The Jewish State in the Constitution
Subcommittee Chairman MK Gideon Sa’ar (Likud) declared it unthinkable that the new constitution anchor social rights or other democratic principles while ignoring Jewish principles. This tendency has turned many people against the constitutional project, he claimed, and including a chapter on Israel as a Jewish State may serve to garner the support of large elements of the population for the constitution. The subcommittee debated whether this chapter should explicitly include democratic principles, as it would if it were intended to stand alone, or whether – in the context of a constitution which has a heavy focus on democracy – this chapter can afford to concentrate on the Jewish aspects of the state. Aryeh Carmon of the Israel Democracy Institute said there is no country or constitution in the world that does not have to balance universal democratic and particular interests – it would be illogical to think that Israel cannot do the same. MK Avraham Ravitz (Yahadut Hatorah) declared this the most important committee in the Knesset, but asked what the intended result would be –a constitution? A declaratory document? Would it bear legal standing? He expressed a preference for a declaration without legal standing. He further raised the issue of the definition of Israel as a Zionist state which could emerge from this document, and asked what “Zionist” meant. Ravitz explained that there really never has been a good and widely accepted definition of “Zionist,” and said the old ultra-orthodox consensus that Zionism existed as an alternative to and in contrast to religion might be outdated. The ultra-orthodox might, he said, be prepared to reconsider their position that Israel already has a constitution – the torah. Carmon warned that a signed constitution will put an end to the dream held by some of Israel as a theocracy. Ravitz insisted in turn that any text that does go in the constitution place Jewish firmly above democratic. MK Reshef Chayne (Shinui), meanwhile,proposed leaving the declarations out of the constitution. Rather than calling Israel Jewish, democratic, or Jewish-democratic, he suggested Israel simply spell out its values in the text, so that a person reading the constitution and the laws will be able to reach his or her own conclusions.
Symbols of the State: Flag, Emblem, and Anthem: Should they be included in the Constitution?
There was broad, but not universal, consensus among subcommittee members and invited experts that Israel should include a section towards the beginning of its constitution on the symbols of the state. All three MKs in attendance at the second subcommittee meeting (Reshef Chayne, Avraham Ravitz, and Gideon Sa’ar)supported including the existing symbols as they currently are, as did Professor Aryeh Carmon of the Israel Democracy Institute. Professor Yehezkel Dror of the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute suggested the subcommittee consider altering the flag of Israel to include a non-Jewish symbol, not as a normative statement relinquishing Zionist values, but for its potential political and social value. He said he had not yet reached an answer himself, but asked the subcommittee to consider whether such an alteration would do more good or harm. MK Sa’ar rejected the suggestion outright; let our neighbors add a small Star of David to the corners of their flags first, he said.
Official Language
Subcommittee Chair Gideon Sa’ar expressed his understanding that there is less consensus on the official status of languages in Israel than on the symbols. Israel currently has two official languages – Hebrew and Arabic – a legal situation">http:\/\/www.cfisrael.org\/\/a159.html');">situation deriving from British mandatory law. Professor Moshe Koppel of the Israel Policy Center (IPC) pointed out that “Official Language” is a somewhat circular term; it merely refers to that language which is defined as official in the constitution, and need not dictate what languages are used in what official capacities. The IPC, MK Ravitz, and MK Chayne all proposed making Hebrew the only official language, and additionally stating in the constitution that Arabic is to be given special standing. Arab minorities would retain their right to use Arabic in all official capacities and communication with the governing authorities, and to maintain schools in which Arabic is the language of instruction. This, Koppel said, would be in keeping with the European">http:\/\/conventions.coe.int\/Treaty\/en\/Treaties\/Html\/148.htm');">European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages of 1992. Gideon Sa’ar worried that Israel is in a uniquely difficult situation; the minority it is bound to protect happens to be a dangerous one which identifies with Israel’s enemies. Sa’ar initially rejected the Supreme Court’s approach to Arabic, seeing nothing intrinsically special about the language. Russian is more important, Sa’ar claimed, because more Israelis speak it; further, native Russian speakers generally have worse Hebrew than native Arabic speakers. Professor Hillel Sommer of the Interdisciplinary Institute in Herzeliya responded, however, that Israel generally believes that Russian speakers should, for Zionistic reasons, learn Hebrew, which is not an attitude we extend to Arabic speakers. Over the course of the discussion, subcommittee chair Sa’ar began to be convinced Arabic should be given special status.
The Israel Policy Center Draft: Israel as the Jewish State.
Law of Return The IPC proceeded to propose its draft for a chapter on Israel as the Jewish state, reviewing their recommended">http:\/\/www.cfisrael.org\/\/a154.html');">recommended text section by section. Among other things, the IPC suggested including the principle of the Law">http:\/\/www.mfa.gov.il\/MFA\/MFAArchive\/1950_1959\/Law%20of%20Return%205710-1950');">Law of Return but not its details. MK Avraham Ravitz pointed out in turn that the status quo of the Law of Return stands as it does today only because it is not in the constitution. Were the text to be included in the constitution as is, old wounds would be reopened and fights rekindled. He expressed a preference to keep the text symbolic and educational rather than constitutional. MK Reshef Chayne, however,declared the Law of Return and the definition of who is a Jew to be among those basic values we must include in our constitutional text. His view derives in part from religious principles, and expressed a belief that including the immediate family of a Jew in the Law of Return does no harm to religion. He preferred to keep the text of the Law of Return as it currently stands. Days of Rest The IPC also suggested anchoring the Jewish days of rest as they are defined in the Law and Administration Ordinance of 1948. The IPC preferred, in an ideal world, to leave the definition of ‘rest’ out of the constitution. If the religious and secular could trust each other, it would be best to leave this to later discussion and to regular law; on the other hand, leaving any definition at all out of the section leaves the door open for the Basic">http:\/\/www.mfa.gov.il\/MFA\/MFAArchive\/1990_1999\/1994\/3\/Basic%20Law-%20Freedom%20of%20Occupation-');">Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation to be used by secular elements to oppose any sort of commercial day of rest. The IPC later came up with an explicit formula to balance these two considerations. MK Chayne agreed with the principle of leaving the Jewish holidays and Sabbath as the national ones, but says we have to figure out how to define rest so as not to harm social rights and freedoms. Chayne tried with mixed success to persuade MK Ravitz to adopt the IPC’s suggestion leaving the definition of ‘rest’ to later, ordinary legislation. Ravitz stressed the importance of avoiding public desecration of the Sabbath, while Chayne expressed an interest in leaving the door open for allowing private interests to operate on days of rest in the future. Professor Hillel Sommer warned that almost no country anchored days of rest in the constitution, and suggested it be left open for future debate.
Jewish Settlement in the State of Israel
Professor Hillel Sommer asked, will Israel employ the gate-and-house model or not? This model says that the state may discriminate at the gate (deciding who can immigrate and who cannot), but once one is in the house – the state – all are equal. On the other hand, establishing Jewish settlement in Israel – that goes against that model. So what do we really want here? Professor Shimon Shetreet of the Hebrew University and MK Gideon Sa’ar proposed the constitution overturn the Ka’adan <link**> decision, repealing the ruling that puts an end to exclusive Jewish settlement. He believed such settlement is legal and desirable so long as all ethnic groups in Israel are given the right to build exclusive communities.
Israel's Jewish Responsibilities
MK Reshef Chayne entirely opposed the sort of separation of church and state that prevents the state from funding religious activities. He recommended Israel fund and support the development and conservation of Jewish culture and heritage. Chayne also suggestion the constitution mention that Israel strives for cooperation and mutual responsibility with world Jewry. He intended this phrase to give legal stature to Israel’s intervention and assistance to Jews around the globe.
Conclusions
Hillel Sommer suggested, and had the impression that lots of those present agreed with him, that the constitution not be used to try to resolve any intra-Jewish issues. Rather, let it redefine the status quo only vis-à-vis non-Jews. He recommended that above all, the constitution not be used to advance any side’s immediate political agenda.
Bookmark
Print
Send to Friend
Post a comment