here, since the Palestinian territories do not constitute a country per se. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Bizarrely biased or is it just me?

"A concurrent 1985 decision to disqualify the Progressive List for Peace, a party which was found to threaten the Jewish character of the State of Israel, was overturned by the Supreme Court in 1988."

Something tells me that that is a slightly less than objective characterization of that party... 68.227.169.133 (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not correct to say that the party "was found to threaten the Jewish character of the State of Israel" when in fact, the Israeli Supreme Court held the opposite. I've reworded it to more accurately reflect what happened. Lagringa (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

POV section tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You don't seem to understand basic NPOV policy. You cannot have an entire subsection that does not present any opposing viewpoints. There are a variety of sources which take the view that the Zionist platform of establishing a Jewish national home "secured by public law" has been corrupted, because Israel has violated the provisions of public international regarding the creation of the state, and acquisition of sovereignty over the territory and the indigenous national minorities - including the initial obligation to adopt constitutional human rights protections. See for example Yvonne Schmidt, "Foundations of Civil and Political Rights in Israel and the Occupied Territories", GRIN Verlag, 2008, ISBN: 3638944506, page 98 [11]; Hayim Gordon, Israel today, Peter Lang, 2007, ISBN 0820478253, page 23, [12]; and Senate Judiciary Committee, The Colonization of the West Bank Territories by Israel pages 49-50 (pdf file pages 53-54 of 188) [13]

According to Adam Keller, Israel is singled out because it, and it alone, is in obvious default of a fundamental obligation, an obligation which was the condition for Israel coming into being in the first place. See Adam Keller, "Is Israel singled out – and why?, 1 Aug 2010, The Israeli Occupation Archive (IOA) [14] Are there any objections to adding this material? harlan (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The Council of the League of Nations adopted a resolution in 1931 on the requirements for the termination of a mandate regime. It included a requirement that the governments of the new states accept the same minority rights treaty obligations as the states that were created by the Versailles Peace Conference and the Concert of Europe (in the Treaty of Berlin). See Luther Harris Evans, The General Principles Governing the Termination of a Mandate, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Oct., 1932), pp. 735-758 (esp. pages 751 and 756) [15]

States that are created with the assistance of the international community have legal responsibilities with regard to their national minorities that are different from other states. That was documented in an Aide-memoire during the Versailles Peace Conference. quoted here. Shabtai Rosenne mentioned the legal differences when he was a member of the International Law Commission. See page 33 paragraph 6 [16]

The Declaration of Independence subsection of this article explains that minority rights were placed under the protection of the United Nations by a minority protection plan contained in a chapter of the UN partition plan. The United Nations has only terminated two mandate regimes, i.e. Palestine and Southwest Africa. Li-ann Thio noted that those international law norms developed in the inter-war years by the League of Nations are still in use today. Thio specifically cited the Palestine and Bosnian Partition Plans as post-war examples of the practice of conditioning recognition of statehood on human rights, democracy, and minority protection guarantees. See the discussion on pages 97-98 and footnote 353 in Managing Babel: The International Legal Protection of Minorities in the Twentieth Century, Li-ann Thio, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, ISBN 9004141987 [17] The UN has spent a comparable amount of time on the resolutions and ICJ cases dealing with the mandate/apartheid in Southwest Africa/Namibia and the resolutions/Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunal dealing with the former Yugoslavia. harlan (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Yes, you can read about the discussions regarding the minority rights protections in the partition plan that took place during the hearings on Israel's membership in the UN. The representative of Lebanon, Mr Malik, raised the subject at the forty fifth meeting. See A/AC.24/SR.45, 5 May 1949 At the fiftieth meeting the representative of Cuba asked if Israel had provided the required declaration, but Mr. Eban asked for permission to submit a detailed reply at a later date. At the fifty first meeting Mr Eban was asked if the undertakings had been constitutionally embodied as the fundamental laws of state, and he replied in the affirmative. He cited the Declaration of Independence that had been promulgated as law and published in the official Gazette pending the adoption of the draft constitution by the Knesset. See his reply starting on page 6 [18] Israel has never adopted a constitution and the rights contained in the Declaration have never been formally entrenched as the fundamental law of State.

UN GA resolution 273(III) noted "the declarations and explanations made by Mr. Eban" during the 45th-48th, 50, and 51 sessions.[19] The Permanent Court of International Justice considered the Declarations made before the League Council to be tantamount to a treaty. See International Human Rights in Context, Henry J. Steiner, Philip Alston, Ryan Goodman, Oxford University Press US, 2008, ISBN 019927942X, page 100 [20] BTW, the General Assembly recognized the 1988 Declaration of the State of Palestine "inline with resolution 181(II)", so the PLO/PA have comparable obligations.

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

The partition plan is available online. You can read the Chapters on the Declaration and Constitution for yourself.[21] The rights of minorities were placed under UN protection and disputes were made subject to ICJ jurisdiction. I suppose you've noticed that the human rights organs of the UN and the ICJ have weighed-in from time to time on the Question of Palestine, the "Sacred Trust of Civiliation", the permanent responsibility of the UN, and etc. You been discussing the time spent on those issues here on the talk page harlan (talk) 08:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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