15 hours ago
Why ‘Israel' has no constitution or defined borders
In a rare case among modern states, 'Israel' does not have a single, written constitution. This absence is not a coincidence but rather the result of deep ideological disputes dating back to its founding. Closely tied to this is another unresolved issue: the lack of officially defined borders.
The constitutional dilemma: religion vs. state
When 'Israel' was established in 1948, its leaders faced a fundamental dispute over the identity and character of the state, preventing the drafting of a unified constitution.
According to historians and legal analysts, the debate split into two main camps:
The religious bloc – Led by religious parties, which argued that the Torah and Jewish law (Halakha) serve as the eternal and supreme constitution of the Jewish people. Any man-made constitution, they believed, would be inferior and potentially conflict with religious law.
The secular bloc – Represented by figures such as David Ben-Gurion, who envisioned a modern democratic constitution similar to those in the West. However, he realized that enforcing such a framework could cause a deep societal rift in the newly formed state.
To avoid this crisis, the Knesset adopted the Harari Resolution of 1950, which postponed the drafting of a full constitution. Instead, 'Israel' would legislate 'Basic Laws,' to be compiled into a constitution at a later stage.
To this day, that stage has never arrived. Instead, the Basic Laws function as an unofficial constitution, with the Supreme Court granting them constitutional authority to review legislation.
Borders never drawn: a deliberate 'strategic ambiguity'
The absence of a constitution means 'Israel' has no codified borders. But this gap is not only a byproduct, it is also a deliberate policy.
Historical records show that David Ben-Gurion refused to declare fixed borders in 1948, leaving room for future expansion. This approach, often described as 'strategic ambiguity,' enabled 'Israel' to seize and occupy more territory without being legally bound to specific boundaries.
Several territorial frameworks have emerged over time, but none have been adopted as 'Israel's' final, official borders:
UN Partition Plan (1947): Resolution 181 recommended dividing Palestine into Jewish and Arab states with clear boundaries. While the Jewish Agency accepted the plan, the ensuing war altered the territorial reality.
The Green Line (1949–1967): Armistice lines established after the 1948 war, which the international community still recognizes as the basis for a two-state solution. However, 'Israel' has refused to recognize them as permanent international borders, treating them instead as temporary ceasefire lines.
The 'Greater Israel' ideology as a barrier
The challenge of finalizing borders is further complicated by the influence of the 'Greater Israel' doctrine, particularly within the Likud party and the religious-nationalist movement.
This ideology, rooted in extreme biblical interpretations, envisions a state stretching 'from the Nile to the Euphrates,' encompassing all of historic Palestine and parts of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt.
Such expansionist thinking makes it politically impossible for right-wing governments to accept fixed borders - especially the 1967 lines - as that would be viewed as surrendering so-called 'biblical land.'
This was evident in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's recent statements and the map he displayed at the UN in 2023, which erased Palestine entirely.
Two sides of the same coin
The absence of both a constitution and fixed borders reflects unresolved foundational conflicts within 'Israel': between religion and secularism, between a nation-state with defined limits and the expansionist ambitions of "Greater Israel."
