Boris Yaro’s photograph of Robert F. Kennedy lying wounded


File:Rfk assassination.jpg

Boris Yaro’s photograph of Robert F. Kennedy lying wounded on the floor immediately after the shooting. Kneeling beside him is 17-year-old Juan Romero,[1] who was shaking Kennedy’s hand when Sirhan Sirhan fired the shots.
Location Ambassador HotelLos Angeles,CaliforniaUSA
Coordinates 34°03′35″N 118°17′50″WCoordinates34°03′35″N 118°17′50″W
Date June 5, 1968
12:15 a.m. (Pacific Time Zone)
Target Robert F. Kennedy
Weapon(s) .22 caliber Iver-Johnson
Deaths 1
Injured (non-fatal) 5
Perpetrator Sirhan Sirhan




Photographer Peter Hegre did the whole world a favour when he decided to upload a set of photos of his wife in 2012. A talented yoga instructor, Hegre got her to pose in some of her favourite positions in a tasteful display of talent. Not a single bit ostentatious, the photos are a beautiful tribute to the art of yoga and also a testament to the benefits it can bring. Have a look for yourself.


Some Epic Photography


The photo was taken by Harry Burnett at Cal Tech in Pasadena where Albert Einstein was teaching. Einstein saw the puppet perform at the Teato Torito and was quite amused. He reached into his jacket’s breast pocket, pulled out a letter and crumpled it up. Speaking in German, he said, “The puppet wasn’t fat enough!” He laughed and stuffed the crumpled letter up under the smock to give the puppet a fatter belly.

The Beatles meet Muhammad Ali.

Stalin is captured in this photograph by Lt. Gen. Nikolai Vlasik, the Soviet dictator’s bodyguard. Vlasik’s off-the-record photos of Stalin caused a sensation in the early 1960s when an enterprising Soviet journalist spirited some out, selling them to newspapers and magazines worldwide.

Bill (Clinton) & Hillary playing volleyball in Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA. 1975

Archduke Franz Ferdinand with his wife on the day they were assassinated by Gavrilo Princip. Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina (June 28, 1914). These assassinations were a contributing factor to the start of World War I.

106-year old Armenian woman protecting her home with an AK-47. 1990.

Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein at the Bohr-Einstein debates over quantum mechanics.

Howard Hughes inside of the H-4 Hercules, more widely known as the “Spruce Goose”. At the time, it was the largest airplane ever created. 

The first photo upon discovery of Machu Picchu, 1912.

Bombs dropped on Kobe, Japan (1945) 

Hiroshima – Before and After (1945) 

Joseph and Magda Goebbels on their wedding day. Best man- Adolf Hitler (1931)

Mark Twain inside the laboratory of Nikola Tesla (1894) 

Yuri Gagarin, first man in space (1961) 

Helen Keller Meeting Charlie Chaplin



The Royal Photo Opportunity Gets Misrailed


Will Prince George Be Photographed Down Under?

Starving the press of pictures of Prince George and smuggling him in and out of royal boltholes may ultimately prove counterproductive for William and Kate.
When Prince William was born, back in the 1980s, the Royal Family and the British press were, for the most part happily, in bed with each other.Young Diana, guided by a now-forgotten breed of royal press secretary who embraced the royal press pack and counted many of the reporters as personal friends, was willing, perhaps naïvely, to allow the press frequent opportunities to photograph her young son in a variety of personal situations.

William was born in June 1982, and first photographed (after the hospital departure) at his christening in August, a set of pictures which included a memorable shot of the Queen Mother clasping him on her knee. Then, in a special series of shots taken just before Christmas in the same year, a pool photographer was actually invited into Kensington Palace for a series of intimate photographs of the baby playing with mom and dad.

In January 1983, William was photographed being carried by Prince Charles down the steps of an airplane in Scotland, and then, a few weeks later, when Charles and Diana went on a Royal tour of Australia, William, aged ten months, was photographed over and over again by the press pack following the royals. Some of the most memorable images of William as a baby were taken on that tour, particularly when the royal party made a stop in the town of Alice Springs.

And on it went through his early years, William’s first steps in the gardens of Kensington Palace, William and his parents with new baby Harry, William’s first day at kindergarten, his first day at school. Diana was happy to share. Perhaps she would have been an enthusiastic patron of Instagram were she alive today.

As new parents themselves, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have taken a diametrically opposite approach. Prince George has been photographed exactly three times since his birth—once when he was carried out of the hospital for the first time in the Duchess’s arms, once when he was carried out of the hospital in a car seat a few hours later and placed into the back of William’s Range Rover, and a third time at his christening.

The only other time that photographers have got close to being able to photograph the young Prince was when he was taken to Buckingham Palace for the Queen’s Christmas lunch. However the Duke and Duchess made sure that no snaps could be taken by covering the young prince’s car seat in a shawl and driving in and out of the gates at high speed.

“William and Kate know the good behavior of the press cannot be taken for granted when traveling overseas”

This has become their modus operandi when leaving the confines of their various bunkers with the baby—he is smuggled in and out with more secrecy than once surrounded the movements of Blanket Jackson.

Predictably the British press are highly irritated by this, mainly because whenever they run a story about Prince George, there is only really one picture to choose from. Privately, they accuse William and Kate of creating the kind of ridiculous artificial stand-off that blew up when Kate refused to disclose the name of her dog to the press, on the grounds that it was a “private” matter. In the end, Lupo’s name was only discovered when a schoolkid, to the great relief of Britain’s tabloid editors, asked Kate what she had called her hound, and she was forced to spill the beans rather than tell a ten-year-old, “It’s a secret.”

As absurd as the Lupo affair seemed to the public, Kate and William may have had their reasons—there were rumors at the time that the name of the dog was being disclosed only to members of staff suspected of being less than loyal, so that a possible leak could be identified and plugged.

Certainly, William and Kate have every right to feel paranoid about their privacy, and not just because of Diana’s tragic death, for which William blames the paparazzi chasing her car. At the end of last year, for example, the London hacking trial revealed the horrendous, violating behavior of reporters who regularly broke into Kate’s phone messages to provide gossip items for their papers.

So the argument being made by the press that there is a public interest in being able to photograph the young Prince have cut little ice with William and Kate, who remain obsessed with ensuring as much privacy as possible for Prince George.

Given what they have been through as a couple, it’s an understandable and protective reaction, however their privacy arrangements for George will shortly face their toughest test yet when, just as William’s parents did when he was about the same age as George, they travel to Australia and New Zealand in March this year. A senior courtier told The Daily Beast that it was “too early to say what media opportunities there would be with Prince George yet in New Zealand and Australia.”

It seems debatable, to say the least, that they will be able to maintain the cloak of invisibility around the young Prince when they are overseas.

Part of the reason for this is that the security arrangements at Kensington Palace and elsewhere in the UK are well practiced and can easily allow for George to be spirited in and out of royal residences or the Middleton’s family home in Berkshire without the press pack being any the wiser.

There is another factor at play as well though. The British press is still treading very carefully on privacy issues as the country continues to wrestle with the question, post-Leveson inquiry, of how to regulate its once famously fearless press corps. With the hacking trial still going on, and very much at the forefront of proprietor’s minds, no UK editor would risk running a sneaked photograph of Prince George.

But, as William and Kate well know, the current self-imposed good behavior of the British press cannot be taken for granted when traveling overseas. It was while they were holidaying in France for example, that Kate was snapped topless by paparazzi who photographed the couple from a public road a mile away. The pictures were printed in the French magazine Closer and spread like wildfire on the Internet. William has since been locked in a legal dispute trying to sue, personally, the French photographer who took the pictures, but the process has been fraught with delay and is no nearer being resolved now than it was then.

The French debacle will have done little to frighten off aggressive Aussie photographers who will now see the possibility of a big payday if they can manage to take a photograph of Prince George. Ironically enough, Kate and William’s very successful efforts to prevent so much as a single picture of George leaking without their permission, have only served to make the prize the snappers are competing for all the fatter.

Declaration of Independence


Declaration of Independence

Declaration of Independence of the State of israel. Independence Hall, Rechov Rothschild , Tel Aviv


May 14, 1948
On May 14, 1948, on the day in which the British Mandate over a Palestine expired, the Jewish People’s Council gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum, and approved the following proclamation, declaring the establishment of the State of Israel. The new state was recognized that night by the United States and three days later by the USSR.



ERETZ-ISRAEL [(Hebrew) – the Land of Israel, Palestine] was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books.After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom.

Impelled by this historic and traditional attachment, Jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland. In recent decades they returned in their masses. Pioneers, ma’pilim[(Hebrew) – immigrants coming to Eretz-Israel in defiance of restrictive legislation] and defenders, they made deserts bloom, revived the Hebrew language, built villages and towns, and created a thriving community controlling its own economy and culture, loving peace but knowing how to defend itself, bringing the blessings of progress to all the country’s inhabitants, and aspiring towards independent nationhood.

In the year 5657 (1897), at the summons of the spiritual father of the Jewish State, Theodore Herzl, the First Zionist Congress convened and proclaimed the right of the Jewish people to national rebirth in its own country.

This right was recognized in the Balfour Declaration of the 2nd November, 1917, and re-affirmed in the Mandate of the League of Nations which, in particular, gave international sanction to the historic connection between the Jewish people and Eretz-Israel and to the right of the Jewish people to rebuild its National Home.

The catastrophe which recently befell the Jewish people – the massacre of millions of Jews in Europe – was another clear demonstration of the urgency of solving the problem of its homelessness by re-establishing in Eretz-Israel the Jewish State, which would open the gates of the homeland wide to every Jew and confer upon the Jewish people the status of a fully privileged member of the comity of nations.

Survivors of the Nazi holocaust in Europe, as well as Jews from other parts of the world, continued to migrate to Eretz-Israel, undaunted by difficulties, restrictions and dangers, and never ceased to assert their right to a life of dignity, freedom and honest toil in their national homeland.

In the Second World War, the Jewish community of this country contributed its full share to the struggle of the freedom- and peace-loving nations against the forces of Nazi wickedness and, by the blood of its soldiers and its war effort, gained the right to be reckoned among the peoples who founded the United Nations.

On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable.

This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State.


WE DECLARE that, with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948), until the establishment of the elected, regular authorities of the State in accordance with the Constitution which shall be adopted by the Elected Constituent Assembly not later than the 1st October 1948, the People’s Council shall act as a Provisional Council of State, and its executive organ, the People’s Administration, shall be the Provisional Government of the Jewish State, to be called “Israel”.

THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

THE STATE OF ISRAEL is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel.

WE APPEAL to the United Nations to assist the Jewish people in the building-up of its State and to receive the State of Israel into the comity of nations.

WE APPEAL – in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months – to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.

WE EXTEND our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.

WE APPEAL to the Jewish people throughout the Diaspora to rally round the Jews of Eretz-Israel in the tasks of immigration and upbuilding and to stand by them in the great struggle for the realization of the age-old dream – the redemption of Israel.



David Ben-Gurion 

Daniel Auster
Mordekhai Bentov
Yitzchak Ben Zvi
Eliyahu Berligne
Fritz Bernstein
Rabbi Wolf Gold
Meir Grabovsky
Yitzchak Gruenbaum
Dr. Abraham Granovsky
Eliyahu Dobkin
Meir Wilner-Kovner
Zerach Wahrhaftig
Herzl Vardi
Rachel Cohen
Rabbi Kalman Kahana
Saadia Kobashi
Rabbi Yitzchak Meir Levin
Meir David Loewenstein
Zvi Luria
Golda Myerson
Nachum Nir
Zvi Segal
Rabbi Yehuda Leib Hacohen Fishman
David Zvi Pinkas
Aharon Zisling
Moshe Kolodny
Eliezer Kaplan
Abraham Katznelson
Felix Rosenblueth
David Remez
Berl Repetur
Mordekhai Shattner
Ben Zion Sternberg
Bekhor Shitreet
Moshe Shapira
Moshe Shertok

* Published in the Official Gazette, No. 1 of the 5th, Iyar, 5708 (14th May, 1948).

Establishment of Israel:
Analysis of Israel’s Declaration of Establishment

by Prof. E. Gutmann

Establishment of Israel: Table of Contents | Background & Overview | Text of Declaration

Print Friendly and PDF

David Ben-Gurion Reads Israel’s Declaration of Establishment of the State


The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel was approved at a festive session of the People’s Council, comprised of representatives of the yishuv(the Jewish community in Palestine) and the Zionist movement, on Friday, May 14, 1948, several hours before the British Mandate for Palestine came to an end.

The Declaration consists of seven sections, and stipulates six matters:

  • Asserts the natural right of the Jewish people to exercise self-determination in its sovereign state.
  • Proclaims the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, named “the State of Israel.”
  • Establishes provisional institutions of state governance
  • States that an elected constituent assembly will formulate a constitution within several months.
  • Sets forth the principles of the political rule of the newly formed state
  • Calls for peace and cooperation with the Arabs of Israel, neighboring countries and Jews around the world.

The Text of the Declaration

First Section

The first section of the Declaration, which may be considered its historical preface, succinctly reviews the ties of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel – in concrete historical terms as well as in aspirations.

This section, which takes up nearly half the declaration, makes reference to the following subjects:

(a) the political, cultural, and religious formation of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel, and its political independence there;

(b) the hopes of the Jewish people to return to its homeland from all parts of the Diaspora;

(c) immigration and settlement in the country, and the aspiration for independence and statehood;

(d) international recognition of the Jewish people’s right to return to the country, in the Balfour Declaration;

(e) the lesson of the Holocaust – that Jewish independence is a necessity;

(f) the clandestine immigration of Holocaust survivors to Palestine and the yishuv’s contribution to the war effort against the Nazis, which entitles it to be among the founders of the United Nations; and

(g) the recognition, expressed in the UN partition resolution, of the Jewish people’s right to its own state. (The words “an irrevocable right” were appended to the Declaration in case this UN resolution be abrogated and a decision taken instead to establish a UN trusteeship regime throughout Palestine, since the Arab state had not been established and Jerusalem had not been internationalized.)

Second Section

The second section of the Declaration, one sentence long, addresses the normative aspect of Israel’s establishment: it states that it is the natural right of the Jewish people to be like any other people, exercising self-determination in its sovereign state. The importance of this second section is in the assertion that the establishment of the state is based on the natural right of self-determination and is not subject to decisions of other states or international organizations. Nevertheless, the next section, the declarative one, rests in part on the UN General Assembly resolution.

Third Section

The third section, one paragraph long, is the proclamation of the establishment of the State of Israel, and it is the most important operative part of the Declaration. The rest of the document can be seen as supportive elaboration. From an international legal point of view, this section alone would have sufficed. The precise text here reads “…the establishment of a Jewish State in the Land of Israel – the State of Israel.” The precise meaning of the term “Jewish state,” which recurs four times in the Declaration, has since prompted much public debate, which has recently grown in intensity. However, at the time of the writing of the Declaration, this had hardly occasioned either discussion or questions. It seemed clear that the reference was both to the “Jewish state” mentioned by the UN Resolution, and to the state of the “Jewish people,” mentioned several times in the Declaration as am yehudi (“Jewish people”), and once each as am yisrael (“people of Israel”) and ha‘am ha’ivri (“the Hebrew people”).

Fourth Section

The fourth section, the institutional part of the Declaration, sets forth the time for the beginning of independence and the operation of the state’s institutions – in fact, their continuing operation under new names. This section also states that a constitution is to be enacted by an elected constitutional council, and that governmental institutions are to be elected in accordance with the constitution. Finally, a date is set for the inauguration of these bodies: October 1, 1948. These details and the timetable were stipulated so as to correspond to the provisions of the UN resolution in these matters.

Fifth Section

The fifth section of the Declaration, its second declarative section, is the most important of all in terms of its domestic educational and informational function. In but a few words, it gives expression to the basic principles and guidelines of the Israeli polity. As the Supreme Court subsequently ruled, this section expresses the vision and the credo of the people regarding the character, the goals and values of Israeli society and its state:

  • Israel is to be a state of Jewish immigration – aliya – and of “the ingathering of the exiles.” This principle was set forth in legal and practical terms in the Law of Return, passed two years later (1950);
  • Israel is to be a state of development for the benefit of all its inhabitants;
  • Perhaps most importantly, Israel is to be a state based on the fundamentals of freedom, justice and peace, a state in which all the inhabitants will enjoy equality of social and political rights, along with freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture.

It is true that the word “democracy” does not appear in this impressive list, but there can be no doubt that the Declaration’s authors and signatories intended to establish an exemplary democratic regime. Perhaps they thought that the rest of the document’s contents made it unnecessary to cite “democracy” specifically.

Two points in this part of the Declaration deserve emphasis:

  • The guidelines indicating that the fundamentals of freedom, justice and peace be those “envisaged by the prophets of Israel” underscores the message of Israel as a Jewish state – though the authors of the Declaration undoubtedly regarded this vision as a source of universal values;
  • This list of egalitarian principles assures not only the rights and equality of the individual citizen, but also collective rights, for the notion of freedom of religion is meaningless unless it implies freedom for every religion. Similarly, the freedoms of language, education and culture are meaningful only if they entitle every national group to speak its own language, to educate its children according to its goals and to maintain its own culture. It seems evident that it was the intent of the authors of the Declaration to assure hereby the rights of religious and national minorities, i.e., the Arabs, and that less thought was given to individuals and groups within the Jewish majority. However, the struggle to implement the rights of both the Jewish majority and the Arab minority have continued to this day.

Sixth Section

The sixth section of the Declaration includes appeals for the cooperation of both external and internal factors. The internal factor – “the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel” – is called upon to preserve peace and participate in the building of the state. Full and equal citizenship – implying, first and foremost, due representation in all state institutions – is conferred on them. The phrasing of the appeal makes it clear that it is addressed to an Arab people. The significance is that although the state is Jewish, it is inhabited by two peoples. It should be stressed here that the term “Palestinian” had not yet become prevalent at that time.

The appeal for peace and good neighborly relations is addressed to all neighboring countries and peoples and is manifested in the assertion of Israel’s willingness to make its contribution toward development of the Middle East. The timing of this message is worth bearing in mind, for the country had endured half a year of a very violent struggle and Arab armies had already begun to invade it, wishing to prevent Israel’s independence.

The Declaration also urges the United Nations to admit Israel to its ranks; this came to pass only a year later. Finally, the authors urge the Jewish people in the Diaspora to rally around the state in the tasks of immigration, upbuilding and struggle.

Seventh Section

The seventh and last section of the Declaration, the part containing the signatures, begins with the phrase: “Placing our trust in the Rock of Israel, we affix our signatures…” It comes as no surprise that these opening words had prompted a debate among the members of the People’s Council, reflecting the disagreements between its secular and religious members concerning the future image of the state. The debate ended in tacit acquiescence, presumably because of the reluctance to engage in such a discussion at that time. It should be mentioned, however, that the representatives of the haredi (ultra-Orthodox) community subsequently took exception to the entire Declaration, stating that it greatly offended their sensitivities.

The Manifesto

At the festive session that approved the Declaration, the newly proclaimed state (which, strictly speaking, had not yet come into existence at that moment) passed its first legislative act: the Manifesto, whose name and format have no parallel in the Israeli lawbooks. According to the legal experts of the time, this document was needed because the Declaration itself, although equipped with a quasi-legislative section that stipulated the inauguration of the state’s provisional governing institutions, amounted to a public proclamation and was not an authentic legislative act.

Indeed, the first paragraph of the Manifesto repeated the Declaration by stipulating the Provisional Council of State as the legislative authority. However, it also authorized the Council to devolve some of its powers to the Provisional Government for the purpose of urgent legislation. This provision was considered essential under the military circumstances of the time, enemy forces having already invaded Israel’s territory in certain locations. This legal option of main legislation by the executive branch, which had first been introduced in the Manifesto, still exists, although it has been substantially modified and curtailed. It was enacted by the Law and Administration Ordinance, passed about a week later, and is now contained in the Basic Law: The Government.

The second paragraph of the Manifesto put some of the important results of independence in legal terms: it annulled all legal provisions resulting from the Anti-Zionist policies of the British administration, especially those originating in the 1939 White Paper, that aimed to restrict Jewish immigration and land ownership in Palestine.

The third and last paragraph of the Manifesto ensured the continuity of the law in effect in Palestine at the end of the Mandate, with the exception of the provisions which contradicted the establishment of the state (such as those mentioned in the previous paragraph), and until such provisions were amended by original Israeli legislation. The new Israeli authorities received all the powers of the previous Mandatory ones. This clause prevented judicial chaos. Thus, Israel inherited Mandatory law, which, although far from being identical with British law, included important elements of British jurisprudence and public law. However, this continuity also imposed on Israeli law many non- and even anti-democratic provisions for lengthy periods of time and caused a legislative lethargy which impaired the speedy passing of original Israeli legislation.

The continuity provision was copied almost verbatim into Paragraph 11 of the aforementioned Law and Administration Ordinance, which was, in fact, Israel’s first regular statute.

A Constitution for the State of Israel

The Declaration of Independence envisaged the enactment of a constitution within several months. However, Israel still has no constitution, and progress towards it has been exceedingly slow.

A constituent assembly was elected in Israel’s first general elections (January 25, 1949); the assembly’s first action was to pass the so-called Transition Law, by which it reconstituted itself as the “First Knesset.” A protracted debate ensued between the proponents of a constitution – those favoring immediate enactment of a constitution – and its opponents, some of whom ruled out the very idea of a constitution, while others argued that the time was not ripe. Finally, the Knesset adopted a compromise resolution – in effect, a decision not to adopt a constitution. The text of this resolution (1950), known as the “Harari Resolution” after its sponsor, MK I. Harari, is as follows:

The First Knesset instructs the Constitutional, Legislation and Judicial Committee to prepare a draft State Constitution. The constitution will be built chapter by chapter, in such a way that each will constitute a separate Basic Law. The chapters shall be presented to the Knesset when the committee completes its work, and all the chapters shall be combined into the Constitution of the State.

Since that resolution was adopted, the Knesset has passed eleven basic laws (two of them – Basic Law: The Government and Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation – have been passed twice). This effort is not yet complete, although it is commonly thought that most of the constitution’s chapters (i.e., the Basic Laws) have been enacted and that the missing ones will soon be ready.

The passing of the Basic Laws: Human Dignity and Freedom of Occupation (passed in 1992 and 1994) has been called a “constitutional revolution,” because these laws introduced the constitutional protection of human rights, though not of all rights. This may be considered the closing of a circle in respect of the principles of governance and justice begun with the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel. These two Basic Laws begin with the same meaningful clause:

Fundamental human rights in Israel are based on recognition of the value of man, the sanctity of human life and freedom, and shall be honored in the spirit of the principles in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel.

Since then, the Israeli lawbook has included not only the principles of justice, liberty, freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture, and complete equality of social and political rights for all citizens, irrespective of religion, race and sex, but also constitutional principles acknowledging the freedom and sovereignty of all human beings and the sanctity of human life.

The Constitutional Authority of the Declaration

Until these two Basic Laws were enacted, the meaning and legal validity of the “principles” section of the Declaration was under public debate, although it was generally acknowledged that the Declaration (and its section on principles) should not be considered as legally binding in the ordinary sense. The first President of the Supreme Court Justice M. Smoira put this as follows:

The Declaration expresses the vision and credo of the people; but it is not a constitutional law making a practical ruling on the upholding or nullification of various ordinances and statutes.

These remarks may be regarded as a minimalist rule for the interpretation of the Declaration. Later, other interpretations were heard from time to time, seeking to broaden, if only slightly, the legal validity of this document. Two examples follow, the first by Justice S. Agranat:

It is true that the Declaration is ‘not a constitutional law that makes a practical ruling on the upholding or nullification of various ordinances and statutes,’ but insofar as it ‘expresses the vision and credo of the people,’ we are obligated to take heed of the matters set forth therein when we seek to interpret and construe the laws of the state

.The following is excerpted from a ruling by Justice Z. Berenson:

The legal force [of the Declaration] exists in the [rule] that every legal provision should be interpreted in its light and to the extent possible, in keeping with its guiding principles and not contrary thereto. However, when an explicit statutory measure of the Knesset leaves no room for doubt, it should be honored even if inconsistent with the principles in the Declaration of Independence.

Here the Declaration serves as an interpretive tool. One may state that, at least within this constraint, it has a legal validity of sorts or represents a legal norm that expresses the values of the state. A subsequent ruling reflects this thinking:

The democratic character of the State of Israel finds its expression in the Declaration of Independence. These principles light our path and represent the credo of the people, in the light of which laws are interpreted and basic principles determined.

However, since the Basic LawsHuman Dignity and Freedom of Occupation were passed, the principles set forth in the Declaration have become a substantive, binding component of legislation and law.

Time after time judges have incorporated statements in their verdicts referring to Israel as a democratic state by citing principles in the Declaration. One such remark was made by Justice Agranat in the ruling cited above:

The set of laws according to which the political institutions in Israel were established and under which they operate attest that [Israel] is indeed a state with democratic foundations. Furthermore, the matters mentioned in the Declaration of Independence – especially those on basing the state on the fundamentals of freedom and the assurance of freedom of conscience – indicate that Israel is a freedom-loving state.

However, neither the Declaration nor any other enactment of the state contained the word “democracy” or derivatives thereof. No “democratic state” is mentioned alongside a “Jewish state,” although it is absolutely clear that the founders had such a state in mind. This rather regrettable lacuna has recently been set right by the two aforementioned Basic Laws, for both contain the identical clause (except for two or three words):

The purpose of this Basic Law is to protect ….. in order to establish in a Basic Law the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.

“A Jewish and Democratic State”

Since the passage of these two Basic Laws, these two definitive characteristics of the state – the Jewish and the democratic – have been inextricably intertwined. However, if the legislators had hoped that this formulation would put to rest the debate over Israel’s being Jewish and democratic, the opposite occurred. From the moment these Basic Laws were passed, public debate over this issue and its implications has recurred, and more vehemently so. Some argue that national harmony requires a full symbiosis between these two adhesive attributes, and they consider such a symbiosis not only necessary but also possible. Others believe that the two values clash in substantive ways and cannot be attained in tandem. Thus, they say, one must yield to the other: either democracy to Jewishness or vice versa. The continuum between these polar attitudes is filled with a great many views pertaining to every substantial issue on the public agenda. Some even consider the two values unequal in status a priori, citing the order in which the two determining words appear in the foregoing clause.

This dispute will undoubtedly continue, and although it may seem theoretical and abstract, it is neither. Not only will the struggle be waged over the relationship between these two components, but a stand will have to be taken on the principles, the meaning and the practical significance of each. At the time the Declaration was written, a tacit and largely unarticulated consent existed concerning the essence of the Jewish state, and disagreements were, for some time, put aside. The same may be said, even more explicitly, about the democratic character of the state – a matter in which almost no one took an interest. Now, amazingly, voices are being heard from different parts, demonstrating not only a misunderstanding of the principles of democracy, but also a disregard of them.

Recently, the domestic dispute over the Jewish character of the state has become very bitter. Dissent ranges from the conceptual and the ideological to the practical – Sabbath observance, marriage and divorce laws, budgets for religious institutions – with a tendency to adopt radical and excessively rigid positions. Furthermore, the political arrangements governing the status, powers and functions of religion (called the “status quo on religious affairs”) are steadily crumbling amid rising social tension.

A large majority of Jews take for granted that Israel is a Jewish state and cannot envisage anything else. Although quite a few would prefer to see a different Jewish state – with disagreements over the degree of difference – only a very small minority would seek to abolish it. Many of the country’s Arab citizens acknowledge that Israel is a Jewish state and will remain so, and some regret this. Be this as it may, there can be no doubt that on the day when Jews cease to be a majority in Israel, Israel will cease to be Jewish.

The Declaration – A Review

The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, the first official document of the state, is marking its jubilee – as is the state. The Declaration bears importance of the highest magnitude, for it symbolizes a momentous change in Jewish history. In its contents, structure, and language, it is one of the most impressive of its genre. In its structure and stylistic cadence, the Declaration is a literary gem, its elegant phrasing successfully blending solemnity and exaltation, sober idealism and practicality, coupled with daring, moral force and lucid foresight. The operative sections of the Declaration – i.e., the very proclamation of the formation of the state and its provisional governing institutions – are of historical value only. This cannot be said about the other parts of the Declaration. The historical section was, and perhaps still is, the most portentous Zionist manifesto of all.

The most important section of the Declaration is that dealing with values and principles, which contains political and legal messages that remain relevant to this day. It is still Israel’s charter of human and civil rights, enfolding all the basic principles and values that no enlightened society can do without. Obviously, there are abundant disparities, even gaping ones, between ideals and realities, between promises made and promises honored. For this reason, as this article draws to a close, an attempt should be made to determine which of the promises in the Declaration have been fulfilled and which have not. Of course, it is impossible at this juncture to draw up a detailed, accurate, and reasoned “balance sheet,” but one may briefly address – at the risk of being accused of excessive brevity – the development of several of these principles in the reality of Israel.

Aliya – the Ingathering of the Exiles”

A fundamental aspiration of Zionism and the state, this may be viewed – in the most general way – as a success story, though not everyone would agree. The Law of Return was enacted to give concrete legal form to this cause and, despite criticism of its details, it is hard to envisage the State of Israel without it. The main emphasis has been on the stage of “the ingathering of exiles,” the arrival and attraction of faraway Diaspora communities. It was accompanied, perhaps unavoidably, by severe hardship for many immigrants, and the ensuing social inequalities have left scars. Although the Declaration says nothing about integration of exiles and national solidarity, this is obviously the “heart and soul” of the ingathering, and the balance in this respect is far from being fully satisfactory.

Those who regard Jewish immigration not only as a right, but also as a duty, probably regard it as at least a partial failure. Even today, more than half of the world’s Jews do not live in Israel, and the number of emigrants leaving Israel is growing; however, the proportion of world Jewry living in Israel is on the rise.

“Development of the Country for the Benefit of All its Inhabitants”

In this matter, too, Israel may congratulate itself for making much progress and attaining an impressive rate of development. The state is among the world’s most developed with regard to economy and culture. Its standard of living and quality of life have been rising steadily, despite the impediments of its security situation. All citizens have benefited from these trends – though not equally, as Israel is one of the few developed countries in which the income gap is actually widening.

“Freedom, Justice and Peace”

These universal values, in the absence of which a society cannot be sound nor a state enlightened, account for a hefty portion of the Jewish heritage; a Jewish state not guided by them is inconceivable. Although nobody fails to espouse these values, Israelis from all sectors of society have widely varying interpretations for them. This state of affairs is most conspicuous with respect to peace, of course, but it also applies to liberty and justice. Under such circumstances, it is quite amazing that a golden mean, or at least a workable compromise, is so often attained. In this sense, Israel’s performance does not outrank the soundest of nations, but it does not fall significantly short of them.

“Complete Equality of Social and Political Rights”

The Declaration indeed referred to complete equality and, perhaps, to equal opportunity – not only formally (i.e., in law and justice), but also in the implementation of these rights in all areas of life: political, social, economic and perhaps also cultural. Equality is a goal, and its complete attainment cannot occur with ease, if at all. Therefore, the question is to what extent such equality has been achieved and whether the trend is leading toward greater or lesser equality.

When the state was founded, Jewish Israeli society was rather egalitarian in many respects, and in certain senses this trait has gathered strength since then. One of the great accomplishments is the far-reaching equality in political rights of the citizens, including Arabs, and in the courts, where equality under the law is strongly, although not fully, prevalent. However, there are pockets of blatant inequality in resource allocation for development purposes. Although the declared intent is to narrow this disparity, and although visible action is being taken to demonstrate that this is being done, there remains much room for improvement.

The Equality of Women’s Rights Law (1951) was meant to make the Declaration’s assurance in this respect effective. The statute indeed prescribes legal equality for men and women in all matters of jurisprudence, and adds that any legal provision that discriminates against women qua women shall not be applied. Indeed, much action toward greater equity has been taken over the years, in both judicial and social affairs. However, this law makes a significant exception: in all matters of marital status, women’s equality does not apply. Indeed, this exclusion has been expanded to cover all matters related to so-called religious institutions of state, such as rabbinical courts and religious councils, with some minor exceptions. Truth to tell, however, even the law prescribing equal wages for men and women (1964) falls far short of full implementation.

The Declaration speaks of equal rights and refrains, for good reason, from speaking of equal obligations. However, a soundly functioning regime obviously concerns itself with this aspect, too, for it is also a factor in equality. Israel is not among the world’s most egregious performers in its infringements of this principle. Nevertheless, there have been occasional grievances, and public debate sometimes erupts over a case of inequality in obligations. Equality, or, to be more accurate, more equitable justice in apportioning the tax burden is the subject of struggles all over the world, and let us admit that Israel has much room for improvement in this respect – not only concerning women. Another matter that has evoked bitter public controversy for some time is equality in carrying the burden of military service, especially in what we call the induction of yeshiva students. The duration of annual reserve duty also remains irksome to many in this respect.

“Freedom of Religion and Conscience”

In the fifty years since the Declaration of Independence was written, it has become clear that intricate problems are involved in honoring freedom of religion, conscience and faith in a country where religion (or to be more precise, religions) holds an official status and wields state-sponsored administrative and judicial functions. Freedom of religion in Israel is, first and foremost, the power granted to the religious establishment to set norms and rules of behavior for its adherents, and the definition of citizenship (at least with respect to Jews) is also fundamentally religious and in accord with religious law. As to freedom of worship – a matter that is mostly internal to the various religious communities – the High Court of Justice ruled that:

Freedom of religion and worship is but one of the personal freedoms assured [to individuals] in every democratic regime. The very existence and assurance of this freedom entails the risk of schism among various religious currents and movements, but this risk in no way diminishes the freedom of religion and conscience.

By the same token, the state must have the power to limit the freedom of worship in very exceptional and extreme cases, and all one can say about this matter is that such action should be taken with the utmost caution.

Court judgments have expanded the freedom of religion significantly by including in it the freedom from religion. Thus the courts have stipulated that both freedom of religion and freedom from religion, to which both citizens and residents are entitled, are overarching values in Israel – originating in the rule of law (in its substantive sense) and in rulings by the courts. Religious commandments – or religiously derived principles – are not law in Israel unless they are incorporated into a law. However, one can hardly say that the government’s performance has always studiously corresponded to the spirit of this ruling, and the tendencies emanating from steadily-growing population groups are also pointing in other directions.

“Freedom of Language, Education, and Culture”

It is clear that the freedom of language assured in the Declaration refers to the right of Israeli Arabs not only to speak and provide education in their language but also to use Arabic in all official contacts. Recognition of Arabic as an official language has solved this problem and, practically speaking, no special difficulties have come up over the years.

The authors of the Declaration had a similar situation in mind when they referred to freedom of education, and presumably they also intended to enshrine the right of all “streams” in Jewish education. On this basis, parents were eventually granted the possibility of enrolling their children in education subsystems of their choice. Obviously, freedom of education was not meant to empower every parent to dictate his children’s curriculum nor to teach at home, in circumvention of all school settings (although a quite liberal interpretation of the relevant statutes has allowed such cases).

Indeed, a large majority of Israelis accept what they are offered in this regard. This may also be indicative of a basic rule with respect to rights: use them or prepare to lose them. Recently, problems have arisen because of schools’ refusal to honor parents’ freedom to choose their children’s education by rejecting certain children without justifying the rejection on any formal grounds.

Israel may congratulate itself on its freedom of culture. The only significant infringement is the official censorship of plays and films and, perhaps, some indirect censorship of cultural artifacts and advertising. Notably, however, the trend in this matter has been toward greater liberalism, and only time will tell what the future holds. Of course, those who consider lavish governmental and public support an essential condition for cultural freedom would not depict the Israeli situation in glowing terms. This attitude, however, would make the scope of this freedom unconventionally broad.

“Safeguard[ing] the Holy Places of All Religions”

The country’s holy places, and the free access to them, primarily those of Muslims and Christians, have been safeguarded very meticulously, especially since many such shrines came under Israeli control after the Six-Day War. This situation has been noted favorably by most religions represented in Israel, despite occasional incidents.

A Look Towards the Future

We are witnessing today, thus, the continuing development of the democratic State of Israel, based on the values of freedom, justice and peace, as cited in the Declaration. Furthermore, the Declaration’s calls for “bonds of cooperation and mutual help” and “a common effort for the advancement of the Middle East” are being realized in the continuing peace process between Israel and her Arab neighbors.

Appendix 1:The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel

Appendix 2: Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty

Appendix 3: Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation

Appendix 4: Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations)


Members of the First Government of the State of Israel


Members of the First Government of the State of Israel From left to right: Golda Meirson, Shneor Zalman Shazar, Bechor Sheetrit, Government Stenographer Yaakov Maimion, Dov Yosef, Eliezer Kaplan, Moshe Sharett, David Ben Gurion, Government Secretary Zeev Sherf, Pinhas Rosen, David Remez, Moshe Shapira, Rabbi Yitzhak Meir Levin, Rabbi Yehuda Leib Maimon, May 1st 1949

The fact-checker: What is really keeping African migrants out of Israel?


Israel built a barrier along the Sinai border, but is trying to convince the public that it’s the law keeping African migrants out.

The new border fence going up on Israel's border with Sinai.

The new border fence going up on Israel’s border with
Maya Lecker

“This is the law that stopped the wave of infiltration. People think it’s because of the fence, but it’s not because of the fence. It’s the fence and the law together.”

MK Ayelet Shaked (Habayit Hayehudi), on “The World This Morning” TV show

“If we hadn’t legislated the amendment to the Prevention of Infiltration Law, Israel would now find itself with 80,000 infiltrators, 100,000 next year, 120,000 the year after that, and − in my estimate − a geometric increase, with many more the year after that.”

Attorney Yochi Gnessin of the State Prosecutor’s Office, at a High Court hearing on the Prevention of Infiltration Law

Earlier this month, the High Court heard a petition from human rights organizations against the amendment in the Prevention of Infiltration Law that makes it possible to detain a person who enters Israel for up to three years without trial. There are currently about 60,000 migrants from Eritrea and Sudan living in Israel, a majority of whom entered the country before a fence was built on the Israel-Egypt border. The barrier has almost completely halted the influx of asylum seekers and migrant laborers from Africa to Israel via the Sinai Peninsula.

The statements by Ayelet Shaked and Yossi Gnessin, arguing in favor of the law, are more or less the official explanation for the legislation: The more hostile Israel is to migrants and refugees, and prevents them from obtaining economic and human rights, the less attractive it will seem as a destination, and so they will choose to go elsewhere.

But the facts say otherwise: The so-called “infiltrators” amendment was passed by the Knesset in January 2012. Since then, approximately 2,000 people have been imprisoned without trial and are being held in detention camps in southern Israel. In the first half of 2012, after the amendment was passed but before the border fence was built, government data show that 9,071 migrants from Africa entered Israel. By the end of the year, construction of the fence was completed and, in the first part of this year‏(through the end of March‏), just 18 illegal migrants entered Israel.

Israel is choosing to ignore the moral arguments against the law, the conduct of other states, the UN Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights and international law. It boasts about how quickly the border fence was built and proudly brandishes the monthly statistics showing a decline in the number of African migrants who have succeeded in entering, thanks to the fence.

Perhaps the harsh legislation is causing some refugees to think twice about whether to aim to get to Israel rather than another country, where they would not be immediately detained without trial. But as long as a wall is preventing new migrants from entering Israel, a law preventing those who are already here from working and being free is not deterrence. It’s maliciousness. –