Talk:Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 67: Line 67:
: I thank you for the award - however is it not perhaps premature to hand out awards for 2018? Perhaps others, or mayhaps myself, shall surpass this milestone? On a more serious note - this is a random op-ed by a non-expert - the author is a pianist and conductor. He is not particularly noteworthy for his politics (though one should note he is a Palestinian citizen and a strong critic of Israel - well prior to this particular legislation - his opinions on Israel were just as scathing ten years ago) - and this particular op-ed hasn't been covered in a secondary manner. We should be sticking to politicians and law scholars - or to items with significant secondary coverage.[[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] ([[User talk:Icewhiz|talk]]) 15:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
: I thank you for the award - however is it not perhaps premature to hand out awards for 2018? Perhaps others, or mayhaps myself, shall surpass this milestone? On a more serious note - this is a random op-ed by a non-expert - the author is a pianist and conductor. He is not particularly noteworthy for his politics (though one should note he is a Palestinian citizen and a strong critic of Israel - well prior to this particular legislation - his opinions on Israel were just as scathing ten years ago) - and this particular op-ed hasn't been covered in a secondary manner. We should be sticking to politicians and law scholars - or to items with significant secondary coverage.[[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] ([[User talk:Icewhiz|talk]]) 15:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
::Cite the policy you base your excision on.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 15:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
::Cite the policy you base your excision on.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 15:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
:::[[WP:UNDUE]] - highly fringe political activist, in an op-ed.[[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] ([[User talk:Icewhiz|talk]]) 15:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:09, 23 July 2018

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Permission to Edit Page

I am interested in updating this page. However, is it covered by the rules on Israel/Palestine? Do I need special permission to be able to update this page. I don't want to work on it and then have everything reverted because I wasn't allowed to in the first place. Sam* (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Knesset press releases

Sokuya (talk) 08:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People

The Law was adopted by Knesset 62 in favor, 55 against and two abstentions on July 19, 2018.

Does anyone know when this new Israeli Basic Law will applied? When will be the first day that this new law will be valid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0A:A541:17C6:0:A017:3AF2:1BB1:3E4D (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are technicalities (publication in the state annals) - that range to around 30-60 days. However, the law itself isn't operative in any manner - the Arabic language provision (the only provision that could have an operative effect) was framed so that it doesn't modify any existing arrangement. The effects of the law (the same as the similar Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty) are primarily in regards to the Israeli supreme court - which takes Basic laws into consideration when interpreting other laws.Icewhiz (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Icewhiz, thank you very much for your reply.
Kind regards,
Sara — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0A:A541:17C6:0:A017:3AF2:1BB1:3E4D (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Icewhiz. There is a basic formal contradiction, stripped of tenses, in your reply.
(a) ' the law itself isn't operative in any manner - the Arabic language provision (the only provision that could have an operative effect) was framed so that it doesn't modify any existing arrangement.'
(b) 'The effects of the law . . .are primarily in regards to the Israeli supreme court.
(a) and (b) are not consistent. True you say that the law (a) 'isn't operative' (present tense) (it hasn't yet perhaps been 'gazetted', the move which transforms legislation into operative mode, but that once it is, the law will be taken into consideration in Supreme Court judgements, which ipso facto ends up meaning that the law will not only take effect but have an effect on, future outcomes. If you meant to say 'the law isn't operative now but shortly will be, it is a non-reply. If you mean the law isn't operative, but will be, idem. Whatever, all laws technically have legal force, and only when their application is challenged, they end up in the Supreme Court, so equally, the point made is pointless.Nishidani (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The 30-60 days refers to the gazette. The law itself doesn't contain any operative language - its possible effects are interpretation in the supreme court - however it chooses to interpret it (and there is quite a wide scope for possible interpretations - frankly, the identity of the judges is more important that a basic law) when examining the legality of other laws or ordinances. Icewhiz (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me a legal text which states that laws have to have operative clauses in order to take effect? That is prima facie a legal absurdity. In all of the known world's legal systems, laws, once gazetted, become, ipso facto operative. The operative function is determined by (a) the norms governing application adopted administratively by the bureaucracy that must enact the laws and (b) the Supreme Court, which intervenes when the stipulations in bureaucratic interpretations used to enforce the law come under challenge. But there is not a shadow of a doubt that any law in modern societies' legal codes has legal force from the moment it is published in the official gazette. So, to repeat, 'give me a legal text which states that laws have to have operative clauses in order to take effect'. If you can't, then it is just your word for it.Nishidani (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One can legislate anything - including passing a "the sky is blue law". The law, as worded in the final version, is symbolic with the possible exception (due to this being a basic law) that the supreme court with take this new law into account when parsing other laws. So ues - it will of coure (following the gazette) be in effect.Icewhiz (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's an opinion. You are apparently taking on a role as an authority on law, and Israeli law, and if you wish to make claims about what they mean or signify for the purposes of this article, you should provide sources that confirm that your views are not the arbitrary, subjective opinions they otherwise appear to be. The above for example, once more sidesteps the gravamen of the point I made about your earlier assertions. This is boring.Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"symbolic and declarative"

There is a couple of problems with this statement in wikipedia's voice in the lead. Firstly, it is sourced to one article by the NYT, which is by no means enough to make it a blanket statement that it is 'symbolic and declarative' - certainly given that the overwhelming amount of other sources out there see it far from being a 'symbolic' issue. Secondly the reference used does not actually say that at all - it looks like the article (or an article at the same page) did at some point include that wording, if you google - where other news sites (eg here and here) re-use/re-print the NYT piece they have included the 'symbolic' wording but it doesnt appear on the NYT currently. There is also the issue that it may be in the print version and not the online version (see bottom of ref 3 article where it says a version of this appeared in print yadda yadda). This is problematic as if the online article has been amended, it cant be a RS for the statement made, as we cannot speculate on why that was removed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If one googles 'symbolic' and 'declarative', it emerges that this can be traced back to official comments made to brush off worries, and therefore appears to be not a 'fact' (and therefore not to be stated as such in wiki's neutral voice) but an opinion requiring attribution. It is contradicted by one of the bill's promoters, Avi Dichter, who is quoted as stating:

“We are enshrining this important bill into a law today to prevent even the slightest thought, let alone attempt, to transform Israel to a country of all its citizen.(=citizens),

Only by the most contorted of reasonings can one assert that a legal measure whose drafters wrote it in order to block any future attempt by non-Jews to achieve parity of rights with their Jewish fellow citizens, is just symbolic. Idem with 'declarative': this has no legal meaning. Nishidani (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added more refernces from other RS and archive the original reference before David M. Halbfinger contribute and rephrased it. Sokuya (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Silliest edit summary award 2018

this by Icewhiz tops the cake. There is not the slightest policy basis for the removal. Nishidani (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The heading is 'public debate' and there is no debate there. There is simply an unreadable list of predictable Likud et al (Zioniost think tank party liners) comments supporting the bill. Remarkably there is zero reactions from the real world. Arab legislators, public intellectuals, or world opinion leaders.Nishidani (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for the award - however is it not perhaps premature to hand out awards for 2018? Perhaps others, or mayhaps myself, shall surpass this milestone? On a more serious note - this is a random op-ed by a non-expert - the author is a pianist and conductor. He is not particularly noteworthy for his politics (though one should note he is a Palestinian citizen and a strong critic of Israel - well prior to this particular legislation - his opinions on Israel were just as scathing ten years ago) - and this particular op-ed hasn't been covered in a secondary manner. We should be sticking to politicians and law scholars - or to items with significant secondary coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cite the policy you base your excision on.Nishidani (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNDUE - highly fringe political activist, in an op-ed.Icewhiz (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People&oldid=851626313"