Israeli Legal Experts Debate Constitutional Crisis and Future of Israeli Law
At a conference on democracy and society hosted by ynet and Yediot Ahronot in collaboration with the Israel Democracy Institute, a panel of legal experts discussed solutions to Israel's constitutional crisis and the potential for new governing principles. The discussion was prompted by former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett's earlier proposal at the conference to legislate the Declaration of Independence as a Basic Law.
Professor Amichai Cohen of the Israel Democracy Institute emphasized the importance of embedding agreed-upon values, such as those in the Declaration of Independence, into Israel's constitution. However, he cautioned that the process of enacting such a law must be carefully managed to avoid past pitfalls. Professor Tamar Hostovsky Brandes from Ono Academic College noted that the current intensity of public debate reflects a fundamental disagreement about the state's identity and character. She argued that the recent legislation of a Basic Law on Torah Study, while a value statement, highlights the absence of core values from the Declaration of Independence within the existing legal framework, making its inclusion a necessary step.
Professor Ariel Bendor from Bar-Ilan University acknowledged that not every phrase in the Declaration of Independence is a legal norm but stressed its significant symbolic value. He supported the idea of legislating it as a Basic Law or part of a constitution, provided there is broad public consensus. Cohen further elaborated that many Israeli societal divisions stem not from ideological differences but from emotional divides rooted in historical memories of deprivation and a lack of mutual trust. He suggested that the process of constitution-making should be separated from ordinary political maneuvering.
Cohen criticized the "Harari method," employed for nearly 80 years, where constitution-building was treated as part of routine political strategy, leading to frequent changes based on political needs. He advocated for a clear distinction between political and foundational constitutional acts. Bendor proposed finding a mechanism that ensures a publicly supported, ethically sound, and professionally robust outcome for any constitutional process. Hostovsky Brandes added that while constitution-making is inherently political, it differs from regular politics in its long-term perspective and should follow a distinct, deliberate process, not one driven by short-term electoral considerations.
