By Dorothea Shefer-Vanson
MEVASSERET ZION, Israel — Whether it’s because I have an M.A. in Communications (with a thesis on the language of the news) or am simply a glutton for punishment, I find it impossible to cut myself off from the nightly news broadcasts on television. The anchormen and women do their best to present the facts in measured tones, keeping personal views out of the picture, but once they are surrounded by a panel of journalists and pundits with varying political views all hell generally breaks loose. No one has the patience to hear anyone else’s opinion, and the moderators invariably find themselves trying in vain to keep some semblance of order and civilized debate as everyone keeps interrupting everyone else.
It’s then that I switch from one channel to another in the hope of finding some modicum of decent behavior but am generally disappointed. In Israel there are several channels presenting the evening news at more or less the same time, and when the level of argumentation gets too unbearably high, I sometimes seek respite in one of the remoter channels, such as the one about travel to distant lands, the one about advances in medicine, or the one with demonstrations of how to roast a joint of meat.
Recently, 12th September, in an unprecedented event, we were ‘treated’ to a full day of live TV coverage of the review by Israel’s Supreme Court. The subject was the appeal against the revocation of the amendment regarding the concept of Reasonableness as a criterion for striking down or accepting a law. According to Wikipedia, “In constitutional and administrative law, reasonableness is a lens through which courts examine the constitutionality or lawfulness of legislation.” Israel has no written constitution, and consequently it is the concept of lawfulness that has to be considered.
Because the issue is regarded as being of paramount importance for current and future legislation, TV cameras were allowed into the inner sanctum of the Supreme Court, where all fifteen Supreme Court justices sat in judgement – another unprecedented event.
The case for the government, namely, in favor of striking down the concept of Reasonableness, was a distinguished and capable lawyer, Ilan Bombach, while a number of lawyers presented the case for retaining it. What struck me as I watched the proceedings (admittedly not for the full thirteen hours) was the happy realization that it is still possible in Israel to have a reasoned and civilized discussion about issues which are of salient importance. Mr. Bombach presented his case in measured tones, and the justices asked him questions or made comments in a way that was neither heated nor inciting.
In the course of his argument Mr. Bombach stated that the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, drawn up and issued on May 14, 1948, and signed by the thirty-seven member of the People’s Council (the predecessor of the Knesset) was not legally binding in a court of law or the Knesset. This view was criticized by the justices and was later retracted by Mr. Bombach. That Declaration states inter alia, that the Jewish people, though exiled by force, kept faith with their land in all the countries of their dispersion and in recent generations came home in their multitude. It goes on to state in paragraph 13: “The State of Israel will be open to Jewish immigration and the ingathering of the exiles. It will devote itself to developing the land for the good of all its inhabitants. It will rest upon the foundations of liberty, justice and peace as envisioned by the prophets of Israel. It will ensure complete equality of social and political rights for all its citizens, irrespective of creed, race or sex. It will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, education and culture. It will safeguard the holy places of all religions. It will be loyal to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”
It so happens that I possess all six volumes of the English edition of “Major Knesset Debates,” most of which I translated several years ago (edited by Netanel Lorch). I have studied the Hebrew and English versions of the Declaration of Independence therein and must admit that no mention is made of Israel being founded on democratic principles, although the content of paragraph thirteen and the reference to the Charter of the United Nations imply this.
Dorothea Shefer-Vanson is an author and freelance writer who resides in the Jerusalem suburb of Mevasseret Zion, Israel. She may be contacted via dorothea.shefer@sdjewishworld.com
The authors of the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel did not include the word “democracy” anywhere in paragraph 13, or, for that matter, anywhere in the entire document, never mind a liberal democracy. They may have presumed that democracy was such a natural aspect of renewed Jewish life in Israel that there was no reason to devote a separate paragraph to it. But whatever they had on their mind, they did not establish a liberal democracy. Moreover, the principles of the Charter of the United Nations are certainly not in synch with liberal democracy as a majority of the nations in the United Nations are not democracies.