Jump to content

Talk:Supreme Court of Israel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old/misplaced comments

[edit]

Strange the article does not properly mention the clear presence of masonic symbolism; should be added. I am not referring to the pyramid alone, but also the inverted cross on the parking, the stairs, the fertility symbols, etc. Admitted, the architect did great work, but the massive presence of occult symbolism is frightening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.218.86.5 (talk) 09:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know them, but maybe someone should add the names of the current justices? Batmanand 09:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anyone notice the Pyramid and the Eye on top of it?

Yeah, I just read a page that shows all these Illuminati and free Mason symbols on it. 63.226.180.162 20:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HAHAHA.... Show me a source for that which is not from some wacko conspiracy theorist website!WacoJacko (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of presidents?

[edit]

I think there should be a list of presidents of the supreme court included in the article. I will try to acquire one and add it, but if I cannot, it would be great for someone to add this information. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be a section explaining the current crisis vis-a-vis the Justice Minister & the Supreme Court

[edit]

These links: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/09/297062.shtml and http://www.abidemiracles.com/555701.htm, are full of silly consporatorial content, surely there's better photo galleries available. Don't know what the official policy is but with such ridiculous nonsense and not particularly good photos they should probably be taken out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShaiOne (talk • contribs) 00:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the pictures speak for themselves. "silly consporatorial content" is POV, but the pictures speak for themselves. "but with such ridiculous nonsense and not particularly good photos they should probably be taken out" smacks of political POV on the part of ShaiOne 84.68.47.125 ----------- (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but the tall blue glass pyramid shown on the picture of the Supreme Court building is not a "conspiracy" but a meaningful piece of architecture which was designed by the Rothschild's architects.

I added a simple comment pointing to this CLEAR detail on the picture and it was immediately removed. Why ?

If I remember right the picture used to be at the top right of the page, was moved out of immediate view, why ?

It looks like obvious disinformation to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 911allo (talk • contribs) 13:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced editorial opinion removed. Viriditas (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources for this so called "zionist conspiracy" come form conspiracy theorist websites, ie they are not valid sources.WacoJacko (talk) 04:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These pictures are not Zionist conspiracies but architectural details. The visible existing building does exist. You are obviously whilling to hide real information. Shanon's theorem defines the quantity of information carried by something as inversely proportional to it's probability of occurrence. The unexpected carries information.

Finding an all-seeing eyed pyramid and so many Freemason symbols on a Supreme Court building is indeed very informative. Especially when one learns that the Rothschild's paid for the building.

The picture was previously at the top right of the Supreme Court page with less resolution and the pyramid was not easy to see. A better picture was added but is not immediately visible, why ?

Your refusal to let me add a simple note stating the mere existence of the pyramid is like saying the earth is flat.

We are not talking about conspiracy but physical reality since you accepted this picture as verified. You can't assume this reality?

So please unrevert my note or tell me how I can complain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 911allo (talk • contribs) 12:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see the pyramid with a circle or do you deny it?

[edit]

Wikipedia accepted the picture of the Supreme Court of Israel presumably as being verified before posting it.

  • Model of the Israel Supreme Court Building
    Model of the Israel Supreme Court Building
  • Side view
    Side view

Do you see the pyramid with a circle at the top left corner of the same picture ?

Viriditas refuses to add this note : "Note the blue pyramid with a circle at the top left corner in the above image."

Reason : Viriditas says it is unverifiable (!).

Mr Viriditas: do you see a pyramid with a circle on Wikipedia's picture of the Supreme Court building of Israel ?

Under wikipedia's Zero-Revert Rule removing my note is against Wikipedia's philosophy. This is not a conspiracy theory but the picture of a building that was verified before.

There is nothing essentially wrong with the phrase "Note the blue pyramid with a circle at the top left corner in the above image." If you were writing about pyramids in architecture, or simply describing the design of the building one would not need a reliable source simply to describe what is visible. The problem is that you seem to think this motif has some specific significance. I'm sure there are guide books and other sources explaining the meaning or function of this motif. You seem to think that it refers to the "all-seeing eye". Maybe it does, but there's nothing sinister or masonic about that. It dates back to emblem books. Look for literature on the architecture. Paul B (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've added stuff from some architecture critics. My guess is that the pyramid is intended to refer to the all-seeing eye, which would be entirely appropriate for a Supreme Court building, since the symbol refers to God himself as the final judge and overseer of his jurisdiction, the world. Similar motifs have existed in other court buildings. However, in the absence of any sources stating that this was the intended meaning of the motif, I've left descriptions in the words of the critics. Paul B (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny though you add noise to the text below the picture just as I start to complain about Zionist control of Wikipedia. There is no Obelisk ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.46.159 (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth does the presence of an "obelisk" have to do with "Zionist control of Wikipedia"? There are obilisks all over the place. I came here because you left a message at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. The "noise" is reliably sourced information about architecture, one of which explicitly mentions the pyramid (or "obelisk" as it has apprently now become). Why would these secret masonic conspirators build giant 'masonic' symbols visible to everyone I wonder? Paul B (talk) 06:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I can't resist... Paul B Because sadism and ritualistic taunting of course! Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue that needs discussion

[edit]

I don't see anything here on the issue of judicial activism, or Justice Minister Friedmann's attempts to curb the power of the Supreme Court (the two are closely related, and both are hot topics in arguments about the Supreme Court, with those who agree with the Court's politics generally supporting activism and opposing Friedmann's reforms, and those who oppose the court's politics generally opposing judicial activism and supporting the reforms.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.193.182 (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Building: Symbols of freemasonry

[edit]

This building is full of symbols, we could insert them and their meaning in the article. Notable would be:

Some people connect it to some sort of Symbolism... Dorothy de Rothschild paid for planning, material and construction, and as you might know, the Rothschild family is alleged to be connected to Freemasonry and other fraternal organizations as in the view of some conspiracy theorists. Now, this mason symbols are there in and at the building, and it's not just a regular building. It's a building of the Government of Israel, and the building is a Supreme court building. This is what makes it all interesting. ...

Further Reading:

Videos:

--77.4.42.91 (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the official tour site which has no mention of Freemasonry or any of the symbols you mention, none of your sources are reliable. Specifically they are self-published, extremist and fringe. Rami R 16:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These links might be bad but contain some information. Some are not very objective. I did not say these are sources. It will be hard to find sources which are objective. We have to take into consideration:
  • Israeli government is not loved by all, in fact it faces terrorism because of Zionism, Palestine and whatnot.
  • Freemasonry and the conspiracy related issues are often/always represented in their own way. I guess since nobody outside the scene really takes attention, there are not too much unbiased information out there. That means, the media about freemasonry (outside view) is much lesser than the media by Freemasons and supporters. Compare that with a new religion XYZ, publishing media and preaching and stuff. Since they are not racist, criminal or anything anything else odd (just a tiny private religion), nobody really cares. Now, how would be the ratio of unbiased and biased literature.
I really don't care what is all means and why it is there (interpretations about the courtyard with the Christian Cross to be trampled on, why not another religious symbol, following a masonic connection of Mrs. Rothschild, and so forth). People with a broader background/knowledge who can provide proven information from "good" media are welcome to add information about it. A paragraph would be fine...
My only suggestion was and is to put notable symbolic parts of the building in the article. E.g., there are not much court buildings in the world with a pyramid with an all-seeing eye in the world, you know.
My other concern was to put information about a possible connection from Mrs. Rothschild with Freemasonry. That needs to be discussed broadly prior to launch such information in the article (along with a source). It's simply a fact that alle those symbols are Masonic symbols. The obelisk has even a Square and Compasses in the center of the obelisk according to the Youtube video (although it is bogous to call it satanic). --77.4.42.91 (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to policy, all information in the articles must be attributed reliable sources. If you wish to add information about Freemasonry symbolism in the court, you must provide reliable sources that supports this information. The all-seeing-eye that supposedly exists in the court may just be a circular window. Or not. I don't know. It's really not relevant if I or you "know" it to be true. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
However, even if you do find reliable sources regarding Rothschild and Freemasonry, it would be off topic for this article. I remind you that this article is about the supreme court of Israel (the institute, not just the building), not Rothschild or Freemasonry. Rami R 19:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All this has been gone over in the past, which is why the architecture section was added. The article currently provides information on the official explanation for the pyramid, which is in the brochure produced by the court. That doesn't exclude the All Seeing Eye as a possible symbol, but we have no reliable source asserting that it's part of the meaning. Even if it is, it's a symbol that predates Freemasonry, and in any case only represents the omnipresence of God, which is hardly surprising in a Jewish building! As for the "christian cross", it doesn't exist. It's just a crossing of walkways and stairways. Thousands of buildings have similar crossings of walkways. Every crossroads in the world is a 'cross for walking over'. The obelisk is a reference to Egypt, which has a well known role in Jewish history. As far as I'm aware, there are no specifically 'masonic' symbols on it. A "ley line" exists purely the imagination of anyone who wants to invent one. Paul B (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. "The obelisk has even a Square and Compasses in the center of the obelisk according to the Youtube video". No, that's not true. This has nothing to do with the Supreme Court building at all. The video shows the entrance to the Solomon's Pillars Masonic Lodge No. 59, which isn't even in Jerusalem. In other words it shows that a Masonic lodge has a display of Masonic symbols. That's not exactly unexpected! And it has nothing to do with the Court. Paul B (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Composition of court

[edit]

The article should say how the demography of Israel is represented in the membership of the court (how many Ashkenazim, Sephardim, Arabs etc). --Redaktor (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea. Including the Mishpat Ivri seat. On the other hand, all of this is determined by unofficial rules, so would need good sourcing. Debresser (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Court

[edit]
WP:ECR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

My factual reference to the criticism of the Supreme Court of Israel was removed by User:TimothyBlue, reason given "Weight". My sentence was factual and quoted reliable source: "According to the B'Tselem, when it comes to the rights of Palestinian people under Israel's military control, the Supreme Court of Israel "neither holds effective judicial review nor keeps the security forces in check" and therefore sanctions human rights violations and the occupation itself." My concern is two-fold: this could be revision by Israeli IDF wikipedia farms who remove any reference that is critical of Israel, and/or this was removed in bad faith. The information quoted is from a reliable source, it's neutral, and verifiable. I am asking it to be reinstated. My concern with getting consensus is, how do you gain consensus when you have wiki farms in Israel connected to Israeli government with hundreds of people using different computers and removing any criticism of Israel? This information should not have been removed. As I mentioned above, it's from a reliable source, it's verifiable, and it's objective reality. I am asking for the above information to be re-inserted into the WIkipedia article (if you wish to re-word it, go ahead, but for God sake, don't remove it, it's factual information). 24.87.14.45 (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are also NPOV and sourcing issues. This has been reverted per WP:ONUS, "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." The personal attacks above are unacceptable.  // Timothy :: talk  22:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It makes no sense to allow biased editors to remove factual references that are critical of Israel and then demand that the onus is on original user to "achieve consensus" on including factual content that some other user deems "disputed". How can factual content be disputed? 2+2 = 4, how can you dispute this fact and then place onus on me to achieve consensus with people who may or may not be biased in their "disputing" of facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.14.45 (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Supreme_Court_of_Israel&oldid=1201880044"