Is Israel a
Democratic State?
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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 *
