Talk:Human rights in Israel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Portal:Israel
 Israel Portal
Human rights in Israel is part of the WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human rights in Israel article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Contents

[edit] Prisoners section, note to Sarastro777

Your edit summary: "→Treatment of prisoners - someone conveniently (my emphasis) deleted the 70 sick prisoners are in fact children, which was stated previously," assumes bad faith. If you read the quote, it is not clear if 70 of the total prisioners are ill or 70 of the minors are ill. I thought it was probably the former, but did not and would not "conveniently" delete anything. Assuming that everyone who doesn't agree with you is also unscrupulous is completely fallicious. There are people with and without scruples on every side of every issue. Elizmr 00:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

To quote the source: "According to the Bureau, 70 children are ill due to the lack of basic medical attention." It's not a matter of assumption when you feign confusion with such an obvious quote. Sarastro777 01:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't how it read in the text that was in the article. And now you've assumed bad faith again. What is the purpose of that? Elizmr 01:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That is not only how it reads in the text, that is a direct quote which anyone can verify. The only personal attack was from you: "everyone who doesn't agree with you is also unscrupulous." Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks Sarastro777 01:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sarastro, If you read above, (I'll find the link soon) you'll see that the Palestinian Beureu of Statsitics may or may not be a reliable source. If we can back this up with data from the Israeli beureu, I'd feel better about it. And I know, I could never spell beareu. -- Avi 01:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Judging from the bottom 1/3 of the article, it is your viewpoint that nothing is a reliable source except for Alan Dershowitz. Did I miss something? Sarastro777 02:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL. I meant the talk page, here, hold on. Talk:Human rights in Israel#Political prisoners?. Please see John's response to me on this. -- Avi 02:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's the quote I edited: "According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, more than 40,000 Palestinians have been arrested since the start of the September 2000 Al-Aqsa intifada. It continues to hold more than 369 Palestinians who were jailed before the Oslo Accords and currently holds 9,400 Palestinian prisoners in more than 30 jails located across Israel. Of these 330 are children, and according to the Bureau, 70 are considered seriously ill due to lack of "basic medical attention." [1]
It is unclear if the 70 is 70 of the children or 70 of the 9.400 total prisoners they say Israel has. There was no reason to say I did the edit on purpose, and you had no evidence for that. I was careful to leave a lot of negative stuff on Isreal IN, so that should communicate my intent to be fair to you. Instead you accuse me of POV editing. I did not attack you. I just said not to assume I'm unscrupulous because I don't always agree with you. And you HAD called me unscrupulous. Where is the attack there? I don't see it. Elizmr 02:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Now *I* called you unscrupulous? I did a search for that word and it comes up only in your edit or where I am quoting your edit. The line in question is a completely separate sentence in which the subject is the children. Was it the comma that confused you? What language are YOU speaking? It's not a greatly constructed sentence, but even if you were confused, why did you just outright delete it? (rather than look at the source which was there and immediately clarifies any confusion?) I just don't see where you thought you were going with the way you handled this, from a constructive/collaborative frame of mind and now attacking me as if I was the one that made the mistake. You are probably very well-inentioned, in fact I would assume you are... but since you did delete the line because you were confused and did not check the source, the description of convenient deletion is very apt. 5 more seconds of work would have made it unnecessary. Sarastro777 02:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Elizmr - the sentence as it was constructed was extremely unclear as to whether it was 70 children or 70 people. On the other hand, it probably would have been better to check the source first, before deleting, but it was obviously an honest mistake, and not some kind of conspiracy. Beyond that, I think Elizmr was saying that Sarastro accused him of being unscrupulous by "conveniently" deleting something, not that Sarastro accused him of being "unscrupulous," using that precise word. Really, everyone should chill out here. This one issue not that big a deal, and not worth an argument. john k 03:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sara777: You say "the description of convenient deletion is very apt", but it is against Wikipedia rules to assume bad faith, so "apt" or not you are breaking house rules. Please stop it, ok? I should have checked the source, and I apologize. The best thing to do would be to assume I was acting in good faith and clarify rather than assuming bad faith and using the snarky edit summary. Honestly, you expect the Israelis and Palestinians to get along and we can't even assume good faith on this Wikipedia page. Elizmr 23:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you did do the 'convenient' thing, by not taking the extra time to check the fact and just deleting a cited sentence. Of course this is all the edit note ever claimed. I don't understand what you want. I never accused you of not acting in good faith. Definitely not worth an argument as Johnk said. Sarastro777 22:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If that's true, I totally apologize. Sorry! Elizmr 01:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] weasel words....

I added the weasel tag primarily because of the following phrase: "Amnesty International has been accused of having a double standard when it comes to its assessment of Israel.". Accused by whom? Israel? Doesn't sound neutral to me.62.142.46.22 10:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It should be sourced (many people have said that, among them Israeli officials), but there's no nuetrality problem here. The article doesn't say Amnesty has a double standard, it says it's been accused of that, which is a fact. okedem 11:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. If the source is specified it is not weasel. The accusers of AI are plainly listed as NGO monitor, there is no weasel issue at all. -- Avi 15:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mordechai Vanunu

[edit] Take 1

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

But why is it a violation of civil rights to incarcerate someone lawfully and legally convicted of treason? -- Avi 00:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you serious? Presumably because the law under which he is convicted is considered to be unjust. Nelson Mandela was "lawfully and legally convicted" of crimes for which he was imprisoned, too. john k 14:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
He was kidnapped from Rome by the Mossad and then 'lawfully tried'. Amnesty International considers him a "Prisoner of Conscience" -- so added that to make clear what the opinion of the human rights groups are on the matter (our own views don't count). Sarastro777 18:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
So you think that other countries would imprison someone who gave away state secrets? Is Jonathan Pollard a prisoner of conscience?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Here we go again. It doesn't matter what I think. That would be Wikipedia:OR. The information given is from a Human Rights Group that is cited. Your gripe is with them. Maybe you should call Amnesty International and ask them about Jonathan Pollard if it is an area of personal interest for you. Sarastro777 18:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Worth noting that Pollard was paid a lot of money by the Israeli government for his espionage work. Vanunu leaked information to the press. One can understand why the Israeli government wouldn't want people doing this, but the situation really isn't comparable to the Pollard situation. john k 20:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it's not a good comparison, but I do believe Vaanunu's actions would constitute Treason in most western countries. okedem 20:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
It depends on how you view the state secret he revealed. If it was a legitimate state secret, then he's a traitor. If not, then he's a whistle-blower. It seems to me that it's at a muddy intersection, and I'm not sure what I think - I'd have to know more about the particulars. It could very well be treason, but it's certainly a lot more morally ambiguous than the classic kind of for-hire-by-foreign-governments treason, of which Pollard is certainly a classic example. I do think that kidnapping someone from a foreign country in order to put them on trial is generally wrong, and usually frowned upon. Not sure if it's a human rights issue, per se, though. john k 22:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Every country limits freedoms as it sees fit. Vanunu violated a law and was punished for that. The freedom of speech section should talk about press, assosiations, etc., instead of harping on one old criminal case. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Because Amnesty International and other groups cited comment on it, it is not a business as usual 'limit of freedom', a classification which is your own opinion and not backed by the human rights groups.. "Harping" is also POV, the point of the article is to document human rights issues. Classifying every section with wording like besmirching, harping, etc is not helpful to the process. I also ask you to examine your behavior which consists almost entirely of coming to this article and deleting material which you have not added. Your justifications are not borne out by the facts, also as in this case. I have not seen you add hardly one thing other than a table, in which you omitted to 'occupied territories', which showed a very poor rating, but did manage to list Israel. Sarastro777 02:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Ignoring your ad hominem for now. It's good to know I'm being watched. You are wrong on all points. Vanunu broke the law, end of story. The section on the Freedom of speech somehow managed to omit to mention that Israel is ranked #1 in the region. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Besides the fact that this is not a HR issue, even according to YOUR OWN QUOTE it is not a problem, because you are hanging your hat on the AI articles saying, in April of 2005, that “If Mordechai Vanunu were to be imprisoned for breaching the restrictions imposed on him, Amnesty International would consider him to be a prisoner of conscience.” He has not been imprisoned as far as I can tell today in 2006, only the restrictions have been extended. So you have no leg to stand on, from your own article. -- Avi 05:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Acccording to Amnesty International which is a Human Rights Group this IS a human rights issue. See [[2]] I quote verbatim "9. The SCM concluded that Amnesty International must now call for the release of Mordechai Vanunu, as a way to end his continued solitary confinement and as a way to redress the other human rights violations he has suffered." FYI this edit got me a NPOV warning from User:Avraham [3] --Oiboy77 18:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Among two other edits of yours, yes, and if you were to re-engage the editors in discussion, and a consensus is reached that it does belong, then there would have been no need for a warning. But, I am sorry to say, you have a history of undeniably NPOV edits. -- Avi 18:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The issue at hand is this edit NOT my "history of undeniably NPOV edits" I have posted direct citations from a Human Rights Organization. If you or any other editors have citations that directly refute the aformentioned citation I this it is justified to remove it. No consensus is required when adding material that has direct citations.--Oiboy77 18:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Oiboy77, do you insist that the history of your edits should be analyzed? ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Take 2

The Vanunu stuff seems to be being reinserted and removed by various editors over the last few days. I think this needs to be discussed here, rather than continuing the reversions.

I'm not convinced on the merits of including some mention of him or not, but if it is to be included, the current text isn't very good. The "if he violates the restrictions" wording is very awkward, especially since the nature of the restrictions has not been discussed in the article. There are two issues here: 1) his original imprisonment for treason; and 2) his current restrictions, and his status if he were imprisoned for violating them. The current version does not clarify this distinction at all. This needs to be done if a discussion of him is going to be in the article. john k 19:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see section 10 above -- Avi 20:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a little more understandable if the issue is the writing in the section, which can be addressed. I hope this is now the accepted viewpoint. The previous arguments being made to justify deleting the material consisted of "there is a law" or "there is a limit to freedom." Certainly the mere existence of some law does not ever morally legitimize any behavior by gov't. See:Nuremberg_Racial_Purity_Laws

Some sources on the matter: Another AI source: "The organization is also calling for his [Vanunu's] release from custody as redress for the persistent and past human rights violations to which he has been subjected." ^-- background on the "persistent human rights violations" are documented in [[4]] Sarastro777 20:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sarastro, please do not tell me that you are comparing racial purity laws with a soveriegn country's right to protect its military secrets(not to mention vanunu violated every pledge/oath he took when given security clearances)???? -- Avi 20:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can gather, what HS said above pretty much amounted to an argument that governments can decide to limit freedom of speech, and that such limits then do not constitute problems with freedom of speech. Sarastro's counter-example was probably ill-chosen (it's a bad idea to bring the Nazis into things), but surely we can all agree that laws can be passed which violate human rights? Whether this particular law does is a matter for debate, but the fact that Vanunu was tried and convicted of something that was a crime in Israel does not necessarily mean that he's not also a martyr to free speech, or what not. For instance, how is what Vanunu did significantly different from the actions of Daniel Ellsberg? He is generally viewed today as a hero of free speech in the United States. What he did was certainly illegal, but is generally viewed favorably now. It seems to simple to just say that Vanunu is a "traitor." john k 22:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, that source is as of 1998. -- Avi 21:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So, Human Rights violations are erased from ever having existed after a period of time? Sarastro777 21:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The comparison is blindly claiming the existence of a law exempts gov't from human rights scrutiny, which has been done on this subject. In the obvious example above we can see that is a false argument. There are also wider issues of his status as Whistleblower, which means he was reporting behavior that could be considered illegal under international law. This is not a matter for us to decide, but there is a massive amount of Human Rights violations perceived by numerous organizations, basing around his 'freedom of speech.' This IS something that is relevant to this article. Sarastro777 20:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think what's needed are better citations of the idea that Vanunu's original imprisonment was unjust and is considered a human rights violation by whatever group. john k 22:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Please see [[5]] It is a clear citation. And clearly uses the verbage Human Right Violation in a un-birmirching way.--Oiboy77 18:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
1) Vanunu is not the case of freedom of speech, and 2) AI is not a WP:RS in this matter. Its credibility is highly disputed when it comes to Israel. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Amnesty International is a reliable organization. You need to quit pushing the excuses. I didn't see you worrying about reliability when quoting Op/Ed pieces by "Neo Cons" and David Horowitz, whatever you would call him. Sarastro777 01:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't need your advices or approvals. AI's credibility is disputed. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Awww.. that doesn't sound like an Administrator attempting to collaborate. I don't think we can devote anymore space to conspiracy theories on major human rights groups being anti-semitic. As it stands this is probably at least 1/4 of the bulk of "Human Rights in Israel." Sarastro777 06:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship and freedom of speech

I've added sources about Bakri's deposition that his film is not accurate, and that he did take "artistic liberty" in filming it. Are the sources false? Am I not using them correctly? okedem 08:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

YOur sources are fine, and add depth to the discussion of the film in this context. The basic underlying problem with this page, of which the deletion of your cites is a perfect example, is that a few editors here are using Wikipedia as a sword against Israel. When this, rather than the creation of a credible encyclopedia, becomes the goal, following core Wikipedia policies like WP:NPOV and WP:REF only get in the way. Elizmr 15:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Yea, well... I've accepted the fact that this article will be way longer than the ones about other coutries (especially in the region). Now I'm just trying to keep it as neutral as possible... okedem 15:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
You claim that Bakri admitted he "falsified scenes and used inaccurate information", but he did no such thing and neither of your sources support this. All Bakri admitted was that he believed his interviewees and replied "No" when asked whether Israeli soldiers fired indiscriminately. Both of your sources are known for their extreme pro-Israel bias and should not be trusted anyway; this whole issue is spin. Deuterium 15:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I wrote "Bakri admitted to inaccuracies throughout his film". Nothing about "falsified". That was another editor, just now. I changed it back. Many of Bakri's claims have been refuted in another film, "The road to Jenin", and you can read about it in the source. The UN also determined there was no massacre.[6] Anyways, please discuss changes on the talk page before deleting sourced sentences.
I'll try and find other sources, but most of them are in hebrew, so I can't use them here. okedem 16:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Also on this section. Why do we have "Censorship and freedom of speech" and "Freedom of speech" sections? It should all be under "Freedom of Speech" (but then, of course, one doesn't get to throw the posioning the well term, "censorship" around. Elizmr 17:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Indubitably, Elizmr. -- Avi 17:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Good catch, Elizmr. Another instance of using WP to attack Israel beyond any measure. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Ironically, I think the situation only makes Israel look good. It have have been reasonable not to show a film that contained many innaccuracies, but in the end freedom of speech won out. Elizmr 21:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nationality and Entry into Israel law

Warring parties - Moshe and Deuterium - please discuss this section here before reverting each other's work again. okedem 07:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

On a topic other than the edit war, this should not be under "ethnic minorities". Maybe a new section on "immigration" should be started because that is the topic. Also, this very difficult decision was made because security problems were found after letting this type of immigration take place. Maybe someone could dig up a quote on that. We can probably handle this topic in a NPOV manner that makes both sides ok with it. Elizmr 09:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
It should be under the "ethnic minorities" section, because critics argue that the law is selectively targeting an ethnic minority, Israeli Arabs, because many are married to Palestinians and will be affected by this law (e.g. have families broken up). Deuterium 10:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rights of Women

The first paragraph, while a faithful rendition of the AI statement, is actually based on a slight misinterpretation of Rabbinic Law on AI's part. I will try to explain it as clearly as I can, and then we can discuss whether or not the article needs adjustment, and how to do so without violation WP:OR.

Biblical law allows male polygamy. Historically, this was a rarity, left as the perview of kings and wealthy men, as the biblical requirements of spousal support (financial, emotional, sexual, and child support to name some major responsibilities) were in general too demanding on men to fulfill with more than one wife. King David had 18 wives, and the Midrash brings down that this strained even he, the King of all Israel. Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with the Bible in theory, this explains the difference between the child's status if the father or mother was married. If we are not talking about one of the other forbidden relationships (incestual or otherwise) whose punishment is divine excommunication and early death from Heaven (Kares), and the only illegitamicy comes from the marital status of one of the partners, then if the man is the married partner, his having sex and a child from an unmarried woman is viewed as tantamount to marrying her (there are three biblical methods of entering a marriage, and having sexual relations with intent to consumate a marriage is one of them). A woman cannot use this loophole as she is not allowed to have two husbands, so perforce the child is a mamzer.

As mentioned, in practice polygamy was a rarity. In approximately the 10th century, one of the greatest of the European rabbinical leaders, Gershom ben Judah, impelented a prohibition against polygamy for 1,000 years. Although this is technically expired, most modern rabbinic authorities believe that this has taken on the status of a minhag yisrael, or an ancient minhag which is treated for the most part as halakha.

The heter me'ah rabbanan, or "Permission of 100 rabbis" is a loophole built into the rabbinic prohibition preventing polygamy, usually used in cases where divorce is impossible; for example, a woman who is declared insane cannot accept a Jewish divorce, as she must be of sound mind to effect the breaking of the relationship. As such, the husband is still required to care for her. However, as normal husband-wife interactions (emotional etc.) are impossible, he would be allowed, by obtaining this permission, to remarry. This is not a release from the marriage, but a legal instance of Jewish polygamy in the modern era. This is usually not secular/legal polygamy, as a secular divorce is granted, and the courts can break a marriage even with a woman who is not well.

So, the AI statement that this is a "release" is technically a misinterpretation and misunderstanding of Jewish law, but I have not changed the text, because it is what they wrote, and any correction I would make based on my own knowledge of Rabbinic law is considered original research.

Suggestions? -- Avi 14:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This is one of those points where Wikipedia OR rules prove irritatingly bothersome. There should not be a policy which prevents you from giving well-sourced citations about why AI is somewhat wrong about Judaic law. Sadly, the prevailing interpretation of WP:NOR seems to be that this is in fact forbidden. I'm not sure what is to be done about this. john k 23:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


So much for the marriage rights - can she sit in the front of the bus now.159.105.80.63 18:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fence/Security Barrier

The section about the fence is in really bad shape - it's very POV, and doesn't even explain why the barrier was built. I want to make some changes there, but I'd like to see if there are any objections first.

  1. The name of the section (and the link to the main article) will be changed from "West Bank Wall" to "Israeli West Bank barrier", as the name of main article. The name "wall" is very misleading, as the barrier is 95% fence, and only 5% wall.
  2. "A controversial wall built by the Israeli Government around areas of occupied territory in the West Bank has drawn much controversy." ---> "A physical barrier, comprised mainly of fences and trenches, built by the Israeli Government which has been the center of much controversy. It is located partly within the West Bank, partly along the border between the West Bank and Israel proper."
  3. There's no explanation why the barrier was built! - I'll add something, like: "The barrier's stated purpose is "to keep the terrorists out and thereby save the lives of Israel's citizens, Jews and Arabs alike."" [7].
  4. I'll also add something about it's effectiveness, from this paragraph (from the main article): "Israeli statistics indicate that the barrier has drastically reduced the number of Palestinian infiltrations and suicide bombings and other attacks on civilians in Israel and in Israeli settlements, and Israeli officials assert that completion of the barrier will make it even more effective in stopping these attacks [8] since "An absolute halt in terrorist activities has been noticed in the West Bank areas where the fence has been constructed". [9] "
  5. "The Israeli government is known to refer to the wall euphemistically as a "security barrier", though this wording is not used by the international community." --> This sentence will be deleted. It's highly POV.
  6. "The wall was also condemned by the International Court of Justice..." --> "The building of the barrier inside the west bank was also condemned by the International Court of Justice..." - The source says it's about building it inside the west bank, not the sole act of building it.
  7. "the Israeli Supreme Court ruled: "The route [of the West Bank Wall] disrupts..." --> "the Israeli Supreme Court ruled, concerning a strech of the barrier to the north-west of Jerusalem: "The route [of the West Bank Barrier] disrupts... "

okedem 10:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Well and fairly done. Thank you. -- Avi 21:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Way to go, you deleted the "wall" wording used in all the sources and by the international community and replaced it with the euphemisms used only by Zionists and the Israeli gov't. The whole section is so much less POV now that you "fixed" it. Sarastro777 05:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed it so it used the actual name, and not that absurd "wall" thing, which makes no sense, as only 5% of the barrier is a wall, and the rest is a fence. Thus, the word "barrier" best describes it, as it's neither completely wall nor fence. If you can offer better ways of phrasing that section, we should discuss them. okedem 06:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The sources list wall. Your opinion doesn't count for anything... and you certainly are not an authority above the International Court of Justice, Amnesty International, the United Nations, etc. None of them use YOUR wording. Sarastro777 01:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you implying that Amnesty International is not biased? Are you implying that UN resolutions, which constantly put 40+ Arab nations against the one Jewish nation not biased? It is hard to find middle ground, but Amenesty is definately not it. The official name for the fence by the internationally recognized Israeli government is "security fence." Ministry of Defence I advise you go see the "wall" for yourself, you could find media lies too. --יהושועEric 02:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
It is irrelevant what some sources call it, and it has nothing to do with my opinion either. The fact of the matter is that despite the Palestinian propaganda campaign, it's still only 5% wall, and 95% fence, and so the name "wall" would be completely misleading.
Here in Wikipedia we call things by their proper names, not by names used to advance a POV, like "the wall" - an obvious, and fallacious, reference to the Berlin Wall. okedem 09:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] religious freedom section reorg

reorged along the following lines:

  • statement of the law
  • Israel's record in protecting Muslim rights to worship including funding (could be expanded)
  • non-Jewish religious institutions in Israel
  • Israel's record regarding non-Orthodox religious movements

please note NOTHING WAS DELETED--just reorged for clarityElizmr 15:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rights of Women

For some reason people keep removing this section. Could they please explain why they keep removing the following cited, relevant information:

[edit] Rights of Women

In it's 2005 report to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women Comments by Amnesty International on the compliance by Israel with its obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), Amnesty International notes its concern about agunot (chained women): "Jewish religious divorce laws discriminate against women by making divorce for a woman conditional on her husband’s consent, whereas a man can be "released" from his marriage through the signature of 100 rabbis. Even though religious courts can take certain measures (including imposing fines and even prison sentences) against a husband whose refusal to grant a divorce to his wife is considered unjustified by the competent religious authorities, ultimately a woman whose husband refuses to grant her a get (divorce decree) has no recourse." [2] Amnesty International also criticizes the custom that the illegitimate children of married Jewish women are considered mamzerim who face restrictions and stigma, yet the illegitimate children of married Jewish men are not. According to Amnesty International, "These discriminatory laws prevent women who find themselves in unhappy marriages, or whose husbands beat them up, rape them or otherwise abuse them, to obtain divorce if their husbands refuse. These laws and their implementation violate the right to equality and the right to marry and found a family."

  1. ^ {{cite web | url = http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/images/informationbrief.php?ID=160 | url = http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/images/informationbrief.php?ID=160 | title = Palestinian Political Prisoners in Israel"
  2. ^ Briefing to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. Amnesty International (June 2005).

It's clearly about human rights in Israel and it's fulfillments of it's obligations to the UN human rights convention on the rights of women (CEDAW) and so is EXTREMELY relevant to this page. FuManChoo 10:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say Israel? Read the title of the article. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Where does it say Israel? Where does it say Israel? ALL OVER THE REPORT. Read it. [10]:
Amnesty International is submitting this briefing to the UN CEDAW Committee ahead of its consideration of Israel’s third periodic report(1) on the implementation by Israel of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), to which Israel became a state party on 2 November 1991, with reservation to Articles 7(b) and 16.(2)
This briefing focuses on Amnesty International’s concern about some aspects of violence and discrimination against women, including trafficking of women for forced prostitution and discriminatory policies and practices against women migrant workers in Israel. The organization notes a number of positive measures taken by the Israeli authorities in recent years, including the enactment of laws aimed at increasing the protection of women’s rights, and highlights outstanding concerns which have not been addressed or which require further measures.
Stop wasting my time. This is ridiculous, even for you. This report is obviously about Israel. FuManChoo 10:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you stop wasting our time? The policies criticized bt AI in that section have to do with Judaic practice - they have nothing more to do with "human rights" in Israel than they do with "human rights" in the USA, or in France or in Argentina. These religious practices are not official policy or law of Israel, and are not binding on anyone but those who adhere, out of personal choice, to a certain relgious practice. Catholics do not eat meat on Fridays, are we going to create an article about "Human Rights in Spain" that denounces that practice? Isarig 17:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
No, Israel is a Jewish state and most of it's inhabitants obey Jewish religious law. For example there are no civil marriages in Israel and many citizens have to travel elsewhere just to get married. Jewish custom is relevant to human rights in Israel as the practice of Sharia law is to human rights in Ethiopia. Besides, this report is about Israel's fulfillment of the convention. FuManChoo 02:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
And Argentina is a Catholic state - so are we going to create an article about "Human Rights in Argentina" that denounces the practice of not eatignmeat on Fridays? Nevermind the fact that you conflate the concept of a Jewish state, which is an ethnic, not religions designation, with the concept of a state that has Judaism as an offical religion (which Israel does not). If you want to add to the article that Israel has no civil marriage - go ahead, but stop wasting our time with complaints about Judaism's view on children born out of wedlock. Your analogy is telling - Sharia law is th elaw in Ethiopia. Judaic law is not the law in IsrealIsarig 02:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
If judaic law is not the law in Israel why do so many of it's citizens have to travel outside ust to get married? It's officially an orthodox Jewish state. It's not a secular state.
It's also telling that you compare people being forced not to marry each other to not eating meat on Fridays. As a more valid analogy, it would be valid in a "Human Rights in Argentina" article to comment on abortions if they weren't allowed due to Catholicism (I don't actually know whether they are or not in Argentina). FuManChoo 02:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, you don;t know what you are talking about. IUsreal is not officialy an orthodox Jewish state, it has no official state religion. Kindly learn something about this topic. Isarig 03:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Fu, It is true that the agunah problem is a serious one for some orthodox Jewish women and their kids. Many in the Orthodox Jewish feminist community are working to address it. However it is not an official Israeli policy; Isarig is correct. Respectfully, please consider investigating your facts before editing. Elizmr 02:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The human rights situation in a country is not just the official policies of the state; the actual religious practices of the inhabitants are included as well. For instance, female circumcision may not be an official policy in North African countries, but it is a human rights issue. FuManChoo 03:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to answer this, but most of the women in Israel are not orthodox and are not affected by this at all. In Egypt more than 95% of women are circumsized according to the UN. Elizmr 13:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing that section, again. It's about rights of women in Judaism, not in Israel. If someone chooses to engage in a religious Jewish marriage, they accept these facts. Don't want to - don't get married like that. These problems have nothing to do with state laws, or rights. Besides, that section makes it look like Jews are the only ones in the country - anyone forgetting the 20% Arab minority? okedem 08:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/u/m/Talk%7EHuman_rights_in_Israel_53c2.html"