Livni: 'Jewish State' Second to Democracy

[Lipush]

Israel must create a constitution – even if the minority groups it is meant to defend do not want one, Justice Minister Tzipi Livni said Tuesday. Israel's status as a Jewish state is second to its status as a democracy, she argued.

Livni spoke at the Knesset’s Constitution, Law and Justice Committee.

“The hope was to agree on a constitution. But I don’t think we can reach an agreement,” she told the committee.

“A constitution would be meant to protect minority rights, but bizarrely, it is the hareidi-religious and Arab minorities that oppose it,” she continued. “That’s a mistake on their part.”

Livni: 'Jewish State' Second to Democracy - Inside Israel - News - Israel National News

------

 

[georgephillip]

"If a constitution is made, she said, its first clause should be the Right of Return, which outlines the right of Jews and their children and grandchildren to receive Israeli citizenship and residency."

Does that qualify as democratic or Jewish, and how soon can we expect the creeping annexation of Area C after the Jew First Constitution becomes law?

Livni: 'Jewish State' Second to Democracy - Inside Israel - News - Israel National News

 

[Lipush]

There will be no constitution.

She's delusional.

 

[HistoryBefore67]

Livni is a useful idiot, minus the usefulness.

 

[Lipush]

Livni is a useful idiot, minus the usefulness.

Ha! true

 

[Coyote]

I'm not that familiar with Israeli politics, so...

I assumed that Israel has a constitution - they don't?

And, second - what's so bad about this?

From the article:

“A constitution would be meant to protect minority rights, but bizarrely, it is the hareidi-religious and Arab minorities that oppose it,” she continued. “That’s a mistake on their part.”

Surely this wouuld be a good thing wouldn't it? One of the biggest problems about a number of newly emergent democracies is they do NOT protect minority rights.

Livni noted the religious-secular divide regarding legal authority in Israel. “In practice, each person decides his own constitution… There is a battle over our source of authority, is it the constitution and law, with the courts clarifying its meaning? Or is it based in halakha [Jewish law] and rabbis clarifying its meaning?”

“I’m on the side of the constitution and the courts,” she continued. “Even if I sometimes disagree with a particular verdict… I don’t accept the opinion that the State of Israel is first and foremost a Jewish state, and a democratic regime.”

Again - this seems like it would be a good thing - religion and government should not be intertwined, it usually bodes badly for those who are not of the dominant religion.

If a constitution is made, she said, its first clause should be the Right of Return, which outlines the right of Jews and their children and grandchildren to receive Israeli citizenship and residency.

Again - this seems like a good thing, and would maintain the premise that Israel can be both a Jewish nation and a democracy where rights for all it's citizens are upheld in a constitution.

 

[Lipush]

Well, I study law, and even though constitutional debate was never my department (I almost fell asleep in that course, seriously), let me just say this, hopefully it will become clear.

The Knesset is the authorized system to bring out bills and laws, nowdays.

*Before* 1948, the 'authority', for the lack of a better word, to do so (Even with the British occupation) was "the people's council".

Once the independence war was over, it was decided that "The people's council" will become the Knesset of the people ('Knesset' in Hebrew means "Gathering of men")

Later on it was decided that the laws and bills will be broguht by the Knesset (leter to be called that way), and any authority will be passed from one Knesset to the following one after that.

It was decided not long after that the Knesset shall adopt the 22th Article of "The King's Order-in-Council". It was a clause written by the British people stating that "The law that was (Turkish) is the law that stays". it then turned out to be the 11th Article lf "The basic's law" draft.

It took some decades for the understandment to take that the British law, at more than a few cases, cannot completely go hand in hand with the Hebrew law and the Jewish spirit, so at some point, this thinking has faded.

However, that was not enough to have laws by the Knesset, and people start talking about constitution, as well.

A thinking developed, stating that the Knesset has the authority to both set laws, "normal laws", and to set laws with special "immunity" which will creat a future constitution.

However, it was not possible to create those laws, because the differences between different groups in Israel was so high. A judge called Harari brough up the decition, which was accepted by all, saying that the Knesset will decide on a constitution however and whenever it wills.

In other words, Harari said "There will be no consistution, but we don't say it directly and we give the option for each and every person to see this decision however they want".

It is still known today that the Harari decision is all smoke and mirrors, but shh, ya didn't hear it from me.

Anyway, constitution is a no-no, but it was needed to have laws that are strong enough to make a constitution, and even though we didn't agree on anything, it was agreed, finally, on 11 laws, in Israel known as "The Basic Laws", that are what is called "Israeli constitution" but they are not really.

9 of them talk about the state's wings and institutions ("The government Basic Law", "The Knesset Basic Law", "The Military Basic Law" etc) and only 2 of them speak about human rights-

"The basic law of Human Dignity and Liberty" and "Freedom of Occupation (Labor)"

--------

Hope it helps understanding.

(Can't believe I rememebered that shit)

 

[Lipush]

For the record, I am all in favor of protecting minority's rights, I believe that is a true character of a democracy.

But Livni talking about constitutional terms? She's dreaming. No one will agree to it. The status quo was clear and it best if it stays just like how it is, what do we need a constitution for, anyways?

Like we're lacking things to fight over?

 

[Lipush]

Religion and government are already mixed, I don't see how anyone can split them now. Well, good luck with that.

 

[Coyote]

Well, I study law, and even though constitutional debate was never my department (I almost fell asleep in that course, seriously), let me just say this, hopefully it will become clear.

The Knesset is the authorized system to bring out bills and laws, nowdays.

*Before* 1948, the 'authority', for the lack of a better word, to do so (Even with the British occupation) was "the people's council".

Once the independence war was over, it was decided that "The people's council" will become the Knesset of the people ('Knesset' in Hebrew means "Gathering of men")

Later on it was decided that the laws and bills will be broguht by the Knesset (leter to be called that way), and any authority will be passed from one Knesset to the following one after that.

It was decided not long after that the Knesset shall adopt the 22th Article of "The King's Order-in-Council". It was a clause written by the British people stating that "The law that was (Turkish) is the law that stays". it then turned out to be the 11th Article lf "The basic's law" draft.

It took some decades for the understandment to take that the British law, at more than a few cases, cannot completely go hand in hand with the Hebrew law and the Jewish spirit, so at some point, this thinking has faded.

However, that was not enough to have laws by the Knesset, and people start talking about constitution, as well.

A thinking developed, stating that the Knesset has the authority to both set laws, "normal laws", and to set laws with special "immunity" which will creat a future constitution.

However, it was not possible to create those laws, because the differences between different groups in Israel was so high. A judge called Harari brough up the decition, which was accepted by all, saying that the Knesset will decide on a constitution however and whenever it wills.

In other words, Harari said "There will be no consistution, but we don't say it directly and we give the option for each and every person to see this decision however they want".

It is still known today that the Harari decision is all smoke and mirrors, but shh, ya didn't hear it from me.

Anyway, constitution is a no-no, but it was needed to have laws that are strong enough to make a constitution, and even though we didn't agree on anything, it was agreed, finally, on 11 laws, in Israel known as "The Basic Laws", that are what is called "Israeli constitution" but they are not really.

9 of them talk about the state's wings and institutions ("The government Basic Law", "The Knesset Basic Law", "The Military Basic Law" etc) and only 2 of them speak about human rights-

"The basic law of Human Dignity and Liberty" and "Freedom of Occupation (Labor)"

--------

Hope it helps understanding.

(Can't believe I rememebered that shit)

Thank you so much - that does help and helps me understand the article you posted.

You surely would have passed a pop quiz

 

[Lipush]

LOL. thanks

 

[Lipush]

You can find more details here-

Basic Laws of Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know it's boring, but many things concerning "The constitutional revolution" in Israel (Known as setting the "Basic Laws" in 1992) pointed on a drastic changes concerning protecting civil rights in Israel.

Such as in the PS'D Tzemach Vs. Minister of security, that was before 1992, a man tried to address the supreme court against the decision to use his house for security needs, he based his appeal on "the declaration of independence" protecting the people and justice values, but the declaration was not as a law or a bill. after 1992, the law of dignity and freedom was protected, so in that case he would have probably won the conflict.

There are many things concerning those issues, but that's a long boring story.

 

[Coyote]

Religion and government are already mixed, I don't see how anyone can split them now. Well, good luck with that.

From an American perspective - I totally oppose the mixing of religion and government, but I know there are others who believe it can be done without disenfranchising anyone. That's an ongoing debate in some of the Muslim countries as well - can Islam be compatible with a democracy.

Time will tell and maybe Israel will offer an example of how it could work.

 

[Lipush]

I wouldn't bet on it

On some aspects I more than agree.

For example, concerning marriage and divorce, the Rabbanut has the only word. There are no civil marriage or divorce in Israel, and at many times they are influenced by foreign interests. That's why I believe that some drastic changes are in need.

However, not too dramatic changes, because that is also not that good.