Talk:Alamarin v. IDF Commander in Gaza Strip

Note on English

This article is written in American English, with the exception of Defence (Emergency) Regulations, which is spelled with British "Defence" to preserve the spelling used in law reports. Seraphimsystem (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

defense regs crit

This is synth - you are taking this from an source not related to the case. The defense regs of 1945 still apply inside the green line as well - both the Jprdanians and the Israelis did not reacind or abrogate the state of emergency declared by the british, so the same regs are in force in both systems.Icewhiz (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not WP:SYNTH for a background section on the regulation. This is fairly routine for background sections of articles. I am aware that the full history of the regulations is more complicated then this, but the fact that the regs are applied in part of Jerusalem does not make the statement incorrect, and it is clearly stated in the source. Additionally, anyone reading about this or using it for schoolwork or to discuss in public should be aware of the very basic issue that this regulation is controversial for the reason that I have said. Once, I relied on an article to write a paper for school on an Israeli related topic and somehow I got a C. I don't see any need to stretch the limits of WP:SYNTH here. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The regs apply to Israelis, not just in Jerusalem. The citation you give to Limor Yehuda is not full and does not allow for verification, besides this being a biased source and not particularly distinguished to say the least.Icewhiz (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

As a possibly "biased" source it is given attribution to Limor Yehuda, but the cite is Limor Yehuda, et al. - the report was authored by 7 attorneys and provides detailed citation for its argument. The citation is not full because it was removed with the content that you removed, the full pinpoint citation is . The law itself is in the process of being revised to address the issues that have been raised [1]. I am willing to balance it by adding some more background about the application of "foreign law" which is the justification for using the regs, but I do think a brief background section is appropriate as most law students will not be familiar with these regulations and these articles are a resource for them, including the citations. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm also willing to just pull it out into the background section and add it to the main article. I tried to keep the background section short, maybe the additional details would be better in the main article for the regulations. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

You should be attributing this source, if used at all, to ACRI not to Limor Yehuda who is but one author. This is a biased source, and futhermore it does not support what you are writing about the defense regs (at least in the page range given) - possibly becuase even this biased source knows this is not correct (they are, of course, addressing other points of alleged differences).Icewhiz (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the attribution would need to be corrected if it was restored. As for Pages 125-126 - Yes it does, unambigously:

the outcome of the separation regime is clearly discriminating on the ground of national and ethnic origin

I don't really think that a thoroughly cited work of legal scholarship authored by 7 (Israeli?) attorneys is "biased" - what is their bias in your view? I think it is critical, but at this point there are no serious legal sources that support what you are saying (that the regs apply to Israelis in practice). If you know of such sources, I would be willing to take a look at them. The only issue is whether it should be added to this article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

ACRI is biased (and law degrees in Israel are a dime a dozen) - but that's besides the point as the source you are providing simply doesn't support your claim. You state "The regulations have been criticized.... for producing a discriminatory outcome by allowing the application of different justice systems to residents in the West Bank on the basis of national and ethnic origin" - however in pages 125-126 ACRI isn't referring to the defense regs - but rather to the whole system of laws in the West Bank and outside of it (and they are claiming in regards to this total system - the sentence you quoted). The defense regs still apply inside pre-1967 Israel - they have not been cancelled - differences are perhaps in application but de-jure this actually a corner that is equivalent between the West Bank and pre-1967 Israel (in other matters, there is a de-jure difference as the military commander has continued to apply the Jordanian law in the West Bank).Icewhiz (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Have you ever edited any law articles before this? A degree is absolutely not required to edit even in specialized areas like Law or Chemistry, but based on your comment it does not seem that you understand the source. They are talking about two separate laws in their application (in this particular case it is by one Court and the laws would be r. 119 and the corresponding provision of Israel's Penal Law), it is not the "whole system of law" it is only one system that was appealed to the HCJ though the process began in military courts because of the Regulations. That is what is being discussed in the source - that there are different penalties for the same crime depending on which law is applied within the same legal system (Israel's). I don't just throw around jargon without basing it on sources - the language I used is clearly supported. I also don't use language like de jure because guidelines ask that I use non-technical language as much as possible, but that was all discussed in the edits that you reverted. As for attribution, it is regular practice to attribute statements of interest-based legal organizations (SPLC, ACLU, etc.) and that is what I did. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Anyway I think this discussion is over, there are other articles where this source can be discussed, including the main article on the Regulations and the many particular examples that are given in the case. I don't think this article needs a background section on the "statute" - none of the case articles I checked in US law have background sections on the particular statute so I am willing to follow the usual format. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

(ec) The military rule in the West Bank is based on the 1945 defense regulations, yes. However the 1945 defense regulations apply also outside of the West Bank. The biased source you are presenting is arguing that the application of justice under the military government is different from the civil law code - whether this is or is not the case is beyond the point as this isn't argued in relation to the 1945 regs themselves. The language you used was supported by the source - BUT NOT IN RELATION TO THE 1945 regs. Your attribution, to 1 author of 7, was incorrect when - particularly when this is presented as an ACRI report.Icewhiz (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The section in the source is about the Regulations, it is clear from the footnotes that directly cite the Regulations and the language in the footnotes about the territorial application of the law. It is a technical source. It is not about the "civil law code" at all, if you do not know the difference between a civil law code and a Penal code, then may I ask what brought you to this article? Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I used civil law in the sense of non-military. The section you are citing in the report is not discussing the defense regs. It is discussing the law system in the West Bank (and contrasting it with Israel). The defense regs are relevant to the section as they were used to create the military government in the West Bank, as well as on-going issues - however they are not what is being discussed. Read it again.Icewhiz (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no such construction as the "civilian law code" so I think you should take some time to familiarize yourself with the topic before editing in a technical area. What law do you think is being discussed? The "two systems of law" refers to the Regulations and the laws that Israeli Jews are tried under. As far as I know the only law that Palestinians are tried under are the Regulations (in military courts with appeals to civilian courts) - I have read the Regulations (original and ammended to exclude mentions of the King) - I would be interested in WP:RS that support this, since I edit law articles I would like to read those laws as well. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The regulations still apply in all of mandatory Palestine, though there are rather advanced efforts to replace them in pre-1967 Israel (it is however complicated by a whole glut of ordinances created under the auspices of the regulations - some of them dealing with civilian economic matters - but this is actually being advanced in the Knesset). You (but not ACRI) are confusing the application of the regulations and ordinances created via the regulations with the 1945 regulations themselves. Returning to this article - clause 119 is part of the pre-1948 regulations and may still be utilized inside pre-1967 Israel (as well as towards Jewish residents of the West Bank) if the circumstances fit those proscribed in the regulations.Icewhiz (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

According to the report, it does not apply in East Jerusalem. The source in this section is not discussing any particular order authorized by the Regulations, but the discriminatory outcome produced by a regime that applies separate legal systems to different people. You have already acknowledged this and are backtracking now. This is pretty basic and fundamental and the majority of scholarship is in agreement on this point. The issue being discussed is "two separate legal systems" and the discriminatory outcome that this produces in practice - you are trying to separate the two issues when there is no justification for that reasoning in legal sources. However, as I have already said I am perfectly willing to discuss the regulations in the main article as is the usual practice for articles about law cases. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Israel annexed Jerusalem, so the situation there is different in that Israeli law is applied. However, there are home demolitions of terrorists in East Jerusalem - e.g. this one [2] (one of many) - as clause 119 of the regs may be utilized per Israeli law - though the commander signing off on the order would often be different (and in any case, even if the commander of Central Command, not acting in his capacity of military commander of the zone). I have not backtracked from anything - the biased ACRI source you presented does claim there is discrimination - it does not however pin this on the regulations themselves.Icewhiz (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It actually does, the entire thing is about the Regulations. I asked you what law you think it's about and my understanding of your response is that you believe the Regulations have some de jure significance apart from the actions that they authorize, such that actions authorized by the Regulations are somehow separate from the Regulations that authorize them. Not only is that not in this source, I think it is highly unlikely you will find support for it in any source. However this case is primarily about collective punishment and for practical reasons, I have no objection to limiting this article to this particular case. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

References