- How do you feel about all of the following? Choose from:
a-approve; b-indifferent; c-don't approve.
- i. Shabbat [Saturday, Sabbath] is the Israeli day of rest.
- ii. Shabbat observance is an individual, not a public issue.
- iii. Communities have a right to protect their lifestyle.
- iv. If the majority is inconvenienced, the minority must cede
- Do you foresee any contradictions arising from your choices or preferences?
- What is your "red line" between free speech and incitement?
- The Declaration of Independence refers to the Jewish character of the State.
- How should the Supreme Court and the Ultra-orthodox interpret this to ensure peaceful relations?
- How would you personally interpret this - in the context of Shabbat, for example?
- 5] What is your dream of "one state - one nation" for Israel?
Extract:
On Herzl, his ideals and society: Address by Avraham Burg:
'The supreme challenge for the morrow of a Zionism for rescueing distressed Jews was defined by the Zionist visionary himself; here, by his tomb, let us remember his words: "I believe that even when we will have achieved a land of our own, Zionism will not cease to be an ideal, for in Zionism as I perceive it, incorporates not only the aspiration to a plot of land legally promised to our wretched people, but also the aspiration to ethical and spiritual integrity."
[...]
A very great charge has been placed upon us within Israeli society here and within Jewish society per se - that of creating peace and harmony within the fold. We have no soul save that extra one which is capable of bridging our differences: between Orthodox and Reform, between traditional-Conservative and secularists, between rehabilitators of religion and its fanatics; between factions and streams, between ideas and ethnic groups.
Nearby, in this same section where lies the tomb of the visionary of the state, are two more tombs. One is that of the late Betar leader whose reburial in Israel marks the zenith of the culture of debate; the other is the resting place of the late Prime Minister, felled by bullets which epitomize the depths of adversarial dissociation and alienation.
It is therefore significant that from here that we shall send out a message of strength and spirit to the eternal people. United, no-one shall put us asunder; united, no goal is unattainable.'
Address by Avraham Burg,
Chairman of the Zionist Executive,
and the Jewish Agency for Israel, at Mount Herzl, Jerusalem,
Ceremonial Opening of the Zionist General Council,
in the presence of The President of the State of Israel,
Monday 17th June 1996 - Rosh Hodesh 1 Tammuz 5756
3. Reactions
When the media latched onto the "Hashavua" article, shock was felt in many quarters and fears were voiced about the violent trend in society, with echoes of the atmosphere surrounding the Rabin assassination.
* While government officials have been firm but careful in their definition of the mandate of the courts, there has also been defense of the freedom of speech.
* Within the larger public there has been much sloganizing about the lack of respect for rule of law within the right-wing and finger-pointing at the religious in general, as well as concern that the tone of public debate has not moderated over the past year.
This is what Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu had to say:
The Prime Minister expressed his great appreciation for Justice Barak, who is, "one of Israel's greatest lawyers."
He also said that it is the fundamental platform of the legal system in Israel. "We are a nation of law, and the role of the Supreme Court is to be the cornerstone for maintaining the rule of law in the nation, and we cannot allow this important and central institution in the existance of the nation, to be harmed."
He added that, "we must act with respect to both the institution of the Supreme Court, and to the person who stands at its head."
[courtesy: Israel Government Press Office, 28 August 1996]
This is what the Cabinet meeting minutes recorded:
The Prime Minister wished the committee success and said in this regard that, "the attacks and threats on the Supreme Court and Justice Barak are deplorable and illegitimate," and requested the Public Security Minister to deal vigorously with these threats, which are dangerous and must be uprooted. While there can be legitimate debate regarding the authority of the Supreme Court vis-a-vis the legislative authority, it is absolutely forbidden for this debate to deviate from the framework of the law and the culture of government.
The Cabinet condemns the attacks and threats on the Supreme Court and the President of the Supreme Court which have been made in recent weeks.
There is a danger hidden in these attacks which could undermine the confidence of the public -- or part of it -- in the judicial authority as a whole, and the Supreme Court in particular. Public confidence in the independence of the judicial authority, with the Supreme Court at its head, is one of the main principles of the existence of the rule of law and the preservation of a democratic regime in the State of Israel.
The Supreme Court has exercised judicial review over governmental decisions since the foundation of the state. Over the years, there were various segments of the public which complained against rulings of the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court always saw fit to operate wisely and strongly to establish the rule of law and preserve civil rights in Israeli society.
Even if a particular decision of the Supreme Court was not to the liking of some segment of the public, this does not negate the obligation to respect the law and respect the court's rulings. The test of the existence of the rule of law is in honoring the rulings, even if they reject the claims of a particular litigant.
Supreme Court rulings are, of course, subject to substantive public criticism, however there is no place to convert this substantive criticism into an attack on the judicial authority, and those dependent on it. Such attacks are liable to cause the democratic regime in Israel to be seriously harmed. Therefore, the government appeals to the entire public to act with restraint, respect the law and court rulings, hold substantive dialogue on public issues, and refrain from attacks and threats on the Supreme Court and its judges.
Courtesy, Israel Government Press Office, 2 September 1996
4. Precedents
Much of Israeli Civil Law is built around British Mandate legislation, some on Ottoman legislation, while on some issues it refers to Jewish traditions, and for others - creates its own body of case law. The body of Civil Law in Israel is growing with the rulings of the Supreme Court. Rabbinical [also Moslem religious] courts are authorized to deal with all issues of personal status.
There is no written Constitution in Israel, although Basic Laws have special status. Within the Knesset the Israeli Parliament, there are many lobbies - religious, nationalist, secular and others - promoting and amending laws on all these issues. Thus, legislation is expected to be affected by the increased representation of religious parties in the Knesset after the 1996 elections. The Supreme Court can only rule on public issues within the legislative framework created by the Knesset. Its right to do so, and thus act as a constitutional court, has also been a highly disputed issue, even under the previous government.
The status of the Supreme Court as the Final Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of Justice and - de facto - as a controversial constitutional court, places it at the center of numerous controversies:
* It ruled on "Who is a Jew?" in several cases, including
* It has ruled on the Basic Law of freedom and freedom of occupation
- on the right to import non-kosher meat into Israel.
* It recently ruled against R. Yitzhak Levy, the new Minister of Transport, who ordered Bar Ilan St. - a main N. Jerusalem route through an ultra-orthodox neighborhood - to be closed on Shabbat, with a "give cause" ruling;
it similarly issued a "give cause" ruling to the opponents of the closure.
References
1. Look this article up in the "Jerusalem Post" on-line archives:
"Judging the Judge", By Allison Kaplan-Sommer (August 30) in Sunday, September 1, 1996 Jerusalem Post
The United States, one of the world's strongest democracies has had its Supreme Court challenged in such strong language in recent decades...
[...]
On that point, the haredim are supported by the rest of the religious community, [...] seeing it as legitimation of violence."
Moshe Negbi, legal expert at Ma'ariv, maintains that the red line [...] comparing him to one who betrays his countrymen."
[...]
[...] in Ha'aretz, Professor Shlomo Avineri observed [...] it is hard to prevent a deterioration in its status."
[...]
Some are optimistic - pointing to opportunities for dialogue [...] regarding the High Court and Supreme Court's decisions.
Others are less so. [...] those who come out victorious and those who are defeated."
2. Look this article up at the same url:
"Ruling religiously", by Elie Kaunfer, (August 21) from: Sunday, September 1, 1996 Jerusalem Post
[About a haredi-secular policy dialogue organization founded by Rabbi Shmuel Jakobovits, son of former British Chief Rabbi.]
[...]
One of Jakobovits's main goals [...] between observant and non-observant citizens.
[...]
Some observers, [...] this balance can be maintained.
"I think that if haredim [...] be successful."
But Jakobovits remains hopeful. [...] this organization," he says.
3. Judaism's Democratic Tendency
by Professor Eliezer Segal,
Department of Religious Studies,
University of Calgary
[excerpted with permission]
[...] Anti-democratic forces in Israel have even argued that the idea of democracy is inherently opposed to Judaism. The familiar political structure of ancient Judaism was generally monarchical, or even "theocratic" [...]
[...] The talmudic rabbis, moreover, were far from certain that the Torah viewed monarchy as an ideal political structure.
It has been argued that Judaism does not actually recommend any particular political system. Provided that the leadership is guided by suitable religious and moral ideals, Jewish tradition has sanctioned a number of different political models.
A Jewish City-State
[...]
Though the Talmud speaks at greater length of authoritarian structures involving rabbinical courts, a Nasi, and a king (to which it is often hostile), it is clear that in reality it was the local communities which constituted the dominant form of government. The relative silence regarding the kehillah has been attributed to the fact that the Mishnah and Babylonian Talmud were edited at times when there was a strong (but unsuccessful) move towards centralized authority.
[...]
[...] the community was assigned absolute control over its citizens' property, an authority which the Talmudic sources restricted to the recognized Rabbinical courts.
Majority Rule
Basing himself on this analogy, the renowned 13th century Spanish talmudist Rabbi Solomon Ibn Adret (Rashba) summarized the principle that communities should be governed by majority rule:
"Whatever they [the Great Court] decree shall stand, and whoever disobeys is to be punished."
Dissenting Minority
At least one important medieval Rabbi, the noted French scholar Jacob ben Meir Tam (known as "Rabbenu Tam"), denied the power of the majority decisions to obligate the dissenting minority.
Rabbenu Tam's view remained itself a dissenting minority position. One of his most distinguished successors in Germany, Rabbi Asher ben Yehiel (the Rosh, or Asheri) rejected the view arguing, among other things, that unless we accept the principle of majority rule, no community will ever be able to come to any decisions.
Representative Democracy
[..]
The Talmud speaks of an institution called shiv'ah tovei ha'ir, the "seven leaders of the town." R. Solomon Ibn Adret, in explaining this term, observes as follows:
"The "leaders of the city" mentioned in the sources are *not* men of exemplary learning or wealth or honour, but rather seven men whom the community has appointed as executives to oversee its affairs...."
[...]
"Otherwise [he writes] no community would ever be able to do anything--plan a budget or pass legislation--without assembling all the taxpaying citizenry (in questions that entail expenditures), until a consensus can be reached--a consensus which would have to include the women as much as the men, since how can anyone dispose of their money without their permission?"
This has been only a small glimpse into the rich and vibrant world of Jewish political life. It should, however, be sufficient to demonstrate that such "modern" inventions as majority rule, representative democracy and executive responsibility all have long and distinguished roots in Jewish history and tradition.
First Publication: JS, Oct. 21 1988. elsegal@acs.ucalgary.ca
Full article at url - "http://www.internet-audit.com/cgi-bin/stats.exe/0000258"
4. Quotes by and about the issues:
[About] two-thirds of Israel's 4.6 million Jews define themselves as secular... and one third as religiously observant...
"The Supreme Court, a bastion of secular Israel, long has angered observant Jews by opposing religious-based laws [...]"
``The Target: Barak.''
``Barak is the driving force behind a sophisticated campaign against Jewish life in Israel,'' - Hashavua newspaper
``They called Rabin a traitor and he was murdered. If it could happen once, it could happen again.'' - Yossi Sarid, former minister in Rabin's government.
``We will not permit attacks on this important and central institution.'' - Netanyahu, Israel Prime Minister
``Those attacking Barak are trying to undermine the basic values of society and the public's confidence in the justice system.'' - Finance Minister Dan Meridor
Source: _Orthodox Jews Blast Judge_ HILARY APPELMAN Associated Press, Wednesday, August 28, 1996.
5. Excerpted article on the status of minorities under Israeli law,
from: "Policy: American Israel Report", July 24, 1995
P.O.B. 7432, Jerusalem
yerushalmi@openworld.com"
Fax: 972 2 353-674
The Jewish State, Liberal Democracy, and Demographics
Israelis and American Jews takes pride in describing Israel as both the Jewish State, meaning the Homeland for Jews throughout the world, and a liberal democracy fashioned after the US. Those of us, however, weaned on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States understand almost immediately that the very idea of a _liberal democracy_ that favors Jews (or any religious group) in a de jure or de facto way over its other citizens creates what can be termed dissonance -- a lack of harmony or a discordance. To understand this phenomenon with a little more clarity, let us examine the terminology and the relevant vital statistics.
[...]
It is an absolutely amazing phenomenon that Israel must absorb almost 620,000 new immigrants over a six-year period just to maintain the status quo with its non-Jewish population, which is growing at a phenomenal rate merely by giving birth. In fact, the statistics on birth are the not-so-secret weapon of the Arab population in Israel. (One must keep in mind that these statistics deal only with Israeli Arab citizens and do not include the Palestinian Arabs, who are not Israeli citizens.)
[...]
Israel's vital statistics tell a frightening story. Without blatant and legalized religious discrimination against Israeli Arabs in favor of Jews, Israel would in time become a Non-Jewish State. While this might not bother some, one has to be very clear about the character of Israeli policy. It is simply not the case that Israel is a liberal democracy. The effort to dilute the Arab vote by discriminating against the Arab who wishes to immigrate to Israel and the expenditure of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on the absorption of the Jewish immigrant population, is nothing less than Israel's version of "religious cleansing". And, except for the Arab minority, almost all Israeli Jews, from the political right to the center to the not-so-extreme left, support this practice of ethnic/religious cleansing.
Which leads us right back to where we started. Israel must decide whether it is to remain the Jewish State or succumb to the fatally alluring siren song of liberal democracy, a song that Israeli and American Jews themselves are singing. The Zionist dream is not liberal. Israel must relinquish this quest or turn its back on Zion. The two simply cannot co-exist.
NOTE: A version of this essay was published as an op-ed in _The Wall Street Journal Europe_, Tuesday, August 22, 1995.
AM.I.R.