УTo Restore Jerusalem as the City of TruthФ

 

By Professor Paul Eidelberg

 

 

To restore Jerusalem as the City of Truth, it will be necessary to eradicate four pernicious and all-pervasive lies.а First, that Israel is a Democratic State.а Second, that Israel is a Jewish State.а Third, that Judaism is consistent with Democracy.а The fourth lie?а The УPeace Process.Фа Eradication of these lies will inaugurate authentic Jewish Leadership in Israel and the establishment of a Jewish Constitution.а Only then will it be possible to restore Jerusalem as the City of Truth.


 

 

Is Israel a Democratic State?

 

I

f proof is wanted that IsraelТs system of government, despite periodic multiparty elections, is not democratic, it has been provided, unwittingly, by IsraelТs American-educated Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

ааааааааааа Mr. Netanyahu has stated on various occasions that no one ever expected him to (1) accept the УOslo AccordsФ as a basis for the Уpeace processФ; (2) meet with Yasir Arafat; (3) withdraw from Hebron; and (4) release 30 female Arab Jew-killers.

ааааааааааа Ponder the hitherto ignored significance of this remarkable statement or confession. This self-incriminating statement, unbeknownst to Mr. Netanyahu, exposes him as an unfaithful and autocratic politician.а For if no one, in his own words, expected him to take the four steps mentioned above, it follows that Mr. Netanyahu has betrayed those who elected him IsraelТs Prime Minister!

ааааааааааа That he can publicly boast, especially to foreign audiences, of his unexpected adherence to the so-called Oslo Accords--the Israel-PLO Agreements--indicates a callous indifference to public opinion at home, in contrast to an unmanly concern for his image abroad.а His rationalization, that Israel, as a democracy, is obliged to implement his predecessorsТ agreements with Yasir Arafat is insulting and absurd.а Who does not know that Arafat has repeatedly violated those agreements?а Who does not know thatа democracies commonly disregard internationalа agreements they deem contrary to their national

 

 

 

 

interests?аа Britain violated the League of Nations

Mandate when it created TransJordan on 80 percent ofа the intended Jewish homeland in Palestine.а The United States reneged on its agreement with Israel not to recognize the PLO, as well as with Taiwan when it transferred its recognition of the latter to Communist China.а These agreement were not nation-threatening.а This cannot be said of the Israel-PLO accords, which Netanyahu admitted could lead to IsraelТs annihilation.а Of course the admission was made prior to his election.

The only time Israeli politicians are attentive to public opinion at home is during an election campaign.а Once ensconced in power, they feel no obligation to fulfill their promises to the nation, even on life-and-death issues.а Yet these politicians pose as champions of Уdemocracy.Фа Thus Benjamin Netanyahu.

The moral obtuseness underlying his boast that no one expected him to genuflect to Oslo--hence to become Bill ClintonТs or Yasir ArafatТs lackey--is symptomatic of IsraelТs devious and undemocratic political culture.а The late Yitzhak Rabin lied his way into office in 1992 by promising NO withdrawal from the Golan Heights, NO negotiation with the PLO, NO УPalestinianФ State, and NO negotiation over Jerusalem.а The same Rabin, while negotiating with the PLO in violation of IsraelТs criminal law, scornfully declared:а УDonТt bother me about legality.Фа His successor, Shimon Peres, who never ceases to pay lip-service to democracy, boasted in the name of David Ben-Gurion that he gives the people not what they want, but what he thinks they need.

Yet virtually everyone persists in calling Israel a Уdemocracy,Ф including critics of the peace process.а Apart from such criticism, the critics do little more than lament this or that governmentТs Уbetrayal of democracy.Фа Heaven forbid they should candidly state that Israel is not and never has been a democracy.

 

Whoever heard of a democracy which not only lacks a Constitution (like England) but whose legislators (unlike EnglandТs) represent political parties rather than constituents or citizens?

Whoever heard of a democracy whose Prime Minister can disregard the law with impunity?а

Whoever heard of a democracy whose Government can make agreements with foreign entities without public or parliamentary debate--such as those fait accomplis televised and ratified on the White House lawn?

Whoever heard of a democracy--or of a monarchy for that matter!--whose Prime Minister can sign away the land of his people, even to a criminal organization specified as such in the penal code of his country?

Whoever heard of a democracy whose Government, under the facade of Уadministrative detention,Ф can incarcerate citizens for months at time without trial and without even informing them of the charges?

Whoever heard of a democracy whose Prime Minister can release terrorists convicted of murder?а Thus Benjamin Netanyahu.а But to attribute this barbarism to a Jewish State is even more monstrous.а Which leads to the second lie generated from Jerusalem.

 

 

Is Israel A Jewish State?

 

C

an a УStateФ founded and long dominated by atheists be Jewish?а Can a УStateФ be Jewish whose citizens and legislators need not be Jewish?а (The Japanese would laugh at the idea.)1 Can a State be intrinsically Jewish when its President or Prime Minister may, by law, be a Moslem!?а Alternatively, can a State be intrinsically Jewish when its legislators reject a proposal that would limit such offices to Jews?

To be sure, 80 percent of IsraelТs population is Jewish. Nevertheless, in this УJewishФ State (as a colleague of mine once pointed out) certain Knesset Members have made statements about Judaism and Jews that in Germany--in Germany!--would get them kicked out of parliament and perhaps into prison.а

So Jewish is this Jewish State that the term УJudaismФ has been erased from Soldiers Code of Ethics--thanks to IsraelТs first native-born Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin.а

So Jewish is this Jewish State that his successor, Shimon Peres, applied for IsraelТs membership in the Arab League.а

So Jewish is this Jewish State that its current Prime Minister abandoned Hebron, the burial place of the Patriarchs.а Nor is this all.

So Jewish is this Jewish State that even its religious parties, contrary to Jewish law, supported a treaty with Jordan whereby Israel relinquished 330 sq. kilometers of Jewish land (whose annexation by Jordan in 1950 was recognized only by Pakistan and England).а

Did these parties support the treaty for the sake of peace?а But as JordanТs monarch King Hussein knows, his survival, in the face of Syrian ambitions, actually depends on the Israel Defense Forces, which saved his regime in 1970.а The treaty did not establish genuine peace between the two countries, but rather formalized a de facto state of affairs.а Not only may no Jew live in Jordan, but Hamas and Islamic Jihad headquarters are still operating in JordanТs capital.

Those 330 sq. kilometers of clearly Jewish land were not exchanged for peace, or as benighted religionists might say, because of pikuach nefesh, to avoid danger to human life.а Seven Jewish school girls were recently murdered on that land.а The treaty was a public relations extravaganza concocted by a Labor Government to bolster its failing Уland-for-peaceФ policy, which was (and is) making many Jews widows or orphans.а In truth, Jewish lives and Jewish land were (and are) being sacrificed to the god of Power, to which the religious parties also genuflect.а

Not only did the religious parties forsake IsraelТs God-given right to this land, but these same parties, like Mr. Netanyahu, chose to forget that King Hussein was responsible for the desecration of Jewish synagogues and thousands of Jewish graves in eastern Jerusalem.а In certain respects, therefore, the religious parties are more culpable than their secular counterparts for IsraelТs humiliation.а

It will be said, of course, that the religious parties, despite their faults, preserve and spread Judaism.а Perhaps, but they have not made the State of Israel--by which I mean its political institutions--Jewish. Indeed, none of these religious parties has proclaimed as its goal the creation of an authentic Jewish State.а And none has exposed the third lie to which I now turn.

 

 

Judaism Versus УDemocracyФ

 

I

t seems that many Jews, including Orthodox Rabbis, can earn no honor or respect unless they show that Judaism is perfectly consistent with democracy.а These apologists reduce Judaism to a jugglerТs bag out of which anything can be produced on demand.а Meanwhile,а they gloss over the decayed state of democracy and its destructive consequences for Israel. We are confronted here by gross ignorance and complacency as well as by intellectual dishonesty and irresponsibility.а Let us have the fresh air of truth.2

 

 

*а *а *

ааааааааааа As everyone knows, УdemocracyФ literallyа means the Уrule of the peopleФ or popular sovereignty.а Popular sovereignty reduces to the rule of the majority, a principle that can be found in Judaism (Exodus 23:2 and Sanhedrin 3b) but subordinated to other principles such as the Ten Commandments.а Suppose, however, IsraelТs Muslim citizens were to become (as they may in the not distant future) a majority of the countryТs population.а They could then dominate the Knesset and transform Israel into an Islamic state.а This may be consistent with democracy, but hardly with Judaism.

ааааааааааа To be sure, majority rule does not exhaust the principles of democracy.а There is also the principle of freedom.а Democratic freedom yields pluralism.а Pluralism requires a broad-based agreement that democracy is not a body of substantive ends but a УprocessФ--the Уrules of the gameФ--by which individuals pursue their private interests and Уlifestyles.Фа Hence democracy does not entail any particular ethnic or religious character.а This is why there are no ethnic or religious qualifications for voting or holding office in Western-styled democracies.

ааааааааааа In contrast, Judaism is a religious nationality, an all-embracing way of life.а In addition to endogamous marriage laws and ethical precepts, Judaism has its own holy days, its own system of education, its own literature.а And because Judaism is a religious nationality, only Jews can hold public office in an authentic Jewish polity.а All this is quite foreign to Western democratic thought and practice.

ааааааааааа Furthermore, Western democracies separate church and state, i.e., religion and public law.а Such democracies not only regard religion a УprivateФ matter, but they insist Уit is not the function ofа government to cultivate virtue.Фа This is hardly consistent with Judaism--although I hasten to add that the centrality and autonomy of the family in Judaism renders it opposed to Big Government or the Bureaucratic State.аа Indeed, contrary to widespread prejudice, a government guided by Jewish law would be less paternalistic, hence less meddlesome and coercive, than any contemporary democracy!аааа

ааааааааааа Let us digress for a moment to consider the issue of whether Judaism is theocratic.а The issue here is more semantic than substantive.а If УtheocracyФ signifies a regime ruled by a church or by priests, Judaism is not theocratic.а There is no church in Judaism, neither theologically, since there is no mediation between God and the individual Jew, nor intellectually, since there is no papacy or ecclesiastical hierarchy.

ааааааааааа But if УtheocracyФ is construed literally as Уthe rule of God,Ф then Judaism is theocratic, for God is the ultimate source of law and authority.а But what does this mean operationally?а In Judaism there is no УclergyФ or Уlaity.Фа Only publicly tested scholarship can lay claim to any validity regarding the laws of the Torah.а This means the Torah belongs to every Jew, whether he is a Kohane, Levite, or Israelite.а It means that Judaism has no ruling class.а (In fact, the most authentic form of Jewish leadership is that of the teacher, whose power is not political but intellectual and moral.)аа The Torah thus fixes sovereignty in the People, of course under God (the original basis of the American Republic), whereas modern Israel, imitating European thought, fixes sovereignty in the State!а

ааааааааааа The notion of popular sovereignty under God differentiates classical American democracy from contemporary democracy.а If democracy is limited to the latter, it can then be shown that democracy and Judaism are not compatible.

ааааааааааа Consider democracyТs two cardinal principles, freedom and equality.а Because freedom in (contemporary) democracy is based on personal or subjective desire (Уlive as you likeФ), it is devoid of moral and rational constraints.а This is why moral relativism, or the denial of objective standards of good and bad, or of right and wrong, is so prevalent in democracy.а (In contrast, classical democracy derives freedom from manТs creation in the image of God, the only solid basis for the moral unity of mankind.)а As for equality, democracy tends to level distinctions among men.а Contrast Torah Judaism.

ааааааааааа Although the Torah embodies many egalitarian laws, it also contains many non-egalitarian laws.а For example, in procuring their release from captivity, УA Kohane takes precedence over a Levite, a Levite over an Israelite, and an Israelite over a bastard... This applies when they are all [otherwise equal]; but if the bastard is learned in the Torah and the Kohane is ignorant of the Torah, the learned bastard takes precedence over the ignorant Kohane (Mishnah, Horayot, 3:8).

ааааааааааа Similarly, under Jewish law, Уa scholar takes precedence over a king of IsraelФ (Babylonian Talmud, Horayot 23a).а Again:а УIf a man and his father and his teacher were in captivity [for ransom], he takes precedence over his teacher, and his teacher takes precedence over his father, while his mother takes precedence over them allФ (ibid.)

ааааааааааа Clearly, learning determines the order of precedence, unless a womanТs honor is at stake.а This is also true in less precarious cases.а Thus, when a court has many cases on its docket, then, as Maimonides points out, the case of a widow is tried before that of a scholar, a scholar before an illiterateТs, and the suit of a woman before that of a man, because the humiliation is greater in the case of a woman.

ааааааааааа These examples indicate that Judaism does not involve the leveling of distinctions characteristic of contemporary democracy.а This is not all.

ааааааааааа Judaism cultivates respect for parents as well as modesty in speech and conduct.а All this is opposed to contemporary democracy, as television makes abundantly clear.а Notice the pandering to youth by making parents look ridiculous.а Notice the intellectually stultifying obscenity and the mindless emphasis on sex and violence.а What Prophet or Sage of Israel ever advocated the unrestrained freedom of expression evident in contemporary democratic societies?а

ааааааааааа The Jewish Sages engaged in intense controversy over countless issues.а Their goal, however, was not the venting of their impulses or emotions but the discovery of truth.а Today, freedom of expression has little to do with truth.а Only consider the lies propagated by the media of the democratic world, how they slander Israel on the one hand, and sanitize IsraelТs despotic Arab enemies on the other.а Which leads me to the fourth lie, the УPeace Process.Ф

ааааааааааа

 

The УPeace ProcessФ

 

T

o dispose of this lie, it will be sufficient to quote from a December 10, 1996 U.S. House of Representatives УTask Force Report on International Terrorism and Unconventional WarfareФ:

 

Approaching the end of 1996, the Middle East may well be on the verge of a major regional war.а Numerous sources in the region report that the supreme leadersЧboth civilian and militaryЧin most Arab states (including Egypt and Jordan), as well as in Iran and Pakistan, are convinced that the present vulnerability of Israel [resulting from the Уpeace processФ] is so great that there is a unique opportunity to, at the very least, begin the process leading to the destruction of Israel.а Toward this end, several Arab states, as well as Iran and Pakistan, have been engaged in a frantic military build-up and active preparation in the last few monthsЕ.

 

[T]he PLOТs preparations for an imminent war are evident.а In Gaza, Arafat ordered the marked acceleration of the building of a personal bunker four stories deep.а Moreover, the PLO is rapidly building, all over Gaza, a chain of command centers, ammunition and weapons-storage areasЧall of them underground and well fortified to even withstand Israeli bombing and shelling.а The PAТs [Palestine AuthorityТs] security forces are also accumulating large stockpiles of anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons, including missiles, even though they are forbidden by the Oslo Accords.Ф

 

It should be noted that this report was issued prior to Prime Minister NetanyahuТs decision to abandon Hebron to Arafat and the PLO. The abandonment of Hebron makes a further mockery of the Peace Process.а Like Rabin and Peres, Netanyahu is sacrificing Jewish land for something other than peace.а The truth is--and here the application of behavioral political science is appropriate--IsraelТs nominally Jewish leaders are sacrificing Judaism for personal Power.а

 

 

A Flawed Political System

а

A

s already indicated, however, it would be a capital mistake to attribute IsraelТs woes merely to the sins of its ruling elites. Although NetanyahuТs supporters-turned-critics have grounds for complaint, they obscure a problem more fundamental than the Prime MinisterТs personal failings.а His succumbing to American pressure or to ego-indulgent imagery is not simply the result of weak character.а IsraelТs plight has more fundamental causes.

It is not Mr. NetanyahuТs personality so much as the nature of IsraelТs system of government that must be considered when assessing his behavior.а This crucial factor applies to any and every Israeli Prime Minister.а Yet this is the one factor that NetanyahuТs disappointed critics fail to address.

It is morally certain that if Israel had a Constitution with institutional checks and balances comparable to those prescribed in the American Constitution, the pact with the PLO would never have taken place.а Indeed, given such a Constitution--I can name others--any Israeli Prime Minister that dared negotiate with the PLO would be impeached forthwith.а This applies to Netanyahu, as well as to the late Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres.а Again we touch upon the virtually unlimited executive power of IsraelТs Prime Minister.а Consider IsraelТs Supreme Court.

In a most erudite petition submitted to the Court, attorney Howard Grief has shown that the GovernmentТs implementation of the Israel-PLO Agreements constitutes clear violations of basic laws of the State of Israel, laws that prohibit the surrender of land under the StateТs control to any foreign entity.а Yet the Court did not consider the merits ofа this petition.а Why not?а Because quite apart from its left-wing bias, the Court lacks established constitutional power to adjudicate suits challenging the legality of Cabinet decisions on such potent issues.

Consider the Knesset.а Because a Knesset Member owes his position to his party and not to the votes of constituents, he cannot judge his GovernmentТs leaders and policies as do legislators in all democratic systems of government.а If he votes against the head of his party, he is committing political suicide.а This inhibits him from blocking Cabinet decisions he deems unwise or pernicious.а So much is obvious.а What follows is not.

Because a Knesset Member has no base of constituency power, he is less able to resist international pressure--a phenomenon unique to Israel!а Conversely, because Jews have no representative in the Knesset to uphold their interests and whom they can hold accountable, they are all the more subservient to world opinion, especially opinion-makers in America.аа

While the absence of district elections leads to party dictatorship and arbitrary government, IsraelТs system of proportional representation (with its low threshold) fragments the Cabinet and renders the Government incapable of pursuing coherent and comprehensive national policies.

 

If Israel had a Constitution (such as that proposed by the Foundation for Constitutional Democracy), the moral and intellectual shortcomings ofа an Israeli prime minister need not be disastrous.а Agreements with foreign states or entities would require public hearings and serious parliamentary debate.а Treaties would require the ratification of extraordinary parliamentary majorities; they would not be ratified in Washington.а This is utterly foreign to IsraelТs pseudo-democratic form of government.а

Precisely because a Prime Minister may lack the courage to resist foreign pressure, a respectable, constituency-based legislature is necessary to compensate for his faintheartedness either by the more salient threat of impeachment or of effective opposition to his policy.а On the other hand, a patriotic legislature would rally to his support to neutralize intimidation from abroad.а (With a well designed Constitution he would also have a politically united and loyal Cabinet.)

It needs to be emphasized that because wise and courageous statesmen will not always be at the helm, political institutions must be designed in such a way as to compensate, so far as possible, for the negative tendencies of homo-politicus.а The politicianТs lust for power and prestige must be made to coincide with the duties of his office.а This necessitates a system of institutional checks and balances whereby one branch of government has a vested interest in maintaining anotherТs lawful and ethical behavior.

Those who form constitutions must therefore consider not only a countryТs diverse groups and interests, its prevailing beliefs and customs, its material resources and geopolitical circumstances.а A wise statesman will also take account of human nature, of manТs good and bad inclinations.а He will design institutions to restrain human vices, while leaving latitude for the exercise of human virtue.

 

As I have shown in A Discourse on Statesmanship, these considerations guided the framers of the American Constitution.а Analysis of their constitutional debates and commentaries (especially The Federalist Papers) reveals (1) knowledge of history and political philosophy, (2) attentiveness to existing facts, (3) the desire to transcend those facts and create an unprecedented form of government, and (4) extraordinary knowledge of how to design institutions in relation to the vices and virtues of man.

The institutional forms or attributes of the American Constitution, such as the mode of election, tenure, size, and powers of the diverse branches of government, were crafted with a view to their probable psychological influence onа the behavior of elected officials, hence on the laws and character of the United States.

For example, the relatively small size and long tenure of the Senate were intended to (1) enhance the dignity and independence of that body, (2) facilitate reasoned debate, and (3) foster serious consideration of long-range national policies--all of which are conducive to the development of national stability and confidence, national purpose and character.а In contrast, the short term and large size of the House of Representatives were intended to make representatives more dependent on, or sensitive to, the variable wants and immediate interests of their constituents.

Meanwhile, inasmuch as members of each branch would have a personal interest in maintaining their respective institutional prerogatives, they would naturally resist the encroachment of others.а This balanced system of government was designed to prevent majority no less than minority tyranny.аа On the positive side, it was meant to foster the rule of reason, justice, and truth as well as respect for the rule of law.

Mention should also be made of the American Executive and the Supreme Court.а Unity in the Executive--think of the PresidentТs Cabinet--was obviously intended to promote national unity, but also Уenergy, decision, and dispatch.Фа The Court, with its life tenure, was to be the guardian of the Constitution.а It was to preserve what would eventually become the nationТs distinctive character, its enduring principles and values.

Needless to say, American society today is very different from that envisioned by the framers of the American Constitution.а Nevertheless, given the decline of religion and family values, the only thing that holds that society together is that 210 year-old Constitution.а Without it, the country, rent by racial tensions and multiculturalism, would disintegrate.

 

*а *а *

This brief sketch of American constitutionalism is pertinent to Israel.а Not only does Israel lack a Constitution, but its political institutions maximize rather than restrain the vices of men.а Notice how Knesset Members from one party can be enticed to join another party by the promise of personal favors.3а I have already emphasized the unrestrained power of the Prime Minister. Consider also the Supreme Court (bearing in mind that only one of its fifteen members is religious--this, in a country the bulk of whose population is more or less traditional).а

The Court has embraced the gospel of egalitarianism, which prompts it to engage in social leveling and engineering.а In a landmark decision, the CourtТs President, Judge Aharon Barak, equated homosexual relationships with marriage--by requiring the payment of spousal benefors to homosexual partners.а The Court also insists on gender equality even on rabbinical courts despite the possibly relevant fact, established by science, that men and women have different brains which endow them with unequal mental abilities. For example, whereas men are superior in mathematics and are more logically focused and rule-oriented, women are superior in language and are more sensitive and emotional.4

There is not a single branch of government in Israel that is animated by a sense of Jewish national identity and purpose.а No wonder the country lacks unity.а No wonder the country is ruled by rhetoric and emotion rather than by candor and reason.а No wonder truth and justice have been murdered in this countryТs irrational quest for peace with Arab despots who rule their subjects by propaganda, intimidation and violence.

To focus on the flawed policies of IsraelТs government without examining the flawed nature of IsraelТs system of government is bound to be a fruitless, since the former are very much a result of the latter.а

How can this government pursue rational policies given its irrational political system?а What kind of wisdom and courage are to be expected of Jewish politicians whose political institutions preclude the formulation and execution of a national strategy directed toward distinctively Jewish goals? 5

Israel has been emasculated by the Peace Process because its leaders have not only abandoned Zionism, but because that Zionism was ideologically superficial and politically immature.а From a constitutional point of view, the State of Israel is a monstrosity.а Indeed, that this State still exists and even flourishes economically given its irrational and divisive political system is, to my mind, the political in contradistinction to the cosmological proof of GodТs existence!

 

 

Toward A Jewish Constitution

 

I

f Israel had a Constitution based on coherent Jewish principles and values, an Israeli Prime Minister could the more readily galvanize public support for policies clearly consistent with those principles and values.6 A Constitution rooted in the history of the Jewish people--in their great teachings,а tragedies, and triumphs--would unite secular and religious youth and inspire them with a sense national identity, pride and purpose.а Such a Constitution could be used as a text for educating youth in secular and religious high schools.а Also, astute reference to the principles and values of such a Constitution would enable Israel to resist pressure from the United States, whose original Constitution, Americans might well be reminded, has roots in the Torah.

 

I will go even further.а Nations as diverse as Sri Lanka and Ireland have constitutions which, though democratic, are nonetheless designed in such a way as to preserve and enhance their respective national cultures.а Sri LankaТs 1972 constitution is especially relevant to Israel.а Its Preamble defines the state as a УRepublic pledged to realize the objectives of a Socialist Democracy.Фа Chapter I, section 3 proclaims that sovereignty resides in the People and is inalienable.Фа

Now ponder Chapter II, section 6:а УThe Republic of Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster Buddhism while securing to all other religions the rights granted by section 18 (1) (d) [of which, more later].Ф

If the supposed-to-be Jewish State of Israel were to adopt a Constitution that gave to Judaism Уthe foremost placeФ in the State, while protecting the rights of all other religious groups, such a Constitution would be called УracistФ by thoughtless people.а And the most vociferous opponents of such a Constitution would be Jews!а These Jews will be found across IsraelТs political spectrum.а Cultural egalitarianism or relativism infects even right-wing Jews.

Clearly, Sri LankaТs socialist Constitution is not culturally neutral.а Buddhism has a preferred constitutional position in a democracy that tolerates other religious, including Islam.

Chapter V of that Constitution enumerates the УPrinciples of State Policy.Фа Section 16 (1) declares that Sri Lanka, as a socialist democracy, has among its objectives:а У(a) full realization of all rights and freedoms of citizens including group rights; ... (d) the distribution of social product equitably among citizens; ... (f) raising the moral and cultural standards of the people ...Фа Section 16 (9) adds:а УThe State shall endeavor to create the necessary economic and social environment to enable people of all religious faiths to make a living reality of their religious principles.Ф

However, section 17 states that УThe provisions of section 16 do not confer legal rights and are not enforceable in any court of law; nor may any question of inconsistency with such provisions be raised in the Constitutional Court or any other Court.Фа It follows that Sri LankaТs parliament may enact legislation which, consistent with Chapter II, favors Buddhism.а (Such Уaffirmative actionФ wouldа be anathema to cultural egalitarians.)

Although Buddhism has the foremost place in Sri LankaТs Constitution, Chapter VI, section 18 (1) stipulates that У(a) all persons are equal before the law; ... (d) every citizen shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.а This right shall include the freedom to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and the freedom, either individually or in community with others, to manifest his religion or belief in worship. observance, practice and teaching; ... (g) every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, including publication; (h) no citizen otherwise qualified for appointment in the central government ... shall be discriminated against in respect of such appointment on ground of race, religion, caste or sex ...Ф (emphasis added).

At first glance it would appear that the political equality implicit in this last provision is logically inconsistent with the primacy of Buddhism.а The same sort of inconsistency appears in IsraelТs so-called Declaration of Independence of 1948.а The latter document proclaims Israel as a УJewishФ State yet prescribes political equality for all its inhabitants.7а As a consequence, and as previously suggested, IsraelТs prolific Muslim citizens could eventually become a majority and, by the democratic principle of one adult/one vote, transform Israel into an Islamic autocracy.а

Shoddy drafting?а Perhaps, but let me show a way out of this dilemma.

Just as the Government of Sri Lanka is duty bound to prevent any culturally neutral principle, such as political equality, from negating the primacy of Buddhism, so the Government of Israel is duty bound to prevent that principle from negating IsraelТs raison dТêtre as a Jewish State.а In other words, while affirming the principle of political equality, that principle is not to be made an absolute:а it may be used only to the extent that it does not impair the nationТs distinctive religious or ethnic character, be it Buddhism in Sri Lanka or Jewishness in Israel.а Contrary to the mentality of IsraelТs Supreme Court, political equality must be construed as a subordinate and not as the paramount principle of the State.

Consistent with this interpretation, Chapter VI, section 18 (2) of Sri LankaТs Constitution declares::а УThe exercise and operation of the fundamental rights and freedoms provided in this Chapter shall be subject to such restrictions as the law prescribes in the interests of national unity and integrity, national security ... public health and morals.Фа Furthermore:а УAll existing law shall operate notwithstanding any inconsistency with the provisions of subsection (1) of this section [see above].Ф

Clearly the democratic socialists who designed Sri LankaТs Constitution were neither indiscriminate egalitarians nor permissive libertarians nor self-effacing cosmopolitans (such as will be found among IsraelТs political and intellectual elites).а They recognized that without cultural standards and moral constraints, Sri Lanka would eventually disintegrate or degenerate.а Inasmuch as the State is constitutionally required Уto give Buddhism the foremost placeФ in the Republic, it follows that the State is obliged to prevent any other religion or ethnic group from gaining political ascendancy, or from having a deleterious influence on the Buddhist way of life, in that country.8

We see here that a constitution, while prescribing religious freedom and equality before the law, need not permit the logic of those principles to negate life, that is, to undermine the venerable traditions of the people for whom that constitution was primarily designed.а Similarly, Israel needs a Constitution which, though democratic, assimilates the principles of freedom and equality to Judaism, not the reverse.

 

*а *а *

Now a word about the Republic of IrelandТs Constitution.а Article 27 states:а УA majority of the members of the Senate and not less than one-third of the members of the House of Representatives may, by joint petition addressed to the President ... request the President to decline to sign and promulgate as a law any Bill to which this Article applies on the ground that the Bill contains a proposal of such national importance that the will of the people thereon ought to be ascertained.Фа (As we shall see in a moment, this provision is consistent with Jewish law.)

Notice that even though a bill is passed by the Parliament, the legislators, out of respect for the people or for their peopleТs tradition, may petition the President to consider the propriety of referring the bill to a popular referendum.

To preserve and enrich that tradition, 49 members of IrelandТs 60-member Senate are elected from five panels of candidates having knowledge and practical experience of the following interests and services:а У(1) National Language and Culture, Literature, Art, Education and such professional interests as may be defined by law for the purpose of this panel; (2) Agriculture and allied interests and fisheries; (3) Labor, whether organized or unorganized; (4) Industry and Commerce, including banking, finance, accountancy, engineering and architecture; (5) Public Administration and social services, including voluntary social service.Ф

The first mentioned panel evinces the ConstitutionТs paramount object, namely to preserve IrelandТs culture.а Of course, IrelandТs Constitution is one thing; life in that country is another.а Nevertheless, IrelandТs Constitution would be a blessing in Israel, whose government is dispossessing the Jewish people of their pockets as well as their patrimony.а In this connection, contrast FinlandТs Constitution.а A two-thirds majority of Parliament is required to enact a bill to raise taxes or introduce a new tax for a period longer than a year.а Moreover, one-third of Parliament can prevent the coming into force of any treaty with a foreign power from becoming law immediately by setting it aside until after the next election.а Such a pending bill comes into effect only if the new Parliament too adopts it without changes after the election.а This is tantamount to submitting treaties to popular referendums!

 

Is it not obvious these gentile constitutions show greater respect for the people than is evident in IsraelТs system of government?а It should then be obvious that Israel desperately needs a Constitution rooted in Jewish principles and values.

 

 

Authentic Jewish Leadership

 

N

ot that a Constitution alone will solve all of IsraelТs problems.а There always remains the character of its leaders.а Thus far IsraelТs Prime Ministers have been secularists.а Hence, even if some were nationalists, their policies and pronouncements were not consistently and preeminently Jewish.а The truth is that Jewish leadership does not exist in Israel.а Benjamin Disraeli and Pierre Mendes France were also УJewishФ Prime Ministers.а But no sober person expected a Jew who happened to become a British or French Prime Minister to lead his Christian country toward Jewish goals.а The Jews in question did not think and act like Jews but like gentiles.а In contrast, a Jew who becomes the Prime Minister of the supposed-to-be Jewish State of Israel should think Jewishly, hence should be able to formulate and execute policies which are preeminently Jewish.аа The secular State of Israel has never had such leadership.

Jewish leadership requires Jews who have received a Torah education and who therefore possess the courage of their convictions.аа Unlike a merely religious education, a Torah education entails the unity of thought and action.а Moreover, and as Maimonides and the Vilna Gaon understood, knowledge of the Torah is incomplete if not supplemented by veridical secular knowledge, especially in the sciences.а (Torah Judaism is far more than a religion; it is an all-embracing civilization.)

 

A Torah-educated Prime Minister fortified by veridical secular knowledge would obviously be far superior to his secular predecessorsнн--none of whom has had the wisdom and courage to safeguard the Jewish People, let alone restore their dignity, which resides in the depth and breadth of their heritage.а

To begin with, such a Prime Minister would be guided by the Halachic principle that no government may impose any new law or official on the People of Israel without their consent.а (See Berachot 55a.)

Second, a Torah-educated Prime Minister schooled in veridical secular knowledge would have a potentially larger constituency than his secular counterpart.а Studies indicate that 50 percent of the Jews in Israel believe in the divine origin of the Torah, a percentage that will increase given recent scientific studies on the subject.а Approximately 25 percent are observant and another 40-45 percent are more or less traditional.а In addition, Jews with strong Jewish roots are well-representedа in the Israel Defense Forces, the

countryТs academic institutions, the professional sectors of the economy, and in the settlement of the Land; and these Jews have family relations and influential friends in the Diaspora.а With this supportive background of talent and sense of Jewish awareness, conditions are now ripe for the assumption of national leadership by an authentic Torah statesman.

Third, such a statesman would never commit the criminal folly of arming 40,000 Arab terrorists--an act that utterly violates Halacha.а

Fourth, a Torah statesman, unlike many secular politicians and intellectuals, would not be tainted and emasculated by moral egalitarianism or cultural relativism, doctrines that undermine wholehearted dedication to IsraelТs cause vis-à-vis the Arab-Islamic world.а Because Torah Jews regard their Patriarchs, Prophets and Sages as exemplars of wisdom and righteousness, they are more apt to disdain Arab or Islamic despots and be all the more disinclined than secularists to appease them.

Fifth, a Torah animated Prime Minister would be far more honored in the White House.а Indeed, whereas IsraelТs secular Prime Ministers invariably use the bogeyman of American pressure as an excuse for their own timidity and ineptitude, a Torah statesman would be more fearful of God--and of revered rabbis--than of Washington.

ааааааааааа Finally, an authentic Jewish leader is needed to spearhead a Jewish Constitution.а With such a Constitution, Israel would have a structure of laws and institutions that would foster the solidarity of the Jewish People and contribute to the rejuvenation of their noble heritage.аа A New Israel, confident in the justice of its cause and guided by its world-historical purpose, would overawe its enemies and again become the light of mankind.а Jerusalem would be restored as the City of Truth.

*а *а *


 

 

 

 

Notes

 

1 To be a citizen of Japan, one must be ethnic Japanese.

2 For an extensive analysis of the subject, see the authorТs Judaic Man:а Toward a Reconstruction of Western Civilization (Middletown, NJ:а Caslon, 1996), ch. 8.

3 The previous Labor Government lured Gonen Segev and Alex Goldfarb from Tsomet, a right-wing party.

4 See Anne Moir & David Jessel, Brainsex (London:а Mandarin, 1991), ch. 5.

5 Perceived as a secular democratic state, Israel is a threat to the power structure of the Islamic world.а It may well be argued, on political and metapolitical grounds, that if Israel were a Torah-oriented state, it would diminish if not overcome Islamic hostility.

6 If it be admitted that many of IsraelТs predicaments would not exist if it had a well-designed Constitution, then such a Constitution is necessary.аа In that case, we should heed the Alter of Kelm, who used to say:а УAsk not if a thing is possible; ask only if it is necessary,Ф and proceed to show how a Constitution can be implemented.а For this purpose, see my УA Constitution for the State of Israel:а Its Necessity and Practicality,Ф The International Journal of Statesmanship (Beverly Hills, CA:а Foundation for Constitutional Democracy in the Middle East, Winter 1996), Vol. II, No. 1.

7 Although IsraelТs Supreme Court has held that the Declaration affords no legal rights to any citizen, it has nonetheless sanctified equality as the УcredoФ of the Jewish people!аа

8 Consistent therewith, Chapter XIV, section 14 (2) prescribes State jurisdiction over laws Уrelating to Muslim marriage and divorceФ (if only because Islamic law permits polygamy).



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Сайт управляется системой uCoz