Analysis of Israel's Declaration of Establishment
by Prof. E. Gutmann
David Ben-Gurion Reads Israel's Declaration of Establishment of the State |
Introduction
The Declaration
of the Establishment of the State of Israel was approved at a
festive session of the People’s Council, comprised of
representatives of the yishuv (the Jewish community in Palestine) and the Zionist
movement, on Friday, May 14, 1948, several hours before the British
Mandate for Palestine came to an end.
The Declaration consists of seven sections, and stipulates six matters:
- Asserts the natural right of the Jewish people
to exercise self-determination in its
sovereign state.
- Proclaims the establishment of a Jewish state in
Eretz Israel, named "the State of Israel."
- Establishes provisional institutions of state
governance
- States that an elected constituent assembly will
formulate a constitution within several months.
- Sets forth the principles of the political rule
of the newly formed state
- Calls for peace and cooperation with the Arabs
of Israel, neighboring countries and Jews
around the world.
The Text of the Declaration
First Section
 The first section of the Declaration,
which may be considered its historical preface, succinctly reviews the
ties of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel – in concrete
historical terms as well as in aspirations.
This section, which takes
up nearly half the declaration, makes reference to the following
subjects:
(a) the political, cultural, and religious
formation of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel, and its
political independence there;
(b) the hopes of the Jewish people to return to its
homeland from all parts of the Diaspora;
(c) immigration and settlement in the country, and the aspiration for independence and
statehood;
(d) international recognition of the Jewish
people’s right to return to the country, in the Balfour
Declaration;
(e) the lesson of the Holocaust – that Jewish independence is a necessity;
(f) the clandestine immigration of Holocaust
survivors to Palestine and the yishuv’s contribution to the
war effort against the Nazis, which entitles it to be among the
founders of the United Nations; and
(g) the recognition, expressed in the UN partition
resolution, of the Jewish people’s right to its own state. (The
words "an irrevocable right" were appended to the
Declaration in case this UN resolution be abrogated and a decision
taken instead to establish a UN trusteeship regime throughout
Palestine, since the Arab state had not been established and Jerusalem
had not been internationalized.)
Second Section
 The second section of the Declaration,
one sentence long, addresses the normative aspect of Israel’s
establishment: it states that it is the natural right of the Jewish
people to be like any other people, exercising self-determination in
its sovereign state. The importance of this second section is in the
assertion that the establishment of the state is based on the natural
right of self-determination and is not subject to decisions of other
states or international organizations. Nevertheless, the next section,
the declarative one, rests in part on the UN General Assembly
resolution.
Third Section
The third section, one paragraph long, is the
proclamation of the establishment of the State of Israel, and it is
the most important operative part of the Declaration.
The rest of the document can be seen as supportive elaboration. From
an international legal point of view, this section alone would have
sufficed. The precise text here reads "...the establishment of a
Jewish State in the Land of Israel - the State of Israel." The
precise meaning of the term "Jewish state," which recurs
four times in the Declaration, has since prompted much public debate,
which has recently grown in intensity. However, at the time of the
writing of the Declaration, this had hardly occasioned either
discussion or questions. It seemed clear that the reference was both
to the "Jewish state" mentioned by the UN Resolution, and to
the state of the "Jewish people," mentioned several times in
the Declaration as am yehudi ("Jewish people"), and
once each as am yisrael ("people of Israel") and ha‘am
ha’ivri ("the Hebrew people").
Fourth Section
The fourth section, the institutional part of
the Declaration, sets
forth the time for the beginning of independence and the operation of
the state’s institutions – in fact, their continuing operation
under new names. This section also states that a constitution is to be
enacted by an elected constitutional council, and that governmental
institutions are to be elected in accordance with the constitution.
Finally, a date is set for the inauguration of these bodies: October
1, 1948. These details and the timetable were stipulated so as to
correspond to the provisions of the UN resolution in these matters.
Fifth Section
 The fifth section of the Declaration,
its second declarative section, is the most important of all in terms
of its domestic educational and informational function. In but a few
words, it gives expression to the basic principles and guidelines of
the Israeli polity. As the Supreme Court subsequently ruled, this
section expresses the vision and the credo of the people regarding the
character, the goals and values of Israeli society and its state:
- Israel is to be a state of Jewish immigration – aliya – and of "the ingathering of the exiles." This principle
was set forth in legal and practical terms in the Law
of Return, passed two years later (1950);
- Israel is to be a state of development for the
benefit of all its inhabitants;
- Perhaps most importantly, Israel is to be a state
based on the fundamentals of freedom, justice and peace, a state in
which all the inhabitants will enjoy equality of social and political
rights, along with freedom of religion, conscience, language,
education and culture.
It is true that the word "democracy" does
not appear in this impressive list, but there can be no doubt that the
Declaration’s authors and signatories intended to establish an
exemplary democratic regime. Perhaps they thought that the rest of the
document’s contents made it unnecessary to cite
"democracy" specifically.
Two points in this part of the Declaration deserve emphasis:
- The guidelines indicating that the fundamentals of
freedom, justice and peace be those "envisaged by the prophets of
Israel" underscores the message of Israel as a Jewish state –
though the authors of the Declaration undoubtedly regarded this vision
as a source of universal values;
- This list of egalitarian principles assures not
only the rights and equality of the individual citizen, but also
collective rights, for the notion of freedom of religion is
meaningless unless it implies freedom for every religion. Similarly,
the freedoms of language, education and culture are meaningful only if
they entitle every national group to speak its own language, to
educate its children according to its goals and to maintain its own
culture. It seems evident that it was the intent of the authors of the
Declaration to assure hereby the rights of religious and national
minorities, i.e., the Arabs, and that less thought was given to
individuals and groups within the Jewish majority. However, the
struggle to implement the rights of both the Jewish majority and the
Arab minority have continued to this day.
Sixth Section
 The sixth section of the Declaration includes appeals for the cooperation of both external and internal
factors. The internal factor – "the Arab inhabitants of the
State of Israel" – is called upon to preserve peace and
participate in the building of the state. Full and equal citizenship
– implying, first and foremost, due representation in all state
institutions – is conferred on them. The phrasing of the appeal
makes it clear that it is addressed to an Arab people. The
significance is that although the state is Jewish, it is inhabited by
two peoples. It should be stressed here that the term
"Palestinian" had not yet become prevalent at that time.
The appeal for peace and good neighborly relations
is addressed to all neighboring countries and peoples and is
manifested in the assertion of Israel’s willingness to make its
contribution toward development of the Middle East. The timing of this
message is worth bearing in mind, for the country had endured half a
year of a very violent struggle and Arab armies had already begun to
invade it, wishing to prevent Israel’s independence.
The Declaration also urges the United Nations to admit Israel to its ranks; this came
to pass only a year later. Finally, the authors urge the Jewish people
in the Diaspora to rally around the state in the tasks of immigration,
upbuilding and struggle.
Seventh Section
The seventh and last section of the Declaration,
the part containing the signatures, begins with the phrase:
"Placing our trust in the Rock of Israel, we affix our
signatures..." It comes as no surprise that these opening words
had prompted a debate among the members of the People’s Council,
reflecting the disagreements between its secular and religious members
concerning the future image of the state. The debate ended in tacit
acquiescence, presumably because of the reluctance to engage in such a
discussion at that time. It should be mentioned, however, that the
representatives of the haredi (ultra-Orthodox) community
subsequently took exception to the entire Declaration, stating that it
greatly offended their sensitivities.
The Manifesto
At the festive session that approved the Declaration,
the newly proclaimed state (which, strictly speaking, had not yet come
into existence at that moment) passed its first legislative act: the
Manifesto, whose name and format have no parallel in the Israeli
lawbooks. According to the legal experts of the time, this document
was needed because the Declaration itself, although equipped with a
quasi-legislative section that stipulated the inauguration of the
state’s provisional governing institutions, amounted to a public
proclamation and was not an authentic legislative act.
Indeed, the first paragraph of the Manifesto
repeated the Declaration by stipulating the Provisional Council of State as the legislative
authority. However, it also authorized the Council to devolve some of
its powers to the Provisional Government for the purpose of urgent
legislation. This provision was considered essential under the
military circumstances of the time, enemy forces having already
invaded Israel’s territory in certain locations. This legal option
of main legislation by the executive branch, which had first been
introduced in the Manifesto, still exists, although it has been
substantially modified and curtailed. It was enacted by the Law and
Administration Ordinance, passed about a week later, and is now
contained in the Basic Law: The Government.
The second paragraph of the Manifesto put some of
the important results of independence in legal terms: it annulled all
legal provisions resulting from the Anti-Zionist policies of the
British administration, especially those originating in the 1939 White
Paper, that aimed to restrict Jewish immigration and land ownership in
Palestine.
The third and last paragraph of the Manifesto
ensured the continuity of the law in effect in Palestine at the end of
the Mandate, with the exception of the provisions which contradicted
the establishment of the state (such as those mentioned in the
previous paragraph), and until such provisions were amended by
original Israeli legislation. The new Israeli authorities received all
the powers of the previous Mandatory ones. This clause prevented
judicial chaos. Thus, Israel inherited Mandatory law, which, although
far from being identical with British law, included important elements
of British jurisprudence and public law. However, this continuity also
imposed on Israeli law many non- and even anti-democratic provisions
for lengthy periods of time and caused a legislative lethargy which
impaired the speedy passing of original Israeli legislation.
The continuity provision was copied almost verbatim
into Paragraph 11 of the aforementioned Law and Administration
Ordinance, which was, in fact, Israel’s first regular statute.
A Constitution for the State of Israel
The Declaration
of Independence envisaged the enactment of a constitution within
several months. However, Israel still has no constitution, and
progress towards it has been exceedingly slow.
A constituent assembly was elected in Israel’s
first general elections (January 25, 1949); the assembly’s first
action was to pass the so-called Transition Law, by which it
reconstituted itself as the "First Knesset." A protracted
debate ensued between the proponents of a constitution – those
favoring immediate enactment of a constitution – and its opponents,
some of whom ruled out the very idea of a constitution, while others
argued that the time was not ripe. Finally, the Knesset adopted a
compromise resolution – in effect, a decision not to adopt a
constitution. The text of this resolution (1950), known as the "Harari
Resolution" after its sponsor, MK I. Harari, is as follows:
The First Knesset instructs the Constitutional,
Legislation and Judicial Committee to prepare a draft State
Constitution. The constitution will be built chapter by chapter, in
such a way that each will constitute a separate Basic Law. The
chapters shall be presented to the Knesset when the committee
completes its work, and all the chapters shall be combined into the
Constitution of the State.
Since that resolution was adopted, the Knesset has
passed eleven basic laws (two of them – Basic Law: The Government and Basic Law: Freedom of
Occupation – have been passed twice). This effort is not yet
complete, although it is commonly thought that most of the
constitution’s chapters (i.e., the Basic Laws) have been enacted and
that the missing ones will soon be ready.
The passing of the Basic Laws: Human
Dignity and Freedom
of Occupation (passed in 1992 and 1994) has been called a
"constitutional revolution," because these laws introduced
the constitutional protection of human rights, though not of all
rights. This may be considered the closing of a circle in respect of
the principles of governance and justice begun with the Declaration of
the Establishment of the State of Israel. These two Basic Laws begin
with the same meaningful clause:
Fundamental human rights in Israel are based on
recognition of the value of man, the sanctity of human life and
freedom, and shall be honored in the spirit of the principles in the
Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel.
Since then, the Israeli lawbook has included not
only the principles of justice, liberty, freedom of religion,
conscience, language, education and culture, and complete equality of
social and political rights for all citizens, irrespective of
religion, race and sex, but also constitutional principles
acknowledging the freedom and sovereignty of all human beings and the
sanctity of human life.
The Constitutional Authority of the Declaration
Until these two Basic Laws were enacted, the
meaning and legal validity of the "principles" section of
the Declaration was under public debate, although it was generally
acknowledged that the Declaration (and its section on principles)
should not be considered as legally binding in the ordinary sense. The
first President of the Supreme Court Justice M. Smoira put this as
follows:
The Declaration expresses the vision and credo of
the people; but it is not a constitutional law making a practical
ruling on the upholding or nullification of various ordinances and
statutes.
These remarks may be regarded as a minimalist rule
for the interpretation of the Declaration. Later, other
interpretations were heard from time to time, seeking to broaden, if
only slightly, the legal validity of this document. Two examples
follow, the first by Justice S. Agranat:
It is true that the Declaration is ‘not a
constitutional law that makes a practical ruling on the upholding or
nullification of various ordinances and statutes,’ but insofar as it
‘expresses the vision and credo of the people,’ we are obligated
to take heed of the matters set forth therein when we seek to
interpret and construe the laws of the state
.The following is excerpted from a ruling by Justice Z. Berenson:
The legal force [of the Declaration] exists in the
[rule] that every legal provision should be interpreted in its light
and to the extent possible, in keeping with its guiding principles and
not contrary thereto. However, when an explicit statutory measure of
the Knesset leaves no room for doubt, it should be honored even if
inconsistent with the principles in the Declaration of Independence.
Here the Declaration serves as an interpretive
tool. One may state that, at least within this constraint, it has a
legal validity of sorts or represents a legal norm that expresses the
values of the state. A subsequent ruling reflects this thinking:
The democratic character of the State of Israel
finds its expression in the Declaration of Independence. These
principles light our path and represent the credo of the people, in
the light of which laws are interpreted and basic principles
determined.
However, since the Basic
Laws: Human
Dignity and Freedom
of Occupation were passed, the principles set forth in the
Declaration have become a substantive, binding component of
legislation and law.
Time after time judges have incorporated statements
in their verdicts referring to Israel as a democratic state by citing
principles in the Declaration. One such remark was made by Justice
Agranat in the ruling cited above:
The set of laws according to which the political
institutions in Israel were established and under which they operate
attest that [Israel] is indeed a state with democratic foundations.
Furthermore, the matters mentioned in the Declaration of Independence
– especially those on basing the state on the fundamentals of
freedom and the assurance of freedom of conscience – indicate that
Israel is a freedom-loving state.
However, neither the Declaration nor any other
enactment of the state contained the word "democracy" or
derivatives thereof. No "democratic state" is mentioned
alongside a "Jewish state," although it is absolutely clear
that the founders had such a state in mind. This rather regrettable
lacuna has recently been set right by the two aforementioned Basic
Laws, for both contain the identical clause (except for two or three
words):
The purpose of this Basic Law is to protect .....
in order to establish in a Basic Law the values of the State of Israel
as a Jewish and democratic state.
“A Jewish and Democratic State”
Since the passage of these two Basic Laws, these
two definitive characteristics of the state – the Jewish and the
democratic – have been inextricably intertwined. However, if the
legislators had hoped that this formulation would put to rest the
debate over Israel’s being Jewish and democratic, the opposite
occurred. From the moment these Basic Laws were passed, public debate
over this issue and its implications has recurred, and more vehemently
so. Some argue that national harmony requires a full symbiosis between
these two adhesive attributes, and they consider such a symbiosis not
only necessary but also possible. Others believe that the two values
clash in substantive ways and cannot be attained in tandem. Thus, they
say, one must yield to the other: either democracy
to Jewishness or vice versa. The continuum between these polar
attitudes is filled with a great many views pertaining to every
substantial issue on the public agenda. Some even consider the two
values unequal in status a priori, citing the order in which
the two determining words appear in the foregoing clause.
This dispute will undoubtedly continue, and
although it may seem theoretical and abstract, it is neither. Not only
will the struggle be waged over the relationship between these two
components, but a stand will have to be taken on the principles, the
meaning and the practical significance of each. At the time the
Declaration was written, a tacit and largely unarticulated consent
existed concerning the essence of the Jewish state, and disagreements
were, for some time, put aside. The same may be said, even more
explicitly, about the democratic character of the state – a matter
in which almost no one took an interest. Now, amazingly, voices are
being heard from different parts, demonstrating not only a
misunderstanding of the principles of democracy, but also a disregard
of them.
Recently, the domestic dispute over the Jewish
character of the state has become very bitter. Dissent ranges from the
conceptual and the ideological to the practical – Sabbath
observance, marriage and divorce laws, budgets for religious
institutions – with a tendency to adopt radical and excessively
rigid positions. Furthermore, the political arrangements governing the
status, powers and functions of religion (called the "status
quo on religious affairs") are steadily crumbling amid rising
social tension.
A large majority of Jews take for granted that
Israel is a Jewish state and cannot envisage anything else. Although
quite a few would prefer to see a different Jewish state –
with disagreements over the degree of difference – only a very small
minority would seek to abolish it. Many of the country’s Arab
citizens acknowledge that Israel is a Jewish state and will remain so,
and some regret this. Be this as it may, there can be no doubt that on
the day when Jews cease to be a majority in Israel, Israel will cease
to be Jewish.
The Declaration - A Review
The Declaration of the Establishment of the State
of Israel, the first official document of the state, is marking its
jubilee – as is the state. The Declaration bears importance of the
highest magnitude, for it symbolizes a momentous change in Jewish
history. In its contents, structure, and language, it is one of the
most impressive of its genre. In its structure and stylistic cadence,
the Declaration is a literary gem, its elegant phrasing successfully
blending solemnity and exaltation, sober idealism and practicality,
coupled with daring, moral force and lucid foresight. The operative
sections of the Declaration – i.e., the very proclamation of the
formation of the state and its provisional governing institutions –
are of historical value only. This cannot be said about the other
parts of the Declaration. The historical section was, and perhaps
still is, the most portentous Zionist manifesto of all.
The most important section of the Declaration is
that dealing with values and principles, which contains political and
legal messages that remain relevant to this day. It is still
Israel’s charter of human and civil rights, enfolding all the basic
principles and values that no enlightened society can do without.
Obviously, there are abundant disparities, even gaping ones, between
ideals and realities, between promises made and promises honored. For
this reason, as this article draws to a close, an attempt should be
made to determine which of the promises in the Declaration have been
fulfilled and which have not. Of course, it is impossible at this
juncture to draw up a detailed, accurate, and reasoned "balance
sheet," but one may briefly address – at the risk of being
accused of excessive brevity – the development of several of these
principles in the reality of Israel.
“Aliya – the Ingathering of the Exiles”
A fundamental aspiration of Zionism and the state,
this may be viewed – in the most general way – as a success story,
though not everyone would agree. The Law of Return was enacted to give
concrete legal form to this cause and, despite criticism of its
details, it is hard to envisage the State of Israel without it. The
main emphasis has been on the stage of "the ingathering of
exiles," the arrival and attraction of faraway Diaspora
communities. It was accompanied, perhaps unavoidably, by severe
hardship for many immigrants, and the ensuing social inequalities have
left scars. Although the Declaration says nothing about integration of
exiles and national solidarity, this is obviously the "heart and
soul" of the ingathering, and the balance in this respect is far
from being fully satisfactory.
Those who regard Jewish immigration not only as a
right, but also as a duty, probably regard it as at least a partial
failure. Even today, more than half of the world’s Jews do not live
in Israel, and the number of emigrants leaving Israel is growing;
however, the proportion of world Jewry living in Israel is on the
rise.
“Development of the Country for the Benefit of
All its Inhabitants”
In this matter, too, Israel may congratulate itself
for making much progress and attaining an impressive rate of
development. The state is among the world’s most developed with
regard to economy and culture. Its standard of living and quality of
life have been rising steadily, despite the impediments of its
security situation. All citizens have benefited from these trends –
though not equally, as Israel is one of the few developed countries in
which the income gap is actually widening.
“Freedom, Justice and Peace”
These universal values, in the absence of which a
society cannot be sound nor a state enlightened, account for a hefty
portion of the Jewish heritage; a Jewish state not guided by them is
inconceivable. Although nobody fails to espouse these values, Israelis
from all sectors of society have widely varying interpretations for
them. This state of affairs is most conspicuous with respect to peace,
of course, but it also applies to liberty and justice. Under such
circumstances, it is quite amazing that a golden mean, or at least a
workable compromise, is so often attained. In this sense, Israel’s
performance does not outrank the soundest of nations, but it does not
fall significantly short of them.
“Complete Equality of Social and Political Rights”
The Declaration indeed referred to complete
equality and, perhaps, to equal opportunity – not only formally
(i.e., in law and justice), but also in the implementation of these
rights in all areas of life: political, social, economic and perhaps
also cultural. Equality is a goal, and its complete attainment cannot
occur with ease, if at all. Therefore, the question is to what extent
such equality has been achieved and whether the trend is leading
toward greater or lesser equality.
When the state was founded, Jewish Israeli society
was rather egalitarian in many respects, and in certain senses this
trait has gathered strength since then. One of the great
accomplishments is the far-reaching equality in political rights of
the citizens, including Arabs, and in the courts, where equality under
the law is strongly, although not fully, prevalent. However, there are
pockets of blatant inequality in resource allocation for development
purposes. Although the declared intent is to narrow this disparity,
and although visible action is being taken to demonstrate that this is
being done, there remains much room for improvement.
The Equality of Women’s Rights Law (1951) was
meant to make the Declaration’s assurance in this respect effective.
The statute indeed prescribes legal equality for men and women in all
matters of jurisprudence, and adds that any legal provision that
discriminates against women qua women shall not be applied.
Indeed, much action toward greater equity has been taken over the
years, in both judicial and social affairs. However, this law makes a
significant exception: in all matters of marital status, women’s
equality does not apply. Indeed, this exclusion has been expanded to
cover all matters related to so-called religious institutions of
state, such as rabbinical courts and religious councils, with some
minor exceptions. Truth to tell, however, even the law prescribing
equal wages for men and women (1964) falls far short of full
implementation.
The Declaration speaks of equal rights and
refrains, for good reason, from speaking of equal obligations.
However, a soundly functioning regime obviously concerns itself with
this aspect, too, for it is also a factor in equality. Israel is not
among the world’s most egregious performers in its infringements of
this principle. Nevertheless, there have been occasional grievances,
and public debate sometimes erupts over a case of inequality in
obligations. Equality, or, to be more accurate, more equitable justice
in apportioning the tax burden is the subject of struggles all over
the world, and let us admit that Israel has much room for improvement
in this respect – not only concerning women. Another matter that has
evoked bitter public controversy for some time is equality in carrying
the burden of military service, especially in what we call the
induction of yeshiva students. The duration of annual reserve
duty also remains irksome to many in this respect.
“Freedom of Religion and Conscience”
In the fifty years since the Declaration of
Independence was written, it has become clear that intricate problems
are involved in honoring freedom of religion, conscience and faith in
a country where religion (or to be more precise, religions) holds an
official status and wields state-sponsored administrative and judicial
functions. Freedom of religion in Israel is, first and foremost, the
power granted to the religious establishment to set norms and rules of
behavior for its adherents, and the definition of citizenship (at
least with respect to Jews) is also fundamentally religious and in
accord with religious law. As to freedom of worship – a matter that
is mostly internal to the various religious communities – the High
Court of Justice ruled that:
Freedom of religion and worship is but one of the
personal freedoms assured [to individuals] in every democratic regime.
The very existence and assurance of this freedom entails the risk of
schism among various religious currents and movements, but this risk
in no way diminishes the freedom of religion and conscience.
By the same token, the state must have the power to
limit the freedom of worship in very exceptional and extreme cases,
and all one can say about this matter is that such action should be
taken with the utmost caution.
Court judgments have expanded the freedom of
religion significantly by including in it the freedom from religion.
Thus the courts have stipulated that both freedom of religion and
freedom from religion, to which both citizens and residents are
entitled, are overarching values in Israel – originating in the rule
of law (in its substantive sense) and in rulings by the courts.
Religious commandments – or religiously derived principles – are
not law in Israel unless they are incorporated into a law. However,
one can hardly say that the government’s performance has always
studiously corresponded to the spirit of this ruling, and the
tendencies emanating from steadily-growing population groups are also
pointing in other directions.
“Freedom of Language, Education, and Culture”
It is clear that the freedom of language assured in
the Declaration refers to the right of Israeli Arabs not only to speak
and provide education in their language but also to use Arabic in all
official contacts. Recognition of Arabic as an official language has
solved this problem and, practically speaking, no special difficulties
have come up over the years.
The authors of the Declaration had a similar
situation in mind when they referred to freedom of education, and
presumably they also intended to enshrine the right of all
"streams" in Jewish education. On this basis, parents were
eventually granted the possibility of enrolling their children in
education subsystems of their choice. Obviously, freedom of education
was not meant to empower every parent to dictate his children’s
curriculum nor to teach at home, in circumvention of all school
settings (although a quite liberal interpretation of the relevant
statutes has allowed such cases).
Indeed, a large majority of Israelis accept what
they are offered in this regard. This may also be indicative of a
basic rule with respect to rights: use them or prepare to lose them.
Recently, problems have arisen because of schools’ refusal to honor
parents’ freedom to choose their children’s education by rejecting
certain children without justifying the rejection on any formal
grounds.
Israel may congratulate itself on its freedom of
culture. The only significant infringement is the official censorship
of plays and films and, perhaps, some indirect censorship of cultural
artifacts and advertising. Notably, however, the trend in this matter
has been toward greater liberalism, and only time will tell what the
future holds. Of course, those who consider lavish governmental and
public support an essential condition for cultural freedom would not
depict the Israeli situation in glowing terms. This attitude, however,
would make the scope of this freedom unconventionally broad.
“Safeguard[ing] the Holy Places of All Religions”
The country’s holy places, and the free access to
them, primarily those of Muslims and Christians, have been safeguarded
very meticulously, especially since many such shrines came under
Israeli control after the Six-Day
War. This situation has been noted favorably by most religions
represented in Israel, despite occasional incidents.
A Look Towards the Future
We are witnessing today, thus, the continuing
development of the democratic State of Israel, based on the values of
freedom, justice and peace, as cited in the Declaration. Furthermore,
the Declaration’s calls for "bonds of cooperation and mutual
help" and "a common effort for the advancement of the Middle
East" are being realized in the continuing peace process between
Israel and her Arab neighbors.
Appendix 1:The
Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel
Appendix 2: Basic
Law: Human Dignity and Liberty
Appendix 3: Basic
Law: Freedom of Occupation
Appendix 4: Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations)
Sources: Israeli
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
The author is Professor Emeritus, Political Science, Hebrew University of Jerusalem |
