Okay. Hello, everybody. Welcome back to the seventh week.
We're almost finished. We're very excited to host today Dr. Maya.
Marc. So, Dr. Maya Marc is a faculty member at the Institute for Israeli Studies at Ben-Gurion University.
Her Ph.D. analyses Menachem Begin begins legal and administrative world view,
and she also interned in the Israeli Supreme Court and was the legal assistant of the president of the Supreme Court as the hired.
For those of you who know, her research in general examines the judicial,
economic and political history in Israel and the civil ideology of the political right in Israel.
And we're very excited to host you today.
So, as always, we'll have a 45 minute presentation and then we'll have about 45 minutes for questions and answers.
Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm very excited to be here and I wish to thank Professor Arriaga and Simon for inviting me and for the warm hospitality.
Thank you. And I will talk today about Menachem Begin stand on the position of military government.
But before I will actually start my talk, I would like to say a few words about why I think this is important.
Why is this an important historical episode?
So I will try to convince you today that this was a distinctive liberal campaign waged by the Israeli right for over a decade.
And given that it was such a campaign, I believe it reflects on the ideological baggage of left and right in Israel in the second decade.
And so that's the first reason that I think this is an important story, historical story.
And secondly, I think it reflects on the ideological roots of the Israeli right.
And thirdly, I think it's a very good starting point for any discussion on ideological shifts that played out in later periods in the Israeli life.
So let's begin. How do I move the slides?
Just I press this. Okay. Yeah.
So the military government over the Arab citizens of Israel was established several months after the founding of Israel, and it ended late at 1966.
During this period, the Arab citizens of Israel endured severe restrictions on their freedom of movement,
expulsion from their lands, widespread unemployment, economic hardship, and limitations on their political freedoms.
Mapai the ruling party, and particularly its leader, Israel's Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion,
supported an uncompromising position regarding the military government, arguing that it was a security necessity.
I will focus, however, not on the position of the political left,
but rather on the position of the Israeli political right, and particularly the whole party.
So it was founded in 1948 by Menachem Begin.
It was a right wing National Liberal Party committed by its own admission to both Liberal and national values.
Beginning his party lost the national elections eight times in a row until 1977.
After 30 years in opposition, Burgon was nominated Israel's sixth prime minister.
As a political party committed to both liberal and national values,
the military government presented Howard with a profound ideological conflict from a Liberal perspective.
One can find very few examples of a more severe violation of liberal principles than
the one inflicted in a case of military government imposed on civilian civilians.
At the same time, maintaining that state security against an essential threat in the midst of a
total war for self-determination reflects the ultimate fulfilment of nationalism.
The necessity to formulate a common policy regarding the military government,
confronted with the contradictions between the ideological foundation of its worldview,
namely a strong commitment to both liberal and national values.
It was under these extreme historical circumstances, the code had to establish its policy regarding the military rule.
The party's struggle to reconcile its liberal and national values, leaving a fascinating documentation of this intellectual and political process.
The ideological tension between liberal and national values was reflected in the party's
position towards the military government during the first years of statehood as early as 1949.
Yumi Alperin, head of Cahoots ARB Department, demanded to immediately remove the razor wire fences surrounding the Arab settlements,
arguing that the policy that had served a purpose during wartime should no longer be imposed on civilians in a free country.
One month later, the party's organ, quote, devoted its editorial to this subject.
It asserted that there was no justification for the continuation of the military government,
arguing that it is violating the principle of equality and there's a harmful effect on the fabric of life of the population subject to.
In practice, however,
the parliament members of court took the view that while one should strive in principle to act to uphold the ideals of democracy and equality,
there was an overriding obligation to protect national security.
This orientation was reflected in the election vote in the Knesset, held in 1952.
Although in opposition the party voted in support of the government's position to maintain the military government.
Representatives consider the violation of the Arab citizens human rights and
expressed the party's disapproval of the imposition of the military government.
However, they regard it as a necessary outcome of the existing situation in light of state security
needs that it himself rarely mentioned the military government during the first decade,
and when he did express an opinion he declared holds commitment to the principle of equality and regretted
that under conditions of severe security threats and ongoing attacks on Jews within Israel's borders,
it was not feasible to end the military government and to grant full and equal rights to Arab citizens,
but only to continue to pursue this aim in general.
Such references were fairly sporadic during the course of Israel's formative years.
Like the other parties, with the exception of the Israeli Communist Party and a left wing Socialist Party,
consider the military government as a necessity dictated by the security situation.
And the question of its annulment found no place on its agenda.
The Sinai campaign in 1956 led to a certain turnabout in the security orientation regarding the military government.
This turnabout was mostly a result of the improvement in Israel's strategic position as a result of the Sinai campaign,
the involvement of Arab citizens in hostile activity against the state during the fighting,
and the establishment's realisation that the presence of Arabs within Israel's borders was a fact.
As the security necessity for the maintenance of the military government began to weaken,
a gradual shift emerged in standpoint towards the military government.
In December 1956, several weeks after the termination of the Sinai campaign,
Klute took on the notion that its policy regarding the military government required a reassessment as
the government brought to the Knesset yet another bill constituting the extension of the military.
Government representatives loudly objected,
arguing that Israel's security condition had significantly changed and the revision regarding the necessity of the military government was in order.
The gradual shift in the party's position regarding the security necessity of the military government was evident in Begin's keynote speech,
delivered of the code convention held in 1958.
At this point, Bevin had his sights on the elections to the fourth Knesset, Israel's parliament.
He reached out to the Arab citizens from the convention podium,
quoting a line from a poem by the official Bhutan ski that kept selected to him the revisionist movement's
vision regarding equality and the distribution of the country's resources between Jews and Arabs.
In it will dwell in wealth and joy. The son of Arabia, the son of Nazareth, and my son, Meghan,
declared that the principle of equality was a fundamental tenet worldview which the military government
violated and accused mapai of exploiting the military government for its political and party ends.
Nevertheless, he conceded that there were valid security considerations that necessitate necessitated the retention of the military government,
and that in an overall assessment, the matter of national security was superior.
While declaring himself unable to commit to ending the military government, Bevin pledged that work would win the election.
It would conduct a thorough investigation to determine whether the measure was
still necessary on security grounds and vowed never to use it to serve partisans.
These remarks reflect the complexity of Bennett's position and are far removed from a classic election promise, as we shall see.
They revealed a process whereby the party was slowly shifting its position on the military government at that time.
Several months later and only a few weeks prior to the general elections,
a broad front united in the Knesset around the issue of the military government, with five parties submitted submitting bills for its annulment.
What was not among them? Instead, the party's representatives protested against the timing of the discussion,
arguing that the Knesset should not begin to discuss so serious and important as an issue.
Just a few days prior to its dispersal. Proposal proposal raised at such a time where inevitably tainted by electoral considerations would claimed.
How is it possible they wanted that granting freedom of movement to the Arab citizens,
which had been considered to be dangerous for 11 years, had suddenly become harmless before the elections.
The question was not left hanging in the air. So what?
Accusations that Mukhtar had turned national security into a negotiable commodity provided the answer.
Finally, it argued that a week is an irrelevant time frame for a bill to pass all the necessary stages of legislation procedure.
And therefore, it is clear that this is nothing more than an attempt to gain popularity with the Arab voters prior to the elections.
Upon conclusion of the discussion, the proposals were passed to the legislation committee,
a decision supported by a majority of 41 Parliament members and with no opposing votes.
Members of both Mapai and Holt abstained the former after realising they had lost their majority.
Sorry, and the letter in protest at what they described as a cynical and irresponsible political move on a fateful issue.
So the question must be asked What's her position on the vote?
An attempt to evade a decision or a genuine refusal to cooperate with a course of action that is perceived as being populist?
The answer to this question soon presented itself is begging has predicted.
Time constraints prevented any operational outcomes to this moon and the third canister dispersed without holding further discussions on the matter.
At the opening session of the new Knesset, Bevan devoted much of his speech,
delivered as leader of the opposition to the issue of the military government.
He pointed to serious misconduct on the part of the military government authorities during the election campaign,
citing unjustified use of force against Arab citizens.
Night-Time raids intended to generate fear and attempts to prevent Arab citizens from receiving
notifications from the Central Election Committee affirming the right to vote freely.
Vegan announced that based on its commitment to equal rights for all citizens, he wrote,
intended to formulate a bill proposing the dismantling of the military government.
He expressed the hope that all the Knesset factions that would lend their support for such a move prior to the elections
would now prove that they had been guided by substantive rather than political considerations by supporting the proposal.
At the beginning of 1960, and in line with its earlier commitment, Howard submitted a bill proposing the annulment of the military government.
The bill failed to gain a majority in the Knesset and was rejected.
Nevertheless preserved with its parliamentary campaign on this issue.
And when the fifth Knesset convened in February 1962, it once again submitted a bill that was again rejected one year later,
submitted yet another bill which was rejected this time by a majority of only one vote.
Throughout this entire period and up to the final dismantling of the military government.
Wittenberg, in particular, never lost sight of this issue.
It can therefore be concluded that during the first years of statehood,
we decided to give priority to what it considered to be the current security interests of the state.
Even though the party's senior leadership consistently promoted a liberal and democratic ethos,
it repeatedly stressed that security considerations took precedence.
The shift in the party's position towards the end of the fifties, sorry,
resulted from its assessment that the military government no longer served the security function and should therefore be terminated.
This position was repeatedly affirmed by begging.
If we knew the ending, the military government would cause the shedding of one drop of a Jewish child's blood.
We would agree to impose two military governments, but we were convinced that the military government was utterly unconnected to security.
No connection at all. And we demand equal rights.
While the struggle to overturn the military government was waged by the party as a whole, Menachem Begin was its most prominent spokesman.
And it was he who spearheaded the campaign and public discourse surrounding it.
The range begins for living activities in the service of discourse, including raising the topic in opinion articles, parliamentary debates,
election rallies, party forums and private letters paints a picture of a consistent, determined and well-orchestrated campaign.
Underlying Bedouin struggle to abolish the military government was the democratic outlook,
which ruled out military control over civilians as a matter of principle.
It is a golden rule that soldiers should not and certainly not for extended periods control, supervise or regulate civilian matters.
Meghan repeatedly asserted. In his view, the use of the military to oversee,
rule over or judge civilians constituted an abuse of the power of government and a violation of fundamental democratic principles.
In a speech he made in the Knesset in 1962,
he furthermore stressed There is not a single member of this House who would argue in favour of a military supervision over civilians.
I am certain that the entire Knesset could,
and I mean unanimously agree that army commanders should be in charge of soldiers and citizens should be in charge of citizens.
This is the golden rule in a free country.
The second fundamental principle underlying Bevin's drive to abolish military government was rooted in the liberal notion of equality.
So its commitment to the principle of equality lay at the heart of that in statements on the
military government and constitute the ideological linchpin supporting the call for its annulment.
We solemnly believe in the principle of equal rights for all begging declared repeatedly in the Jewish state.
The should there should and will be equal rights for all citizens, irrespective of religion,
nationality or ethnic origin, he stated during an election rally held in Tel Aviv.
He addressed the Jewish audience, referring his commitment to equal rights for the Arab citizens of Israel.
It is not another US Yorker or till after all, Arab settlements in Israel.
But it is in the heart of Tel Aviv that they wish to declare that the national movement in Israel believes in equal rights between all citizens.
We shall not speak to the citizens of our country in two languages.
There is only one language of truth.
In these statements and others, Meghan repeatedly stressed the commitment of equality as a foundational principle throughout ideological capital.
He presented the campaign for the lifting of the military government as a concrete manifestation
of a broadly liberal worldview which constitute the party's ideological foundations.
Interestingly, while commitment to the principle of equality derived from the universal discourse of human rights and rooted in the liberal tradition,
Meghan believed that this commitment was drawn also from Jewish tradition.
The existence for the densely or unlimited period of time of military government runs contrary to the principle of equal civil rights.
We did not need to acquire this knowledge from the beliefs of the 19th or the 20th century.
We received it before all other nations on the day we became a people.
In the simplest yet all encompassing precept which is engraved on our hearts.
One.
All you shall have for the foreigner and for the native born like begin frequently refer to this basic idea when speaking of the military government,
often quoting maxims from Jewish sources such as Justice.
Justice shall you pursue? Or You were a stranger in the land of Egypt,
calling them foundational principles in the world view of a national movement that loves its people and does not hate other peoples.
The obligation to quality and fair treatment of the Arab minority derived, according to him, from these Jewish injunctions.
This vast, the ideological manifestos reflect Meghan's belief that the nationalist right wing party
could be committed to equality and fight for the civil rights of the national minority.
Okay. So after considering the ideological aspects of Holt's campaign to abolish the military government,
it should also be analysed within its world historical and political context.
And over the years, Berlin fiercely rebuffed the accusation that towards campaign against the military government was politically motivated.
Consistently maintaining that the party's decisions on this matter were dictated by ideals and principles.
We would not propose anything that is not, in our view, just or right, because we feared losing votes.
Nor would be abandoned anything which in our opinion is just alright for fear of losing votes.
Nevertheless, the benefits of the poll derived from its campaign to abolish the military government cannot be ignored.
The WHO would venture to abolish the military government must also be also be
scrutinised within the broader context of the rivalry between Mapai and Hold.
This rivalry dated back to the twenties when the two stream streams of Zionism,
namely the labour movement and the revisionist movement, struggled for ideological and political supremacy.
This rivalry deepened in later years as Meghan became head of the Etzel underground,
leading a violent rebellion against the government of the British mandate in Palestine, undermining the opposing policy led by David Ben-Gurion.
The struggle continued well into statehood as Benny led fierce opposition against Ben-Gurion and Mapai on various issues.
Its campaign to abolish the military government must therefore be analysed in this road context.
So the military government was initially driven by security considerations and fears
concerning the Arab citizens involvement in hostile activities of future war.
However, its political and economic usefulness to the government, and particularly to mapai became increasingly apparent over time.
The military government enabled to confiscate land, to manipulate the public's voting behaviour,
and to stifle any attempt at independent political organisation.
Considering this political context,
one should stress that an annulment of the military government would weaken a significant electoral advantage mapai enjoyed.
However, would the announcement of the military government have profited electorally as far as direct benefits were concerned,
the answer is probably no. Both enjoyed only a tiny percentage of Arab votes.
It was extremely unlikely that Arab citizens would vote for a homogeneous Jewish nationalist party that had,
as a rule, no representation and was positioned on the extreme right of the spectrum.
The Arab electorate at that time appeared to be farther removed from the world than perhaps any other body of voters.
And crude doubtless did not believe that removing the obstacle of military
government would result in the heart of Arab voters moving to support the party.
Nevertheless, even though we did not foresee a direct electoral advantage, it certainly could have expected to profit in directly ending empires.
Domination over the Arab citizens would have eroded the Arab strong electoral support
for mapai satellite Arab parties and thus weakened its power in any future coalition.
This would have presented a significant political gain to halt the electoral dimension that cannot be overlooked
in an analysis of the motives that drove Throw to campaign for the abolishing of the military government.
A second insignificant political gain.
The crowd, drew from the Campaign to Abolish the Military Government was the opportunity to fiercely criticise Mapai for close to a decade.
What's allegations against Mapai were many violating the principle of equality,
infringing civil rights, undermining Israel's democracy and bargaining with national security?
Over all these accusations to the ultimate claim that equality,
democracy and state security were all being sacrificed by mapai on the altar of political expediency.
In June 1963, Ben-Gurion resigned his position as prime minister and Levy Eshkol was chosen to succeed him.
Four months after Eshkol took office, the new Prime Minister's announcement in the Knesset of his intention to make a significant reduction
in the scale of the military government marked the beginning of the end of the military government.
After the elections for the sixth Knesset in November 1965, Eshkol declared his intention to end the military government.
And in late 1966, he announced its annulment, effective as the 1st of December 1966,
because announcement of his intention to annul the military government provided further validation of its longstanding claim.
Mapai stalling was was shown to be irresponsible and driven by questionable motives.
In response to Eshkol announcements,
Begging argued that is nothing has had change in the balance of power or in the political climate of the Middle East.
The military government could have been abolished years beforehand when Herbert
had called for it all the to change Begin's dress was a change of leadership,
and this, rather than any substantive security related consideration, explained the policy reversal.
So as I mentioned before, Bevin was the prominent, prominent speaker for the cause.
However, not everyone in his party shared his view. This is not a popular matter with our public, and it will harm us.
One of those faction members warned begging at one of their meetings.
And indeed. Meghan's personal archives are filled with letters from members of the movement,
protesting that they consider to be a deviation from the movement's path and criticising begging for his position on the military government.
Begging had the same reply for everyone. What's position on the military?
Government was derived from its principles and did not deviate from them.
So what's with what's position on the issue of the are minority and equal rights is not extreme but rather national and patriotic,
he argued in July 1961, for example.
He replied as follows to a letter sent to him. The war we fought in the past against those who wish to eliminate us doesn't mean we should hate Arabs.
The citizens of your country are entitled to equal rights, and we must do our utmost to put our beliefs into practice.
In another letter, he replied to yet another angry petition protesting against the party's policy regarding the military government.
We must do our utmost to put our beliefs into practice.
Thus, our position on the military government, which has consistently been very judicious.
Far from contradicted, contradicting our principles and in fact stems from the begging,
pursued the movement's policy on this issue with great determination,
even in the face of criticism from member members of the faction who disagreed with his position.
For instance, in early 1964, the Arab parties sought to table motion concerning allegations made by residents living
under the military government regarding restrictions on the freedom of movement.
Some faction members felt that they should oppose the motion, or at least abstain.
But many thought otherwise. We should not shut our ears to the request for an investigation, he argued.
He urged his support his colleagues.
Indeed, Bedouin and Salt were more vulnerable to internal criticism than its campaign partners on the left side of the political map.
However, the political price of the campaign came not only from within the party, but from outside as well.
The fierce campaign waged against the military government enabled external attacks on begging, patriotism and commitment to state security.
What's campaign lumped together with ideologically remote parties such as Makki,
the Communist Party, which was a vocal objector to the military government.
Mapai, for its part, took advantage of its position on this issue to drive home in their active,
connecting and support and to spread propaganda materials, accusing it of compromise, of compromising national security.
In this sense, the campaign against the military government took a toll on Bedouins major political undertaking during this period,
namely the rehabilitation of its public, public image and its establishment as a moderate and patriotic party.
During that period, Howard underwent a certain transformation, a gradual shift towards the political consensus,
gaining institutional legitimacy and establishing itself as a viable alternative to the existing government.
During the second decade of statehood, Meghan devoted considerable effort to cultivate his image as a patriotic,
responsible and statesman's like national leader.
This image stood in sharp contrast to that of the radical revolutionary that had I'd heard him since his days as the leader of the atom,
and which had become ingrained in the public consciousness following his militant
standpoints with regard to several controversial public affairs in the first decade.
Although this vast political project was to some extent damaged by the campaign to abolish the military,
government beckons position remained unshaken.
We shall vote with any faction without exception, on issues we consider to be beneficial to our people.
Begging Declare the court once again found itself on the same side as McCain
and Maupin in a vote on the issue of the military government in February 1963.
When rejecting the criticism, Meghan continued to express his belief in the moral correctness of the cause.
Yeah. Some say that our position is not popular.
It may be so. The opposition, which does not possess the power of the government, is naturally concerned with the popularity of its decisions.
However, public morality should never be determined by the question of popularity.
Our battle is above everything else. Marwan The lack of popularity will not deter us from continuing to fight it.
Our position is just and based on both national security and national morality.
We shall not back down. It is apparent, therefore,
that Bergen and his party bore the brunt of external and internal criticism as a result of their position on the military government.
We have been bombarded both within and without.
I have received dozens of letters begging intimated in his speech at the eighth convention in 1966,
by which time the campaign had, in effect, run its course.
So ideology or politics.
So the analysis so far shows that who derived significant benefits by campaigning for the enlargement of the military government,
the most important of which was the erosion of McCain's electoral advantage.
Moreover, from the moment that would place the issue of the military government on its agenda,
both members of the Knesset fiercely criticised Magpies handling of the situation, thereby scoring on a number of points in the debate.
However, although people derived certain benefits by campaigning for the annulment of the military government,
the campaign also came at a political price, both from within the party and from the outside.
Moreover, it's important to establish that the political rivalry between MAPAI and code cannot constitute the sole motive.
The drove to commence this campaign. This rivalry did not begin in the second decade and was, if anything, more pronounced during the first decade.
For had this been its principal motivation. So what could have launched its campaign for the annulment of the military government far earlier?
However, not only did the court neglect to do so, but during the first decade it actually voted with Mapai to maintain military government,
demonstrating that its decision on this issue consistently derived from a genuine assessment of security.
Hence, even if political rivalry between the two parties played a role in its campaign to end the military government, it was not the decisive factor.
Thirdly,
its campaign to abolish the military government was one of many liberal campaigns and struggles led by the party during the first two decades.
So the analysis of who would complain to another military government provides, I believe,
far reaching insights that far exceeds the parameters of the campaign itself.
So firstly, I think it is an important chapter in the history of the ideological and political rivalry between left and right in.
Israel. Secondly,
the argument over the issue of the military government reflects on the ideological baggage and
political perceptions of the Israeli left and right during the second decade of statehood.
One cannot overlook the considerable energy devoted by the Israeli right to demonstrating its
patriotism and convincing the public that it is more than matched the patriotism of the left.
Moreover, it sought to instil the narrative in the public's consciousness that identified the struggle
for civil rights with the ideological right no less than with the ideological left.
Even when the campaign came under fire from within, the right wing camp, camp begging continued to regard this commitment.
And this is the crux of the matter is the natural outcome of the world worldview
held by the movement and the principle upon upon which it was founded.
Thirdly, an analysis of the old campaign to lift military government illuminates the liberal
ideological foundations of the movement that has held sway in Israel for over four decades.
My analysis has sought to uncover those elements of the campaign that lay beneath
the surface and were linked to broader political and historical processes.
However, this should not be allowed to obscure the major element of the campaign an unmistakeable ideological and over waged by a committed
movement whose leaders whose leaders sought to instil liberal values and a democratic worldview in the minds of his supporters.
Ultimately, it could be argued that the overriding significance of this campaign to another military government can perhaps be found in the public,
educational and ideological realms.
For close than a decade, the essential call to dismantle the military government over the Arab citizens of Israel appeared on Howard's platform.
Throughout those years, the movement's executive body and its leader articulated their position clearly, placing this demand squarely on its agenda,
begging to preach emphatically and explicitly for equality, liberty and democracy at every opportunity.
This important historical chapter constitute the legacy of a doctrine explicitly held by Israel's hegemonic party in the last four decades affirming
affirming its commitment to liberal values and the belief of its founding father begging in civil civic equality between Jews and Arabs in Israel.
The campaign for the announcement of the military government reflects a venture to
implement liberal values through the process of decision making and policy formulation
during a period in which the revisionist movement upheld it as a principal
component component of its worldview that shaped its political and public agenda.
Given that this was a distinctly liberal campaign conducted by court and driven by a profound,
committed commitment to equal civil rights for the Arab minority,
it provides an important perspective on the fundamental principles of political thought on Israel's right.
In this sense, it lays the foundation for future research on ideological shifts within the Israeli right that played out in later periods.
Thank you.