Volume 3(2008): 1-15
Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations
Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations
A peer-reviewed e-journal of the Council of Centers on Jewish-Christian Relations
Published by the Center for Christian-Jewish Learning at Boston College
The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel:
Reflections on its Sixtieth Anniversary
Volume 3 (2008): 1- 15
http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3
On May 14, 1948, on the eve of the expiration of the British Mandate, Jewish leaders in Mandatory Palestine gathered at the Tel Aviv
Museum and issued a Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel. Like the American Declaration of Independence, this
document sets forth their rationale for the formation of the state and the ideals that these leaders hoped it would embody. The founding
of the state, mandated by the United Nations, was greeted with widespread joy in the Jewish world and with universal belligerence in
the Arab world. Many parts of the Christian world, in many ways caught between the two and embedded in the legacy of its own antiJudaism, were dismayed over this resumption of Jewish sovereignty over the Holy Land.
Now, sixty years later, a revolution has occurred in the teachings of the Catholic and many Protestant churches about Jews and Judaism. In dialogue settings, the topic of Israel is very much on the table, no longer the proverbial “elephant in the room,” even if full understanding remains an unattained goal. In this context, the editors of Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations have invited a series of
brief reflections on the text of the “Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel” from the perspective of the author’s own engagement in Christian-Jewish relations.
Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel
1
http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3
Volume 3(2008): 1-15
Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations
Reflections on the Declaration
Provisional Government of
Israel
Raymond Cohen
Official Gazette: Number 1;
“Fear not, nor be alarmed.”
Tel Aviv, 5 Iyar 5708,
14.5.1948 Page 1
When David Ben-Gurion read out the Declaration of
the Establishment of the State of Israel on May 14,
1948, Arab armies were poised to invade the new
state, and Jerusalem was cut off from the coastal
plain under siege. Since UN resolution 181 of November 29, 1947 on the partition of Palestine into
Arab and Jewish states, the 600,000-strong Yishuv –
Jewish community in Palestine – had been under continuous attack from Arab irregulars. Its survival was in
doubt, and indeed British General Bernard Montgomery argued that without the protection of departing
British forces it would not withstand an onslaught by
regular Arab armies. (Continued on page 6)
The Declaration of the
Establishment of the State of Israel
The Land of Israel 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.
Deborah Weissman
The first response evoked by rereading the Declaration is a sense of the unlikelihood of its being passed
today. We Israelis seem so much more divided on the
cores issues that it would be difficult to imagine a
document of this nature being adopted by such a wallto-wall (Agudat Yisrael to the Communists!) coalition.
This may give rise, for the supernaturalists among us,
to a feeling of the miraculous character of the establishment of the State of Israel. But apart from that, and
from a strictly rational perspective, we can point to at
least three problematic areas that have developed
in the ensuing sixty years. (Continued on page 7)
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, defiant returnees, and defenders, they made
deserts bloom, revived the Hebrew
language, built villages and towns,
and created a thriving
Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel
2
http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3
Volume 3(2008): 1-15
Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations
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.
James Bernauer, SJ
When the Declaration was proclaimed, I was but three years of
age and yet its words speak afresh to my feelings as a moral
agent today. I feel gratitude that a special haven for Jews has
been established, that, as the document states, the Shoah will
not be ignored and that from that evil event’s destructiveness, a
will to create was embraced and not a spirit of revenge. As a
former New Yorker and a current Bostonian, I feel relieved,
however, that the founding of the State of Israel did not lead to
the disappearance of the Jewish diaspora communities as had
been occasionally advocated in the nation’s early years.
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.
(Continued on page 8)
Eugene Korn
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 community of nations.
Israel’s Declaration of Independence is a remarkable document, born no less of the prophetic dreams of Micah 4 and
Isaiah 2 for universal peace and human security than of the
long Jewish experience in exile that demanded an end to
homelessness and suffering. The Declaration seems complete
as an expression of the ideal. The political reality of Israel is –
as in all human reality – imperfect, reflecting unfulfilled aspirations. (Continued on page 9)
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.
Ruth Lautt, OP
On May 14, 1948, the founders of the modern state of Israel
issued the nascent state’s founding document, the Declaration
of the Establishment of the State of Israel (the “Declaration”). In
it they articulated the principles their state would be based on,
Including “freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the
prophets of Israel;…” A little less than twenty years later the
In the Second World War, the Jewish community of this country
contributed its full share to the struggle of the freedom- and peaceloving 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.
Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel
3
http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3
Volume 3(2008): 1-15
Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations
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.
Roman Catholic Church unequivocally repudiated antiSemitism in Nostra Aetate. Nostra Aetate, however, was silent
as to a Christian understanding of the Jewish state, and it
would be another twenty years before the church would grapple
with this issue. (Continued on page 10)
Leonard Greenspoon
This is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their
own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State.
The declaration establishing the modern State of Israel begins
with this affirmation: "ERETZ-ISRAEL [literally, the Land of Israel] 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." It is interesting to observe that, within this statement,
there is no description of the geographical or political entity that
Eretz-Israel encompasses. (Continued on page 11)
Accordingly we, members of the People's Council, representatives
of the Jewish Community of Eretz-Israel and of the Zionist Movement, are here assembled on the day of the termination of the British Mandate over Eretz-Israel and, by virtue of our natural and historic right and on the strength of the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly, hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel.
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.
Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel
Ursula Rudnick
Among the many images conjured up by the State of Israel are
memories of my year of studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem in 1984/5. Participating in the programme “Studies in
Israel”, designed for students of theology to study classical
Jewish texts as well as to learn about contemporary Jewish life,
was a unique opportunity not only to study the classical texts of
rabbinic Judaism, but to encounter many different Jewish people and traditions. In Israel, worlds of Judaism opened up and I
started out on a path which led me to being active in JewishChristian relations to this very day. As a German Protestant
theologian I strongly feel that it is not appropriate to express
what should have been articulated in the Declaration of the
Establishment of the State of Israel or to criticise its content.
(Continued on page 12)
4
http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3
Volume 3(2008): 1-15
Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations
We appeal - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us
now formonths - 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.
Dennis Hale
Sixty years after the fact, the Israeli Statehood Declaration is
remarkable for the modesty of its claims. While the American
Declaration of Independence proclaims self-evident and universal truths, the Israeli Declaration proclaims only that Jews may
do what others may do: govern themselves in their own land,
exercising the same right to statehood that is possessed by all
peoples – a natural right buttressed by convention, in the form
of a U.N. resolution. Its modesty, of course, is deceptive. For
Jews, the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel was
an event of transcendent importance, ending an era not only of
statelessness but also of extreme vulnerability. The Israeli Declaration references both of these facts: first, the fulfillment of an
ancient promise that the homeland would be restored; and then
the urgency revealed by the Holocaust. (Continued on page 13)
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 EretzIsrael.
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
community of nations.
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.
Peter Pettit
The world reflected in Israel’s Declaration was a very different
place than we know today. The Declaration stands as a document of its time, evoking respect as we attempt a fair assessment, neither wishing for the unattainable nor second-guessing
with the unfair advantage of hindsight. Like all founding documents, it invites us to understand its ideals, assessing the ways
in which subsequent reality fulfilled them and the ways in which
today’s inheritors of the ideals may yet more fully achieve them.
In its twelfth paragraph, the Declaration sets forth its core ideals; it is remarkable to consider how far Israel has embodied
the accommodation of immigrants and the participation in the
community of nations that are included there, particularly in
light of the continuing state of war marking its life from the start.
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.
Placing our trust in the Almighty, we affix our signatures to this
proclamation at this session of the provisional Council of State, on
the soil of the Homeland, in the city of Tel-Aviv, on this Sabbath
eve, the 5th day of Iyar, 5708 (14th May, 1948).
(Continued on page 13)
Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel
5
http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3
Volume 3(2008): 1-15
Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations
Racelle Weiman
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
Almighty God and the Declaration of Independence of Israel
The Talmud extols the extraordinary teacher as a treasure. One
of my cherished teachers was Ruth Goldschmidt Kunzer, a fiery
professor with red hair and a British accent from the German
Studies Department at UCLA, who taught the first university
courses in the USA on Zionism, as well as the Holocaust. She
was extraordinary in many ways; not least was the fact that she
was present as the proverbial ‘fly on the wall’ during some of
the greatest moments in modern Jewish history.
In the summer of 1975 I volunteered to live with her to help out
with her husband, who was dying of cancer. During those warm
summer nights in Los Angeles, Ruth shared her most significant memories. These were of the chaotic but exhilarating
years serving as the English language secretary and aide to
David Ben Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel, and later
his successor, Moshe Sharett (Shertok), the major architects of
the State of Israel. (Continued on page 14)
From
http://www.knesset.gov.il/docs/eng/megilat_eng.htm
Raymond Cohen (Continued from page 2)
alarmed, neither be ye affrighted at them; for the Lord your
God is He that goeth with you, to fight for you against your
enemies, to save you.
In the circumstances, the declaration was less a detailed political manifesto than a call to arms, a claim to statehood, an appeal for international recognition, and an affirmation of faith. In
besieged Jerusalem people danced in the streets. In its assurance of an eternal Israel it evokes the declaration to be enunciated by the priest on the eve of battle of Deuteronomy 20:3-4.
In one paragraph in broad brushstrokes the declaration sketches out the ideals of a democratic state, “freedom, justice and
peace, as envisaged by the prophets of Israel,” while promising
“complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex.” It guarantees “free-
Hear O Israel, ye draw nigh this day unto battle against
your enemies; let not your heart faint; fear not, nor be
Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel
6
http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3
Volume 3(2008): 1-15
Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations
the background of the Nazi holocaust, is the evocation of “the
natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own
fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State.” Sixty
years on I believe that Statehood has indeed transformed the
conditions of Jewish existence. But many key questions remain
open, including cultural identity, borders, the status of Jerusalem, and relations with the Palestinians.
dom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture.”
But the envisaged constitution supposed to give these ideals
concrete legal expression by October 1, 1948 still languishes,
sixty years on, in a committee of the Israeli parliament.
The declaration of statehood is not a political program in the
Tom Paine tradition of the Enlightenment for the simple reason
that Zionism was never very interested in political theory as opposed to policy. At an ethical level it took the message of the
prophets as its beacon. At a practical level it emphasized creating facts on the ground – bringing in immigrants, buying and
settling land, planting orchards. The political issues of the day
were always exhaustively debated by Zionist thinkers. But political and constitutional theory fell between the cracks.
As far as Christian-Jewish relations are concerned, no one in
1948 could imagine that Israel and the Holy See would eventually exchange ambassadors, as they did in 1994. Today the
challenge is to normalize that relationship by finally concluding
agreements on the bread and butter issues of visas for clerics
and tax exemptions for Catholic institutions. With these obstacles out of the way, the two parties might then productively discuss deeper mutual questions of history, memory, and identity.
As a result, the declaration is something of a patchwork of contrasts and even contradictions. Is this a secular or a sacred
document? It is replete with biblical and messianic allusions.
The “Rock of Israel” is evoked, but the divine promise of the
land is omitted. The “redemption of Israel” is proclaimed, and
this seems to refer to national rebirth, the ingathering of exiles,
statehood, rebuilding Jerusalem, redemption of the land, and
fructification of the desert. However, the text does not expand
on what this implies in spiritual terms. After the Six-Day War
this vacuum was filled by the national religious aspiration to settle the entire Land of Israel and ultimately to restore the Temple.
Raymond Cohen holds the Chaim Weizman Chair of International
Relations in the Department of International Relations at the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem. He is the 2008-2009 Corcoran Visiting
Chair at the Center for Christian-Jewish Learning at Boston College.
(Back to Page 2)
Deborah Weissman (Continued from page 2)
1. The United States, rapidly after issuing its declaration of
independence, produced a constitution, with a bill of rights.
The State of Israel came into being without a constitution.
Ben-Gurion was afraid of a struggle with the Orthodox parties, who he was sure would insist that the Jewish people
already had an adequate constitution in the Torah. Besides,
it could be argued, one of the world’s admirable democracies – Great Britain – had existed for centuries without a
constitution.
National and universal values also pull the text in different directions. It is unclear how the concept of a specifically Jewish
state can be reconciled with the political rights of non-Jewish
inhabitants of Israel in the event that the latter become a majority of the population. In addition, does freedom of religion and
conscience not also imply freedom to change one’s religion?
The most resonant sentence in the entire document, against
Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel
7
http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3
Volume 3(2008): 1-15
Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations
of all the countries in the Arab world, a fairer comparison
would be with Jewish Israelis, and there, they lag behind.
The poorest communities in Israel, with the highest unemployment rates, are in the Arab sector. The percentages of
pupils matriculating in high schools or finishing university
degrees are much lower than in Jewish communities. Government budgets are not always distributed proportionally.
However, what was ignored in this approach is that Britain
had, over the centuries, developed strong traditions and
stable institutions, safeguarding its democracy.
Many of us in Israel feel that although our democracy has
managed to weather deep crises and threats of an existential nature – in terms of security, politics, the economy and a
multicultural society – we do need a stronger legal bulwark
to continue as a Jewish and democratic state. We are
probably closer, on a parliamentary level, to achieving a
constitution than we have been before, but because of the
challenges we have already alluded to, the goal is not yet in
sight.
One of the most painful and, unfortunately, growing phenomena in Israel is Jewish racism, directed against Arabs.
These questions will have to be addressed if Israel is to live
up to the ideals articulated in its Declaration of Independence.
Rabbi Dr. Deborah Weissman, who lives in Jerusalem, is
President of the International Council of Christians and Jews.
2. After the first nineteen years of its existence, the State of
Israel faced the challenge of the territories acquired (captured? conquered? liberated?) during the Six-Days War.
The settlements were a major strategic blunder, calling into
question the commitment of the Declaration to the values of
“…freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel…” The majority of Israelis have given up on
any dream of the greater Israel, although the 2005 disengagement from Gaza, with its dismantling of settlements,
gave a mixed message. It showed that Israel was capable
of withdrawal from settled territory, but brought in its wake
an intolerable situation of constant rocket fire on the northern Negev. Another attempt at unilateral withdrawal, the infamous security barrier/fence/wall, may have lowered the
incidence of terrorism, but it also has trampled Palestinian
rights and further worsened Israel’s image in the world.
(Back to page 3)
James Bernauer (Continued from page 3)
Humanity continues to be enriched by the Jewish cultures
spread throughout the world and these diverse groups witness
to a Judaism that has its own independence apart from the
State.
As a Roman Catholic, I am contrite over Christianity’s centuries-long persecution of the Jewish people who yearned for
their own redemption as a people of God, who dreamt of a welcome among the nations of the world. Surely this contrition
sparks in me a special understanding for the precarious situation of Israel and an unwillingness to apply a double standard to
Israel’s political conduct. As an American, I feel pride that the
United States recognized the State on the very first day of its
existence. But I want my country to support an Israeli nation
that celebrates more than mere independent existence. May it
3. The most egregious contradiction to the Declaration lies
in the second-class status of Israel’s Arab citizens. The
Declaration has promised them “full and equal citizenship
and due representation.” These have yet to be achieved. Although Arab Israelis compare favorably with the populations
Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel
8
http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3
Volume 3(2008): 1-15
Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations
nity and vitality to the Jewish people, developed from independence and the opportunity to assume responsibility for its
own welfare. In sixty short years Israel has achieved prosperity,
bringing a poor war-torn society to a standard of living equal to
that of western European nations. Israel has become a world
leader in scientific advancement and the hi-tech revolution. The
country has absorbed millions of Jews from the four corners of
the earth, including one million fleeing oppression from the totalitarian Soviet Union and fifty thousand black Jews from
Ethiopia escaping starvation. The Jewish State is now home to
nearly the majority of world Jewry and is the theater of a robust
and phenomenally creative Jewish culture. Israel’s leaders
have developed a thriving pluralistic democracy where legal
equality is guaranteed for all its citizens – Jewish, Christian,
Muslim – amidst a Middle East filled with monistic societies and
autocratic regimes that are largely intolerant and deeply distrustful of minorities.
be a people that regards the message of the Book of Books as
a supreme gift but not as a substitute for a political constitution.
And perhaps among America’s most helpful contributions to
contemporary Israel might be the example of its constitutional
ambition to separate religion from politics and, in doing so, protect both domains.
Fundamentalist religious visions and groups pose a dangerous
challenge to the political character of the Jewish State, to its
very existence. I was shocked when, on a recent visit to Israel,
a settler explained that the success of the settlers’ efforts to expand the territory of Israel was in God’s hands. “If we are destroyed in trying to do so, that was God’s will.”
The existence of Israel and the endurance of its humanistic aspirations are hopes for the Jewish people but also for all peoples. As Theodor Herzl expressed those hopes in his speech to
the Third Zionist Congress (August 15, 1899): “We want to
mount to a higher grade of civilization, to spread well-being
abroad, to build new highways for the intercourse of peoples,
and to forge an opening for the coming of social justice. And
just as our beloved poet transformed his sorrows into songs, so
upon the loom of our sufferings we shall weave progress for
mankind whom we serve.” While Israel’s declaration of its national existence is to be celebrated, may Herzl’s vision ever become more clearly the State’s guiding light.
Yet there are also paradoxes pointing to dreams unfulfilled.
Amidst the prosperity, there is also spreading poverty. Unlike all
other Middle East countries, the number of Christians in Israel
is growing (from 35,000 in 1948 to 130,000 today), but Christians have not yet achieved social or economic equality. Seventy-seven percent of Israeli Arabs stated in a recent Harvard
University poll that they would rather live in Israel than anywhere else in the world, yet many view Israel as a foreign entity
in the Middle East. Israel needs to devote more resources to
the welfare of Israeli Christians and Muslims.
James Bernauer, SJ is Professor of Philosophy and Director of
the Center for Christian-Jewish Learning at Boston College.
Israel has built a strong army, but that has not brought peace
within Israel’s grasp. Tragically, the Declaration’s vision of
neighborly cooperation to build a flourishing Middle East has
not been realized. On the contrary, Islamist extremism is rising
throughout the region, and the political ascendancy of Hamas
and Hezbollah, which are both committed to Israel’s destruction, makes peace seem farther away than ever. Israel has in
(Back to page 3)
Eugene Korn (Continued from page 3)
Israel has succeeded in realizing many of the goals articulated
in the Declaration: From the ashes of Auschwitz, it brought digDeclaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel
9
http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3
Volume 3(2008): 1-15
Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations
Nowhere is this more obvious than in Israel today.
voluntarily inherited responsibility for more than three million
Palestinians, and is unable to find a way to reach a separation
agreement with them that would protect its own safety and security.
Rabbi Eugene Korn, PhD. is North American Director of the Center
for Jewish-Christian Understanding and Cooperation in Efrat, and
Editor of Meorot—A Forum of Modern Orthodox Discourse.
All the while Israel’s physical existence is threatened, its soul
remains at risk: How long can Israelis strive to fight a moral war
against an enemy that targets Israeli children and civilians?
How can it continue to respect the human rights of enemies
while in a state of perpetual war? And how long can Israelis
continue to see the Image of God in all people when they are
surrounded by vicious anti-Semitic propaganda?
(Back to page 3)
Ruth Lautt (Continued from page 4)
In Notes on the Correct Way to present the Jews and Judaism
in Preaching and Catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church
(1985), the Vatican Commission for Religious Relations drew a
distinction between theological and political considerations, noting that Christians should strive to understand the deep religious significance of the land of Israel to Jews and Judaism,
while interpreting the existence of the state of Israel according
to principles of international law. Almost another twenty years
later, in the Joint Declaration of the International CatholicJewish Liaison Committee (2004), the Church restated its
commitment to rejecting anti-Semitism and specifically cited
anti-Zionism as a more recent form of the bias.
As a Jewish nation, Israel represents the principle of difference
in the middle of Dar Al Islam: Can the Middle East be a place of
dignity and equality also for Jews and Christians? Can the
stunning ideals of Micah and Isaiah shape the politics and life
of all people in that violent region? Ultimately, that is what the
Israeli-Arab conflict is about and why the battle is so great for
Jews and Christians – indeed, for Muslims as well.
These are the great challenges that Israel faces. The country
remains unredeemed, yet Israelis resolutely continue to strive
to bring their flawed reality and imperfect lives closer to spiritual
and moral redemption.
During this 60th anniversary of their country’s founding, Israelis
would do well to engage in a process of national self-evaluation
and reflect upon how well they have lived up to the noble principles state in their Declaration. Such a reflection, however, is
not a task for the Church, which should be self-critical before it
presumes to be critical of Israel.
Jews and Christians around the world today have powerful reasons to be practical and spiritual partners to help realize the
prophetic ideals of Micah and Isaiah. Both faiths are threatened
by common enemies: the radical philosophies of secular materialism on one side, and forces of religious intolerance on the
other. As partners, Jews and Christians can bear common witness to the presence of God and the validity of His covenant
with the children of Abraham.
Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel
The Church’s task, if it has one in the 60th anniversary year,
might be to reflect upon how well it is living up to its own stated
10
http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3
Volume 3(2008): 1-15
Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations
purposes are among a few of them. Moreover, while some biblical passages had specific historical circumstances in view,
others clearly set their sights on an ideal configuration that had
yet come to pass.
understanding of Jews and the Jewish state. Having rightly
proclaimed that the state of Israel is to be judged by the same
principles of international law that every other country is judged
by, the Church must discern whether these legal principles are
applied in an even handed way. Or rather, is Israel held to
uniquely high legal and moral standards and then routinely adjudged guilty of failing to meet them? And if this is the case –
which the frequency and vigor of criticism leveled at Israel by
certain of the social justice and other factions of the Church
suggests – then the reason for this must be discerned. Might
this excessive criticism be reflective of a fundamental failure to
These distinctive features should not obscure the centrality that
the Land of Israel held for the Hebrews/Israelites/Jews throughout the biblical period. Such a central position is also delineated
when we consider how closely the People of Israel and the
Land of Israel are linked. When Israel served God, the Land –
including vegetation, crops, livestock, indeed every mountain
and valley – participated in the people's good fortune: bounteous crops, propitious rains, large and healthy herds. Conversely, Israel's rejection of God led not only to the people's
pain and suffering; crops failed, rivers dried out, the land was
overrun with wild beasts, and well-ordered farms fell victim to
randomly growing briars and thorns. The Land and People of
Israel, and their respective fates, are inextricably bound – even
if the precise boundaries of the Land are not decisively delineated.
fully embrace the principles declared more than forty years ago
in Nostra Aetate?
The 60th Anniversary of the founding of Israel presents both Israelis and Catholics with unique and profound opportunities.
Israel can engage in self-critical reflection and recommit to creating a nation that its ancient prophets might have envisioned.
And the Church can likewise engage in soul searching selfcriticism, and recommit to the objectives stated in its documents – rejection of anti-Semitism in all its forms, including excessive criticism, scrutiny and bias against the Jewish state.
Those Jews who accepted Jesus as their messiah, and the
later generations of Jews and non-Jews who eventually established Christianity as a religion separate from Judaism, were
heirs to these earlier ideas about Land and People. They did
not reject this linkage, but – it is fair to say – they shifted their
horizons and threw themselves into a universal mission that
emphasized the similarities among peoples, thereby deemphasizing the relative importance of the Land of Israel and
its People. I am looking at this from what I would call a descriptive stance, passing no judgment on whether or not what has
come to be the Jewish view or the Christian view is somehow
better or more authentic. What I do insist on is that fair-minded
observers of Judaism take the time to fully comprehend what
the Land of Israel, in both ideal and real formulations, has
meant and continues to mean for Jews.
Sr. Ruth Lautt, OP, Esq., is Founder and National Director
of Christians for Faith Witness on the Middle East.
(Back to page 4)
Leonard Greenspon (Continued from page 4)
Such descriptions do appear in the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament, and it is instructive to observe that the borders of the
Land, and hence its extent, are not uniform throughout the biblical text. There are many factors to consider when accounting
for such differences: chronology, ideology, origins, context, and
Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel
11
http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3
Volume 3(2008): 1-15
Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations
My insistence naturally extends to non-Jewish critics of the
modern State of Israel, most of whom are undoubtedly sincere
when they assert that their statements about a specific policy of
a given government of Israel should not be equated with antiSemitism. At the same time, such individuals must be sensitive
to the feelings of many Jews, whose sense of connectedness
with the Land is in no way diminished by the fact that they have
chosen not to live there. Although it is clearly not obligatory – or
even desirable – that non-Jews share the feelings of Jews
about the Land of Israel, it is essential that support of Israel –
the Israel of the Hebrew Bible and the Israel of the Declaration
– be acknowledged by all who wish to carry out productive dialogue between Jews and Christians. In short, when everyone
affirms the reality of the ideal, they can work towards the ideal
of the reality.
the importance of the land of Israel for the Jewish people, stating: “Jews have always lived in the land of Israel and in the Diaspora; complete realization of Jewish life has always been
connected to the land.“
The well-known declaration of the Rhineland-Synod from 1980
states: “the continuing existence of the Jewish people, its return
to the promised land, and the establishment of the state of Israel are a sign of God’s faithfulness to his people.“ This is one
of the few statements that interpret the establishment of the
state of Israel in theological categories. No other German declaration has gone that far. Most statements refrain from a theological interpretation, often rejecting any theological interpretation of contemporary events in history. Thus, the third study on
Christians and Jews published by the Evangelical Church in
Germany insists on a distinction between “the land as a gift of
God and the secular state of Israel.“ Nevertheless, there is a
consensus “that the State of Israel will find a secure peace
within just borders.“ This consensus is shared by official representatives of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches in Germany. However, it is an official consensus which does not always seem to be heart-felt. Furthermore, an anti-Israeli undercurrent among church members has grown over the past decades. Increasingly, sympathy rests with those who are perceived as the victims in this conflict, the Palestinian people.
Dr. Leonard Greenspoon, Professor of Classical and Near Eastern
Studies, holds the Klutznick Chair in Jewish Civilization at Creighton
University. He is a Faculty Associate of the Kripke Center for the
Study of Religion and Society, and is the current Book Review Editor
for ‘Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations.’
(Back to page 4)
Ursula Rudnick (Continued from page 4)
Empathy with Israeli suffering is often only expressed by Protestant fundamentalists, who are on the margin of the churches.
Rather, I want to throw a spot-light on contemporary Protestant
attitudes in Germany towards the State of Israel. Dabru Emet, a
Jewish Statement on Christians and Christianity, crafted by
Jewish scholars and rabbis in 2000, states: “Christians can respect the claim of the Jewish people upon the land of Israel.”
Looking at official statements from Lutheran and Reformed
Churches in Germany, this seems to be true.
The challenge for those involved in Jewish-Christian relations
lies in redressing this rising imbalance.
Prof. Dr. Ursula Rudnick, Professor of Theology at the Leibniz
University in Hannover and General Secretary of ‘Begegnungen
– Christen und Juden,’ Niedersachsen.
The first study on the relationship of Christians and Jews by the
Evangelical Church in Germany from 1975 explicitly refers to
Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel
(Back to page 5)
12
http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3
Volume 3(2008): 1-15
Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations
Dennis Hale (Continued from page 5)
That so many people, in so many high places, are certain that
they do not, and certain as well that the Jews would be better
off if only they could once again be made stateless.
And while in the wake of the Holocaust it seemed briefly that
there would no longer be room for anti-Semitism in the civilized
world – and possibly no pressing need for a Jewish state – recent trends in Europe and elsewhere show that the old fires
were banked but not extinguished.
Dennis Hale, PhD is Associate Professor in the Department
of Political Science at Boston College..
(Back to page 5)
The existence of a Jewish state is therefore not just the fulfillment of a biblical prophecy; it would appear to be, even now, a
practical and even an urgent necessity. There is no better evidence for this necessity than the agitation caused by the mere
existence of Israel – and not just among Israel’s Arab and Muslim neighbors.
Peter Pettit (Continued from page 5)
The State has invested itself deeply in serving those in need –
by accommodating its immigrants at home, by responding generously and energetically to natural and human catastrophes
elsewhere, and by unparalleled contributions to the technological progress that has widened human prosperity and flattened
the world.
There is a certain Christian disquiet about Israel, even in America, where Jews have been safer than anywhere else in the Diaspora. This unease has always been there, sometimes under
the surface, and it has been quietly building since the 1970s.
The intervening years emphasize two points for particular reflection. First, the Declaration’s insistent use of “Eretz Israel” to
name the land ignored too much history and ambiguity about
ownership and sovereignty over time; the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs now wisely glosses the phrase with “Land of Israel, Palestine” on its web site. More extensively, the Declaration erects
the Jewish state on the people’s “natural and historic right” and
leans heavily on the historical for its justifying dynamic. This
begs the question of a Jewish State, with its theological implications. The Jewish people of course always includes the secular,
but it is never without the religious of all the Jewish movements.
The religious reading of the compromise language of 1948
must find fuller expression in the State’s self-understanding and
not only in bureaucratic pragmatics that respond only to coalition politics.
Lately it has come fully and aggressively into view among the
mainline Protestant churches, whose official pronouncements
leave no doubt that Israel is a nation whose very existence is
now debatable – even regrettable. For many mainline Protestants, Israeli statehood was a mistake, an aberration; to them,
the Zionist idea itself is abhorrent. As the Episcopal Bishop of
Massachusetts has said, Zionism is a “crime against the Palestinian people” that is now over a hundred years old. The willingness of the mainline Protestant churches to demonize Israel
and absolve the Arabs is by now notorious, and it is hard to find
a charitable explanation for this bias.
So it would appear that the founders of modern Israel were
right to think that the Jews needed their own state. The proof is
Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel
13
http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3
Volume 3(2008): 1-15
Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations
Independence 1 that became the foundation of all law in the
country. A rare female insider (only two women were signatories; Golda Meir (Meyerson) and Rachel Cohen), Ruth knew
intimately about the two major issues that were problematic: the
subject of borders, and the inclusion of a reference to God.
Sixty years later, these two key issues still remain on Israel’s
agenda. But at the moment of nationhood, it was a real crisis
up until the final moments, in the rush to make the pronouncement of the new State of Israel as soon as the British forces
lowered their flag and ended the Mandate, and notably, before
the coming of the Sabbath eve on May 14, 1948.
This dimension of Israel’s character also challenges North
American Christians, for whom the church-state separation of
modernity has until recently been made too easy by a continuing Christian hegemony. No less than Israelis, we must be
clearer about what constitutes the sacred element in national
existence, albeit approaching the issue from quite a different
experience. The distinction between peoplehood and statehood
demands careful attention, as individuals draw identity from
one and strive to fulfill a role as loyal subjects of the other,
without pretending that the private/public distinction is adequate. My own Lutheran community should be offering its considerable resources of both experience and theology in negotiating these perilous paths, walking them together with Israel
both as a faithful partner and a grateful fellow learner.
On the first issue, Ben Gurion or “B.G.,” as she called him,
made the decision to refrain from all reference to actual borders. But it was the second issue that proved his leadership
and genius in his resolution of the dilemma about God in the
Declaration. Ruth described the fundamental tension between
the secularist and religious Jews. There were those who believed that such an important historical document in Jewish collective identity must include Elohim, HaKodesh Baruch Hu, –
God – in the fulfillment of the 2,000 year prayer for the Ingathering of the Exiles and the Return to the Land. The secularist
Jewish wing objected to any reference to God, believing that it
was faith in the human spirit, in Jewish empowerment and self
sufficiency, which made the reality of Jewish sovereignty possible. Ruth tells of B.G.’s compromise solution phrase of “Bitachon B’Tzur Yisrael” (“With trust in the ‘Rock of Israel’”) to satisfy each and every Jew. Refusing to put it to a vote, Ben
Gurion delivered one of his most impassioned pleas to the assembly, in private, behind closed doors. He said that each person knows what he believes is the “Rock of Israel” 2 that an-
The Declaration still stands as a calling. Our strongest word
should be one of encouragement for Israel to embody the
openness, self-extension and risk-taking that its confidence engenders. Thereby we can look forward to greater fulfillment,
when the State not only is based on prophetic vision but also
stands as a prophetic sign of God’s will for human society and
its governance. Ad meah v’esrim!
Peter Pettit, PhD is Assistant Professor of Religion Studies and
Director of the Institute for Jewish-Christian Understanding at
Muhlenberg College.
(Back to page 6)
Racelle Weimann (Continued from page 6)
1
It was an electrifying time and Ruth, a Holocaust refugee, had
a vivid eyewitness account of the writing of the Declaration of
Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel
Megilat Atzmaout in Hebrew is referred to as the [Scroll] Declaration of
Independence.
14
http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3
Volume 3(2008): 1-15
Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations
chors the Jewish collective. As leader of the new entity, he was
able to embrace all Jews from their own understandings of
faith, culture, belief, whatever is their ‘mighty stronghold’ by
offering a specifically Jewish answer – not either/or but this
AND that..He created a national entity from the plethora of Jewish political, social, religious and ethnic groups from all corners
of the globe. For Ruth, it also indicates the reality of the diversity and array of Jewish identities among the Jewish People,
which is crucial for Jew and Gentile alike to acknowledge.
doxically, even though she embraced the ingenuity of the “Rock
of Israel’ solution for the coalition of new citizens of the State of
Israel, she strongly believed that the Gentile world needed to
understand the sanctity of this moment, and that God had not
abandoned His people, nor they abandoned Him.
In the archives, I found a TIME magazine article of August 30,
1948 which spoke of the ‘girl at the typewriter’ who carried the
day by including “the Almighty” in the new State of Israel’s Declaration of Independence, and was officially recorded in history
in the Official Gazette No. 1, Tel Aviv, 5 Iyar, 5708, Declaration
of the Establishment of the State of Israel, May 14, 1948.
Ruth labored with Moshe Shertok long hours into the night
hammering out a translation into Enlish of this famous announcement to the rest of the nations of the world. Shertok
thought to preserve the euphemistic “Rock of Israel” in the
translation. It was Ruth, the self-proclaimed secularist and agnostic young secretary, who convinced Shertok that the English
version should read “Placing our Trust in the Almighty.” 3 Para-
Racelle R. Weiman, PhD is Executive Director of the
Dialogue Institute at Temple University in Philadelphia.
2
In Jewish literature over the centuries, “Tzur Yisrael” has been used to refer
to Eretz Yisrael, the Land of Israel; Am Israel People of Israel; and Torat
Israel-The Torah(Teachings and Culture)of Israel, as well as HaShem—God
Almighty.
3
The US Declaration of Independence refers to God, though the Constitution
does not.
Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel
15
http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol3