Jump to content

Talk:Palestinians in Israeli custody

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV and fact

[edit]

Few clear issues that need rectifying before the tags can go.

After these few fairly obvious issues are resolved, I'm willing to rethink the tags.
Cheers, JaakobouChalk Talk 17:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, Jaakobou, the entire article needs to go. There is nothing even remotely encyclopedic about it as it is currently presented, nor can there be. Aside from a discussion of the term itself, which belongs in a Dictionary of International Propaganda, the article, as presently formulated, makes clear that this is propaganda. (Were it otherwise, Palestinian prisoners in countries other than Israel would fall under the rubric of this article.) There may be Palestinians who are prisoners in Israeli jails, but they have to meet notability standards individually. Tomertalk 13:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to be bold and move this page to Palestinian prisoners in Israel. There is an article, for example, on Lebanese prisoners in Israel which provides some precedence for such a title. This will also help in addressing the scope of the article, which focuses on those Palestinians incarcerated by Israel, and not those incarcerated by the PA (Presumably, those could be covered in an article on Palestinian prisoners of the Palestinian National Authority.) In any case, I hope people will work on making changes they would like to see effected to the article, rather than simply tagging it or proposing it for deletion. This is a huge subject, worthy of coverage in this encyclopedia. Let's do our best to make it a good one. Tiamuttalk 14:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to say I don't think I can agree with your assessment. It may be a huge subject in some people's minds, but that doesn't make it encyclopedic. If anything, you've just shown that there are two completely ridiculous articles on this "subject", rather than just the one. Where are American prisoners in Singapore and Mexican prisoners in the U.S., for example? I've got an old keyboard around here, btw, if you need that "v". ;-) Tomertalk 18:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I need that old keyoard as you can well see. To your point, we do hae Italian prisoners of war in the Soviet Union, Japanese prisoners of war in the Soviet Union, and Finnish prisoners of war in the Soviet Union. There is also Incarceration in the United States. I suppose we could create Incarceration in Israel and hae a section on "Palestinian prisoners" which would likely need its own spin-off article eenutally anyway. (In any case, this whole discussion is useless since WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) since people seem to want to write about this suject and it is a notale suject (Do a google scholar search for "palestinian prisoners in israel" as a phrase and its 82 and higher without), I say we go aout trying to improe it, rather than deleting it, since I'm quite sure it will surie any AfD ased on the notaility of the suject. And now, I'm out for now since this keyoard is driing me nuts. Tiamuttalk 18:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tomer, I remoed these three links from the see also section:

I think it's a little inappropriate to place redlinked articles in a see also section (they are not yet functional and may simply confuse our readers). y all means go ahead and create such articles so that we can link when they are done, ut until they are luelinks, I don't think they should e there. Thanks for understanding. Tiamuttalk 22:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note

[edit]
per the following diff: [1] - added diff JaakobouChalk Talk 06:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're trying to work around a few of the POV issues so that it would be possible to remove the POV tag sometime in the not too distant future. I would apprecaite it if you do not revert with such edit summaries as "WP:DONTLIKEIT" as it will certainly not help resolve the raised concerns. If the raised concerns are something you disagree with or that you need further explanation, please make note of it. Cheers, JaakobouChalk Talk 06:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jack. How nice of you to give out notices -- have you become a headmaster or something? I'm too used to your veiled incivility to take the bait, though...
Let's take a look at your last few edits:
  • here you slip in the information that prisoners are held "for short term periods" and here you add a (duplicate, mind you) source. The "short term periods" is not exactly a precise wording and doesn't fly well with WP:WTA. The source you gave doesn't substantiate that claim either. If you want to include this, I suggest using a sourced timespan instead of "short term periods".
  • here you obviously don't like The Guardian (re-read the edit summary, the WP:IDONTLIKEIT was a question directed at you). It's a reliable, unbiased source. Get with the program. This statistic is in several other sources anyway, so attacking the Guardian won't get you anywhere. If you want this removed then you'll have to find a reliable source saying this is hock, and then we'll place both of them side by side.
So your mission, if you chose to accept it, is to find a reliable source for the "short term periods" and to find a source that says The Guardian and a number of other sources is full of faeces regarding Palestinian prisoner statistics.
Cheers and have a nice day, pedrito - talk - 11.09.2008 06:57
I'm adding another, very recent edit to the list:
  • here, what do you mean by "apprehended and released after a short term period"? They are apprehended after a short period? And what's up with the argumentation in your edit summary? It's exact, trust me, but I'm still looking for a ref? Come back when you've got the ref.
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 11.09.2008 07:04
It might be an idea to ask for administrator assistance at this article immediately. We've seen other cases where sterile time-wasting attacks have been launched on RS (even those such as major newspapers!) - often while bloggish material of mendacious intent is being shovelled into the same articles. In some cases, this has gone on for so long and with such dis-concern for core policies that good editors have been driven to exasperation, either leaving the project or breaching CIVIL. Both of these consequences play into the hands of abusers. It might also be useful to collect statements regarding presence or absence of CoI - perhaps even asking for edit-protection until this has been completed. There is no point in having this article if it reads like propaganda for one "side" or the other. PRtalk 08:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

adding a section

[edit]

why not add a section of prisoners who were relased and then returned to commiting acts of terrorism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.253.246 (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, do you have a reliable source?
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 22.10.2008 06:18

How many prisoners are there now?

[edit]

11,000?--Qwarto (talk) 12:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could be more. More interesting to know how many of them are Hamas and how many are Fatah. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6,011 as of August 2010, according to B'Tselem [2] Sanguinalis (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Crimes Have Been Committed?

[edit]

Just looked at this page for the first time and it seems strange that there is no mention of the type or range of crimes that have been committed. Political prisoners are those people who have committed crimes because of political ideals rather than for personal motives but what are the crimes? Oxford73 (talk) 08:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

[edit]

This is one of the most biased articles I have ever seen on Wikipedia. By reading it you'd think the prisoners were arbitrarily imprisoned. How about some statistics on (or at least mention!) the crimes that were committed. If people are incarcerated because they killed other people, I think that is very relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.98.5.238 (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is a terrible page. I came here to understand how many Palestinians are incarcerated, what types of crimes they are accused of, and how many have been tried vs detained without trial. I found none of that. This is a rambling description of the problems of administrative detention, not an objective overview of Palestinian prisoners.
This page needs a rewrite. Petahertz (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Terrorists vs prisoners of war" section

[edit]

I've put some more background from the Third Geneva Convention (ratified by Israel) and Additional Protocol I (not ratified by Israel) (with citations from the conventions on the ICRC site), since the situation is not as clear-cut as the statement (claiming detained Palestinian resistance fighters are prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions) implies. The reference given for that statement is a dead link, I notice - maybe the assertion was made in that reference?

The section may still need a bit more clearing up. Kingal86 (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am guessing the Dead Link you refer to is (currently) Footnote 79 which is supposed to link to an Al Haq press release "Ongoing Violations of the Rights of Palestinian Prisoners."
As sometimes happens when websites are reorganized, the article is still on the website, just in another location here: https://www.alhaq.org/advocacy/7311.html
I can't fix the link because the article is protected. Perhaps you can? Laurel L. Russwurm (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My reverts

[edit]

I reverted two recent edits by SimplesC for the following reasons:

  • The inclusion in the "Public figures" section of a bit about former prisoner Hussein Fayyad's current role in the PA is irrelevant to the article. This article is not about former prisoners and what became of them, it's about current Palestinian public figures who are imprisoned by Israel.
  • There was no explanation for removal of this referenced and interesting sentence: "According to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, from the Six Day War (1967) to the First Intifada (1988), over 600,000 Palestinians were held in Israeli jails for a week or more." Instead of accurately stating the action taken, the edit summary was simply "added 2013 numbers."
  • We already mention the 2011 prisoner exchange deal between Hamas and Israel in a neutral manner in the lead. The new edits were peppered with political bias, namely these two unnecessary bits and commentary inserted in the middle of the sentence: "... including hundreds of convicted terrorists and murderers" and "In 2013, Hamas stated that the "kidnapping of IDF soldiers is at the heart of Palestinian culture."
  • I partially restored one of the edits, which was an update of how many Palestinian prisoners there were in April 2013. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

pchr

[edit]

Is a fine source for an attributed statement. Just as B'tselem, HRW, or on the other side the IDF or MFA can be used for attributed statements. nableezy - 13:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree, PCHR obviously has a very strong POV. How can readers trust that they report accurately and without a bias? I can't. At least HRW is an international NGO with more of a reputation. The IDF and MFA have responsibilities as government entitites, they can't just make things up.SimplesC (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lol they cant just make things up. Youre trusting them isnt my concern, its an attributed statement, if you dont believe then dont believe them. nableezy - 13:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean they can't make things up? They don't have any obligation to tell the truth. Just because an organization has an NGO doesn't mean they are accurate, on both sides of the argument. Even though it's attributed statement, the organization itself is not a reliable source and has a very open POV.SimplesC (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was laughing at the idea that MFA or IDF cant make things up. Youre free to believe what you want, but this is no different than citing the IDF or the MFA, neither of which are "reliable" for facts and have "a very open POV". POV does not mean it cannot be cited. The source is fine for an attributed statement. nableezy - 14:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

I think we should merge the article Palestinian Prisoners' Document with this one. Any opinion? Shalom11111 (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Addameer is a shady, little-known organization with direct ties to Palestinian terrorist, that doesn't even seem to have a Wikipedia article yet, but somehow it's assumed to be a reliable source for this article? What's up with that? --2A02:8071:3190:7D00:4059:36FC:3BDD:B23A (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Missing source

[edit]
Most of the prisoners are Palestinian men from the West Bank and Gaza area, convicted of participating in terror attacks.

No good source for this.ImTheIP (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

== Removal by ImTheIP ==

User:ImTheIP removed this information by saying "this sentence was removed because it is guesswork by Gavriel Fiske. controversial statements need to be better sourced" even though the source says it's B'Tselem that says this:

"According to rights group B’Tselem, Israel holds around 4,700 security prisoners, most of them Palestinian men from the West Bank and Gaza convicted of participating in terror attacks, although 169 of those are held under administrative detention, without formally being charged."

Would you mind explaining your removal and how this is connected to Gavriel Fiske (whoever is that person)?--Aroma Stylish (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gavriel Fiske is the person who wrote the article in The Times of Israel. You can find B'Tselem's prisoner statistics here. It does not list what the prisoners were convicted for. So how can Fiske know that most of them were convicted of participating in terror attacks? The answer is that he can't. It's not uncommon for journalists to make such unfounded claims, especially not when they "makes sense", but that doesn't mean that they should be repeated in Wikipedia.ImTheIP (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

::And what about The Washington Post? (considered a reliable secondary source):

There are about 4,700 Palestinian security prisoners in Israeli jails, most convicted in Israeli military courts of participating in or planning terror attacks.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The WaPo article also links to http://www.btselem.org/statistics/detainees_and_prisoners and as you can see, that page doesn't claim that most were convicted for participating in or planning terror attacks. Both The Times of Israel and WaPo are reputable sources, but that doesn't mean we should unquestionably reproduce their claims when they don't make sense.ImTheIP (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

::::The Washington Post doesn't mention B'Tselem even once.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The claim "4,700 Palestinian security prisoners in Israeli jails" is underlined with a link to B'Tselem.ImTheIP (talk) 02:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

::::::Is there a source you would accept explaining why the majority of those Palestinians are in prison? I don't think it's for speeding tickets.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, book sources with footnotes telling us where the data comes from. IPS publishes the data somewhere so it shouldn't be that hard to find, if it exists.ImTheIP (talk) 03:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B'Tselem calls them "security detainees" per their official classification. These include kids who threw stones at soldiers, and quite a large number of prisoners who chose to plead guilty because they were promised an even longer time in prison waiting for a trial. This common method of pressure seems to be missing from the article and it shouldn't be. "Most convicted of participating in terror attacks" is a lie and attributing it to B'Tselem is a calumny. "Convicted of planning a terror attack" includes belonging to an organization that Israel considers illegal. Also missing, I think, is the documented fact that the military courts almost never find anyone innocent. The fact that neither prisoners nor their lawyers usually get to see the evidence against them is hinted at but should be explained properly. Nor, unless I missed it, is the fact that families are often not notified of the prisoner's whereabouts. Overall this article is a pro-Israel whitewash. Zerotalk 05:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero "military courts almost never find anyone innocent" - this is especially worth noting in my opinion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to link to original article still available

[edit]

Reference 28 "Israeli forces arrested 800,000 Palestinians since 1967" is still available in the original version at https://www.saudigazette.com.sa/article/24958/Israeli-forces-arrested-800000-Palestinians-since-1967. Guess the web archive link can be replaced.

flag

[edit]

Besides the source cited saying the following:

The sentences of Palestinian prisoners are commonly based on an accusation that they are "members of illegal organizations" (meaning the PLO), planning or taking part in sabotage against Israelis, or raising a Palestinian flag

A brief perusal at Flag of Palestine would also disabuse one of the notion that this is an extraordinary claim. See more here about the 1980 law that outlawed flying the Palestinian flag. nableezy - 04:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And those arent scare quotes, its a quote nableezy - 04:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does need to be reworded though, will do that now. nableezy - 05:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sections to reorganize

[edit]

I think that for the clarity of the article three sections should be modified :

  • Payment by palestinian authority should be more light because there is a detailed article.
  • The section of Hisham Abu Hawash should be put in the context of the global hunger stike of 2021 second semester.
  • The debat around medical negligence should be a sub section of section 5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lahlou Anas (talk • contribs) 12:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect section

[edit]

This section under "Human Rights Abuse" is unsourced and incorrect. 

 "More than 334 prisoners from Gazaincludes 2 women and a child.[citation needed] Their families had been under many restrictions to visit them in the Israelis prisons.[citation needed] They were required to obtain permits from Israeli authorities to pass the Israeli Security Agency, so they can visit their relatives. While there is many limitations on Gaza families to enter in Israel. They allow prison visits every 2-month at most for 3 members of the family, only the spouses, parents and children under 16 years- old."

No evidence exists for this claim. Please remove this section. 2603:7000:A102:144D:8CEB:77F4:5F45:B61E (talk) 05:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

any figures on deaths of Palestinians in Israeli prisons ?

[edit]

eg from illness, alleged maltreatment or even hunger strikes or other reasons. 82.11.163.59 (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update numbers since start of 2023 war

[edit]

The overall figures in this article are from 2011, and administrative detention figures are from April 2022. Amnesty International notes that these figures have increased "dramatically" since October 7:


"Since 7 October, Israeli forces have detained more than 2,200 Palestinian men and women, according to the Palestinian Prisoners’ Club. According to Israeli human rights organization HaMoked between 1 October and 1 November, the total number of Palestinians held in administrative detention, without charge or trial, rose from 1,319 to 2,070."


https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/11/israel-opt-horrifying-cases-of-torture-and-degrading-treatment-of-palestinian-detainees-amid-spike-in-arbitrary-arrests/ Arielweil (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 September 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: MOVED to Palestinians in Israeli custody. There is consensus that the current title is inaccurate, due to the distinction between prisoners and detainees, and also because at least one prison is in the West Bank, not Israel. The original proposal was too long, but I see a consensus for "Palestinians in Israeli custody", supported for its accuracy. "Palestinians in Israeli detention" gained some support, but was also opposed because it does include both prisoners and detainees. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 11:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian prisoners in Israel → Palestinian prisoners and detainees in Israel – Current title is POV and ignores the fact that there are thousands of Palestinians in Israel who are imprisoned without trial, i.e. they are not prisoners because they have not been convicted. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Doesn’t prisoners include such people, such as Prisoners of war and in reference to people imprisoned in Guantanamo bay. (by media biased in their favour, so not an indication of POV). FortunateSons (talk) 09:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Protected persons: Prisoners of war and detainees, there is a distinction. Selfstudier (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I‘m aware of this distinction, but apparently there is a difference in connotation that doesn’t exist in my native language as well. FortunateSons (talk) 14:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prisoners of war are not held without charge – they are held after having been apprehended while in the employ of an enemy army + most of the Guantanamo detainees were held without charge and are frequently called detainees in sources. It's called the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, and its occupants most often "detainees". Iskandar323 (talk) 10:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If so, then why don't we call Israeli hostages, prisoners? "Imprisoned" is a verb here, and does not make an implication about being convicted, unlike "prisoner," a noun that does. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is no serious question regarding lawfulness about any of the Israelis, there is a question of lawfulness about many (not: all) of the Palestinians imprisoned. In addition, the purpose of the hostage taking is likely to be quite different from the Israeli goals. But I wouldn’t mind „Palestinians imprisoned in Israel“ either, it sounds identical to me. FortunateSons (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that Israel holds many Palestinians hostage expressly to pressure their family members for various reasons – it's just one of the many acts of collective punishment of the Israeli state. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s likely true, but the vast majority are being held for individual behaviour, not matter how one morally evaluates it, including (but not limited to) attacks on civilians and military. FortunateSons (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Were that true, which would need to be evidenced, it would beg the question of why no charges? Iskandar323 (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t see into the minds of Israeli prosecutors. However, broadly transferring what I have been thought during uni courses in and about different jurisdictions and have read on my own time, common motives may include:
  1. the benefit of uncertain detention, particularly when it comes to wanting them to flip on the others (comparable to contempt of court in the US)
  2. a negative cost-benefit analysis (no charges needed due to the current laws, high resource costs for trials, evidence being covered by security reasons, complications caused by compelling testimony from unwilling witnesses)
  3. unpopular verdicts (a „freedom fighter“ being convicted may become a symbol, someone just imprisoned is not)
  4. not wanting to deal with standards of evidence, such as protections from illegal search and seizure (which, to be fair, are lacking as is).
Having said that, I personally find most of those arguments unconvincing, unethical or both, but let’s not pretend there aren’t rational reasons. While there are cases where I consider such actions morally justified, the scale as is went way beyond that, and seems to be worsening. But such a moral assessment (or the entirety of OR above) are no reasons for or against when it comes to WP:PAGS, in the same way I can’t just edit the word „terrorist organisation“ before any mention of the word Hamas without consensus. FortunateSons (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: While prisoners can have broader meanings, it tends to imply criminality or implied criminality. The nuance of the term detainees is unusually relevant in the context given the have numbers of uncharged Palestinian detainees involved. This language presents itself in reports by the UN, Btselem, Amnesty, Reuters, NPR, as just a few examples. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That B'tselem source looks quite good for the total and breakdown into categories, maybe we could use their title Palestinians in Israeli custody considering that at least one prison is in the WB. Selfstudier (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Btselem title is another sensible and NPOV approach that avoids the issue altogether by not choosing, but categorising more broadly. And as you note, it avoids the artificial distinction between detention in Israel and detention within the Israeli system outside of Israel. This is also a viable and concise option that I would support. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that one seems reasonable, unless there is a good argument against, I would prefer this one. FortunateSons (talk) 14:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Palestinians in Israeli custody", not the one proposed in this RM. Zerotalk 14:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Palestinians in Israeli detention" which covers both prisoners & detainees. Prefer this to "custody", dear Zero. Tiamut (talk) 18:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Detention centers are a thing and so are prisons. One has prisoners and one has detainees. Selfstudier (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Palestinians in Israeli detention" per above suggestions and discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: "custody" vs. "detention" seems to be the main question still outstanding. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support “Palestinians in Israeli custody”, thereby avoiding the long original title suggestions and sticking with what one of the high-quality sources uses. Detention would be inaccurate, as that excludes or at least implies to exclude prisoners, which, per the discussion above, are not generally synonymous with people who are being detained.
FortunateSons (talk) 07:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and Iskandar, I think we’ve got to go with the language sources use Kowal2701 (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palestinians_in_Israeli_custody&oldid=1247858223"