Knesset members plant trees in honor of Tu Bishvat, 1969

Knesset Speaker Kadish Luz:

I hereby open the Knesset sitting.

Members of the Knesset, on the 15th of Shvat 1949, the Constituent Assembly – which is the First Knesset – convened in the buildings of the National Institutions in Jerusalem. The members of the First Knesset undoubtedly cherish the memory of the historical event: The first sitting of the house of representatives in the sovereign State of Israel. The citizens of the state, who were clinging to their radio transmitters, also remember the emotional vibes at the sound of Dr. Chaim Weizmann, the President of the Provisional State Council: “It is with a sense of honor and awe that I rise to open the Constituent Assembly of the State of Israel, the first Jewish assembly of our day, in Jerusalem, the eternal city.”

The First Knesset convened in Jerusalem for four days. It elected the Knesset Speaker, Joseph Shprinzak, and two deputy speakers, Dr. Nahum Nir and Dr. Yosef Burg, he should live long. An organizing committee was elected, headed by today’s President of the State of Israel Zalman Shazar, and its report brought for the election of the permanent committees. Then Minister of Justice Felix Rosenbluth, today’s Pinhas Rosen, had delivered the government bill for the Transition Law, which was passed on to the Constitution Committee chaired by Israel Idelson, later minister Israel Bar-Yehuda, may his memory be a blessing. During those three days, the Knesset approved the bill in a third reading. On the 17th of Shvat, February 16th, Dr. Chaim Wezimann was elected to the great position of the first President of the State of Israel. The day after tomorrow will therefore be the twentieth birthday of the institution of presidency in Israel. I bring our best wishes before our President, Zalman Shazar, and wish him, on your behalf and mine, good health for many more years.

Speaker of the Knesset Joseph Shprinzak adjourned the Knesset sittings in Jerusalem with the following words: “We have taken our first step in the construction of our lives. We will uphold the will for Israel’s salvation, and Israel will be saved in our times.”

Three weeks later, on the 7th of Adar, March 8th, the Knesset sittings were opened in Tel Aviv, at the “Kessem” cinema building. During its first sitting, David Ben Gurion, the head of the Provisional Government, made an announcement concerning the composition of the First Government and its plans, and he said: “We stand before you with anxiety and awe facing the many and enormous difficulties in the tasks lying this time before the State of Israel and its government: Defense, gathering of the Diaspora, shaping the image of a progressive and sovereign state.”

The sittings were held in Tel Aviv until the 22nd of Kislev, December 13th, and on that day, at the suggestion of David Ben Gurion, the Knesset decided to move its sittings back to Jerusalem, following the resolution of the United Nations to internationalize Jerusalem. The sittings were renewed in Jerusalem on the 6th of Tevet, December 26th, and held in the building of the Jewish Agency for two and a half months.

The Knesset then moved to its temporary location of “Froumine House” on the 24th of Adar 1950, March 13th, where it conducted its work for sixteen and a half years.

On the 14th of Elul 1966, August 30th, we held the inauguration ceremony of the permanent Knesset building, attended by a great crowd, representatives of the Rothschild family and the chairpersons of many parliaments. The following day, on August 31st, we held the first sitting in this house, in which we discussed the Basic Law: The Government. It should be noted that 69 years earlier, on the 30th and 31st of August, the First Zionist Congress was held in Basel. The recurring dates were coincidental, for we did not intend or even notice, but the coincidence makes it more symbolic.

Tu Bishvat party at the Knesset in 1969. This gift was presented by schoolchildren in honor of the Knesset's 20th birthday.

Even after the Knesset relocated to Jerusalem, it continued to have a branch in Tel Aviv, in a house called the Chamber of the Knesset Speaker. The chamber housed committee sittings on days that the Knesset did not convene. The sittings were frequent, that we were forced to add several rooms to the house in order to meet all our needs. As the Knesset entered its new home, I requested that all its work be concentrated in Jerusalem. The matter was discussed in many sittings of the Knesset presidium and the House Committee, but the decision was finally made after the Six Day War. The chamber in Tel Aviv was relinquished. But even now we have several committee meetings held in Tel Aviv. It should be a necessity for the members of the Knesset to agree to an degree of inconvenience and not demand that sittings be held in Tel Aviv.

Five years ago, on the birthday of the Knesset and the fifth anniversary of the passing of the first Speaker of the Knesset Mr. Joseph Shprinzak, I spoke in memory of the late Speaker and dedicated a substantial portion of my speech to examining different phenomenon in our parliamentary life. I have mentioned the astounding stability of the distribution of votes, despite the great addition of voters. I assumed that our government will always be based on a coalition when using a proportional electoral system. I have disagreed with the popular assumption of the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, under a parliamentary rule. I expressed an opinion that there is a division of functions between the government and the Knesset, as well as mutual relations, according to which the government is dependent on the confidence of the Knesset and acquires through it great influence over the agenda of the Knesset, which may be decisive at times. I have spoken on the fateful bond between a progressive social policy and the vitality of democracy, and of democratic rule as being democratic in its essence and not in its formality. I have noted 25 laws that bear constitutional character, approved by the Knesset, and expressed hope that we will shortly complete the work on the constitution. I will not detail other issues I have addressed, nor will I repeat the contents of my speech. The very speech of the Knesset Speaker at the time dealt with problems of rule, parliament and the Knesset seemed as an innovation to many Knesset members.

This time, I have been asked in the Knesset presidium’s meeting to open the discussion. I have tried to arrange my speech as a description of changes in the life of the Knesset.

Among the members of the Sixth Knesset, 29 members served in all Knessets since the first one, 11 members since the Second Knesset, and 9 members that have served in either the First Knesset or the Second Knesset and returned to serve in the Knesset at some time. 38 members of the Sixth Knesset have been members of at least one of the last three Knessets. This term is the first one for 33 members.

As I have said, I mentioned the astounding stability of the distribution of electoral votes, despite the great increase of voters. This vision was also true in the elections to the Sixth Knesset.

The parties in the First Knesset were: Mapai, Mapam (that included Ahdut Ha’avoda) and a member for the Sephardic List that joined Mapai, minister Sheetrit – 66; elected to the Sixth Knesset were the Mapai alignment, Ahdut Ha’avoda, Rafi, Mapam – 63. In the First Knesset were members of Herut Movement, General Zionists, and three of the Sephardic List – 25; and in the Sixth Knesset: The Herut-Liberal Bloc – 26. The First Knesset had the United Religious Front – 16; and in the Sixth Knesset: National Religious Party, Agudat Yisrael, Poalei Agudat Yisrael – 17. The First Knesset had the Progressive Party – 5; and in the Sixth Knesset: Independent Liberals – 5. The First Knesset had Maki – 4; and in the Sixth Knesset: Maki and Rakach – 4. In the first Knesset, the Arab lists had 2 members, and in the Sixth Knesset – 4. In the First Knesset, various lists – 2; and in the Sixth Knesset: Ha-olam Hazeh – 1. This was the situation following the elections to the Sixth Knesset.

Changes occurred during the Sixth Knesset, and this is the current factionl make-up: The Alignment (Labor – Mapam) – 63; Herut-Liberal Bloc – 22; National Religious Party – 11; Independent Liberals – 4; Agudat Yisrael – 4; four Arab parliamentary groups – 4; Free Center – 3; Rakach – 3; Poalei Agudat Yisrael – 2; Ha-olam Hazeh – 1; Maki – 1; MK Ben Gution – 1; MK Cohen Tsiddon – 1.

David Ben Gurion: Sir, I am a member of Rafi.

Speaker Kadish Luz: I will now refer to some of the changes in the life of the Knesset. The Sixth Knesset has taken a certain step towards the acceptance of a Constitution. It decided on the establishment of a special subcommittee of the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee for the processing of the constitution, and it is chaired by a special chairperson. It completed the work on Basic Law: The Government, which was brought to its first reading in the festive sitting held the day after the inauguration of the Knesset building.

Let us wish the Seventh Knesset that it will complete the work on the constitution by ratifying laws that are yet to be written and in processing all the laws of constitutional character into a constitutional format.

The work of the Knesset had also undergone certain changes. The committees worked during the first Knessets almost solely in their full composition. There were only a few subcommittees, and their number increased in recent Knessets. The plenum would convene on Mondays and Tuesdays from 4 to 7 and after a one-hour break return and sit from 8 to 10. It was only after 10pm that the parliamentary groups could convene for their meetings. In order to make it easier on the members of the Knesset and allow the parliamentary groups to convene at an earlier time, the recess was cancelled and the sittings began to be held on Mondays and Tuesdays from 4 to 9. The Knesset presidium of the Sixth Knesset was asked to end the sittings on Tuesdays one hour earlier, in order to allow the parliamentary groups to work more comfortably. Therefore, the number of hours in which the plenum convenes does not exceed 12 hours.

The services given to committees were increased. Up until the Fourth Knesset, the Finance Committee was the sole committee to have secretarial aid. Today, all committees are serviced by a secretary. The Finance Committee has a secretary, deputy secretary and two additional employees. The secretary of the Finance Committee supplies the members of the Knesset, at their demand, any informative materials on matters of economy and finance.

A legal advisor is employed by the Knesset to the disposal of the Knesset members.

The parliamentary groups were responsible for their administrative expenses during the first four Knessets. During the Fifth Knesset, it was imposed on the Knesset to do so. During election campaigns, the parties were responsible for their campaign expenses and the funding for dispatching their representatives to the ballots. The Sixth Knesset passed a bill to the Finance Committee that imposes the State Budget to carry out most of these expenses, alongside inspection by the State Comptroller. An amendment to the Wages’ Protection Law made it easier to collect membership fees from party members if they do not relinquish the right to do so.

A new custom began in the Fifth Knesset that did not exist earlier: Abstention from a vote on a motion for the agenda, accompanied by a request to justify the abstention. It has also become popular to suggest removing an issue from the agenda or asking to move it to a committee, while asking to justify the suggestion. There was also a case in which the Knesset member was given permission to speak and justify his suggestion to move an issue to the committee, and when the minister himself raised the same suggestion, that same Knesset member asked to remove the issue from the agenda and requested to justify his suggestion.

The above is not said as a criticism. A Member of the Knesset is entitled to make use of any option he is given by the Rules of Procedure or by using his right to speak. I am mentioning this only to note that we are forced to reduce the number of motions discussed in the bi-weekly sitting dedicated to motions for the agenda, due to insufficient time. If the average number of motions was once 7-8 motions on a bi-weekly sitting, the Knesset now discusses 5-6 motions per sitting.

The number of urgent motions for the agenda increased greatly recently. The Knesset presidium discusses 15-25 urgent motions per week. If we would recognize the urgency of all these motions, the entire week of the Knesset would have been dedicated to them and we would not reach discussions pertaining to the agenda itself.

The multiplicity of parliamentary questions is a new phenomenon in the work of the Knesset. The Knesset Rules of Procedure allocates one hour per week, at the most, for replies to parliamentary questions. In prior Knessets, this time was not fully used. In the Sixth Knesset, we dedicate two hours a week and more. Therefore, there is a contradiction between the Rules of Procedure and between reality. I have asked the House Committee to tend to this matter. In all of the prior Knessets together there were 6,854 parliamentary questions presented. The Sixth Knesset has seen 7,300 parliamentary questions up until now. If the volume will continue to be similar to that of recent months, the Sixth Knesset will reach a number of parliamentary questions that exceeds the past five Knessets together by 30%.

As the hours of the plenum work are reduced, I bring up again a proposal for adding another day to the work of the Knesset. It will allow the proper work of the committees, subcommittees, and parliamentary groups, which convene mostly at night, after the plenum sittings, in a state of fatigue.

The Knesset Rules of Procedure appeared in its first addition towards the end of the Third Knesset’s term. It was not in fact Rules of Procedure, but more a collection of House Committee resolutions, presented to the Knesset but not adapted as laws. It was only in the Sixth Knesset that the Knesset Rules of Procedure were brought to the Knesset’s approval. There have been amendments and additions to it. A new reality was formed at times, that needed adjustment and clarification of contradictions between the Rules of Procedure and actual conduct, as well as between different articles. There are rules that need to be refined at times. The Speaker of the Knesset, in charge of the Rules of Procedure, feels what needs to be improved. I have brought many suggestions before the House Committee, and it discussed most of them and corrected what needed to be corrected, as well as initiated regulations itself.

A new reality was formed with the legislation of Basic Law: The Government. This basic law sets the confidentiality of the government discussions and resolutions regarding defense and foreign affairs. Members of the Knesset present parliamentary questions on these matters. When the Speaker of the Knesset passes a parliamentary question on a government discussion, the minister is obligated to respond. The minister may refuse to respond if he believes that a public response may harm State affairs. He can also respond if he feels no harm will be done. However, the authority to allow the exposure is given, in accordance with Basic Law: The Government, to the Prime Minister, or to the entire government. I have therefore brought a proposal before the House Committee that will allow me to pass parliamentary questions on these matters to the government, through the Government Secretary that serves as a liaison officer between the government and the Knesset presidium, and if disclosure is authorized, the Prime Minister will then forward the question to the minister asked. In the meantime, until the House Committee rules on this matter, I am passing on only parliamentary questions that pertain to matters that were disclosed by the government’s spokesperson, or in matters publicized by the Prime Minister himself. I await the decision of the House Committee.

Another matter being criticized by the Members of the Knesset is the interpretation of article 37(a) of the Knesset Rules of Procedure, which says: “A member of the Knesset may address a question to a Minister on a factual matter which is within the sphere of that Minister's duties.” My version is that it speaks of a factual matter which is within the sphere of that minister. I refer to this article as it is worded. It was the Transition Law that set the reports of the government before the Knesset, until the legislation of Basic Law: The Knesset.

Article 11(a) of the Transition Law states: “As soon as the Government has been formed, it shall present itself to the Knesset, and after having obtained a vote of confidence, it shall be considered as constituted.” The intended Prime Minister would always announce to the Knesset the names of the government members and the office each of them will head: This minister – the Finance Minister, that minister – the Foreign Minister, and so on. The word “functions” in the Transition Law is therefore synonymous with the office each one is responsible for. On the affairs that are under the jurisdiction of that office, the minister carries parliamentary responsibility.

Article 15 of Basic Law: The Government replaced the Transition Law. It also says: “When a Government has been formed, it shall present itself to the Knesset, shall announce the basic lines of its policy, its composition and the distribution of functions among the ministers.”

Article 18 says: “When the Government has decided to add another Minister, it shall notify such fact and the function of the additional minister to the Knesset.”

Article 20 says: “If a Minister, other than the Prime Minister, is absent from Israel or is temporarily unable to carry out his functions, the Government shall designate another Minister to act in his place.” The word “functions” in both articles was referred to in singular. It is also said on article 21(d): “When the tenure of a Minister, other than the Prime Minister, in the Government ceases, the Government shall designate another Minister to carry out his functions.”

It is also said in article 5(d): “A Minister shall be in charge of a ministry, or he can be a Minister without Portfolio.”

It is clear from all of these that the terms “functions,” “function,” and “ministry” all refer to the same and I am not at liberty to interpret the words “within the sphere of his duties” listed in the Knesset Rules of Procedure other than their explicit meaning in the Basic Law: The Government.

I tend to pass on parliamentary questions that ask ministers whether attributions given to them in the press or in “Kol Yisrael” broadcasts indeed correspond with their statements. I dismiss any questions relating to the content of their words, if their essence is not under the sphere of their duties. I have done so with questions referred to ministers Yeshayahu, Begin, Yosef Sapir. The Rules of Procedure imposes the Knesset Speaker with the role of maintaining the dignity of the Knesset. Ministers are members of the Knesset, or hold equal rights to Knesset members. The government is a part of the Knesset. I see it as my obligation to allow the ministers to confirm or deny sayings attributed to them.

I am of course not in charge of the answers of the ministers that deviate from the question, as well as answers to unasked questions that are not related to the parliamentary question.

Another remark on this issue: The composition of the ministerial committees is an internal affair of the government. It does not inform the Knesset on the compositions, and each committee is comprised of different ministers. For example: The Ministerial Committee for Economic Affairs is comprised of the Minister of Finance, Minister of Agriculture, Minister of Trade and Industry, Minister of Transportation and others, but a parliamentary question on the subject of agriculture should be referred to the Minister of Agriculture and not to another minister, and on matters of transportation – to the Minister of Transportation and not to another minister.

As for the contents said in the Knesset for twenty years, the discussions, the arguments, the bills, and among them issues pertaining to generations and issues pertaining to the daily life – they reflected the happenings in the country and among the people and were realized in great deeds that I will not detail; they reflected the State of Israel as an immigrant absorbing, developing, struggling, defending, fighting sphere.

Joseph Shprinzak once referred to the “Knesset Minutes” as the “New Jerusalem Talmud.” His intention was: As the Talmud, with its laws and Halacha, arguments and tales, reflected the life and the terms of its period, so too does the “Knesset Minutes” in our days.

The Sixth Knesset was fortunate to convene on Monday, when the Six Day War broke out, in Jerusalem, while bitter fights were held in it. We held two sittings while bombings and airplane noises surrounded us. We ratified in all readings three laws of taxation and loans to fund the war that was forced upon us; we heard the announcement by Prime Minister Levi Eshkol concerning the war and on the installment of a National Government, and we gave our confidence to that government.

A week later we convened again in unified Jerusalem. I will not attempt to describe the spiritual uplifting of the people in Israel and the power of the national emotion that held the Jewish people in the Diaspora. Though we are still distant from the yearned-for peace, the Six Day War was undoubtedly a turning point in the history of the State of Israel. That turning also brought about a certain turn in the spiritual life of the Diaspora Jewry. It blockaded the speedy spreading of assimilation. There are signs of greater national recognition, which also brings about increased Aliyah.

The State of Israel was faced with a new role. For a long time, after the demise of the Jewish center in Eretz Yisrael, the Jewish spiritual creativity continued in the different Diaspora communities. With the return of the new Zion, Jewish creativity began to thrive in Eretz Yisrael. Following the Holocaust, the War of Independence and the establishment of the State of Israel and the mass immigration, the Jewish creativity was concentrated almost in its entirety in the State of Israel.

And as for the Diaspora, it was evident with the process of speedy assimilation. The Jewish intellectuals began to herd in foreign fields, and three quarters of the spiritual creation was doomed for national sterility. We did not achieve the vision of a joint national spiritual creation as the creation of the Jerusalem Talmud in Eretz Yisrael and of the Babylonian Talmud in exile, alongside constant communication and full spiritual sharing.

The State of Israel has imposed these years with great roles of guaranteeing peace and security, the absorption of many Jews and the salvation of the Israeli people in the Diaspora of assimilation and national persecution. These tasks, in addition to other grand issues, will be manifest in the work of the government and the Knesset in the near future.

I will conclude by quoting several sentences from Joseph Shprinzak’s last speech, on the Knesset’s tenth birthday: “I see in the resurrection and the existence of our Knesset as one of the great and innovative miracles after the renewal of the Hebrew language, and among the miracles that occurred in the process of the implementation of Zionism and the reestablishment of the State of Israel in the land of the prophets, in the land of pioneering construction and defense.”