Talk:Israel

This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when responding to comments on this talk page.

Archives
Israel and the Occupied Territories Jerusalem as capital 2002 – 2003 Aug 2003 Aug 2003 – Apr 2004 Apr 2004 – Sep 2004 Oct 2004 – Jan 2005 Jan 2005 – Aug 2005 Aug 2005 – Sep 2005 Sep 2005 – Oct 2005 Oct 2005 – Apr 2006 Apr 2006 – Jun 2006 Jun 2006 – Jul 2006

---

Archived

Although discussion was ongoing, it seemed to me that it mostly consisted of pointless and mostly obnoxious arguments from partisans on both sides, rather than an actual attempt to improve the article. I thought it would be best to archive this stuff. If people want to actually propose changes to the article, they should propose specific changes, and not vague discussions of whether the article is POV or not. And, to both sides, nationalist point scoring doesn't do any good for anybody. john k 22:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Unarchived article as Smitty Magee has posted direct information on improving the article. Also it is YOUR POV that the talk page is "mostly pointless and obnoxious"--Oiboy77 17:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no rule that archiving of a page needs to be NPOV. I'm not even sure what that means. The page was too long, anyway, and needed to be archived. I'm rearchiving. Anyone who wants to read stuff can read it in the archive. If somebody wants to repost something, they can do it. But the page was way too long. john k 18:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Missing Information

On July 14th, 2006 Noam Chomsky was interviewed by DemocracyNow.org [1]

During his interview at (Time Marker 3:40) He states that the current Flare up of violence that has ultimately resulted in the Bombing of Lebanon, started with the Israeli’s abducting two civilians from the Gaza strip. These two people were a doctor and his brother. As a result, Palestinians abducted two soldiers. When the Israeli army retaliated, Lebanon weighed in. This should be mentioned in the Article.

'Also...'

There does not seem to be any information about the United Nations recognizing the Israeli occupation as "Illegal"

Source: "Peace Propaganda & the Promised Land" [2] I don't know who is in charge of changes, but something reflecting these facts would be good to see.

July 17

Why are some contributors scared to state the undeniable facts? Israel does hold thousands of arabs in prisons, including women and children. Israel has also killed at least 100 lebanese civilians in the first 5 days of its attack. And Israeli soldiers killed a family of 8 palestinians including their children on a beach in gaza in early June.

What suggestions do you have for improving the article? That's all that this talk page is for, thank you. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we add this information to the article. It does mention Palestininians as terrorists, so why not mention Palestinians in another light.--Oiboy77 17:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfair Deletions

I have made the following factual ammendments to the opening paragraph.

"The State of Israel (Hebrew: מְדִינַת יִשְׂרָאֵל (help·info); Medinat Yisra'el; Arabic: دَوْلَةْ إِسْرَائِيل‎, Dawlat Isrā'īl) is actually a part of Palestine which was occupied and taken over by the Jews after WW2 with help from the British Army. Now a country in Western Asia on the southeastern edge of the Mediterranean Sea. It is a parliamentary democracy and the world's only Jewish state. A state of unease exists between it and the rest of the Middle East which is predominantly Muslim and largely opposed to Israel's invasion and occupation of Palestine." User: universetoday

The amendments in question are not factual in the least. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 07:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Karimarie What facts in the revision are you disputing? I have ciations for all!--Oiboy77 07:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The part " is actually a part of Palestine which was occupied and taken over by the Jews after WW2 with help from the British Army" clearly.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

How about the one where Palestinians are not considered full citizens? Or the part where Israel is actually a part of Palestine? Put forth your citations. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 07:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I agree that the edits made were not NPOV. In the interest of MAKING this article as NPOV as possible, I withdraw my last statement. I hope all of you look at this with an unbias perspective. I added an article on Human Rights Abuse (with citations) It does not "demonize" either party. It simple recites the facts.--Oiboy77 08:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is the word "is." Not only is Israel no longer part of Palestine, Palestine no longer exists as such. It is fair to say that Israel is on land taken from Palestine, but you may as well say that it's in the Ottoman Empire. Twin Bird 16:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

usurper government ?

What's the reference in the first sentence: usurper government ?

It was an act of vandalism by an anonymous IP, and has been reverted. - MSTCrow 05:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's already been removed.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

...

I wrote a laundry list of everything that is wrong with this article, yet some editors are insisting that no specific points have been made. I can copy and paste the entire thing if your memory span is really that short, but I prefer that we continue the discussion, rather than pretend that there is no real debate. Finally, the poll has not yet expired, so let users vote if they are so inclined.Smitty Mcgee 14:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Smitty, you're going to get yourself in trouble if you keep this up. - MSTCrow 14:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Make your point if you have one. That would be more productive than a vague threat.Smitty Mcgee 15:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Your "laundry list" can be seen at Talk:Israel/Archive 12, as can the responses to it. No need to copy and paste them; they were discussed at the time, and then the conversation moved on. (I'm assuming you're referring to the numbered list of excerpts from the article and your opinions of each of them; am I wrong?) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You are correct. However, editors are still insisting that no specific points have been made regarding the neutrality of this article. I thank you for posting the proper link and hope that these accusations will be dropped and that productive debate will resume.Smitty Mcgee 17:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Smitty, as you are aware, original research and analysis is verboten on Wikipedia. If you can find supporting sources for your allegations from crdible sources that are not pro-terrorist, Islamist, or anti-Semitic, they will be considered. - MSTCrow 23:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't you just claim that any source that supports Smitty's position is either pro-terrorist or anti-Semitic? That's your whole game. The idea that basic ideas like "lots of people, including most leading human rights groups, have argued that Israel commits human rights violations in the Occupied Territories," and "a lot of people, including most Arabs, disagree with the idea that the Arabs were the aggressors in 1948" is ridiculous. john k 00:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

WHAT IS AN OPINION ANYWAY?

A user named Avi has told me that I edited this article in a bad manner, because of my "opinion" that the land acquisition by jews in Palestine was not legaly sound. Well, if opinions are not wellcome, why the word legitimate (evaluating these acquisitions)was there? Legitimacy is not an objective fact is it? Because there are laws made by americans to prevent this! Could France or Germany authorize such a procedure?Of course not! Well in Palestine all this was possible: foreigners authorized jewish organizations to buy as much land as they wanted and gave them a "legitimate" state afterwards... Ottoman and British laws granted this procedure! which kind of legitimacy is that? The dictatorship legitimacy it seems! Amazing that legitimacy is a neutral standpoint and questioning it is not! Looks like the New York Times treatment of the conflict!Kusnetsov 18:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:OR and WP:NPOV. I am glad to see you registered a userid :) Thank you. -- Avi 18:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, the word "legitimate" was removed, and rightly so. However, the comparison you're making here is invalid. The USA is a sovergeign state. Palestine was not. It switched hands for millenia, but the last time it was actually an independent state was at the time of the kindgom of Judea (you can also count The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, I guess). okedem 18:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Again: if Palestine was not a sovereign state, you mean that it could not become one, unless by the hands of its last historical self-ruled population, even in minority. In the case of the United States, if we apply the same logic, Mr. Washington could never have declared independence (he was playing Arafat's role), but some Native American could, even in minority and surrounded by annoying white-never-sovereign inhabitants. Well, lets do it so! Lets give america back to its native inhabitants and send every white man back to their native europe! I don't think so... And in the case of Palestine, it was never homogeneous in its population. The problem is: while the ottomans and british were ruling, jews created a parallel power that destroyed any possibility of political rights of the arab inhabitants. And even being minority in population and owning less tha half of the territory, the jews got from UN a sovereign state with 56% of the land. The whole question was decided by turks, british and jews in the UN circus as if the arab inhabitants were not there.Kusnetsov 12:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. The Arabs were there. See Peel Commission and note the map: had they accepted that 1937 partition, a Palestinian Arab state would be 69 years today and much bigger territorially (and countless lives could be saved). Their leaders refused to even negotiate and consistently chose violence. I equally respect all the nations, and that means that each should take responsibility for the decisions of their own leaders and not blame others. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Humus sapiens, you forgot to tell that the 20th zionist congress also refused the proposals of the Peel Comission, because they wanted to continue immigration and to get more and more land, whatever the consequences for the arabs could be. Kusnetsov 16:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

While this is true, it was not the responsibility of the Zionist congress to serve the needs of the Arab population in their choices regarding the Peel Comission. That was the job of the leaders of the potential Arab state, and they made a choice that led to a loss of that particular chance for a Palestinian Arab state. In most negotiations, the leaders of either party will look out for the needs of their party, as opposed to the needs of all involved. Therefore, all leaders are responsible for their actions. --Fairygothmommy 02:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

AVRAHAM: A LEGITIMATE SURPRISE

Dear Avi, you surprised me (in a positive way) by agreeing that legitimacy could be deleted of the previous version. I don't intend to keep editing this page forever. Some guy named Daniel wrote some warnings that my editing was vandalism. I don't think so. I created a userid and have tried to discuss my editing. I know that a supporter of Israel can't be convinced of almost anything because of the injustices the jews have suffered by millennia and because of the overwhelming psychological impact of the holocaust. Considering these things it's easy to see why brilliant jews miss the point (oftenly in good faith, I think)even when israeli policies are clearly unfair and abusive like in the case of the West Bank settlements. I'd like to be clear that I don't think the jews don't have the right to live in their former ancient homeland. I only think that the way this modern version of Israel was built was not fair to the arabs and that they have the right to fight against the occupation of Gaza and Cisjordania. When the UN gave the jews 56% of the area it was not fair, but I think the arabs will have to live with that. But that is enough, and enough is enough. I think the occupation must end and that the settlements in Gaza and Cisjordania must be totally removed. Only after that Israel can complain about terrorism. As I see it, until these withdrawals are not accomplished there is no terrorism, but resistence. I'm sorry if it seems offensive, but invaders are invaders, not "victims of extremism". The jews should keep their 56%, not take the displaced arabs back to this area (fair or not...lets live with this too), but should give the West Bank back to the arabs, give Golan back to the syrians and pay some compensation and only then complain about "terrorism".Kusnetsov 12:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote bellow, I agree with the need to end the occupation of Judea and Samaria. A large part of the Israeli public sees that. It's extremely unfortunate that the palestinians in the Gaza strip continue their attacks (with Qasam rockets) even after all of the settlement there were dismantled, and the Israel army pulled out. If they would have ceased their attacks right after the Hitnatkut, it would have been a greaet incentive for Israel to execute more withdrawl plans, dismantling more settlements in the West Bank, and eventually leaving it all together. Basically - the palestinians are hurting their own cause, and that's a shame. okedem 12:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that was okedem. I had a one-sentence response :) Indentations are useful. -- Avi 17:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This talk page as a metaphor for the conflict?

This whole thing is a mess. What we always seem to get on this and related pages are completely incoherent partisans of the Palestinian cause, and considerably more coherent people who say things like "the Palestinians left their homes in 1948 to wait for the Jews to be driven into the sea" as though this is an established fact. The whole dynamic in articles related to Israel/Palestine issues seems to mirror the conflict itself, in that it's dominated by extremists on both sides, and the pro-Israel extremists have the big guns (in this case, writing and debating skill) on their side, but remain unable to actually pacify the situation. (They can also use the constant threat from trolls to justify never having to make any concession to reasonable opponents). Deeply distasteful. I suppose that things will never get any better. Yuck. john k 18:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This does look like the conflict, but let me just clarify something - I made this the claim that SOME of "the Palestinians left their homes in 1948 to wait for the Jews to be driven into the sea", based on things I've read in the past. I wish I had the sources to link to, but I don't, so I withdraw that claim.

Palestinians left their homes because there was an ongoing war and they wanted to be out of the way. Presumably they were more sympathetic to the armies of the Arab states than to Israel, and I suppose one could characterize their behavior in this way, but this way of characterizing it is putting the least charitable spin on the issue imaginable. That's my basic issue with it - it is spouting propaganda rather than making even the slightest effort to be fair-minded. john k 20:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess the aggressive nature of these arguments does cause one to view things that way. okedem 20:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Although you try to group the supporters of Israel with the supporters of the Arabs together, that's not very fair, as the supporters of Israel actually back their claims with sources, and the arab supporters mainly use ALL CAPS as their source, writing complete and utter lies (like claiming Israel silences it's media, and then evading referencing that claim). I don't know if you were refering to me as an extremist, I hope not, as I try to write only facts. I do think facts are important, and I do find claims like "the jews don't have any history in Israel" highly offensive, in their complete falseness.

I thought I was being fairly clear that, just as Israel has a stronger and better equipped army than the Arab states and the Palestinians, pro-Israel editors on wikipedia tend to have better arguments and writing skills at their hands. I agree that many of the people posting from a pro-Palestinian perspective here like to use ALL CAPS and write lots of anti-semitic nonsense. On the other hand, I find "there is no such thing as a Palestinian people," and such like to be at least as offensive as "the Jews don't have any history in Israel." On both sides I see a lack of fair mindedness and a lack of willingness to engage in discussion, rather than to spout position papers. The Israeli position papers are better researched, better written, and more convincing, and this does lead to improvement in the article, but at the same time I think it leads to a subtle but persistent Israel bias in a lot of articles on this topic. I apologize if I implied that you were an extremist (and I imagine I probably did). I should probably have just said "partisan," which I imagine is more accurate. These articles tend to be dominated by people whose sympathies are decidedly on one side or the other, and often by people who are themselves parties to the conflict. When these people are evenly matched in rhetorical ability, this can work out okay. I think it's a problem when one side does a clearly better job than the other, but the other side refuses to give up. This just leads to constant talk page arguments without any bias in the article actually getting ironed out. john k 20:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the writing skills are the issue here. Maybe reasoning skills. The writing skills of the arab-supporters on this page seem quite on par with the Israel's supporters. The problem is with unbased claims, falsehoods, and ingnoring the references, including articles on Wikipedia. okedem 20:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that the average Israel supporter working on this page tends to be clearer about what he is saying, and to argue in a more concise and focused way. This, I think, can be said to be "better writing," even if grammar and spelling are similar. I think both sides are often repeating propaganda, but the Israeli side does so more effectively by bringing up sources and making clearer arguments on its behalf. Which is certainly better than the alternative, but is still not all that good. john k 21:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It actually is a crying shame. You see, if the Arab supporters would tone it down a bit, and focus on facts, not unbased claims, they might actually find some support - even from Israelis. Maybe they'll find out that Israel isn't some monolithic culture, that there are disagreements here, that not every Israeli agrees with every action his government takes. For instance, I'm actually on the left side of the political map in Israel. I don't think "Israel was given to us by God" (I'm an atheist), I think our occupation of Judea and Samaria (and previously, Gaza) is wrong. I think the settlements in the west bank are a horribile mistake, causing a lot of suffering to the palestinian population, and wish they would be dismantled already. I support a palestinian state in the west bank. But when my country's very right to exist is under fire with balant lies, I feel obliged to answer those claims. okedem 22:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's understandable. I just wish we could separate out the writing of an encyclopedia article from all the emotions of currently outstanding political issues, but I suppose that's impossible. I think one of the best starts, though, would be to just ignore obvious hateful trolling. Responding in kind only exacerbates. john k 23:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The discussions may be fruitless in trying to sway the sides from their opinions, but they do let the people reading these talk pages learn something about Israel (both history and present), mainly through references, which I, for one, try to bring to support my claims, as much as possible. okedem 19:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose, but we should try to remain focused on improving the article itself. In this case, most of the discussion seems to consist of 1) pro-Palestinian advocates making wild and frequently anti-semitic claims; and 2) others refuting them with Israeli talking points. I don't think this is going to improve the article. john k 20:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"John K" did nothing but blurt out a stereotypical statement, as if all people who criticize Israel are knuckle dragging, primative apes. 65.30.45.235 20:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I myself am quite critical of Israel (as I think any reading of my involvement in articles on this subject on wikipedia will reveal), and there are certainly some users who have contributed to this article who are critical of Israel and also make intelligent, articulate arguments. But there's also a lot who don't. john k 21:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, maybe it's not improving the article, but I think it prevents it from deteriorating - people make unbased claims ("Israel did so and so"). If someone isn't there to refure the claim, it'll just stay there, and give readers of the talk page the impression these are facts, and give legitimacy to rewriting the article based on false statements. okedem 20:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it prevents it deteriorating in one direction. Which is, I suppose, good. john k 21:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

War POV

This article makes no mention of the innocent civilians that have died as a result of blind Israeli bombings, and the entire section on the current war makes it seem like Israel is striking the country of Lebanon as retalitation. It has a very pro-Israeli POV on the current war and should at least make mention of the criticisms of Israel's attacks. (unsigned, written by 65.30.45.235)

The section on the current conflict is very short, and lists nothing but facts. It also doesn't mention the Israeli casualties from rockets fired intentionally on civilians in towns in northen Israel. For more information one can read the main article about the conflict - 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. okedem 21:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"Hezbollah has since declared "open war" on Israel. As a result Israel has exercised a strong retalitory front including strikes on Lebonese bridges, power plants, and army bases." -This is not a neutral statement, since it claims that Israel is acting in retaliation. While many may believe that this is the case, bias such as this should not be allowed in an encyclopedia entry.Smitty Mcgee 21:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest making this section much briefer here. Mention the capture of soldiers, Israeli incursions, and Hezbollah counterstrikes, and send people off to the other article. john k 21:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The facts in this case are quite simple. Israel did not initiate aggressive actions, and was not in any way, according the the UN, an occupier (since 2000). Hizbollah attacked and abducted two soldier, killing 8 others. Israel attacked sites in Lebanon. Seems quite obvious this is retaliation.

But how would you phrase it? okedem 21:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that this should be kept as short as possible in this article. Basically just say a) Hezbollah captured Israeli soldiers; b) Israel retaliated by launching attacks against Lebanon; and c) Hezbollah has counter-retaliated by launching missile attacks in Syria, and then link to the main article. I think given that a) this is an ongoing event, which we don't really know the ultimate significance of yet; and b) any attempt to provide more detail is bound to get into sticky areas where there will be POV disputes, we should try to keep as little material here as is practicable. It should obviously be mentioned, but we should keep it as brief as possible. Note that, for instance, there are only three sentences about the 1973 war (vaguely misleading ones at that, I think). john k 23:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think trying to figure out who is retaliating against who is an impossible argument as i would guess Hamas would argue that the kidnapping of the Israeli soldier was in retaliation for the detainment of a thousand Palestenian "soldiers". Also Okedem, your bias is that Israel did not initiate aggressive actions, but any conclusion could be drawn based on where you start looking at history. Any mention of retaliation should be left out of the article, and the 2006 conflict should only be described as a sequence of actions: hamas kidnaps Israeli soldier; Israel sends troups into Gaza; hezbollah kidnaps 2 israeli soldiers and launches rockets into Israel; Israel sends troops into Lebanon and continues to bomb the region. --Axgoss 02:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This seems sensible, although I'd suggest we try to keep it stylistically smooth. john k 02:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Axgoss and John K.Smitty Mcgee 03:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Very well, let's avoid words like "retaliation", and just describe the sequence of events. The readers can draw their own conclusions. However, I don't think it's my bias, as Israel didn't attack any sites in Lebanon for a long time now, the Hizbollah attack did come after a long period of "peace" on that border. Remember, most of Hizbollah's past attacks (perhaps all of them) were justified by Hizbollah as being against Israel as an occupier of the Sheba area, while the UN confirmed it is not part of Lebanon. okedem 11:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The Shebaa issue is complicated. The UN does indeed consider it to be part of, er, Syria, but that doesn't make it so. john k 16:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Find Consensus TO ADD POV TAGS ON Israel PAGE

Vote to Add {{POV}} tag to Israel ( will expire July 22nd @ 17:00 (UTC) ) - and is now closed, with the result being a majority that is opposed to adding the tags.

VOTING IS CLOSED * 14 SUPPORT * 17 OPPOSE

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support The article is sympathetic to the Zionist cause, overlooking the plight of the Palestinian people.Smitty Mcgee 16:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)1
• Question/Comment Isn't the proper place for the plight of the Palestinian people vis a vis the geographic location in question, the article Palestine? -- Avi 16:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Answer Yes, but an article on Israel which fails to mention the Palestinians apart from associations with terrorism cannot claim to be neutral.Smitty Mcgee 16:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support Only one side of the picture is painted; It is one sided and doesn't give a neutral perspective. Does not display the viewpoint of many Israeli citizens who are not pro-Zionist--Oiboy77 16:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)2
• Support It lacks the mention of Palestinian view point on the whole issue of the legality Israel existance, and picture Palestinians in a stereo-typical way. 195.229.241.183 16:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)3
  • The State of Palestine article does not have a section on the legality of the PA's existence in the eyes of Zionists either. If you add a POV tag here, I add one there too. --Daniel575 16:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The article is not in violation of WP:NPOV simply because it neglects to include Anti-Semitic and Anti-Zionist propoganda. See WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:AGF and WP:V. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 17:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)1
• Oppose per Karimarie. I see Pecher's comment below that this is a silly excercise, and I agree, but I have also learned that you never know what kind of silly poll is going to be claimed to support a "consensus," so I might as well give my opinion in this form. 6SJ7 17:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)2
• Oppose - per Karimarie; also, there are plenty of links from the article to the controversial issues. No reader will walk away from this article deluded about the conflict. --Leifern 18:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Kari, 6SJ7, and Leifern. It is not as if there isn't plenty of exposure in the proper places. -- Avi 18:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)3
• Support Main page should at least mention all view points, not just that of the Zionists.IConform 17:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)—Note: This is user's first edit: IConform (talk · contribs) -- Avi 17:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC) 4
• Support - I find this article non neutral. Adam777 19:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)5
• Oppose - It should not be labeled POV simply because of radical anti-Israel users. - MSTCrow 21:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)4
• Oppose per 6SJ7. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)5
• Oppose. You must be joking. JFW | T@lk 21:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)6
• Just in case, oppose, mostly per 6SJ7 and JFW, as well as per Kari. Tomer^talk 01:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)7
• Support - it does not present the main viewpoints in a balanced way.Itsmejudith 16:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC) 6
• Oppose - It contains plenty of criticism of Israel and I will remove this tage because you have only (4/12) 33% to include this tag ignoring IPs and socks. Blnguyen | rant-line 07:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)8

This discussion is about the POV tag and NOT a unbalanced tag. 3 Revert rule applies to you too.

• Oppose another attempt to delegitimize Israel. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)9

• Question/Comment How does adding a {{POV}} delegitamize a whole country? A little extreme I think.--Oiboy77 18:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Umm, What? Who's ever heard of adding a POV tag by a majority vote? That said, I'm not sure I understand where the POV problem supposedly lies - the article discusses the refugee issue and the occupation. I think a small section about Palestinian/Arab views of the State of Israel and its legitimacy would be appropriate, though. john k 09:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support - for reasons outlined by john_k above —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boldymumbles (talk • contribs) .7
• Oppose per all the above. --TheYmode 15:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)10
• Oppose per all the above. --Daniel575 16:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)11
• Support - clearly unbalanced and favoring Israel. --ChrisLott 20:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)8
• Support - reads like a tourism brochure for Israel. No information on human rights violations, human sex traficking, or UN Violations (more than Iraq). All conflicts are relayed from Zionist POV. I second Smitty and others. This article is in dire need of balancing to remove the POV throughout Sarastro777 20:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)9
• Oppose - Tired of vandalism from anyonmous IP addresses and Smitty going against admins on this one. - MSTCrow 23:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You can't vote twice.Smitty Mcgee 17:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are you voting twice?--Oiboy77 18:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support - I have tried editing (adding to) this article several times with factual information only to have it removed and my IP banned because the Moderator does not want any information displaying Israel as anything but a Utopia, assuming it is flawless unlike any other society. Any discussion or post of information I make that fails to display Israel in the brightest light, gets me labled as an Anti-Semite by the Moderator, despite my Jewish heritage. I am told my Rueters backed information is truthless; that my information from the Times is defamatory. We need a more balance page on the great state of Israel. Also, about MSTCrow's post, since when is it vandalism to express one's opinion? Also how is it that anything from an anonymous IP is invalid? There are no requirements to get a Wiki username so this is illogical.Bridarshy 00:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC))—This is the user's first edit Bridarshy (talk · contribs) -- Avi 17:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)10
• Support - This is a very bias page. I think POV tags would be a splendid addition, without censoring any particular point of view.79stet 00:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)—This is the user's first edit 79stet (talk · contribs) -- Avi 17:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)11
• Support - This article is completely biased in favor of Israel. Just to give one example: The state of Israel was created with the help of the United Nations ... using the term "indepedence" to decribe the creation of a state is outrageous. AllTalking 00:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)12
• Oppose per MSTCrow. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 02:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per Humus et al.12
• Oppose. Again. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 17:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)13
• Oppose the article does not "overlook the plight of the Palestinian people" any more than it overlooks the plight of the Tibetian people. It is an ariticle about Israel it talks about palestinians as they relate to the state of Israel. Jon513 18:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)14
• Oppose this shenanigans. Nesher 20:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)15
• Support - I'm sure the people who are opposing this are Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.181.1.98 (talk • contribs) 13
  • Then I propose that all Muslims are to be forbidden from editing articles about 'Palestine'. [p.a. removed (no, not palestinian authority, lol) - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)] --Daniel575 10:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Suppose/Opport I hate politics, and object to this vote taking place, period. WP is not your soapbox. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support67.174.95.24 01:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)14

VOTING IS CLOSED * 14 SUPPORT * 17 OPPOSE

Too bad Smitty, you lost. --Daniel575 19:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I strongly suspect many of the support votes are sockpuppets. They are from either anonymous IP addresses or completely new users, and are within posted within short periods of time in clusters. Users who have just created accounts are not going to zero in on a poll on a single page on Wikipedia and start voting on things. They wouldn't know how or why yet. - MSTCrow 01:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That's always the excuse when people disregard polls to push their POV. How do you know the "sock puppets" aren't really perusers that follow the article and were moved enough by its state to register and make their voices heard in the poll? I'm seeing a lot of baseless accusations without any real evidence to back up these grand conspiracies. As Bridarshy pointed out, registration is not a requirement... so you certainly can't use that to invalidate/ignore people. Sarastro777 03:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

More importantly, how do you know that they are? In cases like this it is IMO better to implement HebWiki rules that anyone will less than 100 edits cannot vote. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 03:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

#1 this is not HebWiki, #2 If you can prove people are sockpuppeting you feel free to do so; if not stop discrediting users without factual proof.--Oiboy77 18:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I might add the user originally objecting to sockpuppets voted twice in the poll. In Psychiatric circles this is called projection. Sarastro777 18:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I voted once in each poll. First in the poll that was archived, then in this current poll. If you'll notice, there are a lot of people "voting twice" in the poll. - MSTCrow 22:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Added a Section on Human Rights Abuse

Please help me by adding well sourced content with citations. --Oiboy77 08:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't bother, it doesn't belong here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Why, doesn't bone breaking policy and the jailing of teenagers ring a bell? I might actually contribute. 195.229.241.187 10:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

See WP:SOAPBOX. This article is about a country and not about the conflict. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It is sure about the government of this state and the policies it executes. The article should address this issue. 195.229.241.180 11:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at this (http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/gaza/) This is not propaganda as you implied this is well documented by Independent Parties. 213.42.2.25 11:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Belarus also states :The Belarusian government is also criticized for human rights violations and its actions against NGOs, independent journalists, national minorities and opposition politicians.[14] During the rule of the current administration in Belarus, there have been several cases of persecution, including the disappearance or death of prominent opposition leaders and independent journalists. So if its legal there why not on that page? --Stone 12:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point. 213.42.2.11 12:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Such a section would do a lot to legitimize this article.Smitty Mcgee 15:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please Refer to http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61690.htm 195.229.241.181 17:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The government generally respected the human rights of its citizens; however, there were problems in some areas, including the following:

   * serious abuses by some members of the security forces against Palestinian detainees

   * Palestinian terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians and Israeli Defense Force (IDF) soldiers

   * resulted in the death of 29 civilians and an IDF soldier within Israel

   * poor conditions in some detention and interrogation facilities

   * improper application of security internment procedures (see annex)

   * institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the country's Arab citizens

   * discrimination in personal and civil status matters against non-Orthodox Jews

   * societal violence and discrimination against women

   * trafficking in and abuse of women and foreign workers

   * de facto discrimination against persons with disabilities

   * government corruption 
 

Form the introduction, of the report 195.229.241.181 17:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That should give you something to start with. 213.42.2.23 17:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

How do you fix the formatting? 213.42.2.25 17:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we compare that to the charges against the PA on the same page? - MSTCrow 00:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

   * torture
   * arbitrary and prolonged detention
   * poor prison conditions
   * infringement of privacy and freedom of speech
   * insufficient measures to prevent attacks by terrorist groups either within the occupied territories or within Israel
   * numerous instances of violence against Israeli civilians, resulting in deaths and injuries in the West Bank, Gaza, and Israel
   * corruption and lack of transparency
   * domestic abuse of women
   * societal discrimination against women and persons with disabilities and child labor 

Who said that these things also shouldn't be included in the PA's article as well? PA isn't Findland or Sweden, you know. 213.42.2.28 07:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In most articles abour a country there are sections on human rights issues if there are issues regarding human rights to remove my section without just cause citing your own POV as the reasons; even though I legitimate references for it is a violation of your administrative powers. Which I see you are abusing to fufill your "protection" of this article. Wikipedia is not about "protecting" [b]your[/b] personal viewpoint.--Oiboy77 15:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why a balanced, NPOV discussion of human rights issues with respect to Israel would be out of line. Emphasis on "balanced" and "NPOV," though. john k 16:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact it would seem to be a matter of bias to NOT have such widely known information at least mentioned with good sources. The point of an encyclopedic article is to not just give propaganda which only portrays the subject in a 'good' light. Sarastro777 20:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel has one of the best human rights records in the world, and the best by far in the region. Is this a legitimate criticism of some, if any, human rights violations by Israel, or simply another attempt to single Israel out as a result of anti-Jew animus? - MSTCrow 23:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, wonderful. The issue of Israeli treatment of the Palestinian population in the Occupied Territories, and so forth, is well known and well documented as an important human rights issue. All you are doing is poisoning the talk page by trying to make any discussion of criticism of Israel into anti-semitism. Please note the top stories at this moment on the Amnesty and Human Rights Watch websites - the current mess. Also note lengthy discussions of human rights in Israel and the occupied territories at both groups' websites. Compare with, say, HRW's discussion of Sweden. john k 00:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You can't say with a straight face that HRW isn't known for it's anti-Israel agenda. http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6258 will catch you on it. Amnesty is little better, see http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/Amnesty%20Internationals%20Extremely.html from NGO monitor. If you can find evidence from an organization not infamous for its anti-Israel polemics, then that would be of interest. Until then, I won't lend any credence to your attempts. - MSTCrow 00:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Still more wonderful. Using a David Horowitz site as evidence! Brilliant. My point, for anyone interested (MSTCrow, I can assume, is not), was that there are plenty of reputable groups (and, even if one is critical of Amnesty and HRW, they are certainly reputable human rights monitoring organizations) who have cited problems with Israel's human rights record. Whether these groups are right or not, and whether they are biased against Israel or not, is not terribly important. It is significant that major human rights monitoring groups have frequently criticized Israel, and it would not be original research to include this in the article. MSTCrow's arguments are entirely circular - anyone who criticizes Israel is anti-Israel, and thus their criticism of Israel is unreliable and cannot be used as a source. Plus he cites David Horowitz. Can we ignore him? john k 01:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the US State Department also makes comments critical of Israel's human rights record in the territories, although much more muted than HRW or Amnesty's. They note the following issues in Israel proper:

• serious abuses by some members of the security forces against Palestinian detainees
• Palestinian terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians and Israeli Defense Force (IDF) soldiers resulted in the death of 29 civilians and an IDF soldier within Israel
• poor conditions in some detention and interrogation facilities
• improper application of security internment procedures (see annex)
• institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the country's Arab citizens
• discrimination in personal and civil status matters against non-Orthodox Jews
• societal violence and discrimination against women
• trafficking in and abuse of women and foreign workers
• de facto discrimination against persons with disabilities
• government corruption

In the Occupied Territories, passing over the comments on PA abuses, we see the following listed as human rights abuses by IDF occupying forces:

• damage to civilians in the conduct of military operations
• numerous, serious abuses of civilians and detainees
• failure to take disciplinary action in cases of abuse
• improper application of security internment procedures
• use of temporary detention facilities that were austere and overcrowded
• limited cooperation with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)

But I suppose all those Arabists in the State Department are notoriously anti-Israel, so they don't count either. john k 01:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to assume you have no clue about the Department of State beyond what you've pasted here. Please read up on the history and policy of the US Department of State, you're accidentally self-parodying yourself. - MSTCrow 02:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so the Arabists in the State Department do make it an unreliable anti-Israel source. I was not accidentally parodying myself, I suspected you would dismiss the State Department. But it's still ridiculous. Basically, in your judgment, the United Nations, the foreign ministry of Israel's closest ally, and the two leading human rights NGOs in the world are not acceptable sources on whether or not Israel violates human rights because they are all "anti-Israel." This is completely ridiculous. If anyone is a "self-parody" it is you - you are a grotesque parody of the more-Zionist-than-the-Israelis-anyone-who-criticizes-Israel-is-an-anti-Semite American Ultra-Zionist. 11:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the article on Israel. What is encyclopedic for Israel is not really dependent on what other editors have had time to add for other countries. All those citations and rights groups... seemed like a well informed suggestion for addition to me. What is the parody? On the other hand calling people "anti-jew" because you disagree with them did not seem particularly helpful. As has been suggested, I would support ignoring the objection that any criticism makes someone "anti-jew" or that David Horowitz is a stronger source on Human Rights than Amnesty International, The U.S State Dept, or HRW. These type of statements are obviously colored by unsubstantiated personal opinion. Sarastro777 03:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, you have not been paying attention, because people are not anti-Semites simply because I disgree with them. - MSTCrow 03:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That's true. Would that you would behave this way. john k 11:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There are human rights problems in israel. This is a fact. But I think neither side on this talk page is able to write a NPOV chapter about the issue. The stuff I read was harsh and agressive and by this terms NPOV. Deleting it is also wrong, because the human rights problems have to be mentioned, so deleting is also NPOV.

With people having this much anger and violence should wait and let other people do the article. The Israel-Arab conflict is anoing me for a long time, but I think peoples who are so stupide not seeing that violence is leading to the total destruction of the whole area deserve to live in fear and getting killed by each other. The cause of the violence is irrelevant because it has already happened. The Future has to be the peaceful, but the majority is simply to weak or to stupid to act.--Stone 06:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That sounds rather like advocating the genocide of both sides. - MSTCrow 07:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

advocating the genocide NO but fatalism agains political stupidity.--Stone 08:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I really think that the people demanding a section about "Human rights abuses" in this article really need to see the WP:NPOV policy. It is just not okay to change a nation's article to better reflect your own personal pov.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read the citations above. It is not our own point of view, it's documented by many independent parties. US Dept of State for example.195.229.241.181 10:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is it personal POV to note that many outside observers, including the two leading world human rights groups (Amnesty and HRW), the United Nations, and the US Department of State, have noted violations of human rights on Israel's part, and to briefly summarize what they are? The idea that Israel commits human rights violations (particularly in the occupied territories) is a major POV, and the whole idea of NPOV is that we represent all significant POVs. The same is true of the long-held Arab/Palestinian position that the State of Israel is an illegitimate state. It would obviously be insanely POV for wikipedia to assert this was true. But for wikipedia to neutrally report and explain this widely held position seems essential. john k 11:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you find a source without a long and well-known history of being anti-Israel? No. The best you can find is a list of vague accusations that pale in comparison to most other nations. You are singling Israel out because most of them are Jews. The UN has had a nasty habit of giving free rein to anti-Semitism (Durban anyone?) while Amnesty and HRW slander Israel's human rights record while remaining mostly silent on atrocities committed against citizens living in Arab states. Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for such venomous bile against the State of Israel, and Jews in function. - MSTCrow 11:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Amnesty and HRW are most certainly not silent about atrocities committed in Arab states. That's a ridiculous statement for which you can provide no support, because it's completely false. At any rate, Amnesty and HRW (and, to an extent, the UN) are considered to be respectable sources. Whether or not their criticisms of Israel are accurate, and whether or not they are biased against Israel, they are significant enough to deserve mention in the article. Beyond this, your dismissal of the US State Department, for God's sake, as anti-Israel shows that, essentially, you are going to criticize any source that criticizes Israel's human rights record as having a "long and well-known history of being anti-Israel." What about domestic human rights groups in Israel itself? I'm not familiar with what such groups exist, but I would assume there are some, and I would assume they are similarly critical of Israel's human rights record in the Territories. But, then again, such groups are presumably formed mostly for the purpose of criticizing Israel, so that, even though they are composed of Israelis, they have "long and well-known histories of being anti-Israel." It's impossible to win against you, because you can just define any group that is critical of Israel as "anti-Israel", and thus not worthy of notice. So, here's my basic point - even if these groups are anti-Israel, it makes not a lick of difference. There is absolutely no rule saying that we can't use "anti-Israel" sources, and when they are as well-established as the US State Department, HRW, Amnesty, and the United Nations, they are significant whether or not they have an anti-Israel bias. john k 12:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous statement for which you can provide no support, because it's completely false. Go go circular reasoning... - MSTCrow 12:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What's the circular reasoning? It's rather rich that you of all people would accuse someone else of this. My point was that it's not true that Amnesty and HRW ignore human rights violations in Arab countries. You can find reams of reports where they discuss these issues. Your statement is false. That's all I meant to say. I fail to see how this is circular reasoning. john k 15:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

John K, Please refer to http://www.rhr.israel.net/israeli-ngo-human-rights-organizations which is a list of NGO Human Rights Groups. Sorry, But .IL sites are blocked were I live. So you have to find out citations on your own, hope this helps. 195.229.241.180 12:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Human rights by country an article there would also help, because Israel is missing there.--Stone 13:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It is my considered opinion that there are people here on Wikipedia who are [paid?] representatives of the state of Israel, and who jump on any mention of human rights abuses or anything else critical of that state. They are guarding this article 24/7 and react within minutes to the slightest change, with threats and banning, how Israeli! The lie that Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 as some kind of act of peace is contradicted by all observers including the media, Hezbollah drove the Israeli army out of Lebanon, but that's just too much for Zionists and their fellow travellers here to stomach. I am exceedingly disappointed that Wikipedia has been captured in this way, it is abuse of freedom, abuse of everythingI thought Wikipedia stood for, and yet, when anyone demures, they are attacked as being partisan or even anti-semitic, the usual way Israel deals with criticism. Someone should do something about this, it really is very important, crucial even. Especially while Israel is killing children in their hundreds, and - unspeakably - getting Israeli kids to sign the shells they are firing into Lebanon to kill Lebanese kids. Shame on you all who support this in any way shape or form. The petition which was linked momentarily from here was http://fromisraeltolebanon.info/, I found it an interesting site, well worth visiting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.113.80.35 (talk • contribs) .

...getting Israeli kids to sign the shells they are firing into Lebanon to kill Lebanese kids? You're a total anti-Semitic wackjob. Odd that your only post is this one. Stop the sockpuppets! - MSTCrow 13:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5350/2376/1600/israel.jpg hmm??

The above post is very emotional and heartfelt, but it ignores some important facts on the ground. Israel did not start this offensive. It started wtih the near simultaneous attacks on Israeli sovereign territory involving killing and capturing of soldiers by Hamas and Hezbollah, two groups which sit on the governments of the PA and Lebanon. Apologists for these groups blame this kind of action on the "military wing" of these groups as opposed to the "legislative" wing without proving any evidence that there is any disconnect between these "wings" in terms of their belief and goals. Essentially, these attacks and captures were a pure and simple act of war by organizations which believe that every inch of Israel is occupied territory. Israel is NOT targeting any civilian in this offensive. The blame for civilian deaths lies with Hezbollah and Hamas (and other groups) operatives who hide militants and instruments of war in civilan houses and areas and use little kids as human shields and started this in the first place. If the militants did not want civilians to get hurt, they would make sure to keep anything Israel is targeting away from them. Israel has never targeted purely civilan targtets for the sake of killing civilians. This is actually the MO of the suicide bombers who have done exactly this, killing kids eating pizza or dancing and religios Jews celebrating a sacred holiday to them. If the latter is considered ok for any reason, why not call it antisemetic? Also, in terms of human rights, what human rights do women or gays have in any Islamist country? What rights do Jews have in any Islamist country? In Israels, Arabs can serve in the government, women have equality, and gays can live openly. Please answer these questions before you talk about human rights in Israel and civilian deaths in this Gaza and Lebanon mess. 72.72.84.239 14:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel is NOT targeting any civilian in this offensive. The blame for civilian deaths lies with Hezbollah and Hamas (and other groups) operatives who hide militants and instruments of war in civilan houses and areas and use little kids as human shields and started this in the first place. BRing Citations. Mine are http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=lebanon+casualties+israel&ie=UTF-8. Look who is speaking propaganda. Do you think in Qana the UN Headquarters bombed was actually a Hizbollah HQ , eh? Sheesh, 195.229.241.182 15:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, in terms of human rights, what human rights do women or gays have in any Islamist country? For women look at this http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-06-21-muslim-women-edit_x.htm as for the heterophopic psycologically ill people we here try to help them instead of claim that this is natural. 213.42.2.22 15:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I looked at that State Department report with the laundry list of problems, and clicked around on a random sampling of other countries, and found something very interesting. Every country I looked at had at least some "problems" identified -- even the U.K., Netherlands and Sweden had a few each. France's list of problems is almost as long as Israel's, actually it is as long if you delete from Israel's list the attacks on Israel by terrorists. What all of these nations have in common is an overall statement that they "generally respect" the human rights of their citizens -- including Israel. Many other nations, however, do not get such a rating, and are instead rated "poor" in respecting their citizens' rights. Egypt's overall description is poor, with no progress reported. Saudi Arabia's is poor, with some progress reported. Mexico (just to pick one out of the blue) is mixed, with a favorable rating for the national government but serious problems at the state and local levels. Russia's rating cannot be described in one word, but it is less than the favorable rating given to Israel and most of the Western European nations. The point is, are we going to put the human rights record of every country into the article on that country? Or if you want to leave out the nations with the "best" records, how about omitting those with a "generally respects" description and fewer than five problems reported? That still gives you a section on Israel, but also sections in the articles on Egypt, Saudi Arabia, China (poor and getting worse, though I suspect China's article already says something about human rights abuses) and most other countries in the world -- including France. Then there would need to be a note in each of those sections about the overall State Department report, so that people don't think any one country is being singled out. Don't single out Israel, which compares favorably to many other countries in this report. 6SJ7 14:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel is an occupation force, France ceased to be that long time ago. And as an occupation force its practices must be described and per the independent rights watch groups. And this, if not the country's substantial internal prolems like "intitutional discremination against Arab citizens", should be included to draw to the reader an accurate factual picture of the state and what it faces. 213.42.2.28 14:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No, actually the list recited near the top of this section concerns Israel's human rights record within its own borders, not the occupied territories. There is a separate section of the State Department report about the occupied territories, which also is mentioned above, but that would belong in one of the many articles about the occupied territories/Israeli-Palestian conflict, etc., not the one on Israel itself. If you want to have a section on how Israel treats its own people -- including Arab citizens -- then fine, as long as the article on France has the same thing, including the discrimination that exists there. And the articles on Mexico, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, China, Azerbaijan, etc. etc. It is exactly the same thing. The U.K., Netherlands, Norway etc. are negotiable. 6SJ7 15:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I see an article on Human Rights on The USA, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_States. It addresses not only domestic Human Rights Issues But also The USA Armed Forces Practices abroad in countries like Iraq and Afganistan. So any section or article added should discuss both issues together, Same thing applies to any section added to any article. 213.42.2.11 16:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I also quoted, you'll note the list of Israel's human rights violations in the Territories. The article on Israel sasy that most of Israel's human rights problems are in the Territories. I would basically agree that Israel's issues within the Green Line are probably not significantly worse than those of any western country. But the Occupied Territories are their own matter, and deserve discussion. And I don't see how Israel's behavior in the Occupied Territories is out of line for discussion in this article - the issue of the Occupied Territories is incredibly important for a discussion of Israel, and at least some brief mention of these issues is worthwhile. I'd add that the treatment of Israeli Arabs is worth discussing in this article, but not necessarily in a section about human rights. The Occupied Territories stuff is certainly appropriate, although of course there should be more detail in other articles. john k 15:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well MSTCrow try this http://fromisraeltolebanon.info/ I am no anti-semite, and I have no idea what a wackjob is, or a sockpuppet for that matter, I assume they are slang words the extreme right wing like to throw about in their usual virulent way. This isn't my only post by the way, but with this level of intellectual debate, it could be my last. What do you do to relax, count the beds in the ward? I was making a serious point, and no one has cared to address it, let alone deny it. This whole issue is an extension into Wikipedia of Israel's bullying and self justifying protestations. It is never in the wrong, it's the rest of the world, and I find it deeply disturbing when idiots like you try to escalate a debate into shrill invective. But then I guess you know no other way, being a mentally challenged psycho with a small dick. There, has that got the blood racing, are you all fired up now I've responded in kind?

And...

Israel is NOT targeting any civilian in this offensive. The blame for civilian deaths lies with Hezbollah and Hamas (and other groups) operatives who hide militants and instruments of war in civilan houses and areas and use little kids as human shields and started this in the first place. is pretty deranged, of course militants are in civilian houses, if they had a barracks like the Israeli army, it would have been wiped out already. They are living with their families, as all resistance fighters do. Israel has been planning this action for two years, it was quite deliberate and in no way a 'response', they were waiting for an excuse. Both sides are deranged and guilty, so stop trying to excuse one side. Do you think people choose to be terrorists totally out of the blue? Do you think people choose suicide because they have a good life free from worry like, I suspect, everyone posting here? Try thinking for once in your life, really thinking, rather than regurgitating these tired old Zionist lies. There are many [the majority probably] of good people in Israel who want no part of this, just as with Lebanon. Why do you hate so much? It is no answer to Israel's attacks on Lebanon to justify it by saying look at Islamist countries, Lebanon is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious, modern, progressive country, so why is Israel bombing it into the past? Perhaps so they can occupy it for the people's good? All on behalf of two soldiers???? Get a grip.

A sockpuppet refers to one person using multiple ip addresses, often for the purpose of vandalism. But... wackjob? I like your arguement, so I guess I'm a wackjob, too.Smitty Mcgee 17:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You agree to the hideous lie that the IDF is having children sign missiles headed for launch? Israel is not a country that abuses children's rights, although I'll mention the Palestinean Terrorists have a nasty habit of using them as homocide bombers, cannon fodder, and murdering their own when it suits their purposes. - MSTCrow 22:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoever wrote the above statment, starting with the caps, is clearly biased as evidenced by his/her use of phrases like "Zionist lies", is clearly violating Wiki policies like WP:NPA with stuff like "but I guess you know no other way, being a mentally challenged psycho with a small dick", and "try thinking for once in your life". There are also unsupported slurs like, "Israel has been planning this action for two years, it was quite deliberate and in no way a "response", they were waiting for an excuse" If you're going to contribute here, please try to honor the rules, OK? Elizmr 00:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you just use the phrase "homicide bombers"? Do you even think about what you're saying, and realize it doesn't make any sense, or do you just do whatever Fox News tells you to? All bombers are "homicide bombers." Using the phrase as a substitute for "suicide bomber" just makes everything completely unclear. john k 09:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

On topic please. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

==No personal attacks==

Regading some the comments above: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia.

Some suggestions:

• Discuss the article, not the subject;
• Discuss the edit, not the editor;
• Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
• If you feel attacked, do not attack back. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Lockdown

Why can't the head editors and the main POV watchdogs do a soapbox of the article let it get viewed for a while then let it be settled with word spars and put the everyone-is-happy article on Lockdown

Anti-Semitism

The only arguement against placing a section on human rights violations in this article is that every independent research group is anti-Semetic. Unless a legitimate arguement is made, I see no reason not to include such a section. Plenty of sources have been listed above.Smitty Mcgee 17:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, unless you have facts to discredit the citations the section on Human Rights will be added--Oiboy77 18:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll say what I said on this before it was deleted for some reason...to single Israel out as a human rights abuser would require, for fairness, sections on human rights abuses in practically every country in the world, given that Israel's human rights record is infinitely superior to all of its neighbours and comparable to the western countries from which groups like HRW operate. Such a section is unecessary and highly prejudicial. Schrodingers Mongoose 20:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to add a human rights section to any article you please as long as you can cite reference. This is not a debate. The section will be added, Unless you have factual evidence discrediting the submissions.--Oiboy77 20:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

How many and which country's main articles have a human rights section in them? can anyone give this info? --TheYmode 20:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The section will not be added as the consenus is very much against it at this time. - MSTCrow 21:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As this is an article about Israel, it is the logical place to place a section on human rights. Saying 'oh but x is better than y' is irrelevant. And no-one has a right to instruct other users as to what they can and can't add in terms of sections. Such behaviour is not how articles are written. Please MSTCrow, restrain your orders. You do not own this article and cannot just issue instructions like that. You can debate, challenge, deny, fight edit wars, but you cannot issue orders. Even Jimbo Wales cannot. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I can't issue plenary instructions, but if you think our God-King can't issue orders, or else, well, that's just wrong. - MSTCrow 22:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

When I post articles on the Isreal page they almost immedietly disappear and I'm banned. See

[[3]] This article is obviously being owned by certain people. --Oiboy77 23:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should adhere to Wikipedia policy and cease your vandalism and attacks. That may help. Also, you're whining because you keep slapping cite tags all over the place, and then sources are immediately and easily found by other users? Stop doing that to common knowledge items. - MSTCrow 23:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If facts are found why are they not tagged and added to the article? Why are my citation tags just deleted without citations actually linked to the article? Isn't that vandalism?--Oiboy77 23:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Littering an article with multiple "citation needed" tags is disruptive and not helpful to the development of the article. In this case, it looks like disruption to prove a point; for example, what's the point of adding a fact tag to After Jews established agricultural settlements, tensions erupted between the Jews and Arabs.? We don't have to include a reference for every single factual historical statement; that's what article references are for. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The example you linked to did very clearly have a citation linked to the article (that's the ref tag). Are there any cite tags you have used that have been removed without a citation link? - MSTCrow 23:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the comment earlier about China's article not having a section on human rights abuses is important. There has to be some sort of standard for this, and certainly Israel doesn't have human rights problems that even approach those of China. That being said, perhaps this sort of information could be placed in the article regarding allegations of Genocide in Israel/Palestine...with the article to be renamed something along the lines of "alleged human rights abuses in Israel and the Palestinian Territories". Such an article could include descriptions of Israeli restrictions on Palestinians' movement and other freedoms, as well as the stated justification for those restrictions. Furthermore, this article could include information on the oppression of gays and women in the Palestinaian territories, as well as the state-sanctioned murders of suspected collaborators. Any thoughts? Schrodingers Mongoose 03:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Any criticism of Israel is anti-Semetic... that country can do no evil... after all the old man is the sky gave it to them right? lol There is no use trying to argue with the religious fascists who have taken over this article.. they won't let you put one fact that in ANY way might make the great and glorious and wonderful country known as Israel look bad ... oops I shouldn't state the facts... I forgot .. that is anti-Semetic... GASP!24.6.23.248 12:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the USS Liberty

The section currently reads: "However, as set forth in James Bamford's book Body of Secrets (regarding the NSA), the Liberty was an NSA spy vessel that Israel intentionally destroyed in order to prevent it from documenting war atrocities commited by Israel in Egypt at the onset of the Six-Day War. President Johnson did not want to embarass Israel, so the truth was never told." Is this established as a fact, or is this speculation on Bamford's part? If there is solid evidence for this claim, something more than its presence in a book ought to be cited. If not, that makes it speculation and it should be noted as such.Infinitenoodles 21:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's complete speculation. The only "secret" I've found is that the Israeli's bombed the USS Liberty intentionally as it was providing intelligence ot the Egyptians, but I've only found that in one source, so not willing to go all the way on it. - MSTCrow 21:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a main article about this (USS Liberty incident). But I doubt very much if this even belong in here, I mean one incident involving one ship in a history section that depicted entire wars in a very short summery, and of course only one theory involving war crimes out of many that are out there(see main article) is singled out exclusively, can you say POV? --TheYmode 22:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Remove it, it's OR. - MSTCrow 22:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly not OR - whoever wrote the passage is citing a book. That's the very definition of "not OR". It is, however, blatantly POV to set out the claims of one book on a controversial subject as if they are fact, and probably POV to really discuss this incident at all in the Israel article, beyond, perhaps, a bare mention of its existence. john k 22:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct. And TheYmode: there is a significance, since this involved an attack by Israel on US military forces. That makes it very important, much more than attacks on Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese naval vessels. --Daniel575 23:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's too specific to be in the article, it should have a mention in the IDF article, perhaps. - MSTCrow 00:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of content & comments

Okay, I'm really confused now. I posted a comment the other day asking why the content on the invasion of Lebanon had been removed from this article without comment or discussion. This then resulted in my COMMENT being deleted without comment or discussion. So, I place it here again, with a request that no one arbitrarily delete it; what happened to the invasion of lebanon section of the main article? Why was it deleted without comment or any information or discussion on the subject? I was trying to use it as a resource for an article I'm writing yet the arbitrary deletion of it has thus ruined that thought, Wikipedia is usually a good resource, but sheesh, what's going on here? 211.30.80.121 00:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted because it was a fact... and (shhh! don't tell anyone) but it made Israel look bad and that's a No No... cause it is anti-Semitic ...GASP! Wikipedia is usually a good source except when it comes to any article even remotely connected with religion... like this one that are taken over by the religious fascists. Just about all of them are worthless.24.6.23.248 12:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Barak map. 2000 Camp David talks. 73%? 82%? 90%?

Clinton-Arafat-Barak negotiations in 2000. I would like to see a better summary concerning the 2000 Camp David talks. I see info here:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_2000_Summit

I see some maps of the Barak 2000 offer on these pages:

• http://www.geocities.com/tents444/counters.htm?200621#maps
• http://www.mideastweb.org/campdavid%20orient.htm

I don't know if they are public domain maps, though. This current cycle of violence seems to have much of its roots in the failed 2000 Camp David talks. I, and many others probably, would like to understand all viewpoints on this. Currently all there is in the article is this:

"The Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak and Yassir Arafat once again conducted negotiations with President Clinton in Camp David on July 2000. However, the talks failed to bring about anything new. Barak's offer to form a Palestinian State on 90% of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was rejected.

"After the collapse of the talks, Palestinian officials began a second uprising, known as the Al-Aqsa Intifadah just after the leader of the opposition Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. The failure of the talks and the outbreak of a new war caused many Israelis on both the right and left to turn away from Barak and also discredited the peace movement."

Looking at the maps of the Barak offer, I believe 90% is too high of a number. From the maps it looks like less to me. There is also this: "In reporting the proposals different sources give percentage values to designate the land area to be returned. The percentages vary. In part this depends on whether they include a large area surrounding Jerusalem, to be annexed by Israel according to the proposals, as part of the West Bank. This area may account for about 7% of the total area of the West bank." Source:

• http://www.mideastweb.org/campdavid2.htm

I do not have access to the references and footnotes section of the page, or I would add the above link to that section, combined with a footnote bookmark. Instead I put a link at the end of the sentence with the new percentage number. Someone "higher up" can put it as a footnote instead? :)

I may take up some of these issues on the Camp David 2000 wikipedia discussion page, too. From that page there is this: "The proposal offered by Barak and Clinton at Camp David would have meant the Israeli annexation of 9-10% more of the West Bank. Another 9-10% of the West Bank would be placed under indefinite "Temporary Israeli Control..." That is a total of 18 to 20% retained indefinitely by Israel. Since it is a wikipedia page it probably is a more authoritative number, so I changed the number here to 80-82%. --Timeshifter 14:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There is an important point of confusion here. When the term "90% of the west bank and gaza" is used, I believe it is meant to mean 90% of that total area, not "90% of the west bank and all of the gaza strip". Most sources concur that Barak offered 90% of the total area. Can we agree to reword the statement in the article such that the disctinction is clear? Schrodingers Mongoose 19:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I assume the percentage numbers in the Camp David 2000 wikipedia page were talking about the total area in the West Bank and Gaza that were enclosed by the 1967 borders. I do not understand what you are referring to. I think we should use the numbers from the Camp David 2000 wikipedia page since it has survived some vetting there. Do you have some more links? I would like to see more maps, sources, etc. and to link to them from the relevant wikipedia pages. I would eventually like to add some more public domain maps to clarify all this. Obviously there is some confusion about all this which is why I got involved. Barak may have been offering 90% of the remaining total area left after already keeping the 9-10% for the existing Israeli settlements (under indefinite "Temporary Israeli Control"). If so, then 80-82% is still the more accurate number since most people mean the West Bank and Gaza as defined by the 1967 borders. I believe also that is what UN resolutions use when discussing the West Bank and Gaza. --Timeshifter 09:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

--Timeshifter 11:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC). After reading several conflicting viewpoints I found this:

• http://www.mideastweb.org/campdavid2.htm

4. Land Area of Palestine.

The initial area of the Palestinian state would comprise about 73% of the land area of the West Bank and all of Gaza. The West Bank would be divided by the road from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea and a corridor on either side of it. This would form two relatively large Palestinian areas and one small enclave surrounding Jericho. The three areas would be joined by a free passage without checkpoints, but the safe passage could be closed by Israel in case of emergency. According to Palestinian sources, there would be another division between the area north of the Ariel and Shilo settlements along the trans-Shomron highway built by Israel.

In later stages (10-25 years) Israel would cede additional areas, particularly in the mountains overlooking the Jordan valley, to bring the total area to slightly under 90% of the area of the West Bank (94% excluding greater Jerusalem).

The major settlement blocks adjacent to Jerusalem and in the Jerusalem corridor would be annexed to Israel: Efrat, Gush Etzion, Ma'ale Edumim. The town of Ariel and the corridor along the trans-Samaria highway would be annexed to Israel. The Jewish settlement town of Qiriat Arba would remain under Israeli administration in the heart of Palestinian territory, with a single road through Palestinian territory reaching it from the south. Isolated Jewish settlements including the settlement in Hebron, would come under Palestinian jurisdiction and would probably be abandoned.

I will add a sentence summarizing this to the article. --Timeshifter 11:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

--Timeshifter 19:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC). I guess it is OK to say that Barak offered 100% of Gaza (in effect) at the Camp David talks in light of the info below. It is hard to find more specific info on Gaza percentages offered during the Camp David talks. It seems that in the Taba negotiations in January 2001 that followed the July 2000 talks in Camp David that Gaza was to be 100% in Palestinian hands soon after agreement. This page written about Taba seems to be respected:

• http://www.mideastweb.org/moratinos.htm

"This EU non-paper has been prepared by the EU Special Representative to the Middle East Process, Ambassador Moratinos, and his team after consultations with the Israeli and Palestinian sides, present at Taba in January 2001. Although the paper has no official status, it has been acknowledged by the parties as being a relatively fair description of the outcome of the negotiations on the permanent status issues at Taba. ...

"Neither side presented any maps over the Gaza Strip. In was implied that the Gaza Strip will be under total Palestinian sovereignty, but details have still to be worked out. All settlements will be evacuated. The Palestinian side claimed it could be arranged in 6 months, a timetable not agreed by the Israeli side."

Human Rights

First of all, a search of "China" brings up Chinese history. However, when viewing the page of the People's Republic of China, their is clearly a human rights section. Secondly, many human rights articles are linked to from their country's main article. See List of human rights articles by country. To be fair, a section such as this must be created and linked to from the "Israel" article.Smitty Mcgee 15:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think an article on Human Rights in Israel would be fine if it follows NPOV, RS and other policies, especially in light of the fact that there are "human rights" articles about a number of other countries. Please note however, that List of human rights articles by country is somewhat misleading. I clicked on a few of the articles and found two where there was no article at all (Canada, South Africa (although obviously there is an article on South African apartheid as we know)), and one stub (Mexico) that barely even qualifies as a stub, it really just says there will be an article there in the future. Several of the other listed articles seemed pretty comprehensive. I noticed that the UK's has a POV tag though I did not read it to find out why. I think that all of these articles should summarize at least the introductory paragaph of the appropriate page in the U.S. State Department report, as these provide a common frame of reference, with the one flaw that there is no page in that report on the United States. Some of the articles may already have it, and I believe there was an attempt yesterday to put some sentences from the Israel section of the State Department report into the Israel article, although it was not cited and the excerpting was not very well done. (The paragraph has since been deleted.) 6SJ7 17:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see a more balanced and detailed source than the US Department of State. - MSTCrow 00:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, the US Department of State is a terribly unbalanced source when it comes to Israel, especially upon considering that Israel is the number one recipient of US foreign aid. An independent human rights organization such as Amnesty International would serve as a better source of fair criticism.Smitty Mcgee 01:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Smitty, your previous comments and accusations against Israel show that you are not working in good faith, but instead attempting to paint Israel, which can be rightly proud of its human rights record, as some sort of evil totalitarian country. Israel bashing will never get beyond here. - MSTCrow 02:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Debate the issue, do not resort to ad hominem attacks. This article is in need of a brief section on human rights and a link to a full article on human rights in Israel, which does not yet exist.Smitty Mcgee 02:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You've done nothing but smear and slander Israel with ad hominem attacks. - MSTCrow 03:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• I have debated the issue from a position different than your own. While many other users may disagree with my assertions, you seem to be the only one insistent on launching personal attacks against me. I ask that you kindly stop.Smitty Mcgee 03:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You haven't debate an issue, you've made baldly anti-Semitic attacks against Israel that have no basis in reality. You have a heavily anti-Semitic POV, which isn't desired or required. - MSTCrow 03:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Nor are your personal attacks, MSTCrow. Calling someone an anti-Semite is a personal attack, regardless of whether you think it is true. Please desist. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I have not called anyone an anti-Semite, only their POV and smear attacks as being anti-Semitical in character. - MSTCrow 07:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

In this section, at least, Smitty has said nothing even vaguely anti-semitic. I haven't read everything he's written, but I haven't noticed anything obviously anti-semitic. Being sympathetic to Palestinians does not make one an anti-Semite. john k 10:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The idea that the US State Department is too anti-Israel to be an acceptable source is completely ridiculous. It is obvious that there is no source critical of Israel which MSTCrow would accept on this subject, and I think those of us who are reasonable should ignore him. An article on human rights in Israel should use the State Department stuff, and also the annual Amnesty and HRW reports, and any other material from reputable organizations. john k 10:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Cease and desist from personal attacks, john k. You're making comments just to provoke people. - MSTCrow 23:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Rather that name calling, editors may consider starting a section on Human rights, in which we can describe the state of human rights in Israel as described by reliable sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Assuming both sides can agree on what constitutes a reliable source. - MSTCrow 01:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That should not be a problem. State Dept reports, Amnesty International, International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, the Human Rights Committee, etc, are citable sources, even if some of us may disagree with their findings. We can even describe Israel's government position in this matter. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider all of those credible sources, apart from their position on Israel. - MSTCrow 01:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It does not really matter what you or I think. As per NPOV, we are here to describe what reliable sources have to say on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This is brave, but hopeless, Jossi. For Crow, none of these groups are "reliable sources" because they criticize Israel. This conveniently leaves us with no reliable sources to report on Israel's human rights record (except perhaps David Horowitz's widely respected human rights reports, I would imagine). It is useless to try to get Crow to act constructively in writing a human rights section to this article, because all he is trying to do is to prevent such a section from being written by a priori rejecting all possible sources for such a section as "anti-Israel." john k 20:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

(Remember that he's already said that the United States Government (or, I suppose, to be fair, one particular part of it) is too anti-Israel a source to be validly cited in this article. If that's the starting point, I just don't see how we can possibly get anywhere. john k 20:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

john k, I have already repeatedly stated that not all sources are unacceptable. You are attempting to generate prejudice against users who are not convinced by your argument. If you are incapable of convincing anyone of your POV, at the very least do not then turn around and disparage them. - MSTCrow 21:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Given that you've rejected both the foreign ministry of Israel's closest ally, the United Nations, and the leading human rights NGOs as being unacceptable sources, I think it's fair to say that you are pretty much unwilling to accept any sources as legitimate. It seems to me that whether or not you agree with the conclusions of the State Dept, the UN, AI, and HRW, they all constitute reliable sources in the sense we use the term in wikipedia (where it is, I guess, something of a term of art). I don't see how this is even arguable. I am not saying that we should report what any of these organizations say as though it is the gospel truth. But we can certainly say something along the lines of "International human rights monitoring groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have said such and such." If you'd be willing to accept such formulations, then perhaps we have been merely talking past each other. If not, can you name any groups which would be acceptable sources on Israel's human rights record? All you seem to do is criticize every source anyone has brought up as being "anti-Israel" and thus unacceptable. john k 22:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Too Few Opinions Tag Added

I have added a too few opinions tag to the page as there has been NO Consensus among editors, and only one side has been represented on the page.--Oiboy77 18:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"no consensus" doesn't mean you get to impose your view. Please list a specific objection and maybe we can deal with it constructively. Schrodingers Mongoose 18:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Mongoose and Slim Virgin seem to think a consensus needs to be reached to use {{toofewopinions}} on a page. The OPPOSITE is actually true. You need consensus to remove it. --Oiboy77 18:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

That is incorrect. You have to discuss your specific objections here. See Category:Too_Few_Viewpoints, which reminds you to "follow through" on the talk page. Furthermore, if you add the tag again without discussing it you will be violating 3RR. Schrodingers Mongoose 18:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The {{toofewopinions}} is used when all significant viewpoints are not included in the article. If an editor wants to add that tag, it is expected that a summary of the ommitted significant viewpoints are stated in talk, so that these can be discussed and their significance assessed by editors. Dispute tags are not there just to make a point. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

My thoughts exactly. Schrodingers Mongoose 20:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Specific Objection

My specific objection is that the article does not have a section on human rights, nor is there an article entitled "Human Rights in Israel", to which we could link. The fact that one or two editors refuse to recognize the neutrality of independent human rights organizations should be of no matter. While I do feel that the article as it stands now is in need of a tag, a human rights section would be a permanent improvement.Smitty Mcgee 02:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comments' only purpose is to provoke users, and will be ignored. - MSTCrow 02:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat an earlier suggestion in this regard. There is a small article called Genocide and ethnic conflict in Israel and Palestine, but it isn't really about that...it's about allegations of human rights abuses on both sides. I think there is a great opportunity here to rename it and use it to showcase the strengths and weaknesses in human rights issues in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. To me, this is vastly superior to including a section in the Israel article itself, since this is not common practice for country articles, and since it would not include human rights abuses by Palestinians. I think we should try to reach a real consensus on this and build a balanced article that highlights both the good and the bad on all sides. For this to work, though, we need co-operation from a lot of people with wildly differing views. Anyone up for it? Schrodingers Mongoose 02:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

A section with a short summary about this issue can be worked out, if editors are willing to work together. Both sides of the dispute are missing to appreciate the power of WP:NPOV. One good exercise is to "write for the enemy". The pro-Israel faction can do the research about what sources are critical about the human rights record of Israel, and the anti-Israeli faction can research the sources that have a positive outlook on that record. Try it. You may be surprised at the results. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Questionable Credibility of Sources Cited

While reading through very flattering and amazing "facts" about the state of Israel, including the claim that it is the only nation to enter the 21st century with a net gain in the number of trees (one wonders just who goes about keeping tabs on this kind of thing), I checked the sources. And guess what? The sources were Internet-based, and they had not provided any sources themselves! Unless better sources can be cited, I elect to delete these "facts" that cast such positive light on Israel without credible justification.

To me, this kind of thumping-one's-own-chest article, so obviously written by a pro-Israeli editor, is a perfect illustration of how biased Wikipedia can be. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.42.24.126 (talk • contribs) .

You know, those could have been good points until you inserted your own bias into your complaint. Nevertheless, I'm having trouble finding the trees fact you cited...where is it in the article? Schrodingers Mongoose 03:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

So what that there are only online sources for these things? They are true. There are several organizations in Israel (JNF, KKL) which are especially active and famous in this area. Concerning who keeps tabs on such things: Israel is a very weird country in some respects and it is not at all unthinkable that there are indeed people who keep tabs on the number of trees in the country. I know it sounds weird, but well, that's just Israel. And your bias is horrible. It was written by a pro-Israeli editor, so it is unvalid?! Well, I am getting an ever stronger urge to start working on the articles about the PA. Which you, as a pro-Palestinian editor, should be forbidden from editing if you propose that I be forbidden from editing this article. --Daniel575 08:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the obnoxiousness of the last sentence of the anon's post, that doesn't change whether or not the first paragraph makes a good point. If the source given is indeed bad, we should find a better one. john k 11:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I could not find a sentence in the article about trees... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, assuming that the anon did not himself remove it, that does rather change whether or not the anon was making a good point. john k 20:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

These pages are not made available to make a point, but to discuss this article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? I was discussing whether the anon "made a good point" in the sense that if, indeed, there were poorly sourced statements about, for instance, trees in Israel, they should either be sourced or removed. If, as you say, there are no such claims, then the anon was not making a good point, but was rather talking nonsense. I don't see how WP:POINT comes into this at all. john k 11:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't surprise me... remember this article is a panegyric of Israel...any criticism of that great, glorious, wonderful and amazing country is anti-semitic..GASP.. so don't bother with the facts.24.6.23.248 12:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The truth about Israel

According to their own accounts, the kingdom of Israel lasted about one hundred years from around 1030-1020 BCE until approximately 930 BCE-920 BCE when it split into the independent kingdoms of Israel and Judah. These independent kingdoms (lasting about two hundred years) were destroyed around 720 BCE by the Assyrians. So the independent kingdom of Israel (according to their own accounts which are not substantiated by archaelogy or reliable historical records) lasted for 300 Years.

2668 years later they come back and claim it is their land ..... I tried added these facts but they were deleted because facts aren't allowed in this article... sounds perfectly reasonable to me ....

The Europeans were criticized for establishing colonies in Africa, Asia, the Middle East etc. and they eventually left all those places ..... but somehow it is okay if Jewish people colonize land...

The only other country that still has colonized regions (China stills occupies Tibet, Eastern Turkestan, etc.) is strongly criticized by most people for continuing its imperialistic policies... but if your Jewish you are given a free pass.... to steal land... sounds perfectly reasonable to me .... oops Oh My God.. what am I saying...am I criticising Israel? Isn't this anti-Semetic? GASP! 24.6.23.248 12:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)