Talk:2023 Israeli judicial reform

Unclear sentence at the end of introduction

The introduction includes "and the president of the Supreme Court and the Attorney General have attested to the reform's illegalities" - maybe this could be rewritten to clarify how a law can be illegal? Israel has no constitution, so my understanding is that all laws are passed by majority vote, including those that establish governing bodies. Ak0015 (talk) 00:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that the wording isn't precise indeed. I can't access the paywalled Haaretz article, but the Times of Israel one simply quotes Attorney General Mandelblit saying that "rule of law could be harmed." Alaexis_¿question? 13:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

There should also be pictures of people protesting for the reform.

I think it’s only right and it’s more fair if there isn’t only pictures of people protesting against the reform but there also be pictures of people protesting for the reform to happen. Today there was over 200,000 protesters that were campaigning for the reform to happen. Zalman Levy (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

If there is any freely available content on Wikimedia Commons or elsewhere which shows protestors who support these reforms, then I'm sure they could be included in the article. Can't seem to find any from my brief glimpse, but that might be to do with Commons categorisation. GnocchiFan (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I have pictures that I got from WhatsApp Statuses who could I send them to? Zalman Levy (talk) 00:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Did you take these photos yourself, or are they someone else's work? The Wikimedia Commons Upload Wizard might be able to help you more than me here. GnocchiFan (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Zalman Levy they are not interested in unbiased articles.

the entire point of Wikipedia is to be a biased dessiminator, while posing as an unbiased encyclopedia.

it is just another tool for propaganda. 99.33.126.209 (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The west bank is Internationally considered occupied and not disputed.

Using the descriptiojn of 'disputed' to refer to the occupied West Bank is a minority view in the world and a political tool associated with among others the the settlement movement in Israel. We should change this to occupied to reflect the majority and it is in fact the language used in the linked article. Tobybuk (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Correct. I've now aligned that with the linked article, which contains the community consensus for this langauge. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Missing references in critical statements in the header

> "The Supreme Court can declare Knesset legislation unconstitutional."

Israel does not have an explicit constitution, I'm guessing this is referring to the Basic Laws of Israel. Regardless, without a reference showing a clear external consensus agreeing with this statement, I think it needs to be rewritten, e.g. "The Supreme Court can determine that Knesset legislation contradicts Israel's basic laws and strike this legislation down." and use the reference currently used two lines down. I cannot make these edits myself. eyal (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I guess if there's no objection then I'll make an edit request. eyal (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The phrase quoted from the article is correct. Israel indeed has no contitution but most definitely has its constitutional law. This legal field relies on the most basic legislation of a country, mostly a consitution, thereby arguing on the legality of other laws. In countries like the United Kingdom, where no constitution was ever written (see Constitution of the United Kingdom), this field is nevertheless called constitutional law. Additionaly, the Supreme Court of Israel reserves the right to render a law "unconstitutional" (חוק לא-חוקתי). The quote and your suggetion are essentially identical in meaning, while the quote gives a comprehensive and correct reference to the process. Duke of Somewhere (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that we can infer from the general name of a legal field "constitutional law" that it's ok to use the phrase "determine constitutionality" in the article. Instead, we need to rely on a strong set of references that use the phrase "unconstitutional" in the same context, which means something that is conceptually a lot broader than the narrower phrasing I proposed above.

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find any applicable reference using variants of the phrasing "determining a law constitutional" or the phrase "לא-חוקתי" in the context of the Israeli Supreme Court anywhere. Until we find such references, I believe we need to dial down the phrasing to be more narrow so it can be backed up with references that we do have. This will also make the header consistent with the body of the article, which avoids using the phrase "unconstitutional" as well. eyal (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2023

Change "Following the election, Likud leader and former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu formed the..." to "Following the election, Likud leader and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu formed the..."

Justification: Benjamin Netanyahu is currently Israel's PM. 65.78.14.178 (talk) 11:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done, This phrasing implies Netanyahu was the incumbent Prime Minister, wheras the previous phrasing makes clear that there was a gap between his previous terms and his current one. Totalstgamer (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

bias

article is quite bias in favor of anti-reform groups. most content is given to ant-reform. maybe if Wikipedia wasn't so bias they would not need to lock so many articles.

just the fact that Wikipedia locks articles makes Wikipedia nothing more than a subjective publication. the entire point of a "Wikipedia" was to allow public input. 99.33.126.209 (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Please provide examples of things you think constitute bias, and ways you think the article could be improved. Totalstgamer (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 July 2023

Typo: unreasonablness Paragem (talk) 08:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 10:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Elephant in the Room?

There is almost nothing in this article about the underlying reason for these proposed reforms.

"The ultimate purpose of the judicial overhaul is to tighten restrictions on Gaza, deprive Palestinians of equal rights both beyond the Green Line and within it, annex more land, and ethnically cleanse all territories under Israeli rule of their Palestinian population" (Tharoor, Ishaan (2023-08-11). "Analysis". Washington Post., quoting this letter written by 1,400 academics)

1,400 academics have published a letter which explains the subtext to these proposed reforms. Our article currently says almost nothing on this topic. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it currently only contains the barest whiff of Netanyahu's own motivations related to judicial reform, i.e. the potential to tip the scales regarding his tif with justice, but nothing on the quite widely discussed motivations of his extreme far-right allies - when the latter are motivations most concerning the security establishment. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I think a 'motivations' section is a decent idea. Quoting an analysis by the Washington post is not the way to go imo. Such a section would need to comprise the intentions stated by those propagating the overhaul. There's potentially room for analysis, so long as its well-accepted (echoed in other sources) and properly attributed to retain an encyclopedic tone.

An example of a statement by a politician would be this speech from March 2023 by Ben-Gvir which argued, among other things, for the granting of legal immunity to soldiers. [1] I'm sure there's more and better examples, especially ones that'd touch on Likud, Shas and UTJ's interests (mostly revolving around corruption and the draft law) but i couldn't find any on short notice. Totalstgamer (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Rename article to "2023 Israeli constitutional coup attempt"

It is indisputed that the intent of the proposed law changes is to increase the power of executive/legislative branch, and limit the judicial branch. Those who are in favor of the changes claim it's a counter-coup to reverse historical injustice, and create a new balance of power. Those who oppose, claim it's an attempt to break the democratic checks and balances on the government, giving it unlimited gubernatorial power. Thus most people in Israel consider the use of the term "reform" as a political term, either in favor of its use in correlation with support for the change or vice-versa.

So if we are only left with politically charged terms, we should adopt the view of the overwhelming majority in Israel's populous and media and use the term "coup", either with "judicial" or "constitutional" qualifier.

As for the qualifier "attempt", it is my POV that the main crux of this article (and of the event) is the 2023 change attempt, while the actual body of the change has become secondary. Refael Ackermann (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

We generally choose terms based on common terminology (unless there's no commonly accepted terms to refer to a subject). The ongoing events are commonly referred to as a "judicial reform" or "overhaul" (which is honestly a better term imo), while "coup" is less frequent in English-language sources. Totalstgamer (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

It is, indeed, quite tempting to use the term "coup," as this event appears, at first glance, to be what Wikipedia defines as a "Self-coup":

("a form of coup d'état in which a nation's head, having come to power through legal means, stays in power through illegal means.")

However, illegal is a tough term to apply in this case, as it can be argued that the current regime is trying to use legal means to undo the legal system, rather than simply violating the law that currently restrains them.

And, there's more than one party attempting to hold onto power, here, rather than just "the nation's head." His whole multi-party governing coalition, arguably, are trying to overturn the legal system (ostensibly legally, through legislation), apparently attempting to preserve their power indefinitely.

So, it's not quite meeting the classic definition of "coup" (which typically refers to a specific, individual autocratic "strong man" (with his subordinates) grabbing or consolidating sole power (as, say, in current-day Venezuela or Egypt.)

So the current muted phrase "judicial reform" is probably more accurate, which explains its very wide use in most major Western media. Is this fully fair description the mischief of the current ruling coalition? Probably not. But it's the phrase in near-universal use, on this topic (and similiar issues currently in the United States), and Wikipedia probably should not be in the business of redefining conventional political nomenclature.

~ Penlite (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I just finally checked the WP Manual of Style, and found this guideline: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events), with the specific section "Conventions" (WP:NCWWW), which says:

If there is an established, common name for an event (such as the Great Depression, Cuban Missile Crisis or a "Bloody Sunday"), use that name.

Clearly, the "common name" for this event, as repeated in countless WP:RS sources is "Israeli judicial reform."

There is another WP guideline -- "Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government and legislation)" (WP:NC-GAL) about titles for articles about specific legislation (particular individual bills or acts). But this topic is about a political movement -- involving a broad range of legislative bills and acts, and the events surrounding them -- so the WP:NCWWW guideline on naming articles about events applies here, IMHO.

~ Penlite (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Connection to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

@Makeandtoss: As mentioned in the previous conversation, i'd argue these paragraphs fit in Reactions to the 2023 Israeli judicial reform, since they constitute a reaction to these events, or otherwise in a forked page specifically regarding the Issues surrounding the reform. Totalstgamer (talk) 11:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

They are not a reaction written in a statement, as most of the content on the reactions article is. They are analyses about the aims of the judicial overhaul. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Then that should be the section's name, with the current section as a sub-section. I'll get around to expanding the analysis with additional issues at play at a later point. Totalstgamer (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

incomplete

where is a link to the actual ruling of 2024? is there an English translation? 100.15.117.34 (talk) 04:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 July 2024

Please consider avoiding the use of the word “reform” here (most notably in the article title) and in other political contexts. Reform is not a value-neutral term, as it definitionally refers to improvement of something that is flawed.

Given the highly controversial nature of the 2023 bills proposing changes the structure of Israel’s judiciary, it is potentially misleading and arguably deceitful to characterize to such an effort as reformational. What appears as political reform from one point of view may appear as dangerous overreach from another.

Many news organizations prohibit using the term “reform” in such contexts for these reasons. I suggest that a more value-neutral term such as “proposal” would be more honest and appropriate.

Thank you for your consideration.

MauriceFrancisEgan (talk) 04:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC) MauriceFrancisEgan (talk) 04:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Jamedeus (talk) 04:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

English-language sources, please, per WP:NONENG

The Wikipedia guideline WP:NONENG states that:

because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance.

There are far too many cited sources here that are in Hebrew, rather than English -- particularly Hebrew-language media. And that is quite unnecessary, as there is a vast array of English-language major media, in Israel, which meet the WP:RS standard, including

• Times of Israel (centrist)
• Ha'aretz (liberal)
• Jerusalem Post (conservative)
• Ynet (the English-language version)
• ...and so on --

-- not to mention most top-flight Western major media (e.g.: Reuters, Associated Press (AP), Agence France-Presse (AFP), New York Times, Washington Post, BBC News, CBC, France 24, Deutsche Welle (DW), etc.) who have paid very close attention to this enormously important and controversial event in Israel, and covered it in English.

So, please, English-language sources. (not only as new material is added, but to bolster Hebrew sources already in the article. This is, after all, a very controversial topic, so multiple sources are advisable for most points -- ideally with some diversity of bias, or relatively little bias.)

~ Penlite (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

New section: ==Suspension and overruling==

I've added a new, final section: "==Suspension and overruling==". It probably duplicates some of the other content of the article, but is a necessary final section (for now), to indicate the (probably temporary) termination of the movement and opposition.

I'd encourage others to review and refine (concisely) this new section, to be sure it's as accurate (and as neutral) as possible.

~ Penlite (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

This article needs reorganization, editing for NPOV, and possible trimming.

This article appears to need a total overhaul.

• The lede:
  • The lede is way, way too long. Ledes are supposed to be about 2-4 concise paragraphs. (see: WP:LEDE)
  • Elements of the lede are too detailed for the general, summary overview that the lede is supposed to provide.
  • Some elements of the lede appear to be only marginally appropriate, as they are expected measures -- but not yet actually introduced. Speculative content is questionable, especially if documented poorly or not at all.
• Too much of the content on this extremely controversial topic is under-sourced, even single-sourced -- and often from NON-English sources (ignoring WP:NC-GAL).
• Many sections are extremely verbose, with unusually long-winded sentences and paragraphs, minimally sourced.
• There appear to be conflicting organizational elements, resulting in much duplication.
• There is little, perhaps no, coherent chronological sequence (since this topic is an event, timelines and chronological structure are relevant)
• At first glance, it appears that there is some subjective content in violation of WP:NPOV.

~ Penlite (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 July 2024

In the lede:

• bills permitting key public service positions to be positions of trust, appointed by politicians, rather than professional aappointments.

A typo in "appointments" there. Can't edit myself. Couruu (talk) 08:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)