Page 245 - big friday
P. 245
The Supreme Court decision regarding the disqualification of the
“Socialists’ List” – Davar (above) and Maariv, October 19, 1965
that exists in its own right in its sovereign state, and that this act [of the establishment
of the state] embodied the realization of the aspiration of the generations for Jewish
redemption." The President went on to note the general rule, established long before by
the Supreme Court, that the words of the Scroll of Independence "express the vision of
the nation and its manifesto," and added that the court was obligated to keep this in mind
when coming "to interpret, to give meaning to the laws of the state." This was part of
what had emerged from the well-publicized suit brought by the newspaper Kol HaAm
against the Minister of the Interior, who had instructed that the newspaper be closed for a
period of ten days following the publication of an editorial that had sharply criticized the
government's policy and its relations with the Soviet Union. (Incidentally, at the Kol HaAm
trial the court ruled against the closure of the newspaper by the Minister of the Interior,
ruling that so long as the expression of an opinion did not entail a clear and immediate
danger to public safety, our state – with its democratic foundations – ensures freedom of
expression. This statement, too, was based on the content of the Scroll of Independence.)
R eturning to the trial of the "Socialists' List" and the President of the Court's conclusion:
"What this 'manifesto' means is that the continuity – one might say 'eternity' – of the
State of Israel represents a constitutional, fundamental fact, which no entity whatsoever
in the state may, heaven forefend […] deny, in coming to exercise any of its authority."
It is true that, as a different Supreme Court composition had stated in a different trial,
"Freedom of association is one of the principles of democratic law and one of the citizen's
fundamental rights; heaven forefend that we should deny this right and disqualify an
association solely on the grounds that its aim, or one of its aims, is to aspire to change
T he Declaration at a Distance 243
“Socialists’ List” – Davar (above) and Maariv, October 19, 1965
that exists in its own right in its sovereign state, and that this act [of the establishment
of the state] embodied the realization of the aspiration of the generations for Jewish
redemption." The President went on to note the general rule, established long before by
the Supreme Court, that the words of the Scroll of Independence "express the vision of
the nation and its manifesto," and added that the court was obligated to keep this in mind
when coming "to interpret, to give meaning to the laws of the state." This was part of
what had emerged from the well-publicized suit brought by the newspaper Kol HaAm
against the Minister of the Interior, who had instructed that the newspaper be closed for a
period of ten days following the publication of an editorial that had sharply criticized the
government's policy and its relations with the Soviet Union. (Incidentally, at the Kol HaAm
trial the court ruled against the closure of the newspaper by the Minister of the Interior,
ruling that so long as the expression of an opinion did not entail a clear and immediate
danger to public safety, our state – with its democratic foundations – ensures freedom of
expression. This statement, too, was based on the content of the Scroll of Independence.)
R eturning to the trial of the "Socialists' List" and the President of the Court's conclusion:
"What this 'manifesto' means is that the continuity – one might say 'eternity' – of the
State of Israel represents a constitutional, fundamental fact, which no entity whatsoever
in the state may, heaven forefend […] deny, in coming to exercise any of its authority."
It is true that, as a different Supreme Court composition had stated in a different trial,
"Freedom of association is one of the principles of democratic law and one of the citizen's
fundamental rights; heaven forefend that we should deny this right and disqualify an
association solely on the grounds that its aim, or one of its aims, is to aspire to change
T he Declaration at a Distance 243
