במקום חוק הלאום: חוק-יסוד: מדינת ישראל - מדינה יהודית ודמוקרטית Replacing the Nation-State Law with Basic Law: The State of Israel - a Jewish and Democratic State

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hillel Sommer
2021 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-285
Author(s):  
Mohammed S Wattad

Article 4 of the Nation State Law (NSL), entitled ‘Languages’, stipulates that Hebrew is the language of the state (Article 4(a)); the Arabic language has a special status in the state and regulating the use of Arabic in or by state institutions will be set in law (Article 4(b)); and this clause does not harm the status given to the Arabic language before the law came into effect (Article 4(c), the ‘validity of laws’ clause). The question is whether, how, and to what extent these provisions hinder the present legal status of the Arabic language in Israel. The legal status of Arabic had never been determined decisively before enactment of the NSL. The High Court of Israel has always been divided on this matter, particularly between judges who perceived Arabic as an official language and judges who deemed it solely as having been granted its acknowledged ‘special legal status’. Furthermore, the judges who perceived Arabic as an official language of the state were also in dispute among themselves as to the meaning, the scope and the consequences of such recognition. Considering these circumstances, my view is that the NSL perpetuates the legal status of Arabic as prescribed in the laws and case law that already existed, and that the validity of laws clause, coupled with the special status granted to Arabic in a basic law, suggests that the door is still open for the Court to further endorse the legal status of Arabic in Israel.


1999 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 575-591 ◽  
Author(s):  
Otto Lagodny

Since 1992, the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty has been in force in Israel. Its purpose according to sec. 1 is: “to protect human dignity and liberty, in order to anchor in a Basic Law the values of the state of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state”. In sec. 2 and subsec. it guarantees: preservation of life, body and dignity (sec. 2); protection of property (sec. 3); protection of life, body and dignity (sec. 4); personal liberty (sec. 5); leaving and entering Israel (sec. 6) and privacy (sec. 7). The guarantees in sec. 2 and subs. might thus be seen as a concretization of art. 1. Here we have already an interesting parallel to constitutional theory in Germany. Human dignity is the article with which our constitution begins. The following guarantees may be seen — asDürigalready pointed out in the 1950's — as an emanation of human dignity with its main aspects of freedom/liberty (Art. 2 German Basic Law [GBL]) and of equality (Art. 3 GBL).


AUC IURIDICA ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 67 (3) ◽  
pp. 129-152
Author(s):  
Veronika d'Evereux

The New Israeli Basic Law that was adopted in 2018 called “Israel – the Nation State of the Jewish People” divided the Israeli society. Part of the inhabitants accepted this law with enthusiasm because of its emphasis on the reasons why the State of Israel was established. On the contrary, the more secular part of Israeli society, as well as the minority citizens, strongly objected to this law and described it as an unjust disregard of the non-Jewish citizens, an act of racial discrimination or even an apartheid. The aim of this paper is mainly to examine selected provisions of this law, i.e., the provisions related to the Israeli citizens, under public international law and find out to what extent these legal provisions are in accordance with or in contrary to international law.


1997 ◽  
Vol 31 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 3-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aharon Barak

In March 1992, Israel underwent a Constitutional Revolution. In March 1992, two new Basic Laws were passed: Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation and Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. Under these new Basic Laws, several human rights — among them Dignity, Liberty, Mobility, Privacy, Property — acquired a constitutional force above the regular statutes. Most of these rights were already protected, prior to the constitutionalization. While a few were protected by the legislator, most were protected by the case law of the Supreme Court, developed by some of our greatest judges since the establishment of the State. The main difference made by the Basic Laws is the strengthening of the normative value of these rights. A regular Knesset (Parliamentary) statute can no longer infringe upon these rights, unless it fulfils the requirements of the Basic Laws (the ‘limitation clause’) namely, it befits the values of the State of Israel, it was passed for a worthy purpose and the harm caused to the constitutional Human Right is proportional to the purpose. Thus, we became a constitutional democracy.


2010 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 590-610
Author(s):  
Haim Sandberg

A fairly common premise in academic research about Israel is that the State of Israel has expropriated large tracts of land from Arabs, whether citizens or Palestinian refugees. This premise does not distinguish between the taking of property, which was expropriated from Arab refugees during the War of Independence, and the expropriation of land during the State's “regular course of business.” Blurring the distinction between land belonging to refugees and land belonging to citizens creates the impression that the State of Israel has expropriated large tracts of land as a regular “course of business.” This research isolates and clarifies the extent of “regular” expropriations on the national level according to the Lands (Acquisition for Public Purposes) Ordinance 1943—the main and permanent tool for large scale expropriations in Israel It shows that the common premise about expropriation of Arab citizens ‘land is highly exaggerated. The Arab population's share in the burden of expropriation was fairly small in absolute terms and is not significantly greater than the Jewish population's share.While a quantitative analysis of the expropriations cannot in itself produce a conclusion about harmful and unjustified influences of the expropriations on Arab citizens, a quantitative analysis of each expropriation may produce information on which to make such a conclusion. Moreover, arguing against all expropriation of lands—which actually results in the transfer of resources from Arabs to Jews, irrespective of its scope and circumstances—may entail an a priori negation of Israel's right to use land resources and police powers to answer real public needs of the Jewish majority and can entail an a priori negation of the nature of Israel as a Jewish and democratic State—rather than a legitimate criticism on the merits of each expropriation.


2012 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yehiel S. Kaplan

In the State of Israel, Rabbinical courts are granted sole jurisdiction in the adjudication of marriage and divorce of Jews. In these courts, the husband presents the divorce writ of Jews, the get, to his wife on the occasion of their divorce at the end of the adjudication process. When Jews sue for divorce in Rabbinical courts, the courts occasionally determine that the man should grant his wife a get or that the wife should accept the get granted by her husband. Sometimes one spouse disobeys the ruling. Although the Rabbinical courts occasionally impose sanctions in an attempt to enforce divorce judgments, they are generally reluctant to do so. The implementation of inappropriate measures can lead to the conclusion that a given divorce is in fact a legally ineffectual coerced divorce. Consequently, the Jewish courts occasionally delay the imposition of these sanctions out of concern that inappropriate coercive measures invalidate the get, rendering the couple still legally married. The Supreme Court of Israel has ruled, though, that the Rabbinical courts in Israel should act in light of the constitutional principles in Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom. However, the Supreme Court of Israel has not clearly or specifically addressed the balance between the rights and obligations of the husband and wife in the process of enforcing divorce judgments, neither before nor after the enactment of the of the two important constitutional Basic Laws enacted in 1992. A detailed policy analysis of the sanctions against recalcitrant spouses in Rabbinical courts in Israel—in light of the principles of Jewish and constitutional law in the country—has not yet been undertaken. The aim of this essay is therefore to present the appropriate formula pertaining to the imposition of sanctions against recalcitrant spouses given the principles of Jewish and constitutional law. The formula is presented in light of constitutional law in Israel. However, it is also applicable in other countries with similar constitutional legislation, such as Canada, where legislation sometimes allows for the civil enforcement of Jewish divorce.


2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Hüseyin Mercan

The Palestine question is among the most important and longstanding conflicts in the world. A lasting solution could not be found and problems have multiplied after the foundation of the State of Israel in 1948, mainly because the sovereignty of the Palestinian people has been disregarded. Though the conflict includes complex issues such as the legal status of Jerusalem, the refugees’ right to return to their ancestral lands and the rapid increase in Jewish settlements; the root of the problem is the lack of an equal sovereign rights approach for both sides. The Palestine issue has been rendered more and more tragic over the years as Israel does not permit the Palestine Authority to exercise its sovereign rights in its own lands and the international community refrains from imposing sanctions on Israel despite its continuous violations of international law and UN (United Nations) resolutions. Especially as a result of Israel’s recent policies towards expanding its sovereignty claims over the entire Palestinian territory, an even darker period seems to cloud Palestine’s sovereignty in the near future. This study claims that the source of the longstanding Israel-Palestine conflict is the inequality in exercising sovereign rights between the two parties and discusses how Israel’s expansionist activities may shape the Palestine issue in the forthcoming years. Furthermore, the study scrutinizes how the “Jewish Nation State Basic Law” – that was recently approved by the Israeli parliament – will sabotage the ongoing search for peaceful solutions and it may destroy all hopes for establishing a lasting peace between the two peoples in the foreseeable future. 


Author(s):  
Tomas Borovinsky

In the present paper we intend to rethink the “Jewish question”, in the context of religion’s secularization and the modern nation-state crisis, in Hannah Arendt’s political thought. She writes, on the other hand, in and over the decline of modern nation-states that expel and denationalize both foreign citizens and their own depending on the case. She also thinks as a Jew from birth who suffers persecutions and particularly theorizes on her Jew condition and the future of Judaism before and after the creation of the State of Israel. As we will see during this paper we can identify these three issues all together, particularly in the Zionist experience: modern secularization, decline of the nation-state and the “Jewish question”. And it is from these intertwined elements that we can draw a critical thinking for a politics of pluralism.


2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 7-20
Author(s):  
Terence M. Garrett

Immanuel Kant’s language and concept of foedus pacificum (league of peace) combined with his call for a spirit of trade promised a prescription for world peace—“seeking to end all wars forever.” Nation-state level cooperation between liberal democracies has borne out Kant’s analysis to some effect. A consequence of the twin pursuits of foedus pacificum and spirit of trade has ironically resulted in the exploitation of society. Today’s international corporations adversely affect public policies ostensibly designed to protect citizens through an anti-democratic market-based ideology within the State—as seen through the lenses of Foucauldian post-structural theory and Debord’s society of the spectacle. The author proposes that globalist-corporatist control of governing apparatuses is now exposed for its authoritarian tendencies. This action could result in the ultimate destruction of the representative democratic state with the onset of neoliberalism and authoritarianism.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document