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 Jun 2006 – Jul 2006 Jul 2006 – Aug 2006 Aug 2006 – Aug 2006

---

Wrong way round?

On the page, the Prime Minister Ehud Olmert inaccurately is above the President Moshe Katsav. I thought you put the head of state first, then the head of government. Can someone please sort it out? I can't because of this semi-protection (I'm a new Wikipedian). Thanks RJL 20:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It was originally the way you say, then changed, citing the fact that the PM holds the power. However, that doesn't seem to be a relevant argument, as the head of state is the first mentioned in all the articles I looked at, such as Germany, United Kingdom, and India, all of them countries where actual power is wielded by the PM, not the president/monarch. Thus, I'm changing it back. okedem 20:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

See my comment above (section 23.1 in the table of contents), from a couple of days ago, after this change was made. I agree, the president should be listed above the PM. It is a matter of "protocol", not actual power. 6SJ7 20:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Head of State should go first. This shouldn't even be an issue. john k 22:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Tag for Human Rights

Editors on this page have consistently deleted a vague listing noting a few major organizations that criticize human rights in Israel. As it stands now, there is no indication there is any criticism whatsoever. This is not a representation of the reality of the situation, and represents a severe bias. Therefore the article does not have neutrality. I suggest we work on a way to address this fairly together, so that a handful will stop hurting the article by deleting anything they see as criticism. Sarastro777 04:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a nice link to the main article on Human rights in Israel just after the heading, and there is plenty of fodder for those who wish to find fault with the state of Israel in that article :) So, what exactly is your gripe, if I may ask? Thanks. -- Avi 04:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks. "for those who wish to find fault with the State of Israel" -- we've been over this. Any "fault" is from the attributed Human Rights Groups, not the personal view of the editor. You need to work on not taking documentation of human rights issues as an individual assault from the editors working on such articles in good faith.

Humus Sapien's edit note: replaced Sarastro's cherrypicking of irrelevant groups with a variety of relevant ones, mention freedom of press within Israel)

the "irrelevant groups" he deleted were:

• Human Rights Watch
• Amnesty International
• The United Nations General Assembly
• The International Court of Justice
• Association for Human Rights in Israel

To say these groups are irrelevant is so funny it is hard to believe he actually expects anyone to take him credibly. Each group was followed with a specific reference to insure verifiability.

The "Freedom of the Press" is already in the main article. This out of context and isolated mention is inviting a lengthy examination of exceptions, which are already well documented. I don't see why it is helpful to go down this road. Your very smug response seems to indicate that you accept a bias issue in the section but are comfortable with it because you think the HR article contains "plenty of fodder." That viewpoint is not productive.

Sarastro777 05:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is my edit: [1]. Note how I added a variety of relevant links of the groups highly critical of Israeli govt. policies, rather than Sarastro's cherrypicked selection [2] of reports. Certain orgs have controversial relations with Israel (covered elsewhere: follow links), and issues of the conflict are also covered elsewhere. To say that freedom of speech does not belong to human rights section is ridiculous. Your constant efforts to besmirch Israel are duly noted. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith & Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks Sarastro777 14:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Humus please refrain from personal attacks. I do not see any besmirching by any party other than yourself. Can we please focus on the improvement of this article and not attacking Sarastro777.--Oiboy77 16:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Said the thrice-blocked vandal. Schrodingers Mongoose 03:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The section on Human Rights in Israel is a joke, and censors any criticicism of the state of Israel by human rights groups. It even contradicts the main article on the subject, which includes statements giving a fair assessment.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 10:38, 15 August 2006 (talk • contribs) 138.40.24.189.

Forcing civilians to leave their homes/country

Is considered terrorism. I added an NPOV-tag until this issue is resolved. --Daniel575 20:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

terrorism

1. The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response from the victim in the furtherance of a political or social agenda.
2. Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives.
3. A psychological strategy of war for gaining political or religious ends by deliberately creating a climate of fear among the popuation of a state.

ANY QUESTIONS? --TheYmode 21:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if someone is trying to argue the IDF are terrorists for civilian deaths in Lebanon or if it is Hezbollah for the rockets. In either case, the definitions above hinge on the internal motive of the perpetrator. That is almost always hard to 'verify' and makes the label "terrorist" problematic and frequently based on the POV of the person using the word. 64.186.246.122 21:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the motive is important. There is no need to read their mind to verify it, just listen to what they say to learn there intent (the quote in the article). BTW the citation in the article is broken I think, here 2 with the same quote that works, I'll add them to the article later (or if someone want to add them feel free) [3] [4] --TheYmode 22:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So... I'm not sure I understand what's wrong with a factually accurate and less loaded term like "forcing civilians to leave" or "making civilians leave"? Could TheYmode or Daniel575 explain? Thanks. --Birdmessenger 21:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That makes it sound like there was no crime. It is a completely warped version of what happened. I do not know how else to explain this to anyone who does not understand. --Daniel575 22:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The term Terrorism IS factually and accurate in this case, its as simple as that. And calling it something else is POV. --TheYmode 22:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct. --Daniel575 22:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

For better or worse, we are all obligated to justify our edits, even if they make common sense to you. And I appreciate your efforts to do so (sincerely).

I disagree that describing the situation as Hezbollah as trying to "force" Israelis to leave is "completely warped". Given that we provide a direct quote, why can't the reader be trusted to make up his or her own mind about the criminal nature of Hezbollah's intentions? --Birdmessenger 22:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So I guess we should remove the entire characterization "He further outlined his organization's strategy of terrorizing Israeli civilians into leaving their country", especially since the reference attached to it is a dead link. We don't really need a characterization one way or another; "We are going to make Israel not safe for Israelis" is sufficiently vile (or, if you prefer, inspiring) that anyone can figure it out on their own. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)