Talk:Basic Laws of Israel

message: What exactly is meant by the "null"s that someone tacked onto some of the dates? 68.39.174.238 03:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It means that that Basic Law has been cancelled and replaced by a later Basic Law. Deror 23:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: untitled

message: I think this is incorrect:
"Though its declaration of independence promised the constitution would be completed no later than October 1, 1948, the gap between religious and secular proved too difficult to bridge, and a full, unifying document was never produced." 
As far as I know, the document that is the declaration of independence is approximately this document http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/Declaration_of_Independence.htm and there is nothing in that ducment about any constitution. It is not the sort of document that would include such things. It may have been a resolution of the constituent assembly. "
According to Knesset information, there was some doubt about the special status of these laws -- whether or not they are superior to regular laws --  but in practise that doubt has been resolved by High Court rulings. http://www.knesset.gov.il/description/eng/eng_mimshal_yesod.htm
Mewnews 20:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Declaration of Independence Promissed? 

message: Mewnews, I think you should check again.  I followed your link to the text of Israel's Declaration of Independence and it is stated explicitly. Here is the quote: ---"WE HEREBY DECLARE that as from the termination of the Mandate at midnight, this night of the 14th and 15th May, 1948, and until the setting up of the duly elected bodies of the State in accordance with a Constitution, to be drawn up by a Constituent Assembly not later than the first day of October, 1948, the present National Council shall act as the provisional administration, shall constitute the Provisional Government of the State of Israel."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RYF (talk • contribs) 17:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Declaration of Independence Promissed? Yes! 

message: The above seems obsessed with inserting some nonsense into the list of them. Watch out... 68.39.174.238 17:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:212.219.8.231]] 

message: I believe that a more apropriate title for the article and its subject would be "Foundamental laws of Israel" as it constitutes a more accurate translation both linguistically and semantically.
: That is the official translation as it appears in the Knesset web site, and as is in other countries. Deror 15:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title and naming 

message: Can the table include a column "vote" - the for/against vote by which each was passed?
And in the comments, any comments about unusual features of its passage (up to 1 brief sentence)?
Last, is "law of return" not a "basic law" in this sense? If not, does it need a section "other important laws" or something?
FT2 (Talk | email) 03:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  table 

message: There's a new stub at this title. As a passing stub-sorter I tried to move it to Constitution of Israel to match other entries at Constitution (disambiguation), but couldn't because that title is already occupied by a redirect to here. At this point I back out of sensitive areas and leave it to others to sort this out. Over to you. PamD 07:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: But for now I've addd links to both from the dab page. PamD 07:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Constitution (Israel)]] 

message: Is there a source for religious Jews vetoing it?
There is a discussion about this history on the Israel Archive website (here: http://israelsdocuments.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/who-needs-constitution.html). And in short, it didn't happen because the government was busy.
Unchartered (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious Jews and constitution 

message: >> New Israeli law kills minority representation(Lihaas (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: The referendum applies only to Israel's sovereign or annexed territory (1949 armistice, Golan Heights, East Jerusalem... all of them annexed to Israel), not all controlled territory. For example, it doesn't apply to parts of the West Bank because it was never annexed. Check this source:
The legislation does not apply to a treaty conceding parts of the West Bank, but it does apply to east Jerusalem, the Golan and anything within the 1949 armistice lines.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 03:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't state that Israel has soveriegnty over parts of Palestine and Syria. Sepsis II (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What we need to so is state what the law stare, no more, no less. Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 04:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

text: First of all, Palestine is the Roman name for the Land of Israel or Judea. Israel was established in Palestine. Second, read the source. Sovereign territory is annexed territory, where civil law applies. The Golan Heights and East Jerusalem were annexed and they belong to Israel's sovereign territory despite the fact that Syria and Jordan controlled those territories before. The JP source confirms it, and the referendum says so. Your edit is false because territory controlled by Israel includes non-annexed territory like the West Bank, which is not part of this referendum, as the source says. Again, read it and stop making disruptive editing.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 04:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  2014 referendum 

message: I deleted Basic Laws Index Full Text since it's out of date and its links are not to the Knesset site. I deleted Selection of articles for legal consumers in Israel since it doesn't lead directly to any laws. Mcljlm (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: hi,
i am from israel and i saw your page about Basic laws.
it says: "are 14 constitutional laws of the State of Israel"
i think you should repharse that as: " Basic Law are replacement to constitution". sure, you are not wrong about Basic law be "above" regular laws, by meaning that the superme court of israel can decline law that contradict to Basic law, but this isnt constitution laws. the Basic laws replace constitution but they arent consider as constitution. so i think you should write: "are 14 laws that replace constitutional laws of State of Israel".
sure, according to the compormise that happened in 1950... the Basic Law was suppose to be the base for constitution, but until this day- it was never approved by the "kneeset (כנסת)" and the state contiue with the "status quo"
sorry about my English. this isnt my native language. hope you understand what i was trying to say. and i hope you will change the sentence.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.138.167.136 (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  naming the basic laws 

message: , ,  or  or another editor. Perhaps someone could add how it's decided that proposed legislation should be a Basic Law. Mcljlm (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic Law decision 

message: Under "The Military" the Israeli Defense Force is named "The Israeli Occupation Force." This is a politically-motivated misnomer that should be corrected. 104.179.26.6 (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected. IDF is actually short for Israel Defense Forces. Mcljlm (talk) 03:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The latest edithttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Basic_Laws_of_Israel&diff=next&oldid=1181935170  shows you corrected the Occupation to Defense but as the previous edithttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Basic_Laws_of_Israel&diff=prev&oldid=1181935170 shows I also corrected that. Why doesn't the Historyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Basic_Laws_of_Israel&action=history show the change back to the incorrect word? Mcljlm (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  incorrect name of IDF