Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T20:24:44.153Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Laws Disregarded*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2016

Reuven Yaron
Get access

Extract

When Professor Ginossar invited me to address you, he very liberally left the choice of topic to me. “Talk about anything you want,” he said, “about Eshnunna, or about the Land of Israel Movement, or about anything else you consider proper.” This left me in somewhat of a quandary. I might have talked to you about ancient legal history, about Rome, or about the Jewish military colony at Elephantine, in southern Egypt, of the 5th century B.C., or else about the laws of Eshnunna, an Old-Babylonian kingdom of the 18th century B.C. But then one should beware of imposing one's specialties on a general audience, however intelligent, kind and tolerant. At the very best the interest of a few might be kindled, for others the likely result is boredom—albeit in after-lunch talks alleviated by a tendency to post-prandial somnolence.

I might have talked about politics. This—I feel quite certain—would have kept everyone wide awake. But while I do hope that some of you would have agreed with my views, a few might even have been persuaded, I have no doubt whatsoever that others would have disagreed quite strongly. In the end I did not think it proper to introduce that much controversy into this “happy dwelling together of brethren”. If I had been expressly asked to talk about politics, I should have complied without hesitation (and perhaps there may be some other occasion for it). But, since the matter was left to my discretion, I decided against it.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , April 1971, pp. 188 - 197
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 See my Introduction to the Law of the Aramaic Papyri, 1960, and The Laws of Eshnunna, 1969.

2 (1952–53) 7 L.S.I. 137–9.

3 For the acrimonious parliamentary debate, see (1953) 14/2 Divrei HaKnesset 1973–98; 2532–42.

4 “National service” means any of the following:—

(1) Service in agricultural work or in agricultural training, either in a religious agricultural settlement or in a religious agricultural institution;

(2) labour service for the Defence Army of Israel, or other labour service for the security of the State;

(3)service in an immigrant's camp, a ma'bara(immigrants' transitional settlement), an educational or social welfare institution or an institution for medical care;

(4) labour service in another institution of the State defined by the Minister as an institution for the purpose of this law.

5 See sec. 8: “A person eligible for service…shall be assured during her national service of an opportunity to maintain a religious way of life, in accordance with rules to be prescribed by regulations.” See also the remarks of Mrs. Golda Meirson (now Mrs. Meir), who as Minister of Labour submitted the law on behalf of the Government: Girls not sent to religious settlements or institutions would be allowed to return home every evening, Divrei Haknesset, cit., at p. 2542.

6 Divrei HaKnesset, cit., at p. 1973. What was not said, but may have been in the mind of some of the members: the law would put an end to, or at least curb, the evasion of military service by women. Only the genuinely religious would have preferred the substitute “national service”, with all its possible drudgery, to the more exciting rôle of the girl soldier.

7 I should also like to refer to the Parliamentary question put (July 28, 1966) by Mr.Hausner, Gideon, M.K.: (1966) 46 Divrei HaKnesset 2289.Google Scholar At the time he asked for implementation or repeal. Hausner repeated his suggestions to the coalition caucus a few months ago, in the summer of 1970, but was overruled.

8 (1961) 15 L.S.I. 52–5.

9 (1961) 30 Divrei HaKnesset 580; (1961) 31 Divrei HaKnesset 1302.

10 Oppenheimer v. The Ministers of the Interior and of Health, (1966) (I) 20 P.D. 309–338.

11 (1966) K.T. 2264–65.

12 “A cheque issued before the day stated thereon as the date of the cheque, or issued without any date, shall be payable upon issue, and the day of issue shall, to all intents and purposes, be deemed to be the date of the cheque.” (1969) 1 L.S.I. (New Version) 45.

13 See Hatza'ot Hok, no. 581, October 15, 1963, pp. 4–5.

14 (1963/64) Divrei HaKnesset 96ff.; 124ff.; 639ff. Note that a draft had been submitted to the Knesset already in January 1959, but dissolution of the House prevented discussion. It was submitted for the second time in November 1960, and passed its first reading: see (1960/61) 30 Divrei HaKnesset 176ff.; 190ff.; 205ff.; 221ff. It was sent to the Finance Committee, but once more its enactment was frustrated by the dissolution of the Knesset.

15 The situation has been complicated by a decision of the Supreme Court, “Dan”, Cooperative Society for Public Transport and others v. The Attorney General, (1966) (IV) 20 P.D, 253–264. There the Court applied to the “delayed cheque” the provisions of sec. 14 of the Penal Law Amendment (Deceit, Blackmail and Extortion) Law, 1963. This provides as follows: “A person who draws a cheque knowing that on the date specified thereon as the date of drawing the banker is not obligated to pay it, shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of one year.” See (1963) 17 L.S.I. 155.

16 Criminal Appeal 224/63, Josef ben Ami v. The Attorney General (1964) (III) 18 P.D. 238.

17 Leviticus 18.22; 20.13.

18 A private member's bill, proposing repeal of the section, has recently been submitted by Mr. Uri Avneri, M.K. On December 22, 1970, the Minister of Justice said in Parliament that he did not oppose repeal of the law, as far as it concerned consenting adults ((1970) 59 Divrei HaKnesset 630). It remains to be seen whether this stand will be endorsed by the coalition caucus.

19 P.G. no. 1442—Supplement no. 2, September 27, 1945, pp. 1058–98.

20 Orders serving the same purposes as these Defence Regulations have been promulgated by the Israeli Military Commanders for (i) Judaea and Samaria, (ii) the Golan Heights Region, (iii) the Gaza Strip and Northern Sinai, and (iv) the Solomon Region (i.e.,southern Sinai). These Orders are not identical with the Defence Regulations, and rather more thrifty in the scope of offences and in the punishments laid down. They were last amended and consolidated in March and April 1970. Note, however, that the British Defence (Emergency) Regulations, 1945, remained in force during the Jordanian occupation of Judaea and Samaria, and the Egyptian occupation of the Gaza Strip. Subsequently to the 1967 war, it has been held that the Regulations continue in force in these areas. There is then the possibility that in a given case different legal consequences may ensue, e.g., in Gaza (where the Regulations apply) and in Northern Sinai (where they do not).

21 See the amended formulation in P.G. no. 1470—Supplement no. 2, January 28, 1946, at p. 151: “No person shall—

(a) discharge any firearm at any person or any group or body of persons, or at any place where persons may be, or

(b) throw or deposit any bomb, grenade or incendiary article, with intention to cause death or injury to any person or damage to any property, or

(c) carry any firearm, ammunition, bomb, grenade, or explosive or incendiary article, without a permit by or on behalf of a Military Commander, or otherwise than in accordance with the terms and conditions of such permit, or

(d) be a member of any group or body of persons, any one or more of whom has committed while a member of the group or body or is committing an offence against this regulation.

Punishment: Death or such lesser punishment as the Court may order.”

22 Punishment of Whipping (Abolition) Law, (1950) 4 L.S.I. 140.

23 Mutatis mutandis, the recent Leningrad and Burgos sentences of death may also be understood as signs of weakness of the Soviet and Falangist regimes.

24 There are exceptions. The best known instance is the mandatory life term for murder. See the Penal Law Revision (Abolition of the Death Penalty for Murder) Law, 1954, sec. 1: “Where a person has been convicted of murder, the Court shall impose the penalty of imprisonment for life, and only that penalty”: (1953/54) 9 L.S.I. 63.

Two other examples may be mentioned. Sec. 1 of the Penal Law Revision (Assault on Police Officers) Law, 1952, imposes a minimum of one month in prison for assault of a police officer: (1952) 6 L.S.I. 49. Sec. 10 of the Penal Law Amendment Prostitution Offences) Law, 1962, provides mandatory imprisonment for procuring and instigation to prostitution: (1961/62) 16 L.S.I. 69.