Talk:Regulation Law

Restoration of the original page

It seems vandalism to me to destroy and delete the editing of the page after I created it. Apparently a politically-motivated user deleted my content without any reason despite the fact that it was carefully written and contained plenty of references to corroborate the information provided. Even if some user may dislike specific articles we should not turn into a silencing censorship here and the law written about is an official law widely discussed throughout the world. Internet users should have the opportunity to look the law up in Wiki.Physicist5777 (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Let's treat it carefully. I've made some additions, which I hope are up to consensus. If there are past sections you wish to add, please propose these one at a time here at the talk page, so that consensus can be reached prior to re-adding them. Also, please format your refs so that they are consistent to what we have currently. Thanks. El_C 05:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Moved to Regularization Law

Because bill has passed is now law (although may be overturned by the Supreme Court, we'll see) and that is also the direct translation. El_C 06:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

There is some mistake in ref-4 its not Indian Express--Shrike (talk) 07:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I get for copy/pasting. Fixed. El_C 07:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Latest additions

I translated the Background section from the Hebrew Wikipedia; before then, I added various reactions (now in its own International reactions section); I made Supreme Court challenge portion its own section. Hope there's consensus for all these changes. Let me know. El_C 20:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Retroactive nature of the law

Nowhere is it stated clearly that this law retroactively legalizes said disputed residencies. I suggest having the lead say: It is meant to retroactively "regulate" the status... El_C 02:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

See for example, the New York Times source I used for Portal:Current events/2017 February 5: "Israel Passes Provocative Law to Retroactively Legalize Settlements". El_C 02:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Or perhaps use the preceding passage: an Israeli law that deals with the retroactive legalization of Israeli settlements... Any thoughts? El_C 03:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Good point. Debresser (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Scope of legal jurisdiction

I'm not familiar enough with either International or Israeli law, nor with the legalities that are a product of the Oslo Accords, to feel comfortable with the article stating authoritatively, without a source attached, that the area is outside the jurisdiction of domestic Israeli law: the (government of the) State of Israel obviously disagrees—so this (domestic, international law) will probably have to be further qualified, which may just end up being excessively convoluted for the lead, thereby needing to go elsewhere in the body. Again, the pressing issue, is that there needs to be a source that conveys what the legal consensus is: legal consensus in Israel (may be difficult to assess so long as Supreme Court case remains pending), and internationally. Regarding consensus here, on Wikipedia: what do everyone else think? El_C 14:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

West Bank related articles have a phrase in their lead that says something about the international community finding Israeli settlements or presence in the West Bank illegal, but Israel disputing that. Something similar (including similarly neutral) might be necessary here. Debresser (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Certainly, I'm open to suggestions. Maybe something like: The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank to be illegal under international law, and the new law faced widespread criticism at home and abroad, at the end of the lead paragraph. El_C 17:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Israeli Supreme Court case

The case was brought forth in 2017. Has it been decided yet? If so, what was the result? Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)