Talk:Kohelet Policy Forum

Acceptance

I noted the other reviewers's concerns about copyright infringement. I have checks and found none, but I reserve the right to be mistaken. Feel free to check the article history to see their concerns and propose for immediate deletion if copyvio is found. Fiddle Faddle 14:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Source of funds

A new investigation by Haaretz reveals a major role for US billionaires Jeff Yass and Arthur Dantchik and the company Susquehanna International Group in the funding of this organization. Zero^talk 07:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Role of legal advisors

The proposal simply does not include a suggestion that these advisors become political appointees. that is false. Here is what the Israel Democracy Institute , a fierce opponent of the reform has to say about this - "The draft bill stipulates that legal advice provided to the government or a government minister by their legal advisers would not be binding upon them, and that it would not change the legal situation in Israel. It also provides that the government and ministers are entitled to determine what legal position would be presented on behalf of their ministries to judicial decision-makers (that is, courts) and who will represent them before such judicial bodies. " - nothing in there about political appointments. It further states, earlier "A public commission headed by Supreme Court Justice Shimon Agranat recommended in 1962 that the independent status of the attorney general, especially in criminal prosecution matters, should be respected—but that he or she should also be required to consult on policy matters relating to criminal prosecution with the minister of justice. The commission also clarified that the attorney general pronounces the contents of the law for the executive branch, but that the government maintains discretion to deviate from the legal opinions of the attorney general in specific cases. This last recommendation has been eroded over the years, following the practice of the attorneys general from the 1970s onward"[1] - in other words, the legal situation, as determined by the Agranat commission, is that the opinion is not binding, but AGs have in practice deviated from the law, and the reform seeks to explictly codify what the Agranat commission has already stated is the law, and stop the illegal erosion. Red Slapper (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The proposal does involve a change in the way the legal advisors are appointed, so that they'll be משרות אמון,

which is suitably translated as political appointees (that is, a person appointed by the minister based on personal trust, and who can be replaced by the minister, as opposed to the current situation in which the minister does not appoint the legal advisor). See

https://www.idi.org.il/articles/47929

The current situation, as you explain yourself, is that the legal advice is binding. You are giving your own personal point of view that the Agranat commission rules have been "illegally" eroded. You are entitled to that opinion. Others - for example, the attorney generals - presumably disagree with your characterization of their actions as "illegal". Wikipedia articles should be neutral. The facts are: as of 2023 the legal opinions are binding, and the reforms propose to change that. Maybe this change is an improvement, maybe this makes things worse. Maybe this restores someone's view of how things were in 1962, maybe not - that's all POV and simply does not belong here.

One could write a detailed, separate, Wikipedia entry concerning the roles of government legal advisors over the year and how they evolved, but it doesn't fit into this Wikipedia entry.

In short, the current situation is that the legal advisors are appointed independently, and in practice their advice is binding. The history of how this came to be is not the topic of this Wikipedia entry. Some argue that this situation gives unelected officials too much power, that the legal advisor should be chosen by the minister and help the minister carry out his or her policies, and therefore wish to change the current situation. Opponents of the proposed change think of the legal advisors as part of the checks and balances in the system, and therefore believe that they should be independent and be allowed to block certain decisions. 2A00:A040:1A3:E5EF:583F:7DB6:DE54:F9C9 (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Where is your reference to the claim that "The proposal does involve a change in the way the legal advisors are appointed, so that they'll be משרות אמון"? That might have been on the table at one point, but it is not currently the prospal, and according to Levin, it is not part of the reform. see "https://www.israelhayom.co.il/news/politics/article/13983136 - "הקואליציה מוכנה לוותר על מינוי יועמ"שים במשרות אמון במסגרת המו"מ בבית הנשיא במהלך השיחות בנושא, הקואליציה לא התעקשה על מינויים במשרות אמון - על אף שזה מופיע בהסכמים הקואליציוניים • שר המשפטים יריב לוין אמר לגורמים בקואליציה: "זה פחות חשוב, זה לא חלק מהרפורמה"

I do agree that this level of detail is not appropriate in this article which is not about the reform nor about the role of the advisors. So Let's pare it down. How about saying that Kohelet promoted the proposed judicial reform, which includes limiting the current authority of the advisors? Red Slapper (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The reference you provided concerns the talks currently taking place between the coalition and the opposition. There is no reliable information on what is actually happening in the talks - news items involving leaks or quotes from politicians on either side are not reliable, quotable information as they may be intended to further their own agenda at that particular point in time. In any event "limiting the authority of the legal advisors" seems like a correct and neutral statement, so that's OK by me. 2A00:A040:1A3:E5EF:583F:7DB6:DE54:F9C9 (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Great, I'll make that change. Red Slapper (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Haaretz article - Sockpuppets and COI

Reading this article I thought it should be shared here on this talk page. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/security-aviation/2023-07-18/ty-article/.premium/fake-wikipedia-accounts-conservative-israeli-think-tank-behind-skewed-overhaul-articles/00000189-6945-de70-adcb-f9c77a080000

Significant quotes from article: "One of the sock puppet accounts was also used to edit the English-language Wikipedia article on the Kohelet Policy Forum" and "These so-called “sock puppets” were all operated by someone from the Kohelet Policy Forum, from his home and from the think tank’s offices, where, as was noted, there are also official, paid Wikipedia editors."

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)