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

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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.clb.ac.il/uploads/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425123044/http://www.izsvideo.org/videos/full/Igon.pdf to http://www.izsvideo.org/videos/full/Igon.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425122935/http://izsvideo.org/papers/bakshi2011.pdf to http://izsvideo.org/papers/bakshi2011.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924205403/http://kohelet.org.il/uploads/file/nation-state%20FAQ2(1).pdf to http://kohelet.org.il/uploads/file/nation-state%20FAQ2%281%29.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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)

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)

Knesset press releases

• Joint Committee approves Nation-State Bill for final plenary vote
• Knesset passes Jewish nation-state bill into law

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Cite the policy you base your excision on.Nishidani (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE - highly fringe political activist, in an op-ed.Icewhiz (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

That is like saying Pope Francis's objections should not be mentioned here in the Immigration policy of Donald Trump because the Pope has no knowledge of American law. fatuous and totally counter-intuitive, as well as without policy basis.

Quote the passage in WP:UNDUE which would validate removing a comment by one of the most distinguished Jewish/Israelis on the international scene, noted also for his enduring efforts to effect reconciliation between Jewish Israelis and Palestinians, in an opinion piece reproduced in The Guardian and several other venues, on the grounds that his remarks are not those of a legal expert. Reaction sections have never never stipulated such a stringent exclusionist policy.Nishidani (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

(2)another outrageous edit summary (Considering Dichter has been taking a backseat (to rather more notable legislators), his opinion should not be given some prominence (and we are in UNDUE turf here in the article of a whole to this backbencher), the section title being OR)as a pretext for cleansing the page Nishidani (talk)15:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I.e. it is undue to quote the bill's primary promoter concerning what the bill's intent was. Patent POV pushing.Nishidani (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Dichter promoted a different version of the law back in 2011-3 - and it did not pass. In the current Knesset and government (this being a government sponsored bill), the law has been promoted by Levin and others (e.g. Shaked). Amir Ohana headed the special sub-committee set up to pass this law. Dichter himself is a backbencher (since returning to the Likud) - and had very little to do with the law this time around.Icewhiz (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

That's just blahblah,sand-in-the-eyes, a strawman dodge or worse still, preaching to the chorus. We all know that, and it has nothing to do with the removal of the widely quoted statement he made on its passage regarding the intent of the law.Nishidani (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't remove the quote by Dichter - I combined it all into one paragraph in the "Public debate" (where we were covering different bits from the same stmt). The section heading was OR. As for the purpose (and this can be sources) - the more reasoned justifications have been to force the supreme court to take the declaration of independence, in which Israel as the nation-state of the Jews is present, into account when parsing other laws. The Basic law legislation, up to now, has not placed this into Israel's evolving constitutionality framework - and the declaration of independence has an ambiguous legal status (though the court has taken it into account in various decisions).Icewhiz (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I.e. you buried it in a problematical section no one will read because it is half dealing with the historical background of the bill through 2011-2014 among its proponents. There is a clear need for a section that covers, as per the recent adjustments to the lead, the fact that it was highly controversial. Dichter's quote, in response to criticism, is not relevant to that section, but to the ensuing controversy Nishidani (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I have added a new section to rectify this. See new section below. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nishidani - I added press release that show Dichter's first quotation is actually him quoting others so I removed it. It also translates him on the second quote with the correct plural citizens so that was added bonus. Rennell435 (talk) 10:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

New section - Reaction

The section entitled Public debate focuses largely on the events that lead up to the passing of the law, including the proposal and debate that preceded the parliamentary vote. Reaction, both national and international, to this contentious law is sorely lacking. Consequently, a new section dealing with this has been started. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Change & move controversial text?

The sentence "It has been met with worldwide condemnation, including criticism from within the Jewish diaspora.[10][11][12][13][14][15]" should be changed to "It has been met with worldwide criticism, including from within the Jewish diaspora", as only one out of the six sources actually use the word "condemnation". I also think it should be moved from the bottom of the lede to the top of the Reactions section. Mithrandir the Grey (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Done. It have been changed. 202.161.64.247 (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The law is extremely controversial both within and outside of Israel. Half of the article is dedicated to the controversy and reactions it has created. Consequently, this belongs back in the lead. It has been reverted. The change in wording from condemnation to criticism has been kept. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Arab Israeli rally

RE this revert - the text in the caption was "Israeli Arabs and their supporters rally..." - matching Reuters and presaging the revert comment of "You're welcome to add 'mostly', or include 'and their supporters' per your Reuter's source - otherwise it's WP:OR".Icewhiz (talk) 07:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

The edit is satisfactory. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Revert

Editor Tritomex reverted a perfectly respectable rs claiming it was undue and that it needed consensus, which it isn't and it doesn't. And then added to the remaining reference a tag stating that a better reference was needed!! Clear cut case of "I don't like it."Selfstudier (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The source could be respectable, still WP:UNDUE. We cant include all editorial opinions from all newspapers, nor cherry pick those that we agree with. As for Adalah, claims made by partisan political sources that are heavenly involved in criticism of this law should be properly attributed, or nonpartisan reference should be added.Tritomex (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

You still took out a decent source but left in a source you then tagged as insufficient. What's the matter, can't find a source praising the court decision? I am not at all surprised, it has been roundly condemned across the board as racism, even by normally pro-Israeli sources.Selfstudier (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The court decision,if it really tackles practical questions arsing from the Jewish Nation State basic low, may have importance to this article. It just has to be properly sourced. Editorials from selected newspapers about one particular incident that may have connection to this court decision is WP:UNDUE to the article.Tritomex (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Usual whitewash. Not fooling anybody.Selfstudier (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Controversy-Avi Dichter misquoted

• The following sentence is a misquote:

Knesset member Avi Dichter, the law's sponsor, stated: "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 citizens."[46][47]

The correct text was said by PM Netanyahu and was worded as follows:
“We enshrined in law the basic principle of our existence. Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people, that respects the individual rights of all its citizens,” he said following the vote.

MK Avi Dichter stated on the same page: "...No minority will be able to change the state’s symbols. This Basic Law does not harm the Arabic language or any minority – that’s fake news. Israel is not a bilingual country; it never was. Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people and guarantees the majority without hurting the minority.”

• External Reference nr. 46 is a dead link.

Therefore please change:

Knesset member Avi Dichter, the law's sponsor, stated: "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 citizens." Responding to Arab legislators who objected to the proposed basic law, he said that, "The most you can do is to live among us as a national minority that enjoys equal individual rights, but not equality as a national minority."

to:

Knesset member Avi Dichter, the law's sponsor, stated: "No minority will be able to change the state’s symbols. This Basic Law does not harm the Arabic language or any minority – that’s fake news. Israel is not a bilingual country; it never was. Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people and guarantees the majority without hurting the minority.” Responding to Arab legislators who objected to the proposed basic law, he said that, "The most you can do is to live among us as a national minority that enjoys equal individual rights, but not equality as a national minority."

Photojack50 (talk|contribs) 15:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

To editor Photojack50:  done, and thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 20:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Update URL for External Link

Please change:

External links

• "Basic Law: Israel as the Nation State of the Jewish People". Knesset website. Archived from the original on 19 July 2018. Retrieved 19 July 2018. (in English)

to:

External links

• "Basic Law: Israel as the Nation State of the Jewish People". Knesset website. 19 July 2018. Retrieved 6 December 2020. (in English)

Photojack50 (talk|contribs) 22:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Press releases

The section "Legislation history" quotes more than five hundred words nearly verbatim from the Knesset press release on the bill's passage. Aside from being a possible NPOV/UNDUE issue, I question the utility of quoting so extensively and uncritically from partisan sources. I'd like to suggest getting rid of it entirely, or otherwise spinning it off into a separate section for reactions from lawmakers, if people here think these statements are valuable inclusions. Jbrzow (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Islamic states are not controvercial?

56 OIC states are not controvercial but the 1 Jewish state is? 2.100.200.224 (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)