Why do the Arabs reject the legitimacy of Israel as the State of the Jewish people? The answer to this question transcends politics. Indeed, it is somewhat mysterious.
Beginning on the level of politics, there are two ways by which a state may obtain legitimacy, de jure and de facto. In democratic times, de jure legitimacy is usually based on popular ratification of a state’s Constitution. Moreover, those who draft the Constitution should derive their authority, directly or indirectly, from the people.
Now, it happens that Israel does not have a written Constitution. Instead, it has a hodgepodge of Basic Laws enacted intermittently by the Knesset. Israel’s first Basic Law: The Knesset, was enacted in 1958, ten years after the founding of the State. Until then, there was no fixed term or tenure for the Knesset. Each session determined its own longevity!
Another Basic Law: Israel Lands (1960), provides that ownership of state lands may not be sold or transferred to non-state owners, which places in the transfer of land to the PLO-Palestinian Authority. Be that as it may, since only about five percent of the land in Israel is private property (contrary to the rabbinical principle that “there is no Jew who does not own four cubits in the Land of Israel”), and since the law defines “lands” as including “houses, buildings, and everything that is permanently connected to the land,” Jews are little more than tenants of the State. Indeed, judging from the manner in which various Israeli governments have surrendered Jewish land to the Palestinian Authority, it would seem that the Land of Israel belongs not to the people of Israel but to their rulers. So much for Basic Law: Israel Lands.
Some other Basic Laws and their initial dates are: The President of the State (1964); The Government (1968); The State Economy (1975); The Army (1976); Jerusalem, Capital of Israel (1980); The Judiciary (1984); The State Comptroller (1988).
A most significant aspect of Israel’s Basic Laws is that their passage does not require the affirmative vote of even a majority of the Knesset’s membership. In fact, Israel’s most significant Basic Laws: Human Freedom and Dignity, was enacted by a vote of 32-21, hence with less than half of the Knesset’s membership voting! Nevertheless, this hodgepodge of Basic Laws is deemed the equivalent of a “Constitution”! Be that as it may, this so-called Constitution has never been ratified by the people—the practice of democratic states. One may therefore wonder about the legitimacy of Israel’s government? Is it de jure or de facto? The people of this country do not really know. How could they without a bona fide constitution which they were called upon to ratify by lawfully authorized representatives?
Here I must emphasize a fact hardly known to most of the people of this politically misguided nation, that the Proclamation of the State of Israel of 1948 prescribed a Constituent Assembly to draft a Constitution. The Assembly was elected and appointed a Committee to draft a Constitution for the fledgling State. A draft Constitution was submitted to the Committee by Dr. Leo Kohn, but never came to pass. It failed passage because the representatives of the secular parties, which dominated that Committee, objected to the provision that the President of the State had to be Jewish. The secularists objected that such a provision was or would be deemed racist!
[..]
Prof. Paul Eidelberg (Ph.D. University of Chicago), former officer U.S. Air Force, is the founder and president of the Israel-America Renaissance Institute (I-ARI), www.i-ari.org, with offices in Jerusalem and Philadelphia. He has written several books on American and on Jewish Statesmanship. His magnum opus The Judeo-Scientific Foundations of American Exceptionalism: Today’s Choice for the “Almost Chosen People” is in process of publication. Prof. Eidelberg lives in Jerusalem.
According to the author of this article, it seems that there is a cause and effect relationship between the Arab rejection of Israel as a Jewish state on the one hand, and the absence of a Constitution in Israel, on the other hand.
Though, how about the Great Britain who has no Constitution but is nevertheless recognized, accepted and respected worldwide?
It is naive to believe that the rejection of Israel by Arabs has something to do with its rebirth in 1948. If such would have been the case, how one would justify the policy conducted by the Great Nazi of Jerusalem, Al Husseini, whose ultimate goal was the eradication of the Jews.
Not only the eradication of the Jews of Palestine, but even and firstly the Jews of Europe. One should not forget that he trained about 50,000 muslim Waffen SS, the purpose of which was to accelerate the final solution in Europe, with the aim that, once completed, to perform the same against the Jews in Palestine.
Although Israel has no Constitution, it nevertheless has a series of 14 detailed Basic Laws which constitute altogether, for all intents and purposes, the Constitution of Israel: they were established to secure the organization and functioning of the State, thus meeting the criteria of a Constitution in good and due form.
The 14 current Basic Laws of Israel are deemed to be the Constitution of the State of Israel. And regardless of their format or presentation, Arab will always reject the existence of a Jewish state. This forever, Ledor Vador.
The UK and New Zealand lack a formal constitution. There is no great need for Israel to adopt a formal document. The country is still young and growing and there is no evident consensus on core values and national culture that would need to be part of a formal constitution. I don’t think there will be such a consensus in my lifetime and not all of the Jewish people are home yet.