Yossi Schwartz ISL (RCIT section in Israel/Occupied Palestine), 29.12.2024
The Zionist state cannot have a constitution because, being an apartheid state, it cannot guarantee equal rights to the Arab Palestinian citizens and, of course, not to the Palestinians under the 1967 occupation.
When Israel proclaimed independence in 1948, there was an assumption that it would soon have its constitution in the form of a consolidated legal act. It became apparent early on that reaching any consensus on the document’s text would be challenging. This realization led to the endorsement of a rule in 1950, stipulating that the constitution would be adopted “piece by piece.” The Knesset was to pass subsequent chapters as separate acts, and one day, they would make up the Israeli constitution. This legislative process is still ongoing. Each chapter is called the Basic Law. Currently, there are fourteen of them. The last one was adopted in 2018. This is the basic law: Israel – the nation-state of the Jewish people.
Originally adopted in 5778-2018, It states:
“A The Land of Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish People, in which the State of Israel was established.
B The State of Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish People in which it realizes its natural, cultural, religious and historical right to self-determination.
C The realization of the right to national self determination in the State of Israel is exclusive to the Jewish People” [i]
You might ask if the Basic Laws of Israel have a higher normative status than other regular laws. Formally, they don’t—they are voted through with a majority of votes, and a qualified majority isn’t required for amendments. However, in 1995, the Supreme Court worked out an interpretation under which the Basic Laws have higher precedence over other legal acts; therefore, every newly enacted law must be congruous with the Basic Laws. No one can change the old laws. The Supreme Court ruled that it holds the authority to erase new laws contradicting basic laws. The doctrine has not been accepted by many Israeli politicians, who perceived the Court’s decision as an act of usurpation. Recent mass protests in Israel against the intentions of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to curb the Supreme Court’s influence stem directly from the coming to power of political forces eager to limit the Court’s authority.
The Zionists claim that the lack of a constitution does not prevent Israel from being the only democracy in the Middle East, a special kind of democracy.
The Zionists will reply to the question: Why is there no written constitution? “Democracy does not require a constitution. The proof is that GB does not have a constitution, and it is a great democracy.”
Why does GB not have a constitution?
One explanation is that “the country has been too stable for too long. The governing elites of many European nations, such as France and Germany, have been forced to draw up constitutions in response to popular revolt.
Great Britain, by contrast, remained free of the revolutionary fervor that swept much of the Continent in the 19th century. As a result, this country’s democracy has been reformed incrementally over centuries rather than in one big bang. For younger countries, including the United States and Australia, codifying their citizens’ rights and political systems was essential to independence. Ironically, several based their written constitutions on Britain’s unwritten version.” [ii]
In addition, England had slavery, and many people were colonized without legal equal rights. South Africa did not have a constitution until the end of the apartheid.
“The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, was approved by the Constitutional Court (CC) on 4 December 1996 and took effect on 4 February 1997. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. No other law or government action can supersede its provisions”.[iii]
Toward the 1980s, there were attempts to have a racist constitution in S.A.:
“Before P W Botha came to power in 1978, the government of John Vorster had begun a process for constitutional reforms. A commission headed by Erica Theron was appointed to improve the affairs of colored people in South Africa. The Theron Commission (1977) argued that the Westminster system was an obstacle to good governance in a multicultural and plural society like South Africa as it caused political conflict and cultural dominance by one group. The report called for the replacement of the system. However, the commission did not have a problem with the concept of racial segregation or laws like the Group Areas Act that forced different race groups to live in separate designated zones. As a result, the effect of the recommendations was limited because they did not question apartheid.
When Botha came to power, he created a parliamentary select committee to look at the reforms proposed by the Theron Commission, which were now gazetted as the Constitutional Bills. On 08 May 1980, the select committee tabled a report suggesting the creation of a tri-cameral or three-tier parliament to include the participation of Coloured and Indian people and exclude Black people. The proposal maintained the central control of the white minority in the South African government as the proposed inclusion of other races was not equal to the full representation carried by white members. Despite this, the Conservative Party opposed the reforms, believing they undermined apartheid. The Progressive Federal Party (PFP), a parliamentary opposition party against apartheid, also opposed these reforms, convinced that they would deepen hostilities with the Black people who were excluded. The PFP was not pleased with the constitutional reform because they also wanted a bill of rights protecting individual freedoms against state abuse.
The government excluded the Bill of Rights from the final draft of the Constitution because it required lifting repressive laws such as the Internal Security Act of 1972. The Internal Security Act gave police powers to arrest and detain people without trial for ninety days. With its general claim that no man shall be denied a fair trial for an unreasonably long time, the Bill of Rights would have made this act unconstitutional or challenging to maintain. The government also refused to include the Bill of Rights, arguing that South Africa is made up of racial and ethnic communities, not individuals. As a result, they preferred a constitutional reform that would give autonomy to different racial groups. However, this autonomy was not equal. Whites still had control of the country, with coloreds and Indians serving only a token role.
In reaction to criticism that he had no mandate to pursue these reforms, Botha proposed a Referendum in which White people could vote on their position regarding the Tricameral Parliament. On 2 November 1983, about seventy percent of white people voted in favour of the reforms. The outcome of this was the establishment of a tri-cameral parliament with an executive president. The position of Prime Minister created by the South African Act of 1909 was abolished. The abolishment of the Prime Minister’s position and its replacement with the executive presidency created a compelling position for one person and it weakened the parliament” [iv]
At the end, Racist SA passed Act 110 of 1983 as a form of racist constitution:
“The Tricameral parliament drafted the Indian and Coloured communities into the National parliament without any real sharing of political power or decision-making. These race groups were allocated a separate tier from the Houses from the House of Assembly that represented Whites. The House of Delegates was created for Indians and a House of Representatives for Coloureds. There was an angry reaction to the proposal from those who did not support the Government and from within the National Party. A breakaway group of those strongly opposed to racial integration formed the Conservative Party. The Indian and Coloured community also refused to participate in a segregated national parliament where the House of Assembly had more powers. African people were excluded from these reforms. National Statutory Council was established to look into the affairs of the African people. This statutory council was solely in the hands of the president himself. However, black people rejected it.”
It is known that Ben Gurion, the first PM of Israel, refused to recognize borders for Israel. For him, Israel should expand its territory in any war and occupation of Arab lands. There is a myth that Ben-Gurion opposed the annexation of the West Bank. In his last speech in April 1973 he said: “The Six-Day War created new trends, or what seem to be new ones: [of] lovers or seekers of peace and [lovers of possessing] the whole Land of Israel. I don’t know to which of them I belong. I was for both things all my life. . . . As long as these two things, peace and the whole Land of Israel, were attainable and possible, I supported them wholeheartedly, and therefore, I don’t see any contradiction between these two things. It’s not [an issue of] two parties but [of] two different situations” [v]
Rosen, who was the first Minister of law and who participated in writing the statement of the declaration of the Zionist state, asked Ben Gurion whether the Declaration of Independence should not recognize the borders of Israel. Ben Gurion told him like the US, we will expand time and again with every war.
“Ben-Gurion read the Declaration of Independence at a festive meeting of the People’s Council, held on Friday, May 14, 1948, at the Tel Aviv Museum building on Rothschild Boulevard. A few hours earlier, various parties were still trying to change some of its clauses. Some asked that the declaration determine the country’s borders. Ben-Gurion vehemently opposed this, hoping that the war would expand the territories granted to the state in a 1947 UN resolution, as indeed happened. Meir Willner of the Communist Party sought to condemn the colonialism of the Mandate government, and Aharon Zisling (Mapam) objected to the mention of Israel’s production and redemption” in the declaration’s wording. All the reservations were rejected, but an amendment was introduced declaring that there would be freedom of language in the new state. Ultimately, the text was approved unanimously” [vi]
Since 1948, Israel has expanded its territory, and now it wants to annex the North of Gaza, where it commits genocide and ethnic cleansing. Possibly South Lebanon and South Syria – Quneitra.
Down with the Zionist apartheid state!
For Palestine, red and free from the river to the sea!
Endnotes:
[i]/https://www.adalah.org/uploads/uploads/Final_2_pager_on_the_JNSL_27.11.2018%20.pdf
[ii] https://holistic.news/en/israel-a-country-with-no-fixed-borders-and-an-incomplete-constitution/
[iii] hhttps://www.sahistory.org.za/article/constitution-republic-south-africa-act-110-1983ttps://www.gov.za/documents/constitution/constitution-republic-south-africa-04-feb-1997
[iv] https://holistic.news/en/israel-a-country-with-no-fixed-borders-and-an-incomplete-constitution/
[v] https://mosaicmagazine.com/response/israel-zionism/2018/04/ben-gurions-pragmatic-approach-to-borders/
[vi] https://www.lib.cet.ac.il/pages/item.asp?item=7187&kwd=1258