Talk:Israel rules victims of Jewish terrorist not entitled to lifelong support

Active discussions

Seems to be taking a prominant anti-Isreal slant, could use some neutralizing. Items like:

The Jerusalem Post described the gunman as a "Jewish far-Right fanatic"

Not to mention, the statement below can easily be changed to use more appropriate terms:

He was later lynched by a mob.

And, I believe this segment can be eliminated alltogether:

because he is Jewish

--Mrmiscellanious 10:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why the first statement is anti-Israel? It was made by an Iraeli newspaper. The third statement is central to the story. The second could lose the word lynch, agreed ClareWhite 11:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The first one (far-Right fanatic) is a statement of fact. The Jerusalem Post did indeed describe him as such. I've so far been unable to find an opposing opinion, i.e. anyone supporting the gunman, or the defence ministry's decision.
As for the "because he is Jewish" part, I suppose it is debateable. It could possibly be changed to say something like "because he does not belong to an organisation that is hostile to Israel", however I'm not sure that this is accurate. I think that the fact that he is Jewish makes it impossible, legally speaking, for him to be hostile to Israel. That is what makes this issue so controversial. - Borofkin 12:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree it has an anti-Jewish slant, which appears to have been taken from the article in The Guardian. The Jewish court didn't declare that he "was not a terrorist" as the article claims, it only said he was not a member of an "organisation hostile to Israel". The over simplification is what gives it the anti-Jewish slant. The title and article should be made NPOV. StuRat 12:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Please make the changes that you consider to be appropriate. Also, please provide a source for the statement 'The Jewish court didn't declare that he "was not a terrorist" as the article claims'. I haven't found any reference to a court's ruling, only a decision by the defence ministry. - Borofkin 12:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I meant to say "defence minstry", not "court", but the term "rules" in the title tricked my brain, LOL. If you look closely at the quotes, you won't see any where they declared that he was not a terrorist. Newspapers frequently intentionally misinterpret and exaggerate a story to sell papers, we should check for that and remove it. The degree of exaggeration depends on how reputable the paper is (and vice versa). The National Enquirer might see two people kiss at an event attended by Bush and print "Bush attends wild sex party !", LOL. StuRat 14:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Permission to make changesEdit

Quite right, Cspurrier. The "author" of an article is the Wikinews community, and anyone who is reading an article is a member of that community, therefore they have a right to make whatever edits they deem appropriate. When I say something like "Please make the changes that you consider to be appropriate," what I mean is, don't ask for permission just go ahead and do it. Preferably provide justification on the talk page, and if someone doesn't like it they will either discuss it, or make further changes. - Borofkin 02:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

What I was trying to say was "I believe a consensus had been reached between myself, the other commenters (Mrmiscellanious and ClareWhite), and the original author (just a way of identifying you, since I didn't recall your screen name at that pt), see talk page for discussion". I took your "please make the changes that you consider to be appropriate" statement to mean the change I proposed was acceptable to you. Apparently I was mistaken in this. StuRat 03:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Critcal reading of the article in The GuardianEdit

Let's look at the first two paragraphs from The Guardian:

Four Arab Israelis shot dead by a soldier opposed to the closure of the Gaza Strip settlements are not victims of "terror" because their killer was Jewish, Israel's defence ministry has ruled, and so their families are not entitled to the usual compensation for life.
The ministry concluded that the law only recognises terrorism as committed by "organisations hostile to Israel" even though the prime minister, Ariel Sharon, described the killings by Private Eden Nathan Zaada, 19, as "a despicable act by a bloodthirsty terrorist."

Note that the first paragraph contains no quotes, other than the word "terror". Why ? Because that's not what the defence ministry actually said. The second paragraph does contain a quote, because that is what they actually said, at least the part quoted. Now a bit of common sense applies. Do we really believe that this law denies the existence of any terrorism, anywhere in the world, by people not in "organisations hostile to Israel" ? For example, they deny that the Chechen Beslan school massacre was terrorism ? This sounds highly doubtful. This law decides how to compensate people. It doesn't follow logically that just because they fail to include someone in the class of people to be compensated in a particular manner, that they also deny they have been a victim of terrorism. Who said this is supposed to be a global compensation package for all victims of terrorism ? It is only designed to compensate victims of "organisations hostile to Israel", as they quote shows. Ariel Sharon himself, formerly one of the most conservative leaders of the settlement movement and the current leader of Israel, called it terrorism. So to say that Israel denies it is terrorism is pure fiction. Now, why would The Guardian misinform their readers ? Quite simply, the truth is boring and won't sell papers. StuRat 03:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Israeli flagEdit

Please change the Israeli flag to Image:Flag of Israel.svg --ALE! 12:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Return to "Israel rules victims of Jewish terrorist not entitled to lifelong support" page.