Page 254 - big friday
P. 254
preamble is continued in the third section (starting with the words, "The State of Israel
will be open for Jewish immigration.") This section expresses the world-view of the Jewish
People and the intentions of the founders of the state, which are meant to guide the state
authorities in their actions.
Looking inwardly, the third section of the Proclamation of Independence announces
that the state will be "open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles;"
that it will be based on freedom and justice; that it will ensure equality of social and
political rights to all citizens, irrespective of religion, race or sex; that it will guarantee
freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; that it will safeguard
the holy places of all religions; and that it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter
of the United Nations. Still looking inwardly, the Proclamation calls upon the Arab
residents of the State of Israel – even in the midst of their onslaught against the Yishuv – to
preserve peace and participate in the building of the state, on the basis of full citizenship.
Looking outwardly, the Proclamation calls upon the United Nations to cooperate with
the State of Israel. The neighboring countries and their peoples are called upon to cooperate
"in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East." The founding fathers
also call upon the Jewish People in the Diaspora to rally around the Yishuv and "to stand
by them in the great struggle for the realization of the age-old dream – the redemption
of Israel."
T he grandeur of spirit embodied in these words gave rise to an interesting question
relating to the very beginnings of the state: what validity did the ceremonial declarations
in the first and third sections of the Proclamation of Independence actually possess?
Were these statements of merely educational value, or did they perhaps also have some
real legal validity?
L awyers have appeared before the Supreme Court seeking to award the statements
in the Proclamation of Independence constitutional validity, like the Constitution of the
United States. "Since we are dealing with a Constitution," argued one lawyer before the
Supreme Court, "any law that entails any contradiction of statements in the Proclamation,
must be considered null and void." In the early days of the state this argument was
presented in an attempt to cancel the validity of the Mandatory Defense (Emergency)
Regulations, which entailed severe curtailment of individual right that are assured in the
Proclamation. Similarly, during the 1970s, this argument was raised in an effort to bring
about the nullification of the Knesset law stipulating that marriage of Jews in Israel "will be
carried out in accordance with Torah [Jewish religious] law." The argument was that this
legislation does not conform to the principle of freedom of conscience that is enshrined in
the third part of the Proclamation of Independence.
T he Supreme Court did not accept these arguments. Its rulings, reflecting the generally
accepted and binding approach, have always stated that the Proclamation of Independence
should not be viewed as a formal Constitution in light of which the validity of statutory
laws in the state should be evaluated. Likewise, the Proclamation and its principles do
not affect the validity of previous Mandatory legislation that was not nullified by virtue of
252 The Friday That Changed Destiny
will be open for Jewish immigration.") This section expresses the world-view of the Jewish
People and the intentions of the founders of the state, which are meant to guide the state
authorities in their actions.
Looking inwardly, the third section of the Proclamation of Independence announces
that the state will be "open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles;"
that it will be based on freedom and justice; that it will ensure equality of social and
political rights to all citizens, irrespective of religion, race or sex; that it will guarantee
freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; that it will safeguard
the holy places of all religions; and that it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter
of the United Nations. Still looking inwardly, the Proclamation calls upon the Arab
residents of the State of Israel – even in the midst of their onslaught against the Yishuv – to
preserve peace and participate in the building of the state, on the basis of full citizenship.
Looking outwardly, the Proclamation calls upon the United Nations to cooperate with
the State of Israel. The neighboring countries and their peoples are called upon to cooperate
"in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East." The founding fathers
also call upon the Jewish People in the Diaspora to rally around the Yishuv and "to stand
by them in the great struggle for the realization of the age-old dream – the redemption
of Israel."
T he grandeur of spirit embodied in these words gave rise to an interesting question
relating to the very beginnings of the state: what validity did the ceremonial declarations
in the first and third sections of the Proclamation of Independence actually possess?
Were these statements of merely educational value, or did they perhaps also have some
real legal validity?
L awyers have appeared before the Supreme Court seeking to award the statements
in the Proclamation of Independence constitutional validity, like the Constitution of the
United States. "Since we are dealing with a Constitution," argued one lawyer before the
Supreme Court, "any law that entails any contradiction of statements in the Proclamation,
must be considered null and void." In the early days of the state this argument was
presented in an attempt to cancel the validity of the Mandatory Defense (Emergency)
Regulations, which entailed severe curtailment of individual right that are assured in the
Proclamation. Similarly, during the 1970s, this argument was raised in an effort to bring
about the nullification of the Knesset law stipulating that marriage of Jews in Israel "will be
carried out in accordance with Torah [Jewish religious] law." The argument was that this
legislation does not conform to the principle of freedom of conscience that is enshrined in
the third part of the Proclamation of Independence.
T he Supreme Court did not accept these arguments. Its rulings, reflecting the generally
accepted and binding approach, have always stated that the Proclamation of Independence
should not be viewed as a formal Constitution in light of which the validity of statutory
laws in the state should be evaluated. Likewise, the Proclamation and its principles do
not affect the validity of previous Mandatory legislation that was not nullified by virtue of
252 The Friday That Changed Destiny
