It is sad, but true, that decades after the Declaration of Independence defined this country as “a Jewish state in the land of Israel,” the greatest achievement of a self-appointed group of opinion-shapers who formulated an updated Kinneret Compact, was that everyone who composes such groups agreed to forcefully reiterate the conviction that Israel must remain a Jewish state.
Israeli Declaration of Independence by Arthur Szyk, 1948
That they ratified the compact despite the objections of their twin gurus, Amos Oz and A.B. Yehoshua (and despite a fatwa by Shulamit Aloni) – who insisted that it must refer only to “a state of Jews and all its other citizens” – is certainly a miracle. It might even be considered as an important victory over efforts by post-Zionists to discard the Jewish affinity for Israel, and sever its ties with Diaspora Jews.
It is arguably also a miracle that the two poles, secular elites and haredi rabbis, finally talked to each other, and even reached agreement on certain basic tenets underlying our life here, however vaguely defined. For too long leftist elites – which argued that it was imperative to talk to Arab terrorists, because peace must be made with enemies, etc. – did not deign to listen to the Orthodox community, or, God forefend, deliberate with “settlers.” Haredi organs, for their part, defined such meetings as “criminal offenses” that empower transgressors.
But precisely because this compact represents such a wide consensus, and may have a great impact, especially on a younger generation – whose knowledge of Judaism and affinity for it grows increasingly more tenuous – it is vital to examine it carefully, and so better understand what Israeli ethos it expresses, and what are its strengths and weaknesses.
The framing of the new compact was initiated by Israel Harel, an eloquent spokesmen of the “settler” community. It was embraced by the Rabin Center first, then by the Avi-Chai Foundation, and they jointly sponsored it. Harel, and former minister Yuli Tamir, assembled the group, later led by General Uzi Dayan, by the usual networking among the hevre (fellas).
It evolved into a fairly accurate representation of the public arena, usually dominated by a small group of public sector figures from the bureaucracy, the educational, cultural and media establishments, army brass, lawyers, rabbis and a few peripheral figures representing the new establishment of feminism, Mizrahim, etc. It also included the scions of the Rabin and Barak families, and even a token representation of establishment “business people.” No one else could join the deliberations or comment on them. The public was not informed what its “representatives” were cooking up, to convince it that their approach was judicious and in the public interest.
A typically top-to-bottom exercise in elitist “democracy,” it lent the compact its Utopian, abstract quality, a serious problem, though its drafters seemed unaware of it.
The compact is tellingly different from our original Declaration of Independence in how it justifies our right to reestablish an independent Jewish state.
The original declaration first asserted a biblical “birthright,” an ancient “historic and traditional attachment” to the land. Only secondarily did it offer the nation’s trials and tribulations in exile, and the Holocaust’s great calamity as additional urgent reasons for restoring Jewish independence.
The compact reverses this order. Expressing “the culture of victimhood” that derives rights mostly from suffering, it first cites Jewish homelessness, “persecution” and its “historic catastrophe” as a “supreme and existential necessity” that bestows “complete moral justification that the Jewish people should have a national home of its own?”
Only then does it mention the “profound and unbroken (Jewish) connection to its land” as a basis for “the right of the Jewish people to lead a life of sovereignty in the land of Israel?”
The tendency to prefer the easily manipulated moralistic arguments to strong legal claims – probably for fear of being challenged by those who consider international law (before it was co-opted by the UN political mob) colonialist oppression – results in the failure of the compact to even mention rights that the original Declaration of Independence considered paramount.
The compact mentions the UN partition resolution but not the earlier legal affirmation of Jewish independence rights in the League of Nations “Mandate”, when land rights in the toppled Ottoman Empire were allocated (creating, incidentally, all the Arab states whose legitimacy no one challenges).
Altogether, the compact (unlike the US Declaration of Independence) defines rights without concomitant obligations and advocates the distribution of wealth without encouraging its creation or protection. It proposes no legal instruments to safeguard the implementation of the fine but vague sentiments it professes. Its essentially Utopian approach underlies many of the problems it wants to address rather than offer pragmatic, workable solutions.
Log in or Register
Well, well! We belong here after all
The Jerusalem Post
17 Jan ’02
It is sad, but true, that decades after the Declaration of Independence defined this country as “a Jewish state in the land of Israel,” the greatest achievement of a self-appointed group of opinion-shapers who formulated an updated Kinneret Compact, was that everyone who composes such groups agreed to forcefully reiterate the conviction that Israel must remain a Jewish state.
Filed under:
Zionism
Related links
Declaration of Independence
Rabin Center
UN partition resolution
League of Nations “Mandate”
US Declaration of Independence
Israeli Declaration of Independence by Arthur Szyk, 1948
That they ratified the compact despite the objections of their twin gurus, Amos Oz and A.B. Yehoshua (and despite a fatwa by Shulamit Aloni) – who insisted that it must refer only to “a state of Jews and all its other citizens” – is certainly a miracle. It might even be considered as an important victory over efforts by post-Zionists to discard the Jewish affinity for Israel, and sever its ties with Diaspora Jews.
It is arguably also a miracle that the two poles, secular elites and haredi rabbis, finally talked to each other, and even reached agreement on certain basic tenets underlying our life here, however vaguely defined. For too long leftist elites – which argued that it was imperative to talk to Arab terrorists, because peace must be made with enemies, etc. – did not deign to listen to the Orthodox community, or, God forefend, deliberate with “settlers.” Haredi organs, for their part, defined such meetings as “criminal offenses” that empower transgressors.
But precisely because this compact represents such a wide consensus, and may have a great impact, especially on a younger generation – whose knowledge of Judaism and affinity for it grows increasingly more tenuous – it is vital to examine it carefully, and so better understand what Israeli ethos it expresses, and what are its strengths and weaknesses.
The framing of the new compact was initiated by Israel Harel, an eloquent spokesmen of the “settler” community. It was embraced by the Rabin Center first, then by the Avi-Chai Foundation, and they jointly sponsored it. Harel, and former minister Yuli Tamir, assembled the group, later led by General Uzi Dayan, by the usual networking among the hevre (fellas).
It evolved into a fairly accurate representation of the public arena, usually dominated by a small group of public sector figures from the bureaucracy, the educational, cultural and media establishments, army brass, lawyers, rabbis and a few peripheral figures representing the new establishment of feminism, Mizrahim, etc. It also included the scions of the Rabin and Barak families, and even a token representation of establishment “business people.” No one else could join the deliberations or comment on them. The public was not informed what its “representatives” were cooking up, to convince it that their approach was judicious and in the public interest.
A typically top-to-bottom exercise in elitist “democracy,” it lent the compact its Utopian, abstract quality, a serious problem, though its drafters seemed unaware of it.
The compact is tellingly different from our original Declaration of Independence in how it justifies our right to reestablish an independent Jewish state.
The original declaration first asserted a biblical “birthright,” an ancient “historic and traditional attachment” to the land. Only secondarily did it offer the nation’s trials and tribulations in exile, and the Holocaust’s great calamity as additional urgent reasons for restoring Jewish independence.
The compact reverses this order. Expressing “the culture of victimhood” that derives rights mostly from suffering, it first cites Jewish homelessness, “persecution” and its “historic catastrophe” as a “supreme and existential necessity” that bestows “complete moral justification that the Jewish people should have a national home of its own?”
Only then does it mention the “profound and unbroken (Jewish) connection to its land” as a basis for “the right of the Jewish people to lead a life of sovereignty in the land of Israel?”
The tendency to prefer the easily manipulated moralistic arguments to strong legal claims – probably for fear of being challenged by those who consider international law (before it was co-opted by the UN political mob) colonialist oppression – results in the failure of the compact to even mention rights that the original Declaration of Independence considered paramount.
The compact mentions the UN partition resolution but not the earlier legal affirmation of Jewish independence rights in the League of Nations “Mandate”, when land rights in the toppled Ottoman Empire were allocated (creating, incidentally, all the Arab states whose legitimacy no one challenges).
Altogether, the compact (unlike the US Declaration of Independence) defines rights without concomitant obligations and advocates the distribution of wealth without encouraging its creation or protection. It proposes no legal instruments to safeguard the implementation of the fine but vague sentiments it professes. Its essentially Utopian approach underlies many of the problems it wants to address rather than offer pragmatic, workable solutions.
More recent commentary
The New Republic
19 May ’11
Economic Miracle
A Middle East peace strategy that could actually work.
The Jerusalem Post
15 Mar ’11
The government-tycoons-media triangle
Israel needs to slash its state budget by as much as possible if it wants a chance at fighting waste and corruption.
The Jerusalem Post
9 Mar ’11
Welfare and rebellion: The economic factor in the Arab uprisings
Too little attention has been paid to how Egypt’s socialist past and welfare-state present shaped the current rebellion.
The Jerusalem Post
7 Feb ’11
Is all quiet on the economic front?
The Herzliya Conference has become an important international event, but one central issue is absent: Israel’s debilitating economic concentration.
The Jerusalem Post
22 Jan ’11
Teaching an elephant to dance
It’s highly unlikely that government can ever learn to make long-term plans and execute them efficiently.
The Jerusalem Post
23 Dec ’10
Hellenization and Enlightenment: Post-Hanukka ruminations
How can one dare compare narrow-minded religion with the all-embracing faith of universality and equality that is socialism?
The Jerusalem Post
1 Dec ’10
Would Milton Friedman have approved?
Many of the social and economic troubles we are experiencing are due to the public’s lack of understanding of the need for economic literacy.
The Jerusalem Post
17 Oct ’10
Perverting public discourse
The PM’s courageous decision to tackle economic concentration was misrepresented by several of our media publications—owned of course by tycoons.
The Wall Street Journal
8 Oct ’10
Breaking Israel’s monopolies
Economic concentration hurts the country’s viability and the chances for peace.
The Jerusalem Post
4 Oct ’10
Israel’s progress undermined
A damaging ethos of ‘welfarism’ and distributive politics has come to dominate not only academia but our cultural, military and even our business elites.
The Jerusalem Post
19 Aug ’10
Unable to decide
The reformers must know the importance of the reform’s success both for Israel and for their careers, and what damage they will incur if it fails.
The Jerusalem Post
13 Jul ’10
Elana Kagan, terrorism and the law
Kagan’s admiration for Justice Aharon Barak’s philosophy may have revealed her own predilection for radical judicial activism.
The Jerusalem Post
30 May ’10
Yes, break them up
We must dismantle the oligarch-owned monopolies that impoverish the Israeli consumer and choke our economy.
The Wall Street Journal
18 May ’10
Land of silicon and money
The OECD’s invitation to Israel is a “seal of approval” but the country still needs more reforms.
The Jerusalem Post
10 Feb ’10
The surprise of it all
The world’s astonishment at Israel’s response to the Haiti disaster is insulting. What we saw there was Israel’s true face.
The Jerusalem Post
10 Jan ’10
Hi-tech prospects and pitfalls
Individual initiative and freedom are essential for creativity—in hi-tech as in all other spheres.
The Jerusalem Post
14 Oct ’09
A woman who knew her worth
As far as Rose Friedman was concerned, public kudos did not matter that much. She persisted in being a rose, no matter what.
The Jerusalem Post
22 Sep ’09
Movies in Nablus, dramas in Bethlehem
Lasting peace must grow from the bottom up, from an “economic peace process” that proves what advantages peace has to offer on a daily basis. It cannot come from signing peace agreements with radical and corrupt entities propped up by corrupting Western handouts.
The Jerusalem Post
15 Aug ’09
Israel’s ‘scrambled’ economic system
A courageous recent film has exposes the strong connection between Israeli oligarchs and bureaucrats. Unfortunately however the film’s simplistic pseudo-Marxist treatment is more misleading than revealing.
The Jerusalem Post
24 May ’09
The economy: look to the future
Netanyahu paid heavily to pass a budget in time; his “partners”’ bargaining tactics, bordering on blackmail, reflect poorly on our politics.
The Jerusalem Post
4 May ’09
Reform: prospects and pitfalls
Binyamin Netanyahu’s recent economic plan has great promise but faces obstacles—such as the media and the Histadrut—that may undermine its success.
The Jerusalem Post
11 Apr ’09
Big government? Yes, but there’s a reason
Is Binyamin Netanyahu’s government too big? Yes. So why would Netanyahu create such an unwieldy beast?
The Jerusalem Post
30 Mar ’09
To bail or not to bail
Should the government bail out those of our tycoons who cannot redeem NIS 100 billion worth of bonds?
The Wall Street Journal
12 Mar ’09
Mideast peace can start with economic growth
Billions of dollars in foreign aid to the Palestinians has resulted in war not peace. There’s a better way.
The Jerusalem Post
22 Feb ’09
Warning cries from Herzliya
The government is dysfunctional. The question is why—and how to mend it.
The Jerusalem Post
2 Feb ’09
A lesser economic evil
All government deficit spending is bad. But sometimes deficits are unavoidable. And some deficits are better then others.
The Jerusalem Post
22 Dec ’08
Spinners and cheaters
Why not exploit the crisis to destroy what little freedom Netanyahu’s reforms brought to the economy? Why care if the country will lose its only hope of deliverance from the economic retardation caused by our statist heritage?
The Jerusalem Post
3 Dec ’08
Precipitating the next collapse
Focusing on a putative pension crisis distracts our attention from the real serious crisis that a worldwide recession is bound to create here.
The Jerusalem Post
22 Oct ’08
The panic-mongers’ one-note chorus
The country, the pundits conclude, must return to the good old days of “social democracy.”
The Jerusalem Post
15 Jul ’08
The banks are bamboozling us again
In the name of stability the comptroller has ignored many of the banks’ offenses.
The Jerusalem Post
29 Apr ’08
An Irish-style banana republic
It must be either naiveté or cynicism that allows “Israel 2028” to recommend a reform that will make government a larger and a more efficient instrument for economic growth.
The New York Sun
29 Apr ’08
Israel still doesn’t get economy
Israel’s elites—especially the chattering classes in the press and the academy—are hostile to capitalism because our universities’ social sciences and liberal arts departments are dominated by post-modernist and neo-Marxist professors.
Ideas matter. Hostility to capitalism exacts a great price from the Israeli economy and from its hapless workers.
inFocus
2 Apr ’08
US charity to Israel reconsidered
Jewish institutional efforts must now undergo a period of reform and greater accountability. Some charitable efforts should be privatized. Individuals or groups of donors must take personal responsibility for specific projects, to ensure that funds are dispensed in a responsible and cost effective manner.
The Wall Street Journal
8 Mar ’08
Israel’s no-win strategy
Israeli politicians are preoccupied with political machinations designed to buy support from powerful interest groups by distributing government largesse. This causes not only the factionalization of politics and growing corruption, but consumes time and energy that leadership should use to address life and death issues.
The Jerusalem Post
20 Feb ’08
Dangerous infatuation
Government can no more control powerful economic forces than it can the rise and fall of tides. To effectively fulfill its nightwatchman role—to protect us from internal and external violence and to enforce contracts—government must be kept limited.
The Jerusalem Post
22 Jan ’08
What’s ‘public’ about their broadcasting?
Our “public channel,” funded by a compulsive tax, does not need to be pluralistic or even-handed.
Like other public institutions that lack well-defined ownership, Channel 1 has consequently been taken over by bureaucrats and by undemocratic workers’ unions.
The Jerusalem Post
21 Nov ’07
A year without Milton Friedman
This man did more good for humanity than any other.
The Jerusalem Post
17 Oct ’07
Getting beyond the teachers’ strike
As long as education remains a government monopoly, it is bound to function like all other government monopolies, where union bosses fill the vacuum that lack of defined ownership creates, and monopoly power allows them to blackmail the public.
The Jerusalem Post
19 Sep ’07
A healthy dose of skepticism
In the wake of the Second Lebanon War, there is hope that the phenomenal performance of the economy will finally make Israelis realize the crucial role it plays in their lives.
The Jerusalem Post
14 Aug ’07
How to grow Israeli hi-tech
At the recent Merage Foundation conference to help Israel’s hi-tech sector grow, calls were heard for more government “direction”. This despite sixty years of massive government intervention and “development efforts” that have led mostly to massive failures and waste.