Case Number
EA 1/65
Date Decided
10-23-1965
Decision Type
Appellate
Document Type
Full Opinion
Abstract
The Central Elections Committee for the Sixth Knesset refused to confirm the “Socialists’ List” because “this list of candidates is unlawful as its initiators deny the territorial integrity of the State of Israel and its very existence.” The material that was before the Committee clearly reflected that most of the candidates on the relevant list were members of the “El Ard” movement whose purposes were described by the Israeli Supreme Court as completely and absolutely denying the existence of the State of Israel in general, and its existence within its borders in particular.
In denying the appeal, the Supreme Court held:
A. It is irrelevant that the rest of the candidates on the “Socialists’ List” were not active or were not known to be members of the “El Ard” movement, because once they decided to run on one list and cast their lot with members of “El Ard”, they are presumed to have first considered with whom they are running and to what end.
B. According to Israel’s Declaration of Independence, not only is the State of Israel a sovereign, independent, freedom-loving state characterized by a regime of the rule of the people, but it is also founded as “a Jewish state in the Land of Israel.” The act of founding the State was first and foremost a result of the Jewish people’s natural and historical right to live as any nation, independently in its sovereign state, which also constituted an expression of the realization of the age-old aspiration for the redemption of Israel.
C. (1) At this stage in the state’s life, the above reflects the people’s vision and its “credo”, and the Court is duty bound to bear that in mind when interpreting and giving meaning to the state’s laws.
(2) The meaning of this “credo” is that the continued existence of the State of Israel is constitutionally fundamental, and no agency of the state – whether administrative or quasi-judicial – can renounce it in the exercise of any of its powers.
(3) The status of Israeli citizenship clearly comprises the duty of allegiance to the State of Israel.
D. (1) The constitutional factor that the Court must consider when interpreting the state’s laws, and particularly laws of a constitutional character, is that the State of Israel is permanent state and its continued existence is beyond question.
(2) Therefore, this rule must apply to the interpretation of the provision that establishes the governing institution for which the Sixth Knesset’s elections were held, and that provision is section 1 of Basic Law: The Knesset, which states that “The Knesset is the parliament of the State.”
(3) This means that the institution composed of the representatives elected by the entire citizenry, whose duty is to ensure, through the government that is answerable to it – the existence and integrity of the state, cannot entertain the question of acting to destroy the state and deny its sovereignty on its agenda, because the very raising of the question is contrary to the will of the people residing in Zion, its vision and its “credo”.
E.. (1) A list of candidates that rejects these foundations has no right to participate in elections to the parliament.
(2) This does not entail the denial of the right of the signatories of the Appellant list to vote for the Knesset, or the right of the list’s candidates to be elected to the Knesset as individuals, nor even their right to be included in a list of candidates.
F. Elections to the Knesset are not conducted by voting for individual candidates but rather for lists of candidates. This system means that voting in the Knesset elections is essentially voting for a group of people that promotes a particular political goal. Therefore the assumption must be that should this group be elected to the Knesset, its members will then operate there to formulate a popular will toward advancing its aforesaid goal.
G. (1) Indeed, in exercising its authority to decide whether to approve a list of candidates, the Central Elections Committee should not ordinarily investigate the candidates or consider their political views..
(2) However, this rule does not apply once the Committee has been made aware that the Appellant list identifies with a group that the High Court of Justice has declared to be an unlawful association because its purpose is to absolutely and definitively deny the existence of the State of Israel in general, and the existence of the state within its borders in particular. Additionally, the Committee was made aware of the fact that following the Court’s finding, the group was declared an unlawful association.
(3) In light of these facts, the Committee was left with no discretion and with no choice but to refuse to confirm the Appellant list.
H. Although political science theory deems freedom of association to be fundamental to a democratic regime and a fundamental right of its citizens, no free regime – particularly in light of the lessons of recent history – can lend a hand to the recognition of a movement that undermines that very same regime.
Keywords
Zionism, Constitutional Law -- Basic Law: The Knesset, Elections
Recommended Citation
Cohn, Haim Herman; Agranat, Shimon; and Sussman, Yoel, "Yeredor v. Chairman of the Central Elections Committee for the Sixth Knesset" (1965). Translated Opinions. 408.
https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/iscp-opinions/408
