Talk:Basic Laws of Israel

What exactly is meant by the "null"s that someone tacked onto some of the dates? 68.39.174.238 03:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

It means that that Basic Law has been cancelled and replaced by a later Basic Law. Deror 23:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think this is incorrect: "Though its declaration of independence promised the constitution would be completed no later than October 1, 1948, the gap between religious and secular proved too difficult to bridge, and a full, unifying document was never produced." As far as I know, the document that is the declaration of independence is approximately this document http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/Declaration_of_Independence.htm and there is nothing in that ducment about any constitution. It is not the sort of document that would include such things. It may have been a resolution of the constituent assembly. "

According to Knesset information, there was some doubt about the special status of these laws -- whether or not they are superior to regular laws -- but in practise that doubt has been resolved by High Court rulings. http://www.knesset.gov.il/description/eng/eng_mimshal_yesod.htm

Mewnews 20:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Mewnews, I think you should check again. I followed your link to the text of Israel's Declaration of Independence and it is stated explicitly. Here is the quote: ---"WE HEREBY DECLARE that as from the termination of the Mandate at midnight, this night of the 14th and 15th May, 1948, and until the setting up of the duly elected bodies of the State in accordance with a Constitution, to be drawn up by a Constituent Assembly not later than the first day of October, 1948, the present National Council shall act as the provisional administration, shall constitute the Provisional Government of the State of Israel." —Preceding unsigned comment added by RYF (talk • contribs) 17:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

The above seems obsessed with inserting some nonsense into the list of them. Watch out... 68.39.174.238 17:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I believe that a more apropriate title for the article and its subject would be "Foundamental laws of Israel" as it constitutes a more accurate translation both linguistically and semantically.

That is the official translation as it appears in the Knesset web site, and as is in other countries. Deror 15:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree with the above, that is the translation.

wouldn't it be "Fundamental?"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.189.130.164 (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply 

Can the table include a column "vote" - the for/against vote by which each was passed?

And in the comments, any comments about unusual features of its passage (up to 1 brief sentence)?

Last, is "law of return" not a "basic law" in this sense? If not, does it need a section "other important laws" or something?

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Canadian Monkey,

Your assertions that the contents of the UN partition plan or UNSCOP reports are original research, or not related to the subject of Israel's basic laws are Ipse-dixitisms. The British White Paper of 1939, the UNSCOP report, and reports submitted by the State of Israel under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights contain published research and state their own conclusions. The UN Partition Plan contained very specific legal mandates regarding the contents of the Declaration and the Constitution.

The text of the Status Quo Agreement between the Jewish Agency and the World Agudat Israel Federation explicitly stated that the establishment of the state required the approval of the United Nations, and that UN approval would not be forthcoming unless the state guaranteed freedom of conscience for all of its citizens and made it clear that there was no intention of establishing a theocratic state. The same letter also said that full equal rights and the absence of coercion and discrimination for the non-Jewish population had to be guaranteed in advance, but that no body was authorized to determine the constitution retroactively. The state would free after the fact to determine the constitution and regime according to the wishes of the citizens. see Israel: The First Decade of Independence, Selwyn Ilan Troen, Contributor Noah Lucas, SUNY Press, 1995, ISBN 0791422593, page 78

All of that has been written about by many secondary sources. For example Zalman S. Abramov served on the Knesset Law and Constitution Committee for 18 years. He published a 459 page book on the subject which discussed those very same legal and constitutional issues as part of his own synthesis:

Perpetual Dilemma: Jewish Religion in the Jewish State By Zalman S. Abramov, with Contributor Rabbi W. Gunther Plaut Published by Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press, 1979 ISBN 0838616879 Chapter 4 Legal and Constitutional Problems pages 125-146 highlights:

• The establishment of a Jewish State - page 125
• The 1939 White Paper - page 125
• British Referral of Question to United Nations - page 126
• General Assembly establishment of UNSCOP, the UNSCOP report, the June 1947 Status Quo Agreement, UNSCOP recommendations approved by Assembly, that the Declaration of Independence "ensured" complete equality without regard to race or religion - page 127
• Halakhah and Law in the Jewish State - page 128
• Abramov's observation that using Halakhic guidance in matters of state policy would have become embarrassing and that the adoption of Halakhic rules would undercut the basic principles of a democratic order and lead to discrimination between Jews and non-Jews, and discrimination between Jews and other Jews. - page 129
• The article about the proposed constitution written in 1948 by the Chief Askenazic Rabbi which recalled that the state was granted by a resolution of the United Nations calling for a specific democratic structure. - page 130
• Statement that Rabbi Judah Leob Maimon realized that halakhah in its present form could not serve as the law of the state. - page 131.
• The Constitutional debate - page 135
• The possibility of a bitter kulturkamf - page 139
• Statement by Rabbi I. M Levin of Agudat Israel that a constitution contrary to the laws of the Torah, would not be tolerated. - page 140
• How Ben Gurion took the Orthodox to task. page 141
• Izhar Harari's small constitution proposal (basic laws), that the basic laws are just ordinary laws about constitutional subjects -page 143

Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann reviewed Perpetual Dilemma in the Harvard Law Review (available via JSTOR) harlan (talk) 11:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

This article is Basic Laws of Israel. It is not Religion in Israel, nor is it UN involvement in the definiton of 'national home'. The only (peripheraly) relevant fact is that UN 181 proposed that the newly created state will draft a democratic constitution, and that Israel did not do so, going down the path of Basic Laws, instead. All the rest is either irrelevant to Israel's Basic Laws (such as the debate over what a "national home" means), or simply unsupported OR (such as the claim that the Knesset does not view the UNGR 181 articles regarding the constitution as binding, which is not found in any of the 3 sources cited for it). Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

The procedure for defining and securing a Jewish national home under the provisions of public international law was codified in UN Resolution 181.

Treaty provisions regarding 'conflict of laws' and state Declarations have played a role in the process of terminating hostilities and in terminating the League of Nations mandates. The Allied Powers, and the Council of the League both required provisional or hostile governments to subscribe to guarantees of minority rights in Declarations or treaties made in the name of the new State. The very same language used in UN Resolution 181 for that purpose had been in almost constant use since the 1920's. See for example the protection of minorities under Section III of the Treaty_of_Lausanne:PROTECTION OF MINORITIES.

ARTICLE 37.
::Turkey undertakes that the stipulations contained in Articles 38 to 44 shall be recognised as fundamental laws, and that no law, no regulation, nor official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation, nor official action prevail over them.

See also article 9 of the draft LoN Iraq declaration at the bottom here and article 10 of the final Iraq Declaration to the League of Nations here.

I've added a citation from the US Congressional Research Service which states that portions of the Declaration were intended to be the original constitutional grant of authority needed to establish and operate the state and its organs. When the Jewish Agency told Agudat Israel that UN approval was necessary for the establishment of the state, and that it wouldn't be forthcoming without a guarantee regarding minority rights, it was simply reciting the terms laid down in the UN partition plan. The same Congressional Research article notes that the legality of other enactments can not be constitutionally tested against the Declaration today. That conclusion is certainly NOT WP:Original Research.

Elihu Epstein wrote a letter to President Truman explaining that the provisional government had assumed its duties and would discharge its obligations to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The UN resolution stated that the future Constitution had to contain the same protection of minority rights as those prescribed for inclusion in the Declaration and that:

"The stipulations contained in the Declaration are recognized as fundamental laws of the State and no law, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them."

The three citations I supplied discuss the official position of various branches of the government of Israel today, which state that the Declaration is NOT recognized as fundamental state law. Another WP editor had already linked to a Haaretz article on the Constitution, 'Making Do With The Declaration', which said the same thing.

In Perpetual Dilemma, Abramov was discussing the difficulties of applying the halakhah to state policies, and the objections of the various religious parties in the Knesset to the adoption of a written Constitution or basic laws other than the Torah. The Congressional Research service article on the Constitution of Israel discusses the very same issue:

The Constituent Assembly could not agree on a comprehensive written constitution, primarily for fear that a constitution would unleash a divisive conflict between religious and state authorities... ...As part of the Mapai- Mizrahi agreement of June 19, 1947, they obtained unity among the various groups in the Yishuv (the prestate Jewish community) by promising the leaders of the ultra-Orthodox Agudat Israel (Society of Israel--see Appendix B) that the status quo on issues involving state and religion would be maintained in the new state. Some observers felt that Ben-Gurion and other Labor leaders grossly underestimated the long-term consequences of delaying resolution of the role of religion in a modern Jewish state. In later years, the Orthodox-dominated Ministry of Religious Affairs, Ministry of Interior, rabbinate, rabbinic courts, and municipal religious councils gained a virtual monopoly in patronage and resources over Israel's organized Jewish religious institutions to the detriment of the more moderate Conservative and Reform movements of Judaism. As a consequence of the resurgence of right-wing fundamentalist religious movements, the influence of secular elements in Israeli society, especially of Labor and its allies, was ultimately diminished.

These "Religion of Israel" issues have been thoroughly addressed by other scholarly sources in the context of Israeli constitutional law, so I see no reason to exclude them from this article. harlan (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

There are two issues here. One is the insertion of irrelevant material (which may involve some original research, to boot), and the other is original research on material which might be relevant, were it properly sourced.

The paragraphs you added related to UNSCOP, the 1939 White paper etc.. in the background section belong to the first category: they are simply irrelevant to Israel’s Basic Laws. These first of these Laws was enacted in 1958, and it is plain as day that the 1939 White paper does not address the 1958 Basic Law. Again, this article is not History of Constitutional Law in Israel. There is also some original research included in those paragraphs (e.g. the claim that the discussion of a “national home” is a constitutional issue, but since the entire paragraph is simply irrelevant, there’s no need to go into details with regards to such WP:OR

The other material you added, about Israel’s Declaration of Independence and its relationship with UNGR 181 belongs to the second category. It is true that Israel’s Supreme Court and Knesset do not view Israel’s DoI as a legal document. The original research I am concerned with is your belief that the DoI was meant to be a fulfillment of the articles of UNGR 181 related to a constitution, which is not supported by the sources you cite. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Harlan, to avoid the issue of original research in the future, please make sure the sources you use refer to the "Basic Laws of Israel", and make the exact arguments that you make. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'll address the White Paper, UNSCOP, and Declaration in new subsections. In the meantime, there is no article on either the formal written portions, or the so-called "unwritten", material Constitution of Israel, i.e. Law of Return, Law of Nationality, Status Quo Agreement, and etc. I intend to incorporate the standard sort of material that can be easily found in most Israeli Constitutional Law, or Israeli Political Science syllabuses. There will be no problem providing appropriate citations.

The general Wikipedia policy found on Help:Starting a new page is to search to see whether someone has written a similar page before starting one yourself. The WikiProject Law and WikiProject Israel have banners claiming that this "starter class" article is an attempt to build a comprehensive guide on the subject. Constitutional Law is a core area of interest. Before starting a new page on the Constitutional Law of Israel, I started editing this article. It is asinine behavior to delete well-sourced topical material, while creating links to other non-existent articles. The normal procedure to follow when 'the scope of an article has been reduced, extended or otherwise changed is to simply rename the page. see Help:Moving a page That is especially true when you (or your project) have no intention of creating or maintaining the new pages you are proposing. Speaking of original research, the main Law of Israel article has been flagged since mid-2007 because it does not cite any references or sources. The neutrality of the "Religion and law" subsection was disputed at around the same time. It contains an opaque reference to "certain agreements" that were made between the secular and religious communities when the State of Israel was established in 1948. The Basic Laws and Constitution aren't mentioned under the "Sources of Law" subsection and the only mention of Constitutional law is a comment under the Historical perspectives subsection to the effect that 'caselaws from Canada are very appreciated'.

• "In C.A. 6821/93 United Mizrahi Bank Ltd. vs Migdal Cooperative Village, 49(4) P.D. 221, The Israeli Supreme Court held that the two basic laws passed in 1992 are the supreme law of the land and constitute part of Israel's constitution." Mizrahi Bank subjects any new statute to judicial review under those two Basic Laws. Chief Justice Aharon Barak called that development a "constitutional revolution". see for example "The Judge in a Democracy", Aharon Barak, Published by Princeton University Press, 2006, ISBN 069112017X, footnote on page 20.
• There have been several bills aimed at according the Declaration of Independence the status of an entrenched Basic Law of Israel, for example "Basic Law: Declaration of Independence Bill, DK 1981". The two Basic Laws passed in 1992 were amended to enshrine and entrench the legal principles contained in the Declaration, so it is not "irrelevant".
• Asher Maoz, (Faculty of Law, Tel Aviv University) wrote that "The Supreme Court declared a decade ago that Israel has a constitution with supreme normative status over ordinary legislation passed by the Knesset. This approach, highly controversial at the time, is today accepted by most legal scholars in Israel." see Human Rights Enforcement in Israel, page 28, International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, Magazine no. 41~Spring 2005.
• Gideon Sapir (Faculty of Law, Haifa University) wrote that "The Court has utilized the Basic Laws as a platform for creating a full-fledged Bill of Rights." see The Israeli Constitutional Revolution - How Did it Happen? and Mishpat Umimshal Vol. 11 No. 2 – July 2008
• Martin Edelman (Professor Emeritus Political Science University of Albany and an expert on constitutional law) wrote that "Until recently, there was general agreement that Israel was one of the few nations in the contemporary world without a formal written, integrated constitution. ... ...Then in 1995, the Israeli Supreme Court held that it would henceforth consider the Basic Laws as Israel's constitution, and that the justices would exercise a judicial review power akin to that of the United States Supreme Court." see The Status of the Israeli Constitution at the Present Time, Martin Edelman, Volume 21, Number 4, Summer 2003.
• Ariel Bendor (Faculty of Law, Haifa University) wrote that "Since 1948, the prevailing master narrative has been that Israel does not have a formal constitution, but rather material non-superior legal rules in constitutional matters. This narrative had a crucial influence on the interpretation given to Israel's founding documents. The lack of Constitution narrative has gained a strong hold on the Israeli political and legal discourse. ... ...I would say that the question was based on a popular fallacy. In many significant ways Israel does have a formal written Constitution, although unique in its nature and still not known by a large portion of Israeli citizens and even politicians. ... ...The basic laws were considered for many years to be ordinary statutes. Today a typical Israeli syllabus on Constitutional law includes a considerable number of sources on the Basic Law. Basic laws are interpreted and applied by the courts on a daily basis as chapters of a constitution, and are used as a basis for judicial review."The Israeli Constitution and the Fight against Terrorism. harlan (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you want to create an article on Constitutional Law in Israel - I don't think I'd object to that. Basic Laws of Israel is a wide enough topic to deserve an article of its own, which your new article should link to. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

You removed a great deal of material, including citations to the Abramov book from the article. Those were not original research. Your explanation here was 'there’s no need to go into details with regards to such WP:OR', while your edit summary for the deletions said to see the discussion page. I've added a {{POV}} tag. harlan (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Some of the material I removed was OR, some was irrelvant. The material sourced to the Ambramov book might be relevant to an article about the development of Constitutional Law in Israel, but is not relevant to Basic Laws of Israel Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

The subjects are not mutually exclusive. I've already pointed out several scholarly sources which demonstrate that the Basic Laws of Israel have been used on a daily basis for over a decade as the Constitutional Law of Israel, you have provided nothing to support your position except your own say so. harlan (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Of course the Basic Laws of Israel have been used on a daily basis for over a decade as the Constitutional Law of Israel, I have never disputed that. I also did not say the subjects are not mutually exclusive, but not every discussion of the development of Constitutional Law in Israel is not relevant to Basic Laws of Israel, and this particular discussion, which has to do with why some Orthodox Jews objected to a constitution, but does not even mention the term "Basic Law", is not relevant. What is "my position" that has no support? Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

One item would be that the Declaration of Independence is irrelevant to the Basic Laws see below.harlan (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

What specific edit would you like to make to the article, based on the material below? Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

There are several WP:V sources above who consider the Basic Laws to be a formal constitution. The fact that it might be incomplete or that the Knesset might enact yet another one doesn't change that fact. The first constitution of the United States was the 'Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union'. The current Constitution is the result of a convention which had originally been called to modify the Articles.

Israel has had several small constitutions or constituent documents. There was the 'Proclamation' which was issued the same day as the Declaration. It established the state organs and repealed the provisions of the 1939 White Paper. Thereafter the Transition Law came to be known as 'the small constitution'. After the Gal Amendment decision, most observers no longer consider the basic laws as being "unwritten" or informal constitutional law.harlan (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Like in many other cases, we come to the point where we have to agree upon definitions. What is a constitution? Is it simply a law which defines the state organs, or is there more to it? As far as I understand the concept of constitution, this is not a regular law, but a more rigid one which has precedence over regular law. If this definition is to follow, than Israel has never had a constitution. Neither the Transition Law nor the Basic Laws have precedence over regular legislation and the process of legislating Basic Law is practically the same as that of regular laws. DrorK (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Daniel Elazar's book 'The Constitution of the State of Israel 1996-5756' pulled together most of the formal written sources. He observed that: "Taken together, the eleven Basic Laws properly enacted by the Knesset and the amendments to them constitute a constitution by most standards. In comprehensiveness, they are not inferior to the original American Constitution of 1787 before the addition of the first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights) after ratification of the original document."

I liked your intro much better than the old one, but think the views of observers like Edelman, Sapir, and Maoz were still missing. Constructive development of the article requires that substantial points of view from reliable published sources, like those, get included. Whether or not they would agree on definitions (as you point out) is a separate matter. They are all speaking about a formal constitution or bill of rights. Since a reader can readily encounter references to the Israeli constitution, or bill of rights, they should be able to turn to Wikipedia for an overview or summary of the situation. harlan (talk) 10:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am not acquainted enough with the research literature, but still, there is a huge difference between the American constitution (for example) and the Israeli set of "basic laws". Amending a basic law, replacing it or even repealing it, is very easy. It is almost as easy as changing a regular law. I think the only limitation is a demand, recently introduced, that the change would be supported by at least 61 Knesset members (i.e. more than 50% of the parliament members, rather than a coincidental majority). Introducing an amendment to the US constitution is a long tedious process which secures the stability of the regime's guidelines. In Israel this kind of constitutional legislation is almost identical to the regular legislation process. Furthermore, some basic laws explicitly say that laws an ordinances that were valid before the enactment of the basic law will stay valid. This means that many legal arrangements are still valid and subject to the old juridic system of interpretation despite the enactment of new "basic laws". DrorK (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Shlomo Guberman, Deputy Attorney General (Legislation) wrote that the development of the law in Israel corresponded to the development of the legal status of the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel. His narrative begins after the establishment of the Knesset and Supreme Court, which regarded the Declaration as a political instrument to be used at the international level, but not as part of the law of the land. He mentions the attempts over the years to confer on the Declaration the status of law, and says they all failed until 1994 when the process culminated in amendments to the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty and the Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation stating that fundamental human rights shall be upheld in the spirit of the principles set forth in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel. He claims the Declaration then became the cornerstone of human rights in Israel and is now part of Israel's emerging constitution. see The Development of the Law in Israel: The First 50 Years

In the previous section I mentioned that Ariel Bendor (Faculty of Law, Haifa University) claimed that the prevailing master narrative which held that Israel does not have a formal constitution had a crucial influence on the interpretation given to Israel's founding documents. The Declaration was certainly one of those founding documents.

For example, Supreme Court Justice Elyakim Rubinstein wrote that 'Legislating the Declaration's principles into sections of the Basic Laws has elevated them to constitutional status. This is a major achievement.' see The Declaration of Independence as a Basic Document of the State of Israel, Israel Studies - Volume 3, Number 1, Spring 1998, pp. 195-210

The United Nations Department of Public Information published a brochure, DPI 2157 Rev 1, on the Question of Palestine. Chapter 2 THE PLAN OF PARTITION AND END OF THE BRITISH MANDATE states "The plan also set out the steps to be taken prior to independence. It dealt with the questions of citizenship, transit, the economic union and a declaration to be made by the provisional government of each proposed State regarding access to holy places and religious and minority rights. The Question of Palestine

Henry Cattan wrote that the application of Israel for admission to the United Nations had been delayed, in part, because several countries had objected that Israel had failed to make the required "Declaration", and was not in compliance with the terms regarding protection of minority rights and the Holy places pursuant to the terms of UN GAR 181(II). Israel's representative declared that only Israel had given the required Declaration. see The Palestine Question, Henry Cattan, page 86 and page 87.

Uri Davis wrote about the constitutional stipulations contained in UN GAR 181(II). He explained that the Constitutions of both the Jewish State and Arab State were to embody, under the terms of the said Plan, Chapters 1 and 2 of the Declaration provided for in section C of the Plan. This Declaration contained fundamental constitutional guarantees regarding holy places, religious buildings and sites, religious and minority rights, citizenship, international conventions, and financial obligations. see Citizenship and the State: A Comparative Study of Citizenship Legislation in Israel, Jordan, Palestine, Syria and Lebanon, By Uri Davis, Garnet & Ithaca Press, 1997, ISBN 0863722180, page 86

Aubrey Eban repeatedly declared that the rights stipulated in section C Declaration, chapters 1 and 2 of UN resolution 181(II) had been constitutionally embodied as the fundamental law of the state of Israel as required by that resolution. see for example his response to the Cuban delegate:

FIFTY-FIRST MEETING
Held at Lake Success, New York,on Monday, 9 May 1949. 3 p.m.
60. Application of Israel for admission to membership in the United Nations (A/818) (conclusion)

Extract beginning on page page 6 of 21, (page 346 of the original records)

Mr. EBAN (Israel) : Since the question of the representative of Cuba was formulated some days ago, it might be convenient if I were to repeat it. The representative of Cuba pointed out that part 1, section B, paragraph 10, sub-paragraphs(b) and (c), in the plan of partition with economic union, adopted by the General Assembly on 29 November 1947, requested the provisional Government of each State envisaged by that resolution to present formal declarations to the United Nations in accordance with those provisions.
The representative of Cuba asked whether the State of Israel had complied with that obligation and, if so, in what form and on what date. The representative of Cuba went on to inquire whether the undertakings contained in part 1, section B, paragraph 10, sub-paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e), and section C, chapters 1 and 2 of the said resolution, had been constitutionally embodied as the fundamental law of the state of Israel as required by that resolution.
The answer is as follows in presenting an affirmative answer to the question:
The detailed answer is as follows with reference to part 1, section B, paragraph 10, sub-paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) of the resolution of 29 November 1947. Sub-paragraph (a) requires each state a legislative body elected by universal sufferage and by secret ballot on the basis of proportional representation and an executive body responsible to the legislature.
Israel has established institutions in exact and precise accordance with those principles. The electorate consists of women as well as men voters, and the Arab community is represented in the legislative body by representatives of its own choice. The draft constitution is before the Constituent Assembly for early discussion and ratification. In the meantime the constitutional instruments, whereby the government of Israel is bound,are:

1. Its Declaration of Independence promulgated as law in the officiai gazette; ... ...With reference to sub-paragraph (d), all the civil rights therein mentioned are embodied in this draft constitution. Pending the promulgation of this constitution, they are embodied in the fundamental law of the State by virtue of the Declaration of Independence in part 2 of the Govemment’s programme ratified by the Knesseth on 8 March 1949.

see: 01/01/1949 :A/AC.24/SR.47 FORTY-SEVENTH MEETING, HELD AT LAKE SUCCESS, NEW YORK, ON FRIDAY, 6 MAY 1949 : [AD HOC POLITICAL COMMITTEE, GENERAL ASSEMBLY, 3RD SESSION], 01/01/1949 : A/AC.24/SR.48 FORTY-EIGHTH MEETING, HELD AT LAKE SUCCESS, NEW YORK, ON SATURDAY, 7 MAY 1949 : [AD HOC POLITICAL COMMITTEE, GENERAL ASSEMBLY, 3RD SESSION], 01/01/1949 :A/AC.24/SR.50 FIFTIETH MEETING, HELD AT LAKE SUCCESS, NEW YORK, ON MONDAY, 9 MAY 1949: [AD HOC POLITICAL COMMITTEE, GENERAL ASSEMBLY, 3RD SESSION], and 01/01/1949 :A/AC.24/SR.51 FIFTY-FIRST MEETING, HELD AT LAKE SUCCESS, NEW YORK, ON MONDAY, 9 MAY 1949 :[AD HOC POLITICAL COMMITTEE, GENERAL ASSEMBLY, 3RD SESSION] in the United Nations Online Documents System

The Declaration appeared on page 3 of the "Laws of the State of Israel", Volume 1, (1948).

Whatever your private views might be, the Declaration is part of the constitutional law of Israel. harlan (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Abba Eben statement at the UN headquarters is important, but it has no juridical or legislative power. Also, the fact that the declaration was published in the official gazette doesn't mean it is part of the Israeli code of laws. All statutes and ordinances are published in the official gazette (Reshumot), but not every item published in the official gazette is part of the law. It is also worth mentioning that the declaration itself talks about a constitution that should be formulated and adopted until October 1948. In practice, such a constitution was never adopted, but if the declaration was supposed to be a sort of constitution, such a paragraph would not have been written. The Israeli supreme court ruled in 1953 (The Kol Haam affair) that the Declaration of Independence is not a constitutional law or part of the legal system, and yet the law should be interpreted in the spirit of its words. In 1971 the Israeli supreme court ruled that when a law approved by the Knesset contradicts the Declaration of Independence, the law is valid and must be followed. In several other cases the supreme court referred to Declaration of Independence as a source of interpretation, but never as a legally binding document. This situation has somewhat changed in 1994, when the Knesset approved two basic laws saying that the state must honor civil rights in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. By saying this, the Knesset gave a sort of legal status to the Declaration, and yet the Knesset didn't give the Declaration a status of a law. DrorK (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

In fact, the minority and religious rights section of UN GA Res 181(II) was a Minority Rights Protection Plan under the guarantee of the United Nations. see E/CN.4/367, 7 April 1950, Chapter III "United Nations Charter and Treaties Concluded After the War, and Justifications of Minority Protection in International Law, Athanasia Spiliopoulou Akermark, see Chapter 7 Minority Protections in the United Nations, 7.1 The Validity of Undertakings Concerning Minorities After The Second World War, page 122.

Self-determination and National Minorities, Oxford Monographs in International Law, Thomas D. Musgrave, Oxford University Press, 1997, ISBN 0198298986 lists UN GAR 181(II) in its Table of Treaties, on Page xxxviii.

A declaration made before the Assembly was tantamount to a treaty and it is the customary way of acknowledging the international nature of minority rights undertakings according to a longstanding custom of international law. See for example International Human Rights in Context, Henry J. Steiner, Philip Alston, Ryan Goodman, Oxford University Press US, 2008, ISBN 019927942X, page 100. Mr Eban specifically waived Israel's domestic jurisdiction under para 2(7) of the Charter in this matter. Not that it matters much, Judge Sir Hersch Lauterpacht pointed out the Court's determination to discourage the evasion of these particular international obligations, and its repeated affirmation of "the self-evident principle of international law that a State cannot invoke its municipal law as the reason for the non-fulfillment of its international obligations." see The Development of International Law by the International Court, Hersch Lauterpacht, page 262

The Declaration of the Establishment of the State had been a signed legal document and its existence was promulgated in the state Gazette. The fact that it had been made in pursuance of the UN resolution was confirmed in a cable, and in the letter from Foreign Secretary Shertok. The cable and letter had been addressed to the Secretariat, the latter requesting membership in the UN. The declarations made by Mr Eban before the Assembly are specifically mentioned in the resolution admitting Israel to the UN. So you see, Mr. Eban's statement did have juridical and legal effects.

An international obligation remains valid so long as there is no cause for its extinction such as the disappearance of the object of the obligation. Israel still has large religious and ethnic minority populations. harlan (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

There's a new stub at this title. As a passing stub-sorter I tried to move it to Constitution of Israel to match other entries at Constitution (disambiguation), but couldn't because that title is already occupied by a redirect to here. At this point I back out of sensitive areas and leave it to others to sort this out. Over to you. PamD 07:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

But for now I've addd links to both from the dab page. PamD 07:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Is there a source for religious Jews vetoing it?

There is a discussion about this history on the Israel Archive website (here: http://israelsdocuments.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/who-needs-constitution.html). And in short, it didn't happen because the government was busy. Unchartered (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've taken the liberty of editing it out, unless someone has a source. Unchartered (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

>> New Israeli law kills minority representation(Lihaas (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)).Reply

The referendum applies only to Israel's sovereign or annexed territory (1949 armistice, Golan Heights, East Jerusalem... all of them annexed to Israel), not all controlled territory. For example, it doesn't apply to parts of the West Bank because it was never annexed. Check this source:

The legislation does not apply to a treaty conceding parts of the West Bank, but it does apply to east Jerusalem, the Golan and anything within the 1949 armistice lines.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 03:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

We can't state that Israel has soveriegnty over parts of Palestine and Syria. Sepsis II (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

What we need to so is state what the law stare, no more, no less. Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 04:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

First of all, Palestine is the Roman name for the Land of Israel or Judea. Israel was established in Palestine. Second, read the source. Sovereign territory is annexed territory, where civil law applies. The Golan Heights and East Jerusalem were annexed and they belong to Israel's sovereign territory despite the fact that Syria and Jordan controlled those territories before. The JP source confirms it, and the referendum says so. Your edit is false because territory controlled by Israel includes non-annexed territory like the West Bank, which is not part of this referendum, as the source says. Again, read it and stop making disruptive editing.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 04:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I deleted Basic Laws Index Full Text since it's out of date and its links are not to the Knesset site. I deleted Selection of articles for legal consumers in Israel since it doesn't lead directly to any laws. Mcljlm (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC) I deleted Constitution on the Jewish Virtual Library since its text is identical to that on the Knesset website, which is stated as its source. Mcljlm (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

hi, i am from israel and i saw your page about Basic laws. it says: "are 14 constitutional laws of the State of Israel" i think you should repharse that as: " Basic Law are replacement to constitution". sure, you are not wrong about Basic law be "above" regular laws, by meaning that the superme court of israel can decline law that contradict to Basic law, but this isnt constitution laws. the Basic laws replace constitution but they arent consider as constitution. so i think you should write: "are 14 laws that replace constitutional laws of State of Israel". sure, according to the compormise that happened in 1950... the Basic Law was suppose to be the base for constitution, but until this day- it was never approved by the "kneeset (כנסת)" and the state contiue with the "status quo"

sorry about my English. this isnt my native language. hope you understand what i was trying to say. and i hope you will change the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.138.167.136 (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

HRwatcher, ZevFarkas, Woohookitty or Miladragon3 or another editor. Perhaps someone could add how it's decided that proposed legislation should be a Basic Law. Mcljlm (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Under "The Military" the Israeli Defense Force is named "The Israeli Occupation Force." This is a politically-motivated misnomer that should be corrected. 104.179.26.6 (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Corrected. IDF is actually short for Israel Defense Forces. Mcljlm (talk) 03:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

The latest edit^[1] Williamallener shows you corrected the Occupation to Defense but as the previous edit^[2] shows I also corrected that. Why doesn't the History^[3] show the change back to the incorrect word? Mcljlm (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply