Talk:International Solidarity Movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Ararchist Ideology
2 The Barrier
3 jayvg (Jotavitch) why do you keep reverting?
4 unreferenced section
5 "Propagandistic attacks"
6 "Alleged quotes"
7 ISM releases - links
8 Photos
9 Hamas quote
10 POV
11 Brian Avery
12 home.comcast.net sources
13 Terrorist in the office - Indymedia as a source?

[edit] Ararchist Ideology

There is considerable evidence linking the ISM to anarchist ideology, which I will enter at another time. They have also been infiltrated, and damning pictures taken. This is simply not a "peace" group. As of now, this article is POV and entirely useless.68.5.64.178 00:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Solidarity link is wrong. It links to the Polish trade union not the socialist organization. Kpjas

Do we allow banner ads? [1]

If ISM can have one, do we have to let everyone have one?

A simple external link to ISM's website ought to be enough. What does everyone else think? --Uncle Ed

I agree, a simple link should suffice. --snoyes 18:23 Mar 18, 2003 (UTC)

I've replaced the banner on this page with a link. Advertising doesn't belong on Talk pages either. It also slows this page loading for no particular reason. --Lee Hunter 01:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I think displaying an organizations logo is important, many organization articles do have such a logo, and I think we should continue to display such designs. Susan Mason

That is an advertising banner, not a logo. If they had the 'Seal of ISM' or something similar, that might be appropriate, but the Wikipedia should not have advertising, even if it is for a nonprofit organization.

--cprompt

The ISM stated in response to, "On behalf of the www.wikipedia.org; I am requestion permission to use images on your website." and their response was, "Help yourself and good luck!" Susan Mason

[edit] The Barrier

Kist, can't you try to keep the discussion about the barrier in the relevant article. Thanks! // Liftarn

I agree entirely. There is already a long article filled with argument. All that is needed here is a mention and a link, which is why my preferred text is just "Protests against the West Bank security barrier which in some cases involved minor damage." --Zero 10:00, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I would prefer "Protests against the "West Bank security barrier" which in some cases involved minor damage." or "Protests against the West Bank barrier which in some cases involved minor damage." to be more NPOV. The term "security" is rather POV and probably caused a lot of this edit war. // Liftarn

This page is now protected because of an edit war. -- Viajero 10:41, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I started the edit war by removing the word 'sabotage', which I felt to be misleading. Regarding the page as it stands, I have the following issues:

First para (The International... act of sabotage):

The quote about legitimate armed struggle is from a longer quote that makes is clear that the rights ISM recognises are rights granted by international law and UN resolutions. I think the quote should be either presented in full or removed.

I still think the word 'sabotage', while arguably applicable, is misleading. It implies (to me, anyway) acts which are clandestine. It seems to me that trying to breach a barrier is not best characterised as sabotage - it may involve damage but not everything that involves damage is usefully described as sabotage. I'm open to persuasion if people know things about the ISM's activities that I don't. Also the 'and have engaged in at least one act of sabotage' is (I think) a reference to events referred to elsewhere in the article ("The ISM have made several attempts to obstruct the construction of the Israeli Security Barrier...")

Second para ('The International... with the two terrorists'): 'has been tainted' is, it seems to me, not NPV. Surely that's just obvious?

Everything in this paragraph is mentioned elsewhere in the article. I don't know if there's accepted Wikipedia etiquette, but it doesn't seem to me to be acceptable for people to go through articles and insert repetitions of things they wish to emphasise. Since the paragraph conveys no information that's not elsewhere on the page I would suggest deleting it.--Joeboy 11:49, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the paragraph about the two terrorists is a highly inaccurate report of something that is given more accurately below, so it should be deleted. As for the "sabotage", it is a highly POV word. Sometimes the ISM takes part in demonstrations against the wall and there was at least one time that someone tried to cut some wires in a gate in the wall. It was a symbolic action that was intended to create publicity and press the point of the demonstration. Calling it "sabotage" asks the reader to imagine that ISM really thought they could make a physical difference to the building or operation of the wall. They aren't so stupid. --Zero 02:29, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The article consists of text and lists. some of the material convered in the second list is already covered in the text above. the rest should be added to the text. one possible version would be:

In confrontations with the Israel Defense Forces, five ISM members have been arrested, wounded or killed. Rachel Corrie died as a result of wounds sustained when run over by an armored bulldozer after she knelt down in front of the bulldozer in an attempt to prevent the demolition of a building. Thomas Hurndall, after nine months in a coma, died as a result of a head wound due to rifle fire during an ISM action at a roadblock in the Gaza Strip. Brian Avery was wounded by debris kickup up machinegunfire when he went outside during a military curfew. Shadi Sukiya, claimed to be a Islamic Jihad member, was arrested in Jenin.

This addresses in standard text format 5 of the 7 items in the list. Of the remains two: terrorists and Church of the Nativity, the first is already addressed in the text, the second can be added to the first list as an example(s) of the item: Acting as human shields. OneVoice 14:49, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Onevoice - I'm not sure if you're proposing duplicating all of the list information points in text format, or replacing the list with the same information in (less detailed) text format. Either way I'm afraid I don't see how that would be an improvement. It seems to me that a more appropriate approach would be to start with a very general and unembellished overview of ISM and go into more detail in the bulleted text below. I'm also not sure that the bit about the Nobel nomination merits the prominence it is given in the article. I have some specific issues with the paragraph you suggest above, but I won't go into those now since I don't agree with the general approach you suggest.

We seem to have lost sight of the cause of the edit war between OneVoice and Zero0000, which I believe was whether to go into details of the merits or otherwise of the security fence on this page. For what it's worth I think that stuff should go on the Security Barrier page and not here. Is there any chance of you two coming to some sort of accommodation about this so we can get the page unlocked?

--Joeboy 13:36, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mintguy said: "(the presence of the wall is illegal in thefirst place , illegal acts against an illegal wall - illogical)"

The acts against the wall cant be illegal because the wall is illegally located away from the armistice lines....let's have another example....damage inflicted on an illegally parked car is not illegal. The logic seems to be flawed. Unless you wish to tell everyone where you park ;) OneVoice 15:12, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That analogy isn't quite correct. The existence of the car is perfectly legal, at least where I live; the very existence of the wall, on the other hand, is (apparently) illegal. Joe Hypothetical has every right to complain when someone keys his illegally-parked car; he had best not complain when someone smashes up his meth lab. --No-One Jones 15:18, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Existence of the wall illegal???? All the material that I have read objects to the location of the barrier not the existence of the barrier. In those areas where the barrier follows the Green Line objections seem not to have been raised. If I remember correctly this is the basis of the ICJ suit, the US objections, the Red Cross statement of Feb 18th etc. For example: "The ICRC, therefore, calls upon Israel not to plan, construct or maintain this barrier within occupied territory." OneVoice 15:26, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood Mintguy's comments above. Try this analogy: If your neighbor plants a hedge that crosses the property line and blocks off half of your yard, do you have the right to cut it down? --No-One Jones 17:36, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Is the hedge itself illegal or is the presence of the hedge in that particular location illegal? That's the first question. The second question is what legal recourse do you have to deal with the hedge being located on your property. You may not, legally, have the option to cut down the hedge before completing a legal proceeding. If that is the case, any cutting prior to the legal ruling is illegal. It gets more complicated when the government places the hedge there.

An example: The government builds a road across some portion of your property. What legal recourse is available to you. Dont try this at home! The government will whack you! (eminent domain is just the start.) Israel is the current duly consituted government in the area. From this situation devolves certain obligations toward the local populace. One of the Red Cross objections is that the location of the barrier is incompatible, in their opinion, with certain of these obligations of Israel vis-a-vis the local population. (Please note that the ICRC objection is based on location. Their statement/press release is referenced at the bottom of the artcile page.) OneVoice 18:52, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I live in the UK. If Israel were to build a wall on my land I would have every right to knock it down. Mintguy (T) 21:01, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is a silly argument, but just to mention one issue: Israel is not "the current duly consituted government in the area". According to everyone except Israel, Israel is the "occupying power". This is an entirely different role which implies that some of the normal rights of a government such as eminent domain do not apply. --Zero 23:33, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The occupier is the duly consitituted government for the duration of the occupation. From this derives the responsilibilites of the occupied vis-a-vis the local population. OneVoice 16:42, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

1. The security fence is not illegal. And no binding judgment has declared it is. The green line is an armistice line. As per UN SC Res 242, there are no final status borders until and unless all relevant parties peacefully negotiate them. A temporary fence built for compelling reasons of national security is legal.

2. I can't believe what I read above. Any act is legal against an illegally parked car?!? So, the next time you see a car with an expired meter, you can set fire to it? You must be kidding.

User:Kingturtle has wisely protected this page again. We have another opportunity to discuss the page rather than spend out time in edit wars. The paragraph that caused the most recent edit war is:

The International Solidarity Movement has been tainted by various acts, including: sabotage of the Israeli security barrier, and two Muslims which Israel claims were affliated with the International Solidarity Movement, travelling on British passports, engaged in suicide bombings in Israel. The International Solidarity Movement denies any connection with the two terrorists.

This is the first issue.

The second issue is the structure of the page. The page contains the an amount of duplicate materail in two formats, textual and list format. We should consider rewriting. We have a number of pages that cover the history of an organization in textual format. We have other pages that cover recent events in a list format. We should remove the duplicated material in favor of one format or the other.

Another issue is the use of the words sabotage and illegal to describe the actions taken to damage the barrier. OneVoice 21:44, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The second issue is the structure of the page. The page contains the an amount of duplicate materail in two formats, textual and list format. We should consider rewriting.

Previously the material was there in list format, then someone added a superfluous paragraph in textual format. Why not just remove it?

Another issue is the use of the words sabotage and illegal to describe the actions taken to damage the barrier.

IMO 'sabotage' is not a useful word to describe the actions in question. If the argument in favour of using the word is that damage occurred then why not just say that damage occurred?

Given that what / whose law is applicable in the West Bank is obviously disputed I don't think the word 'illegal' is appropriate to describe either the ISM's actions or the barrier, unless people want to give space to lengthy discussion citing all points of view. --Joeboy 01:31, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've butchered the page fairly radically so that the various anti-ISM comments people are obviously keen to feature can be explored properly. The idea is to try to get the page more focused on facts and specifics and less on vague innuendo. Guy with the IP address I've forgotten, if you want your rock-throwing / violent protest comments to stick you're going to have to provide some specifics, ie. who threw the rock at whom, when and where, and prefereably a decent source (ie. not a frothing-at-the-mouth one like Arutz Sheva / Frontpage etc). I hope what I've done is an improvement, structurally at least. If not I'm sure someone will revert it. Enjoy yourselves, --Joeboy 23:36, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Structurally and contentwise it is a major improvement. Your rewrite presents information and allows folks to form opinions from a less prejudged page. 209.135.35.83 13:30, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Regarding Arutz Sheva there are two items that are often stated:

illegal operations -- Arutz Sheva continues a long tradition in Israel of establishing and broadcast radio from immediately offshore. This tradition was started by Abie Natan and his Peace Ship. It is non-violent resistance towards the Israel Broadcasting Authority regarding its policies for granting radio licenses. Note: not saying the broadcasts are legal, but then ISM is subject to the same charges of illegal behavior.
POV -- Arutz Sheva is one of the very few sources of news that does not rely almost entirely on Arab reporters. The Intrafada report by the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group details a (small) measure of the pressure used to "clean up" the news that comes out of Arab reporters and the Palestinian areas. Arutz Sheva has a POV clearly. Each source of news does. Better a well known opened admitted POV that a closet case of POV. 209.135.35.83 13:48, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Hello there 209.135.35.83. Firstly, thanks for your kind words about my rewrite - I hope we can keep this civil although we obviously disagree on a lot of stuff.

I wanted to explain my revert of your removal of the 'non-violent resistance' bit in the opening paragraph. It's not POV. This is, as the paragraph now says, what ISM recruits people to do. If you can find an ISM source seeking to recruit people for violent activities I'll think again, but the fact is that's not what ISM does.

"Better a well known opened admitted POV that a closet case of POV" - nonsense, if a site is not a reliable or balanced then it's not a credible news source. If you insist on citing it as a source then at least put in the 'controversies' section with some kind of health warning. --Joeboy 14:10, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Keeping it civil is up to us....we both know how to do so, we just have to choose to excerise our maturity rather than behave as adolescents. Disagreeing is also fine. It is unreasonalbe to expect that each person will agree with (all) others.

Regarding "Better a well known opened admitted POV that a closet case of POV" being nonsense...I disagree strongly. During the civil rights movement in the United States, stories regarding the activities taking place in the South were reported by a large number of newspapers. Many of those reports were is sharp contrast with other newspapers. Much, but not all of this, was due to the newspapers POV as expressed by what elements they wished to stress and emphasis and what elements they wished to supress. Known this POV allows one to read a paper and suspect that may not be present in the articles. A relevant example is the reporting regarding the reaction within Palestinian communities to 9/11. As you may know, the reporting was quite diverse in what it chose to report and what it chose to highlight....some papers changed their reporting during the day. Reporting ranged from live video of Palestinian celebrating in the streets and distributing candy to interviews with officials expressing horror, sadness and condolences to the victims. They were all actual events. POV decides which events make the paper and where they are placed as well as what if any "context" is added to or provided within the report.

Would you prefer that this POV be hidden? Please read the relevant sections in Intrafada (page 26) regarding suppression of international press corps by Palestinian groups 209.135.35.83 14:26, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Arutz Sheva is a propaganda outlet run by fanatics. It has a long history of false, phoney and racist reporting. Several seniors of the organization are under indictment for perjury. All reports sourced only to Arutz Sheva can be reverted without further explanation as no further explanation is required. --Zero 14:37, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Zero has spoken...pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

(test of basic knowlege of the wizard of oz and zero's ability to laugh at this own proclamations of speaking for Wikipedia.)

for instance...Zero knows that this protest never took place: http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=62314 (anonymous)

If Arutz Sheva were a credible source it would retract its accusations after they were shown to be false. It doesn't, it seeks to deliberately mislead its readers. As a matter of interest, would you support the use of other POV independent websites as sources? The KKK et al? --Joeboy 14:49, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I have seen corrections on Arutz Sheva. Corrections in the New York Times are not easy to find...usually on the editorial page or just before if memory serves. Would be nice to have corrections printed with the same prominence as the original story...I have not seen that anywhere. It may be the case with some news outlets. All sites are POV. The New York Times is distinctly different in POV from the Washington Times or the BBC. This is one reason knowning the POV is important. I am sure that there is material at the KKK that is useful. I dont believe that I have ever seen a newspaper without a significant portion of usable data...remove the editorializing within the article and you have one view of events.

Example:

As at time of publication, Israeli forces killed 5 Palestinians, including 2 children, and injured at least 80 others, including 17 children, in al-Zaytoun neighborhood in the south of Gaza City. Israeli troops invaded the neighborhood early this morning. PCHR is concerned that the number of casualties will increase as heavy fighting is ongoing and there are restrictions on access for ambulances and medical staff to the area. Throughout the current Intifada, Israeli forces have conducted a large number of incursions into densely populated Palestinian areas, resulting in deaths and injuries to civilians and destruction to civilian property and infrastructure. [2]

Is there useful information there? Yes. The numbers might be accurate that might be off...the radio reported yesterday that over 100 were wounded. Al-Jezeera reports 120 wounded[3]. Are we to say that one of these is deliberatedly falsifying the report? The article does not mention Israeli casualties. Are we to believe that there were none or knowing the POV of the publication, could we surmise that they are not reported whether or not they occurred.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I haven't read the articles properly (no time) so I'm just going on your summaries. Regarding the numbers, the first report mentions fewer casualties and the one from the day after reports more. There's no real inconsistency there, just a rising toll. No, the fact that something is not reported does not necessarily mean it didn't occur, irrespective of the POV of the reporter.--Joeboy 16:52, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

If so POV they why report this:

(IsraelNN.com) PA officials are calling upon terror organizations to return the body parts of the soldiers killed in the Tuesday morning bomb attack in Gaza for humanitarian reasons and in compliance with Islam, Army Radio reported. [4]

1) Because it's a slow news day and they have a page to fill? In any event an article that contains the words "the body parts of the soldiers killed in the Tuesday morning bomb attack" is hardly sending a pro-palestinian message.

I do appreciate your point that all sources have a POV, but I don't think that's a justification for trying to pass off hate pages as credible news sources.--Joeboy 16:52, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Intelligent use of information rather than blanket declarations are a mark of maturity and intelligence. Even Der Strumer (sp?) contained news that could be separated from its POV. 209.135.35.83 15:01, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that submitting the uninitiated to highly partial, misleading and often innaccurate accounts is 'intelligent use of information', not unless you're trying to mislead people anyway.

This article [5] led to its author being force to pay 11,787NIS ($2,600) in damages to an ISM activist by an Israeli court. Arutz Sheva nonetheless continues to publish it on its website. They deliberately publish lies about the ISM, and I don't see why we should help to spread them. --Joeboy 15:40, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Are you referring to the article that has the word OPINION in 24 point type immediately above it. the article being the ONLY ONE on the page? That's an editorial, not a news article. editorials are explicitly POV...that is one of their prime purposes...to present the POV of the publication or the author of the editorial (OPINION) piece.

There's POV and then there's lying. Arutz Sheva unapologetically publishes lies. You are welcome to read those lies, and even believe them if you choose to, but I don't feel under any obligation to help you spread them.

libel laws vary widely between countries. The UK is very different from the US. Do you have more information regarding the libel suit I can read?

There's a press release here: [6]

Can you find a news article?

ohhh....people scream when I do that! I'll refrain from screaming. I can read. The press release is from ISM...do you have more information by chance. Libel suits are generally not covered in the news, so it may be very hard to find something. I am interested in what the court said regarding the case. You may remember Evelyn Waugh's lawsuit....he won but there was a lot of information in the case itself...not to say that the two cases are similar.

Sorry, the press release and reportage of it is the best I've been able to find. I'd like more information myself. Judy Balint seems to have quietly removed her article from her website ( http://www.jerusalemdiaries.com )

I concede that libel laws are often peculiar and I don't know how they work in Israel - certainly in the UK libel cases are somewhat stacked against the defendent. Nonetheless I think that a website that continues to publish works that have been judged to be libellous in the courts is pretty dubious as a source of objective fact.

Did you notice the source of the two articles I quoted (one with 80 injured, the other with 120 injured) ?

I am convinced you or I and many others here can use a variety of news sources and cull the information from the chaff. Did you see another other news source report Arafat's request/instructions to the groups in Gaza?

I have, in the last couple of years, spent rather a lot of time separating wheat from chaff wrt claims about the ISM. Not everyone is going to spend that time. Besides, if we're leaving it to readers to separate fact from fiction why have a wikipedia page at all, why not just let them use Google?

I think this discussion is getting a bit confused, I'm not really here to attack Arutz Sheva, but I think that if it's cited as a source it should be made abundantly clear that it's a contraversial one. If a link to an Arutz Sheva page is just stuck in as one of those footnote-like links the casual reader is likely to skip the wheat/chaff separation process that you endorse.

"the body parts of the soldiers killed in the Tuesday morning bomb attack" if you believe that to be POV...how would you phrase that for NPOV...accuracy of course should be maintained. 209.135.35.83 17:58, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm not knocking the story, it was just that you seemed (if I understood you correctly) to be suggesting that the story was pro-PA and therefore evidence of an NPOV stance. I was just pointing out that the message sent by the story is actually overall rather negative wrt Palestinians.

The first one I clicked on from my Google search was this one: http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=56168

The articles states that when he was shot Tom Hurndall was "attempting to interfere with IDF counterterrorism operations". That's not true in any remotely meaningful sense, he was escorting children to safety to protect them from Israeli gunfire.

The article says the ISM "has been involved in protecting wanted Arab terrorists, explosives labs and in attempts to destroy the security fence". The first of these claims misleadingly implies that ISM has deliberately shielded terrorists. The second I haven't seen anywhere else amongst the vast torrent of slander against the ISM. It is at best extremely unlikely. The third is either an absurd invention or a highly misleading report of the ISMs protests against the fence.

The article says the 'Mike's Bar' suicide bombers had 'forged links' with ISM. The only possible reason for this statement is to imply that ISM had some connection to them beyond their brief and much-mentioned unscheduled visit to the Rafah offices. It is an attempt to deliberately mislead their readers.

It is not information, it is disinformation.

Did you respond regarding the two articles on the same incident quoted immediately above? A discussion or dialog requires us to discuss the same issue, not jump from one issue to another if we dont like how the discussion is proceeding. Please can you respond substantively to the examples I brought as I have to yours. 209.135.35.83 15:53, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I've inserted some responses above, sorry if that's a confusing way of doing it but it was easiest for me.--Joeboy 16:52, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Joeboy...."'forged links' with ISM" how do you know that this is not true...i am not asking about who denies it...but rather how do you know the truth of this.

The statement that the bombers 'forged links with ISM' is true in as much as they turned up unannounced at ISM's offices with a group of tourists and were offered tea by ISM volunteers. This information originates from ISM itself. I'm not aware of any additional information from other sources. The only thing it demonstrates about ISM is the hospitality of some of its volunteers. The Arutz Sheva article (and many others) imply that the episode is a demonstration of ISM's terrorist tendancies, which is only fair if you consider serving tea to be a terrorist act.

Tom Hurndall was at a checkpoint. the checkpoints exist, from the Israeli perspective, to prevent terrorism, there are counter terrorism measures.

What was he doing at the checkpoint to 'interfere with IDF counterterrorism operations'? Supposing he was (for example) asking why large numbers of Palestinians had been prevented from getting home for several hours, or trying to get a pregnant women through the checkpoint (these are fairly typical ISM actions at checkpoints). Do you think it's reasonable and NPOV to characterise that in the way Arutz Sheva did? btw I don't actually know what he was doing before the IDF started shooting at people. Nor, I suspect, do you or Arutz Sheva.

Do you believe that the ISM has never mislead the IDF as the location of persons sought by the IDF?

It's not impossible, although I'm not aware of any credible account of such an event.

Did you notice the source of the two articles I quoted (one with 80 injured, the other with 120 injured) ?

regarding your statement: "Because it's a slow news day" perhaps we both wish that was the case. the situation in gaza has resulted in a significant increase in the fighting.

I'm confused now, we seem to have the same comments appearing in this article twice. Responses to the paras immediately above are further up the page.

--Joeboy 20:01, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Ah...I missed that. One could read the story as pro-PA. Arafat, the President of the PA and the Chairman of the PLO and the Chairman of Fatah calls on those in Gaza to return the remains of the soldiers....seems like an honorable act. I would read that as pro-PA, pro-Arafat even....could be read as saying...looks these groups in gaza are holding remains (bad)...Arafat tells them to return the remains (good). Wouldn't you agree?

Not in keeping with a prior characterization of Arutz Sheva as "a propaganda outlet run by fanatics"...the propaganda outlets that I am familiar with...never have anything good to say about their targets. 209.135.35.83 20:23, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

209.135.35.83, where does your statement that the IDF hadn't scheduled any house demolitions on the day Rachel Corrie was killed come from? --Joeboy 23:32, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

deceive israel border controls at Ben Gurion Airport in order to enter Israel prior to preceding to areas controlled by the PA....i believe that this is indispuatable. there is no direct international access to the PA controlled areas. the sea port does not accept passenger vessels (as far as i am aware). the airport is shutdown. furthermore the ISM web site states explicitly:

We believe that it's less suspicious if you come through Israel but you have to have a really good story about why you are coming, and must not mention anything about ISM or knowing, liking or planning to visit Palestinians. You must play it as though your visit is for other, Israel-based reasons, like tourism, religion, visiting an Israeli friend, etc. So do a little bit of research and put together a story that you'll be able to answer questions about. For example, if you say you are visiting a friend in Jerusalem, you should have the name and phone number of a real Israeli person. If you are coming for religious purposes, have a book or two on religion and travel in Israel; have an itinerary, etc

the entry is to Israel.

The Telegraph is a standard newspaper in the UK, no reason to add the "discount this information" paragraph above its link.

Once a court decision is reached, allegations no longer applies.

I can't find the official link at the moment, which is what i would prefer, each actor in the situation stating what their intentions and instructions were at the time....here a reference "Israel says that the crew's assignment was to sweep the area for booby traps planted by militants."Mother Jones' article about 60% into the article. all in all the article is rather sympathetic toward Rachel Corrie. It does bring out the possibility that Rachel Corrie believe that a house demolition was underway, while the operator was sweep the area for booby traps...using the blade to remove the top inch or three of dirt trigger any explosive planted beneath....the same act understood very differently by different players. not an uncommon situation in this world of limited information. 209.135.35.83 18:06, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

regarding the intro paragraph: "the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem." rather than "the Israeli occupation of the Palestine", which would include all of Israel but for the Golan Heights which were part of Syria, not Palestine....unless the article is meant to indicate ALL of the Mandatory areas including Tel Aviv...in which case it should be stated explicitly "the existance of the State of Israel and the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem." 209.135.35.83 18:19, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] jayvg (Jotavitch) why do you keep reverting?

You keep making the names Adam Shapiro and Huwaida Arraf links to...nothing at all. The links are broken so why do you keep replacing them?

Links are included so that articles can be created. Jayjg | (Talk) 07:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't the links be created after the article is created?

Stop it, whoever you are but presumably a GUTalk troll. I am not "jayvg".

JOTAVITCH

Typically it's done the other way around. Jayjg | (Talk) 07:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)'

It is? News to me. It seems rather backwards to do it that way.

Yes, it's pretty typical - On Wikipedia a link to nothing isn't a 'broken' link, it's a link to an article that hasn't been written yet. I've written a couple of entries pages in response to seeing those red links and I'm sure others have too.--Joeboy 10:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why do you replace the line stating that the IDF never said there were tunnels? The IDF DID claim there were tunnels, that was their excuse for bulldozing all the homes in the area.

The IDF stated it was clearing debris and shrubbery to expose explosive devices. Jayjg | (Talk) 07:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

They also said (first) that they were searching for tunnels.

They did? Where? Jayjg | (Talk) 07:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why are you deleting the line that no tunnels were found? No tunnels were found.

The IDF wasn't searching for tunnels. Jayjg | (Talk) 07:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

They said they were, besides, that doesn't change the fact that no tunnels were found.

They did? Prove it. As for "the fact that no tunnels were found", no nuclear devices were found either, but that's irrelevant, since they weren't looking for them. Jayjg | (Talk) 07:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the IDF themselves ever said they thought there was a tunnel specifically in Dr Samir's house. In general it's one of the reasons given for their home demolitions on the Philadelphi route in Rafah. It's certainly one of various reasons that's presented on the web for the demolition of the house, so IMO it seems reasonable to explore (debunk) it. --Joeboy 10:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fine, but since you bring up tunnels, it should be noted that no tunnels were found and that no booby traps or explosives were found either. Why are you deleting the section on the home being demolished?

Because it had nothing to do with the ISM. But since you insisted on inserting irrelevancies, I've pointed out that no evidence was found 9 months later when it was actually demolished. Jayjg | (Talk) 07:53, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's surely relevant to the ISM volunteers' reasons for being there, and whether they were defending an innocent doctor's home or needlessly interfering with the IDF's anti-terror operations.--Joeboy 10:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've inserted that no evidence was found 9 months later nor was it EVER found any time previous to the demolition of the home. What I don't understand is why you are so bent on making smears and implying things that aren't true. Why don't you just stick with facts?

The question is more relevant for you. Wikipedia articles are not intended to be a mouthpiece for propaganda. Jayjg | (Talk) 08:04, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Then stop putting it in all over the place!

I think you two might be imagining each other to have more sinister motives than you actually do. BTW johnjoe, please can you sign your entries here?--Joeboy 10:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why do you insist on linking to the telegraph article? It adds nothing but bias.

Why do you insist on deleting all criticism? This adds nothing but bias. Jayjg | (Talk) 07:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So what if some writer in the telegraph thinks the ISM supports terrorism? The article gives no proof, it's just opinion. Should we link to every opinion that's been printed? I can find dozens of links to articles where the opinion expressed is that ISM does not support terrorism. Should we end up in a link war? Is that what wikipedia is for?

Wikipedia NPOV policy demands that POVs be quoted, and attributed. Jayjg | (Talk) 07:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with linking to it. I just think the misinformation contained in it, and in lots of other places, should be explored here.--Joeboy 10:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As for the 'quote' from Flo; the link is to indymedia. Anyone can post to indymedia under any name at all. Flo was in jail at the time it was posted, there is no way she made the post. You probably made it yourself! Does wikipedia really consider anonymous posts from indymedia to be reliable sources?

The article makes it clear that she says she was in jail, and that the posts are on indymedia. The reader can make up their minds on this. Jayjg | (Talk) 07:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since the quote is quite commonly cited, I think it's good to include a reference to it here and point out that it's almost certainly fraudulent.--Joeboy 14:15, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Maybe this needs to go to an arbitration board - wait, that's been done with you a few times already, hasn't it?

Please note the Wikipedia:Civility policy. Jayjg | (Talk) 07:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I added the FULL ISM quote on International law and armed struggle. The full quote reads "As enshrined in international law and UN resolutions, we recognize the Palestinian right to resist Israeli violence and occupation via legitimate armed struggle. However, we believe that nonviolence can be a powerful weapon in fighting oppression and we are committed to the principles of nonviolent resistance. " Just putting in the first sentence and omitting the second is very misleading.

It would have been more helpful had you provided the correct link as well, rather than just deleting it. I've done that for you. Jayjg | (Talk) 07:53, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I added more text from the Palestine chronicle article. The section that jayjg keeps limiting it to is taken out of context and give an entirely different meaning to the words of the writer. This article is refereced. Please leave it alone. Johnjoe

The quote is absurdly long, and most of it was not about the point being made. This is an encyclopedia article, not a platform for ISM to promote its views. Jayjg | (Talk) 16:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, you aren't allowed to only make your points, especially when you take one sentence from a lengthy article out of context to make it. I have shortened my entry. If you aren't comfortable with the article being used in context, don't use it at all. Johnjoe

I edited the 'with him' from Raphael's statement on the Mike's Place bombing because they did not attend 'with him'. They showed up there. You should either reference Raphael saying they went 'with him' or leave it as it is.Johnjoe

"After spending about 15 minutes in the apartment, Cohen said he, his colleagues and the 15 others, including the suspected bombers, placed a flower at the site where Corrie was killed. The people "that visited us [then] went their own way," Cohen said." [7]. The quote is from the ISM site itself. Jayjg | (Talk) 16:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, the quote from Raphael does not say that the bombers travelled 'with him'. It only says that they were there. .Johnjoe

I would like a reference for all ISMers only being allowed in if they 'deceive Israeli border officials'. This simply is not true in all cases. It is true in many cases but not in all of them. Javjv claimed he removed my statement because it was an 'unreferenced POV', the entire section is an unreferenced POV and should either be referenced, removed, or clarified.Johnjoe

Well, you admit that ISMers do deceive Israeli border officials, and the stuff you entered now is certainly unreferenced. Why don't you bring some evidence for it? Jayjg | (Talk) 16:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I removed the entire section. You can't have it both ways. Either the allegation must be referenced or the full version remains. Is Wikipedia a place where one unreferenced POV can be presented but counter POVs cannot? If you want to replace the allegation, bring evidence for it - preferably from ISM itself. .Johnjoe

There's plenty of evidence for it now. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:17, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Israel to Bar Entry of Peace Activists - Is there some confusion here? I'm really quite sure that if you turn up at Ben Gurion airport in Israel and say you're with the ISM they won't let you in. Lots of ISMers have been turned away for no other reason than their suspected association with ISM. OTOH if you're already in Israel and you try to cross the border between Jerusalem and Bethlehem I think they'll probably let you through, although I can't be sure right now.--Joeboy 14:15, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I worked with the ISM from December 2002 to January 2003, mostly in Rafah in the Gaza Strip. I obtained entrance to (and smoothed my exit from) Israel through Ben Gurion using a false story. I also dealt with border issues six times: from Jerusalem to Ramallah and back, from Jerusalem to Bethlehem and back, and in and out of the Gaza Strip. Each time I had a story prepared, but was not required to explain my movements. Obviously I can't speak for other ISM members, but I gather that my experience is typical. On a personal note, I feel that the discussion about dishonesty as regards the Israeli state is rather silly considering the gravity of the situation on both sides. I hope this helps. Chrisath 01:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I also added a disclaimer on the telegraph article that I feel should stay. That article rehashes every 'controversy' contained on this page and provides no links to evidence for their claims. If we are going to link to this type of propaganda, then we should be honest about it's contents. Johnjoe

"Disclaimers" are POV. The article states what it states, the reader can read it and decided what evidence the author has. The ISM rebuts the claim, as is listed immediately afterwards. Nothing more is required. Jayjg | (Talk) 16:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

pointing out that the article does not cite any evidence is not POV, it is fact. That you don't want to include this leads me to believe that you know the article is unreliable and you hope to gloss that over Johnjoe

It is a POV commentary; Wikipedia:NPOV demands that one presenting alternative viewpoints, not build cases for or against them with personal commentaries. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:17, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Article is full of crap, still don't personally object to linking to it though - them's the breaks on Wikipedia.--Joeboy 14:15, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] unreferenced section

I removed an unreferenced section under strategy

This looked like some kind of personal attack on an ISMer using a person's full name and without any references.

Yep.--Joeboy 14:15, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Johnjoe, I think you're trying to stick up for ISM here, which is fine, ISM has been subjected to a lot of negative and dishonest propaganda and it's good to try to debunk that. I'm not sure I agree with the way you're going about it though. Since this stuff's all over the internet anyway, there's not a lot of point in just deleting dubious claims made on this page. A better approach IMO is to address the claims and point out the problems with them.--Joeboy 14:15, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Propagandistic attacks"

Jayjg: It is an objective fact that these have taken place. What else do you call lies (later conceded as such by the government) propagated by a government with the clear intent of discrediting a political group that acts against its interests? I'm talking about the Tom Hurndall case, but there is a vast amount of similar lying about the ISM in many other cases. Hence "propaganda". AW

Ah, there's your comment. It's better to comment first, then edit, so people can see what you are talking about. "Propagandistic attacks" is a POV term; there might be better ones. Can you give specific examples of what you are talking about? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Alleged quotes"

>> ISM media co-ordinator Kristin (Flo) Razowsky has been quoted as saying "Israel" is an illegal entity that should not exist. This quotation originated from the open comments section of the indymedia website, and were made by someone using the name "Flo Rosovski".[17] A later post by someone using the name "the real flo razowsky" stated the original posting was posted on a date when Flo was "actually in detention and had no access to email." Note, the real spelling of Flo's name is "Razowsky".

Does this actually add anything? It's pretty much on the level of pure speculation over what some anonymous person may or may not have said - should it be here at all?

It's a good way of debunking false claims that have been consistently made about ISM and Razowsky. Please remember to sign your posts. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:03, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Seems non-notable to me, anyone can post anything on Indymedia claiming to be anyone else. If I posted on indymedia claiming to be G. UU. Bush that wouldn't be notable enough (by a long long long ... etc ... way) to go on his page.--JK the unwise 19:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

If it was widely reported that George Bush had said that Israel doesn't have the right to exist then I imagine the veracity or otherwise of the quote would be considered suitable subject matter for Wikipedia

I was just coming here to say the same thing - it sounds like an utterly trivial event, with absolutely nothing behind it. It's just one anonymous online forum posting with no reliable sources about its veracity or false-ness, either way. I'd say it should go. Unless the the ISM itself uses it as some sort of example of false claims, or if the ISM's opponents use it as an example of a ISM person exposing her "real beliefs" or whatever. If the only place it's used for either purpose is here on Wikipedia, we're treading close to original research territory. CDC (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Check google[8] - This invented quote is a widely cited smear against the ISM, and I think it's useful to document its provenance. --Joeboy 19:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ISM releases - links

The links to ISM press releases (hosted at phpwebhosting.com) all seem to be dead links. ISM themselves don't seem to have them either. At least not in an accessible way. Anyone know of an archive?--SVTCobra 01:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

ISM's website has been redone recently. All their press releases are archived here.TroiS6 07:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

It's highly prejudicial - both against rachel and against ism - to have the only photo on the page be of a flag. No reasonable argument can be made for having that photo be the main reference photo for Rachel Corrie.

Apparently, someone didn't see this massage on the talk page, and didn't understand why using such a photo as a reference would be prejudicial. (I assumed this would be pretty obvious) But when a reference photo to a person is used, it's not customary or NPOV to use a controversial or provacative photo. For example, List of billionaires (2005), which mentions Bill Gates, links to Image:Bill Gates1.jpg and not to Image:Bill gates-mugshot.jpg. Likewise, the Democratic Party (United States) article uses Bill Clinton.jpg to reference Bill Clinton, and not a more controversial one like Image:Monita.jpg. The article about the individual can address the more controversial and provocative stuff, but it's prejudicial to include such an image as the primary reference photo.

Fair enough. Babajobu 06:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, if nobody else comments within a week, I'll change the image. Mgaines 15:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between those cases and the Rachel Corrie photo however. Gates and Clinton are primarily famous for their actions aside from being arrested and aside from the Lewinsky scandal. Corrie's notability and relevance to ISM is entirely in connection to her activism, and as such, the photo used should aknowledge that. Just as if Gates were noted primarily for his life of crime, we would probably use a more criminally associated photo for him, Corrie's photo should be related to her activism, and specifically, to the incident which led to her fame. Subsequently, I don't think it needs to be the flag photo, but it should be either that one of the pics from the incident which resulted in her death would be appropriate here. Bibigon 15:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both of you, that the flag burning photo is prejudicial, and that whatever photo is used should represent the activities being described in the article. As such, I've changed the photo from the flag burning to something that Rachel was doing much more often, standing in front of a bulldozer. There are other possible photos as well, so we can keep this discussion going if anyone objects to the change. Mgaines 15:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hamas quote

I removed the Hamas quote because Hamas is not connected to ISM, so it looked a bit odd. To include that quote, we would probably have to include discussion (sourced) about the extent to which ISM actions have good propaganda value for the extreme Palestinian groups. I also removed the bolded parts of the other quotes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I just tried to do a copy edit, but the article's so POV, it's pointless trying to edit it. The first few sections have no sources, so it's not clear which parts are quotes from ISM websites, and which have been paraphrased by Wikipedia editors. It needs to be rewritten with every single point being carefully sourced to reputable sources. There also needs to be some criticism in the intro, because this is a highly controversial organization, and our intro gives no hint of that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"The group has attracted a great deal of criticism and controversy" would seem to me to give a pretty heavy hint of that. I don't see what else is required.--Joeboy 21:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Avery

I created a page for Brian Avery - his case is potentially quite significant, as the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the military to reexamine it. Perhaps someone would like to add a section (more than the brief blurb that is stated in 'significant events') about this on this page? TroiS6 12:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] home.comcast.net sources

We've got a couple citations in this article to sources which first aren't really verifiable, in that, they're someone's Comcast webpage, claiming to be reproducing text from the Jordan Star. Second, it's unclear to me that the Jordan Star is a notable or reliable source, and thus I'm not sure whether their editorializing about Shapiro is sufficiently important to be in the article.

I'm really not wild about linking to a comcast user's webpage though. Anyone have any thoughts? I'm leaning towards removing them, but I wanted to give others a chance to make a case for keeping them. Bibigon 04:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorist in the office - Indymedia as a source?

I don't live in America so I don't know for sure how 'mainstream' or reliable Indymedia is generally viewed as. However, isn't it a little risky using Indymedia as a source for almost the entire article? Mainstream papers such as the Boston Globe, New York Times, The Guardian etc etc. may be seen as partisan but are generally viewed as reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. I'd suggest finding a record of this incident from one of those instead?

EDIT: Accidently listed the Mike's Place section - it's the terrorist in the office which relies on Indymedia articles.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/t/Talk%7EInternational_Solidarity_Movement_1a2e.html"

We provide Linux to the World