Knesset member Rafael Eitan plants a tree at Har Hotzvim, Jerusalem, Tu Bishvat 1995

Knesset Speaker Shevach Weiss:

Today we mark the Knesset’s birthday. Forty-six years ago the Constituent Assembly convened, later to become the First Knesset, and since then 13 Knessets were elected. We have made it a custom to mark on this day, the New Year of the Trees, the Knesset’s birthday. This is an opportunity to wish a happy holiday to all the Jewish citizens of Israel, as well as congratulating the Knesset.

From time to time we dedicate a part of this day to discuss matters relating to ourselves. A year ago we held a discussion, initiated by MK Michael Eitan, on the relationship between the Knesset and the High Court of Justice. We also invited justices of the Supreme Court and I believe it was an important and interesting discussion.

Throughout the past year, three Members of the Knesset presented motions for the agenda relating to the work of the house - MKs Dan Tichon, David Magen and Avraham Burg. In those cases we decided to hold a debate in the plenum, knowing that we will probably have it on the Knesset’s birthday. On these grounds we developed a framework, which I believe will be good for this discussion.

Several Members of the Knesset also presented motions for the agenda, and we thought it necessary to allow every Knesset member who wishes to take part in this discussion to do so, as the Knesset examines its own work, itself, if you wish, as if looking through a mirror.

Today, the House Committee accepted MK Ze’evi’s proposal to conduct this discussion in an atmosphere of equality amongst us. Therefore I turn to the MKs who initiated this discussion, as well as those who presented regular motions for the agenda, to narrow down their speeches to five minutes; they will then be followed by every Knesset member who wishes to take part, and they will also be given five minutes. In this way we will symbolize the comradeship between us and split it equally. I hope that you will accept this framework.

I would like, with your permission, to open and remark on a thing or two, and I will also, if necessary, respond during the conclusion of the discussion on matters that may arise concerning the Speaker or the house itself.

I have more than a feeling that there is a wide gap between the true image of the Knesset and its public one. By all standards of measurement relating to parliamentary work, I think this Knesset can be described as an effective Knesset. Therefore, I have a feeling that a certain folklore has developed, comprised both of self-slander and of a public immolation around us, and too many people have become fascinated with the comprehensive negative criticism on this house.

I will briefly mention six to seven matters: 1. This is a Knesset that regards legislation as its right. It is true that there is an abundance of bills, and maybe more than that, but in actual fact, and after the process of selection and internal audit, 250 bills were approved in this Knesset; 51% were private bills by Members of the Knesset, of which, 70% were amendments to existing bills. Laws that have eroded, while some articles may have been no longer relevant, and the Members of the Knesset worked to adjust and renew them. Some highly regarded laws have been passed, the result of parliamentary initiative in social fields and in other fields – democracy, the Knesset itself, and amendments to the Knesset Rules of Procedure. Whoever examines them fairly will find that they are characterized by their tendency toward a constitutional regime.

Regarding the abundance of bill proposals, it might be worthwhile to think of saving time, as well as fairness between Knesset members, not to take ideas from one another. This marginal phenomenon occurs, sometimes coincidentally and sometimes not.

2. The difficulty of the government during discussions relating to the state budget: The fact that the Knesset wants to have influence over the budget, and it no longer has the obedience of the first Knessets, in which the chairperson of the Finance Committee had the government proposals entirely approved, is an expression of the Knesset’s feeling of independence. This is a matter of political struggle between the coalition and opposition.

3. I think that the Knesset as a supervisory authority, as said before by my teacher Professor Aktzin, has greatly sharpened its ability through the use of current parliamentary tools. If we maintain the current tendency of reducing the time of speeches, we can overcome the abundance of initiatives. I would like to thank the House Committee and most, or maybe all, of its members, and its chairperson, for establishing several brave resolutions over the past few weeks, and I turn to the Members of the Knesset to assist us in this matter. We will speak a bit more briefly and achieve more. I think we should use consideration in regard to the overuse of reservations. In the meantime, we are doing this by consensus, which is very good and allows us to maintain the existing Knesset Rules of Procedure, together with a reasonable agenda.

One last remark on this matter, my friends. We are not a senate or the United States Congress. The passion of some of the Knesset members, who have come to us from the executive authority, to become governors, make use of dozens of experts and endless budgets, is not a part of the administration implemented in Israel. The Israeli parliamentarism is more continental. We represent smaller groups of population. We are not like the Senate, which faces a presidential rule and must maintain balance, when senators sometimes represent a state of 16-17 million people. Any attempt to become like that is wrong at its core. We can not handle it.

We are mainly messengers of ideology, sent here to create a democratic mechanism of problem-solving by majority-based ruling with no violence, to supervise over the government, and take part in legislation. All attempts to resemble other regimes might lead us to paths that are distant from Israeli parliamentarism.

And last, everyone is fixated on the primary elections. Every time criticism is made – the primary elections. The primary elections, in those parties that adopted them, are an irreversible procedure. They can be improved by ethics, and by public supervision over expenditures. Primarily, it was a protest against prior dogmatic methods. Besides that, there is nothing wrong with the actions of a Knesset member if they act out of responsibility, seriousness, consideration, diligence, and guard our schedule.

I wish the Knesset that in the future, as in the past, will be a central focus for guarding our democratic lives. Thank you.