Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century

Summary

Pnina Lahav, Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century (University of California Press, 1997): an intellectual biography of Simon Agranat (1906–1992), the Chicago-born justice of Israel’s Supreme Court from 1948 to 1976 and its chief justice from 1965, told as the story of Israeli constitutionalism and of Zionism’s century through the prism of law. Lahav argues that Agranat — a passionate Zionist formed by American Progressivism and Sociological Jurisprudence rather than by Eastern Europe — built bridges between collectivism and individualism, Jewishness and modernity, law and justice, and the Jewish state and liberal democracy, above all by insisting, in a polity shaped by Mamlachtiut (communitarian etatism) and security anxiety, that executive power is limited and etatism subordinate to the rule of law (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 126-193). Part 1 gives the front matter and Prologue, Chapter 1 (America, 1906–1930) and Chapter 2 (Palestine, 1930–1948) in full, Part II’s opening with Chapter 3 (Israel, 1948–1953), Chapter 4 (In Quest of Progressive Reform), Chapter 5 (The Foundations of Progressive Reform) and Chapter 6 (Law, Morality, and Judicial Review) in full, and the opening of Part III and Chapter 7 (Blaming the Victims: The Kasztner Trial), breaking off in the introduction of Malchiel Gruenvald’s pamphlet against Rudolf Kasztner (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 1-1470). Part 2 completes the book’s main text: the rest of Chapter 7 (the Kasztner Trial, Halevy’s “sold his soul to Satan” judgment, the 1955 elections, Kasztner’s assassination and Agranat’s 194-page appeal opinion with its philosophy-of-history premises), Chapter 8 (the Eichmann Trial, where Agranat’s jurisdiction opinion collapsed “crimes against the Jewish people” into crimes against humanity and the Court upheld Eichmann’s death sentence against Agranat’s lifelong abolitionism), Chapter 9 (the 1962 Agranat Commission report making the attorney general autonomous of the minister of justice), Chapter 10 (Agranat as chief justice from 1965 and the Tel Giborim/Golan crisis), Chapter 11 (Yeredor, where the “Jewish state” as a “fundamental constitutional premise” sustained the ban on Al-Ard’s Arab Socialist Party), Chapter 12 (Shalit, the Who Is a Jew case, in which Agranat dissented by refusing to decide and introduced Process Jurisprudence), Chapter 13 (the Yom Kippur War and the Agranat Commission, whose refusal to judge parliamentary responsibility and whose “reasonable minister” standard for Dayan against strict liability for the military command ignited national fury), Chapter 14 (retirement in 1976, death on 10 August 1992, the gravestone “who judged the truth truthfully”), the Epilogue (the new Supreme Court building, Shamgar and Barak reviving the 1950s legacy, and a Court that has built both a jurisprudence of rights and “a jurisprudence of repression” in the occupied territories), and the opening of the Notes (Prologue notes and the start of the Chapter 1 notes) (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 1471-2940). Part 3 continues the Notes only: the rest of the Chapter 1 notes, the Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 notes in full, and the Chapter 4 notes through note 36, in which the substantive notes add the Agranat children’s birth years, the exact dates of Agranat’s loss of United States nationality in 1941, the Palestine legal profession’s growth from 83 lawyers at the end of 1921 to 360 by 1936 (only 112 of them Arabs), the full text of Article 46 of the Palestine Order in Council, 1922 and of Article 2 of the Mandate, and the Haifa 1948 historiography the narrative rests on (Morris, Flapan, Pappe, and Khalidi “from the Palestinian perspective”) (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 2941-4410). Part 4 continues the Notes only: the Chapter 4 notes are completed, the Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 notes are given in full, the Chapter 7 notes are given in full, and the Chapter 8 notes open; the substantive notes sample Agranat’s wider rights jurisprudence in full — his confidential 1953 Zriffin memorandum rejecting strict liability and deterrence for teenage defendants, the Heruti guidelines narrowing Brun and sedition, the Keynan reporter’s privilege, the Taufik Ziad police-powers dicta, and the Ajami defence of women’s dignity — and supply the two Kol ha-Am cases’ puzzle, the full text of sections 11 and 14 of the Criminal Code Ordinance behind Mandelbrot, and the Kasztner appeal’s scholarly apparatus (Kirchheimer on omissions, Trevelyan and Berlin on history) (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 4411-5880). Part 5 continues the Notes only: the Chapter 8 notes are completed, the Chapter 9, 10 and 11 notes are given in full, and the Chapter 12 notes open; the substantive notes give the 1962 Jurists’ Report in detail (its three attorney-general powers, its “legal discretion” and its narrow account of cabinet responsibility to the Knesset), a suggested tangible reason for the hasty Soblen deportation (the Yosseleh Shuhmacker case, located in New York the same week), the seniority history behind the chief-justice appointment and Joseph’s blocked objection to Silberg as deputy, a long sample of Agranat’s chief-justice jurisprudence (the Conservative-flavour Mekitan and Turjeman opinions, the still-classified opinion upholding censorship of Isser Harel’s Eichmann memoirs, and Bergman, the Court’s first invalidation of a Knesset law), the Kafr Kassem figures, Al-Ard’s rising recognition of Israel from boycott to Qardosh to Yeredor, and the Shalit apparatus (the Rufeisen precedent, Galia Shalit’s birth and petition dates, and Shapiro’s Knesset statement that mistanenim, “infiltrators”, is a euphemism for Palestinian refugees) (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 5881-7350). Part 6 continues the Notes only: the Chapter 12 notes are completed, the Chapter 13 and Chapter 14 notes and the Epilogue notes are given in full, and the Glossary opens; the substantive notes give the library Agranat assembled for his Shalit opinion (Kaufmann, Rav Tsa’ir, Friedlaender, Barker, Eisenstadt, Finkelstein, Rotenstreich and Kelman, borrowed from family and neighbours), the Tamarin sequel, a long sample of the post-Shalit Court’s deference and of Agranat’s later cases (the Temple Mount petition held non-justiciable, the former Al-Ard member Fauzi Al-Asmar’s restraining order left undisturbed, Kaniel’s refusal to extend Bergman, Burnovski on bigamy, and the Holzman dictum that Reform conversions in the United States were valid), the Agranat Commission apparatus (Elazar’s resignation letter refuting the commission’s account of the minister of defence’s authority, the commission’s narrow reading of the Commissions of Inquiry Law’s defence rights and the Court’s denial of Gonen’s two petitions against it, and the Kahan Commission’s broader “personal responsibility” as the contrast case), Agranat’s retirement record (his last reported case dated 5 September 1976, his teaching, writings and prizes, and his 1988 decision to serve as president of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel), and his refusal to move the Supreme Court to East Jerusalem — “There are enough good places in Hebrew Jerusalem” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 7351-8820). Part 7 continues the back matter only: the Glossary is completed, the Photo Section is given in captions, and the Index opens; the Glossary adds the book’s closing definitions (Succot, Tel Hai, Yiddishkeit, the Yom Kippur War and Young Judea, with Stern Gang cross-referred to LEHI), the Photo Section captions fix the visual record from Agranat in Chicago circa 1910 to Agranat at the end of his career as chief justice in summer 1976, and the Index entries for A–K map the book’s people, cases and themes in locator form, with the Agranat, Agranat Commission, Al-Ard, American law, Constitutionalism, Criminal law, Eichmann, Haifa, Holocaust, Israel and Jewish identity entries the fullest in this range (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 8821-10290).

What the file is

The UC Press E-Books Collection Archive HTML edition of the book (preferred citation as printed: Berkeley, University of California Press, 1997, http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft1z09n7hr), made freely available by the publisher. The original as saved is the HTML file; the paired text copy is a plain-text rendering of the same edition, with no page markers, so locators are line numbers in the text copy (11,756 lines by the counting used here; about 146,900 words in the text copy). Printed page numbers appear in the text copy as standalone numerals and are given in the reading notes. The text copy opens with the archive’s site frame and accessibility notice before the title page. The contents list gives seven parts and fourteen chapters, an Epilogue, Notes, a Glossary, a Photo Section, an Index and a Table of Cases; the Notes for the whole book are printed after the Epilogue, so no chapter notes appear in the main-text parts’ ranges. In the Notes range the text copy repeats many individual notes verbatim — some twice, the Chapter 1 notes 21-23 three times, the Chapter 2 notes 3-6 four times, the Chapter 4 notes 13-18 five times, and the Chapter 7 notes 43-51 many times over across part 4’s range (one stretch of some 300 lines consists almost entirely of their repetitions); part 5’s range is likewise dominated by repetitions — the Chapter 8 notes 24-33 repeated some eight times (one whole 147-line chunk, lines 6028-6174, consists only of their repetitions), the Chapter 9 notes 14-16 and 18-20, the Chapter 11 notes 21-23 and 43-45, and the Chapter 12 notes 23-31 each repeated — an artifact of the HTML edition’s note structure as rendered in the text copy; each note is counted and noted once in the reading notes. Part 6’s range is likewise dominated by repetitions: the Chapter 12 notes 23-31 are repeated many times over across its opening, the Chapter 13 notes 38-46 are repeated many times (one whole 147-line chunk, lines 8233-8379, consists almost entirely of their repetitions), and the Chapter 12 notes 41-51, the Chapter 13 notes 20-22, 30-33 and 55-59 are each repeated; the text copy also carries the artifacts “continue” and “break” in the middle or at the end of several notes in this range, and splits two names/titles across lines with the word “soft” between the parts (Rotenstreich; Milhemet in the Agranat Commission Report’s Hebrew title). Part 7’s range is the Glossary conclusion, the Photo Section (captions only in the text copy, no images reproduced) and the opening of the Index (A–K, through the Kasztner opinion entry begun); the Index is in locator form, with printed page numbers 315–322 appearing as standalone numerals in the text copy in this range.

Section by section

Front matter and Acknowledgments (lines 1-125)

Title page, dedication “To Mort”, and the contents as above. The Acknowledgments record a gestation of more than a decade: a 1984 Rockefeller Foundation fellowship enabled a year in Israel launching the “Agranat project”; Boston University School of Law gave material and emotional support; research assistants and citation-checkers are named (among them Dalia Tsuk, Gaia Bernstein, Orly Erez-Likhovski and Assaf Likhovski, who also assisted with the glossary and transliteration); interviewees included Agranat’s Chicago friends, judges Miriam Ben-Porath, Haim Cohn, Moshe Landau, Ayala Proccacia, Moshe Ravid and Yitzhak Shiloh, Deputy Attorney General Judith Karp, former Minister of Justice Chaim Zadok, and Chief Justices Meir Shamgar and Aharon Barak; the Agranat family (Carmel, Israel, Yael (Didi), Orit and Ayala) cooperated without interfering. The book is dedicated to Mort Horwitz (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 88-125).

Prologue (lines 126-193)

The book’s thesis and map. “Simon Agranat was to Israeli law what David Ben-Gurion was to Israeli politics” — a visionary founding father who, on the Supreme Court 1948–1976, “had a hand in every important political issue facing Israeli society” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 126-140). The struggle for Jewish sovereignty and anxiety over national security fostered mamlakhtiyut, which “encouraged suspicion of constitutionalism and intolerance of political and civil liberties”; in Kol ha-Am Agranat faced what basic rights Israelis had against their government and whether a court could recognise rights absent a constitution, and his insistence on limits on executive power had long-term effects (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 140-150). The Prologue then runs the book’s tensions in sequence: the negation of exile (galut) and the “new Hebrew”/sabra ideal, expressed in early Holocaust lessons and culminating in the Kasztner trial, where Agranat decided whether Kasztner had collaborated with Adolf Eichmann; universalism against particularism in the Eichmann trial (“crimes against the Jewish people” against “crimes against humanity”) and in Yeredor, on Israeli Arabs’ voting rights and whether the state should acknowledge “the legitimacy of the Palestinian people’s understanding of their own history”; the secular founders against the claim that Israel cannot be “Jewish” without religion, in the Who Is a Jew case; Catastrophe Zionism against utopian Zionism, and unity against diversity, in the Agranat Commission reports after the Yom Kippur War, which inadvertently helped unleash the forces heralding the Likud’s rise and peace with Egypt (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 150-178). Agranat is set apart from the founding elite by his American Progressive-Era formation and his sociological jurisprudence against his brethren’s formalism, and by the Brandeis–Weizmann Split of his adolescence (see Brandeis-Weizmann Split); his life’s work is figured as bridge-building. Lahav’s own method and position close the Prologue: interviews with Agranat in 1984 and after, her more critical interpretation of Zionism than his, his unease with psychological readings of his motives, and his liberating reply, “I don’t always agree with you, but it is your book. You should go ahead and do what you think is right” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 178-193).

Chapter 1: America, 1906–1930 (lines 194-606)

Agranat’s American formation. His father Aaron, a Haskalah-formed Russian Zionist who had wanted to study in Switzerland, married Polya Shnitzer on condition he join her family’s emigration to America (1904–1905, after the Kishinev pogroms); a Louisville Sabbath/haircut clash with his Orthodox employers pushed the family to Chicago, sensitising Simon early to the struggle over the meaning of Judaism (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 200-250). In Chicago Aaron became a dentist (among the 2.6 percent of American Jews who were professionals), entertained visiting Zionist leaders from Weizmann to Arlosoroff, and remained among the few American Zionists who actually planned to move to Palestine; Polya, who in 1929 sailed alone to Haifa to set up house and clinic, became after Aaron’s death (1946) a WIZO activist and 1949 Women’s Party campaigner who held that laws were “drafted by men, for the benefit of men” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 225-260). Simon’s childhood (reserved, excellent at school, closest friend Ben Sackheim, a conductor fantasy read through Elias Canetti) is then read through two formations. As an American Progressive: debates (death penalty — a lifelong radical commitment; Chicago traction ownership, on which he disliked arguing the public-ownership side), heroes La Follette, Norris, Darrow and Sinclair, and The Cry for Justice read for hours with Sackheim; he imagined himself a famous lawyer urging a jury to acquit a defendant “guilty according to black letter law, yet innocent according to principles of higher law” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 285-358). As an American Zionist: Young Judea, his one-issue magazine The Herzlite and its “Four Modern Sons of the Hagadah” dialogue, in which the assimilationist is marked with self-hatred and Simon’s own contribution was the Zionist’s argument from Sir Walter Scott for a country of one’s own — a transfer of his concrete love of America, learned through Edward Everett Hale’s The Man without a Country, to an abstract Palestine (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 330-420). The Split (June 1921, Cleveland) is treated in full (see Brandeis-Weizmann Split): Aaron, a delegate, voted for Weizmann; Simon’s Herzlite Keren ha-Yesod editorial was, he said sixty years later, dictated by his father, and his Passover editorial on Moses is read as a coded plea of patience for Brandeis (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 368-450). The family’s failed migration of 1922 follows: sold practice, the Sphinx to Alexandria, Hebrew on the conductor’s badge, Tel Aviv’s shortages and, crucially, no electricity for Aaron’s dental equipment, the Gimnasyah Hertsliyah’s aggressive sabra classroom culture against Tuley High School’s discipline, Simon’s refusal to stop speaking English with his father, and return to Chicago within three months, with a Haifa plot bought and left with Yehuda Itin (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 440-510). His 1925 Yidisher Kuryer article “Concerning the Hebrew University”, written for the Mount Scopus inauguration, harmonised Herzlism and Ahad ha-Amism and dismissed exile culture (the Talmud “inferior in content to the Old Testament”) while listing Einstein, Bergson, “Brandes, a ‘Danish’ critic” and Antikolsky as genius under foreign banners — a position the retired Agranat, receiving the Solomon Bublik Award in the same amphitheatre fifty-four years later, recalled only in its diaspora-revitalising conclusion (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 493-560). At the University of Chicago he refused a full-tuition history scholarship for Zionism, entered the Law School in 1926, and met the era’s jurisprudential drama — James Parker Hall’s case method against Ernst Freund’s sociological jurisprudence, Cardozo’s The Nature of the Judicial Process as his most exciting student reading — graduating with an undistinguished average of 70, a late bloomer in classmate Leon Despres’s recollection (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 493-580). Through Avukah — enlisted by Yitzhak Chizik, Chicago chairman, Arthur Goldberg a member — he absorbed Labor Zionism’s “conquest of labor”, authored the 1927 nine-page project for a transatlantic partnership aiding a Tel Aviv youth kibbutz, and saw it defeated at the July 1928 Pittsburgh convention after Chaim Arlosoroff, who had promised support, proposed another project instead and Chizik shouted “Traitor!” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 540-606).

Chapter 2: Palestine, 1930–1948 (lines 607-996)

Arrival and apprenticeship. Agranat reached Haifa on the Mauritania in 1930 carrying a 45mm Colt revolver bought in Louisville (the bullets thrown into the Mediterranean, the gun smuggled ashore tied round his waist), having passed the Illinois bar on 13 February 1930 after a first failure — “They wanted clear-cut answers… I gave complex ones” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 580-615). His eulogy for Ephraim Chizik, killed defending Huldah on 26 August 1929 leading thirty Haganah volunteers against, as Simon told it, a thousand Arabs, marks his passage from the 1925 cultural Zionism to a nationalism of physical power: the Chiziks “mark the return to the annals of our race of an old-new type of hero, of the ‘Gibbor,’ absent since the days of … Bar Kochba” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 616-680). He rejected kibbutz life (“the kibbutz life was not for me, [for] you are constantly a part of the group. There is no privacy”), clerked in Jerusalem for Mordechai Eliash while lodging with Yosef Sprinzak, and tested politics: Moshe Sharett failed to show for a Davar English-supplement meeting; his four-page Hebrew letter to Ahdut ha-Avodah against Arlosoroff on the proposed legislative council argued only the purse point (a British executive accountable to Parliament against an unaccountable Palestinian executive; in the United States the purse is Congress’s) and was never published; and his thirty-one-page memorandum validating the Rutenberg electricity concession for Eliash’s Annals article was sacrificed when the volume’s editor, pressed for balanced Arab representation, dropped the subject altogether (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 660-760). Palestine’s legal system is described from inside that clerkship: Ottoman-legacy corruption and baksheesh, files checked every other day against alteration, Bernard Joseph’s 1925 memorandum on judicial bribery through intermediaries, no complete public law library and no official law reports, and the Jewish profession’s drive to replace “antiquated” Ottoman law with English common law and equity under Article 46 of the Palestine Order in Council, 1922 — a drive Lahav notes would “conveniently obfuscate the colonialist face of Zionism”, against Palestinian Arabs who understood progress as a tool to advance the Jewish National Home: “better backward and Arab than modern and Jewish” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 730-800). In Farouqi v. Ayoub Agranat worked for the Arab Ayoub family against Sheikh Suleiman Taji Farouqi (Bernard Joseph acting for Farouqi) as the Privy Council directed Ottoman law modernised in the spirit of English equity on penal damages — the legal system being “one of the few places where Jews and Arabs fully interacted as equals”, where he met Arabs from landed aristocracy to vociferous anti-Zionists and still hoped for a binational state (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 738-790). He declined Eliash’s junior-partnership offer, married Carmel Friedlaender (engaged November 1933, married May 1934 at the Bentwich estate in Zikhron Ya’acov; her father Israel Friedlaender had been assassinated in Ukraine in 1920 on a Joint Distribution Committee mission), which brought him the Bentwich/Friedlaender network — Norman Bentwich, her uncle, Palestine’s first attorney general among them — and first contact with Brit Shalom, whose ideals he sympathised with and whose optimism he doubted (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 780-860). Practising in Haifa in partnership with Ya’acov Halevy until 1940 (small real-estate and negotiable-instruments work, there being no Palestinian torts ordinance until 1947; the scholarly briefs and Law Quarterly Review citations that amazed provincial Haifa, recalled by his apprentice Yitzhak Kahan), he did uncompensated work — a 1940 Acre prison case recalled in a 1965 letter — and volunteered for the National Jewish Committee defending illegal immigrants at Safed, in collaboration with the Orthodox Itzhak Moshe Silber, persuading courts to grant bail pending deportation after which the deportee would disappear; his courtroom exchange with a British judge — “They consider themselves and we see them as citizens of this country” — and his later bitterness at Yitzhak Ben-Zvi’s grudging help for seventy-five hunger-striking Polish immigrants are given, and Lahav marks the encounter as the point at which Catastrophe Zionism began tempering his utopian Zionism (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 830-930). In 1930s Haifa he joined the Haganah on guard duty, refused to move his office out of the Arab downtown (“I would not give them [the Arabs] the satisfaction”), investigated Irgun-attributed attacks for the Hadar Ha-Carmel Committee, and “never forgave” Jabotinsky’s secession: “One should fight from within, not by secession” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 900-960). He accepted a magistrate’s post only after agonising over Palestinian citizenship — the Benedict Arnold association, the American consul’s confirmation that allegiance to the Crown meant losing United States citizenship, the Peel Commission’s observation that Palestinian “citizenship” was ”… nothing but a legal formula devoid of moral meaning”, and Aaron’s adamant opposition, answered by Simon: “Your advice flies in the face of the entire Zionist education you have given me” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 866-920). As a magistrate (1940–1948) he fell in love with judging, befriended Ahmad Bey Halil, served in the Palestine Voluntary Force, fought with Moshe Landau to keep writing opinions in Hebrew against a 1942 English-only directive, developed his balancing approach in housing/eviction cases and his trademark elaborate opinions (praised on appeal in 1943 by Chief Justice Frederic Gordon-Smith, mocked by the district court’s deputy president), and, after Black Saturday, convicted curfew violators with only nominal fines while insisting on his Haganah membership and kofer ha-yishuv payments (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 920-985). The chapter closes with partition: Agranat, long a binationalist, now holding partition inevitable, listening to the 33–13 vote on 29 November 1947; the Haifa violence (140 Jews and 184 Arabs killed between late November 1947 and late April 1948, on the figures given); his decision not to approach a sniper’s victim outside the courthouse (“I have a wife and four children. It is not fair to them to risk my life”); Halil’s departure for Lebanon by sea on 21 April 1948; and the demographic close — of the 70,000 Arabs in Haifa in 1947, only 3,000 remained on 14 May 1948 — with Lahav’s comment on the “tragic irony” of the Palestinian exodus at Passover and Agranat’s lifelong insistence that “no one forced them to go. They left.” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 950-996).

Chapter 3: Israel, 1948–1953 (lines 1003-1110)

The founding of the Israeli judiciary. A week after independence Agranat and Landau forced open the locked Haifa court — Landau remembered Agranat personally kicking the door, Agranat remembered instructing the clerks — refusing to “let an Israeli court be closed even for one day”; with English and Arab judges gone, five judges remained in Haifa (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 1003-1040). Pinhas Rosen, the Progressive Party minister of justice (law, Lahav notes, was not MAPAI’s priority), and his attorney general Jacob S. Shapiro built the corps; Shapiro, Agranat’s friend since 1933 bar preparation, lobbied Rosen to put Agranat among the five Supreme Court appointees, but Rosen sacrificed the nomination to the General Zionists’ demand for Shneur Z. Cheshin in order to obtain a unanimous Provisional State Council vote, softening the blow with the district-court presidency, a hint of a sixth seat, and an evening at the Philharmonic; Agranat presided over the two bypassed Haifa district judges, Aharon Shams and Ya’acov Azoulai, and inaugurated the district court in a British judge’s abandoned red-ribboned gown (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 1010-1080). An early district opinion invalidating a predecessor’s price-control conviction grounded a guilty-plea rule in Jewish law, and he avoided the death penalty and lobbied the Knesset for its abolition. The Supreme Court’s inauguration in the Russian Compound on 13 September 1948 — a prosaic necessity, not a symbolic choice, the justices’ preferred Rothschild Boulevard building having gone to the Soviet Embassy — is given with Rosen’s “child of joy” speech and Chief Justice Moshe Smoira’s “Restore our judges as at first” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 1050-1100). Agranat joined the Court in January 1949 and found it freezing, writing on the reverse of Mandatory forms, without a library, excluded from state ceremonies and refused diplomatic passports — the product, Lahav argues, of a Yishuv political culture with deep lawlessness streaks and a MAPAI view of law as a tool of the dominant ideology, beneath chronic survival anxiety strengthening catastrophe Zionism (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 1070-1110). The Bernadotte assassination (17 September 1948, by LEHI) is treated as the era’s illustration: ruthless emergency measures, Ben-Gurion’s Knesset contempt for “juridical cobwebs”, the Swedish inquiry’s criticism of the police investigation, and the 1950 Agranat-chaired commission whose sixty-two-page report (secret for more than forty years) rejected an Israeli policy of avoiding the assassins, found the Jerusalem police “negligent and incompetent”, declined a new investigation and recommended an apology to Sweden — language Lahav reads as “more to a defense of the Israeli government than to the findings of an impartial arbiter”, Agranat himself recalling the anxious effort to “prove to the world that the State did all it could to prevent terrorism” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 1080-1110).

Chapter 4: In Quest of Progressive Reform (lines 1111-1308)

The rights problem and Agranat’s first experiments. In Brun (Akiva Brun’s challenge to administrative detention after LEHI was decreed a terrorist organisation), Smoira for the Court held that when state security is in grave danger “it is necessary to prefer the needs of state security over the protection of individual liberties”, the public mandating “that every citizen sacrifices his rights for the benefit of the public” — self-sacrifice and collectivism marginalising due process (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 1111-1140). In Zeev v. Gubernik the Court declined the Marbury v. Madison invitation, holding the Declaration of Independence expressed the “people’s vision” with political, not legal, authority, and that the Knesset alone could express the people’s will; the Knesset never enacted the promised constitution, leaving a system devoid of express liberty guarantees and replete with emergency regulations, though the Socialist leadership did enact extensive social-welfare legislation (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 1130-1165). Al-Couri v. Chief of Staff (second year): Agranat voided the one-year detention order against Naif Al-Couri, a former Mandatory police officer who had withheld protection from Kibbutz Negba and then fought with the Arab forces, because the order failed to specify the place of detention — a constitutive, not technical, defect — emphasising that administrative detention is prophylactic, not punitive, and anchoring personal liberty in the Declaration (“resonated with the spirit of the Declaration of Independence”) and in Israel as a state of all its citizens, while refraining from attacking the Defense (Emergency) Regulations themselves (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 1160-1210). Podamsky v. State of Israel is treated at length (see that page): a twenty-one-page opinion importing Hohfeld’s rights theory through Salmond, sustaining the coercion conviction of men who at gunpoint freed illegally detained prisoners while building a model in which state agents hold rights, liberties and powers only as law confers them — an attempt, Lahav argues, to introduce rights in strictly analytical dress, immune to the charge of judicial politicking, whose majoritarian limits Agranat himself soon found too timid (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 1180-1280). The chapter closes with the 1952 crisis: Minister of Justice Bernard Joseph’s mandatory-minimum-sentences bill and his attack on “too lenient” judges (“Are they [the judges] winged saints who descended from heaven”), Smoira’s letter to the Knesset Speaker (“judges cannot publicly defend themselves”), the Herut–MAPAM motion defeated by Ben-Gurion’s coalition and the letter returned, and the Judges Law finally passed on 20 August 1953 after Joseph’s replacement by Rosen — followed by Agranat’s spring 1953 American visit (Goldberg, Bazelon, Burton, the Harvard Law Review set and law books bought with unspent expenses; McCarthyism seen from an Israeli perspective resolving his ambivalence), prefaced by the 1949 Douglas exchange at the King David Hotel over Terminiello v. Chicago: “We can afford it,” Douglas retorted, “can you?” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 1250-1308).

Chapter 5: The Foundations of Progressive Reform (lines 1309-1384)

The Kol ha-Am opinion of 16 October 1953 in full: the background (Ben-Gurion’s exclusion of Herut and the Communists, the March 1953 Ha-Arets report of Abba Eban’s 200,000-soldiers announcement, Ben-Gurion’s “a piece of journalistic imagination”, the Interior Minister’s suspension of Kol ha-Am and Al-Itihad but not Ha-Arets under the Press Ordinance of 1933), the unanimous holding that free speech is the cornerstone of Israeli democracy and the suspension invalid, and the opinion’s architecture — democracy as self-rule against authoritarian deference, open deliberation as itself a collective interest, a broad but abusable national-security interest, the Declaration reinterpreted as a normative mediator (“we are bound to pay attention to the matters set forth in it, when we come to interpret … the laws of the state”), and substantive judicial review under a probable-danger test limiting the minister’s discretion (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 1309-1384). Lahav stresses the transplant: Blackstonian prior restraint, rejection of seditious libel and the bad-tendency test, clear-and-present-danger and its “gravity of the evil discounted by its improbability” progeny, and balancing, with Brandeis, Chafee, Hand, Holmes and Jefferson joining the authorities of Israeli law — thirty-two years after Weizmann’s no-bridge declaration, a bridge between Washington and Jerusalem (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 1330-1365).

Chapter 6: Law, Morality, and Judicial Review (lines 1385-1434)

Mandelbrot v. Attorney General: Zalman Mandelbrot, diagnosed paranoid, shot two people in a Haifa textile factory (one killed); the M’Naghten rules in section 14 of the Criminal Code Ordinance made his knowledge that the act was legally prohibited decisive, and the district court convicted. On a panel that could not agree — Silberg reinterpreting the facts within the black-letter law, Goitein dissenting fiercely against Agranat’s “a little too daring” opinion — Agranat wrote a forty-page critique of M’Naghten locating an irresistible-impulse defense in section 11, rejecting the Cartesian split of will and emotion (“man’s ‘ego’ constitutes a unit combining … the will and the emotions, without any possibility of separating them”) and holding that “a sense of justice and morality”, preceding utilitarian deterrence calculations, must inform the law’s treatment of the insane; against the borderline-case warning he answered that the difficulty of judging “does not justify … ‘the application of the same, harsh law’ to the [healthy] offender … and the sick person” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 1385-1434). Lahav closes the part by noting that these opinions were only in hindsight appreciated as the foundation of liberal, progressive jurisprudence in Israel; in the 1950s rights discourse was practically nonexistent, the press saw itself as the long arm of the state, and the Holocaust libel trial was about to absorb the public energy (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 1430-1434).

Part III opening and Chapter 7 opening (lines 1435-1470)

Part III, “Confronting the Holocaust”, opens, and Chapter 7, “Blaming the Victims: The Kasztner Trial”, begins with an Elie Wiesel epigraph on the liquidation of Sighet. “Kasztner’s List”: Agranat’s opinion opened “This trial takes us back to the days of the Holocaust”; between 1953 and 1958 Jewish activity during the Holocaust occupied Israel’s front pages, Knesset, cabinet and courtroom. Kasztner’s biography is given — Kluz journalist, Budapest negotiator with Eichmann from March 1944, his privileges (automobile, travel, telephone, no yellow star), the murder of almost two-thirds of Hungarian Jewry in less than a year, and the 1,685-person Bergen-Belsen transport that left for Switzerland in summer 1944 including a disproportionate number of his friends and relations; after the war his report to the Zionist Congress in Basel, the inconclusive committee of inquiry, his rise in MAPAI to spokesman for the Ministry of Trade and Industry by 1952; and his accuser Malchiel Gruenvald, seventy-one, a Ha-mizrahi member settled in Jerusalem in 1938, of whose fifty-eight immediate relatives only six survived, whose pamphlet against Kasztner opens the passage where this part ends (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 1435-1470).

Chapter 7 (rest): Blaming the Victims — the Kasztner Trial (lines 1471-1732)

Gruenvald’s pamphlet (“Dr. Rudolf Kasztner should be eliminated! … I see him as a vicarious murderer of my dear brothers”), Attorney General Haim Cohn’s insistence that Kasztner sue or resign and his criminal-libel prosecution, and Shmuel Tamir’s defense — the Judenrat-versus-resistance frame and the charge that Ben-Gurion and the Jewish Agency, with the British, withheld help from Hungary’s Jews. Judge Benjamin Halevy held on 22 June 1955 that Kasztner “had sold his soul to Satan”, anonymising him as K through a 234-page opinion; the judgment a month before the 1955 elections made “Kasztnerism” the campaign’s centre (MAPAI fell from 44 to 40 seats, Herut doubled to 15), Kasztner was assassinated in March 1957 with his appeal pending, and the five-justice appeal panel (Olshan, Cheshin, Goitein, Silberg dissenting, Agranat writing first at Olshan’s request) found Gruenvald had libelled Kasztner on three of four counts — only the charge that Kasztner tried to rescue Kurt Becher after the war was true. Agranat’s legal framework balanced the criminal and civil standards into a “strong and clear” evidence rule, refused deference to Halevy’s factual findings, and set out premises on truth and history: historians (Trevelyan, Berlin) cannot render the past objectively, an adversarial court still less, Halevy’s flaw was hindsight, and a judge must “put himself in the shoes of the participants themselves”. On the “pact with Satan” (2 May 1944), Agranat dismantled the formalism that made Eichmann and Kasztner equal free partners: Kasztner had at most probable, not certain, knowledge of deportation before 8 May, and thereafter acted under pressure hoping the murder plan would fail (the Brand “trucks for blood” mission), so criminal intent was absent; on collaboration, his core was omission, not action, and a leader’s moral duty runs to the community as a whole, not to each individual — Halevy’s watchman metaphor was “completely irrelevant” because a watchman’s duty is ministerial, not discretionary. Lahav reads Tamir’s galut indictment (and Silberg’s “[W]e paid less” peroration) against Agranat’s tentative Warsaw-ghetto theory and his empathy for terrorised Hungarian Jewry; the opinion was read on 17 January 1958 to a courtroom emptied after lunch by the Israel–Wales football match, and Kasztner’s widow sent roses that evening (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 1471-1732).

Chapter 8: Blaming the Victimizers — the Eichmann Trial (lines 1733-1936)

Eichmann’s capture was announced in May 1960; the trial, staged at Bet ha-Am with cameras, simultaneous translation and a bullet-proof booth, was designed by Ben-Gurion and prosecutor Gideon Hausner to establish “the correct historical perspective” — Jewish misery, gentile frigidity, and the Zionist conclusion. Because Halevy, the district court’s president, would not stand aside, the statute was amended so Moshe Landau could preside. The district court convicted Eichmann on 15 December 1961. On appeal (22 March–29 May 1962) the five-justice panel wrote per curiam; Agranat, assigned jurisdiction, argued from a “negative” perspective (international law did not prohibit ex post facto law or non-territorial prosecution) and, for twenty of thirty pages, a “positive” one: “crimes against the Jewish people” is, in Agranat’s words, “the gravest crime against humanity”, so the indictment collapsed into crimes against humanity, which any state could prosecute; the acts-of-state and “small cog” defenses failed because Eichmann acted con amore. Silberg, writing the facts, insisted on Eichmann’s particular place in destroying European Jewry — a rift the per curiam form hid. Agranat summarily rejected the claim that Jewish judges could not be objective, quoting the district court (“the learned judges did abide by their duty—fully and to the end”, with “they”, not “we”), and silently approved the death sentence he had opposed all his life: “Remember the victims, the victims. … [T]hese were barbarians, barbarians.” Eichmann was hanged on the night of 31 May–1 June 1962. Lahav’s aftermath: the trial ennobled memory but turned “never again” into a fetish legitimating any means, and Agranat, defending Israel as a loyal member of the community of nations while knowing he defended it because it was the only Jewish state, “would never be the same again” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 1733-1936).

Chapter 9: Who Is the Guardian of the Law — the Minister of Justice or the Attorney General? (lines 1931-2043)

Part IV opens amid complaints of a “weakening of the rule of law”, the Lavon Affair’s “Who gave the order?”, and Bernard Joseph’s return as minister of justice (1961) bent on controlling Attorney General Hausner; the Robert Soblen affair (July 1962) — Soblen handed to the FBI despite a pending injunction and no extradition treaty, Agranat denying his petition for want of jurisdiction once he was off Israeli territory — confirmed the malaise. The Agranat Commission (Agranat, Berinson, Levin; appointed 26 June 1962) reported unanimously that the attorney general holds exclusive powers and must decide disagreements “in keeping with his own understanding and conscience”, as “the custodian of the public interest” and a barrier against partisan use of criminal process — while allowing the minister to arrogate those powers to himself, publicly, as an American-style check and balance. Agranat’s writer’s block and diagnosed “fatigue” during the drafting are told in full. The cabinet adopted the report over Joseph’s and Ben-Gurion’s objections; Hausner resigned, Moshe Ben-Ze’ev was appointed, and Lahav detects in the pragmatic report “the seeds of Conservatism” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 1931-2043).

Chapter 10: Chief Justice Agranat (lines 2044-2101)

Agranat became the third chief justice on 18 March 1965 by seniority, despite rumours Olshan would seek to raise the retirement age; he planned a kinder, gentler, anti-formalist court and convened the first Judges Conference (13 October 1965). The first of two October crises was the Tel Giborim scandal: MAFDAL deputy minister Yitzhak Raphael, acquitted on 16 September 1965 after Yehuda Spiegel’s bribery conviction and the Golan report finding Raphael knew of the solicited party contribution, attacked the judiciary and called for partitioning secular and rabbinical courts; Agranat — having already, after consulting his brethren and pre-clearing it at Joseph’s home, sent Prime Minister Eshkol a letter demanding defence of the courts and release of the Golan report, while withholding that fact from the judges’ delegation (“It was childish on my part”) — saw the cabinet back Golan and release the report. Lahav sets the crisis in the secular–religious struggle: the secular camp read the religious sector as wanting in mamlakhtiyut, while Agranat saw the Court’s unequivocal secular siding as divisive, and at the Judges Conference assured the absent chief rabbis: “Jewish law is our heritage” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 2044-2101).

Chapter 11: Arab Representation in the Jewish State (lines 2102-2271)

The second crisis is Yeredor. Lahav profiles Palestinian radicalism in Israel to 1965 — the devastated, militarily ruled Arab population, the Communist Party as its only representative in the 1950s, and from 1958 Al-Ard, the young nationalists’ movement the government campaigned ruthlessly against. In the 1960 Qardosh case Agranat (Witkon concurring, sustained 3–2 on further hearing) invalidated the registrar’s refusal to let Al-Ard incorporate: “absolute discretion” is not standardless, an agency must act “within the four corners of the purpose for which it was vested with powers by the law”, and ideological censorship was not the registrar’s power — an opinion that never mentioned the petitioners were Palestinian Arabs. In Yeredor (October 1965), with the elections committee having banned Al-Ard’s Arab Socialist Party list, Agranat (Sussman concurring, Cohn dissenting on the ground that the Elections Law authorised no substantive ban) held the committee’s powers generally ministerial but the case unique: the “continuity—and if you wish: ‘the immortality—of the state of Israel—is a fundamental constitutional premise”, so the committee “had no option but to ban Al-Ard”. The finding of intent to destroy the state rested on the 1964 illegality holding, itself built on the military’s decoding of Al-Ard’s constitution (article 3’s “just solution to the Palestinian problem … as an indivisible unit” read as rejection of partition, a Palestinian state in lieu of Israel, the right of return and Nasser’s say), Radio Cairo and Falastin praise, and one prior conviction for unlicensed publishing. Lahav lists the readings Agranat declined — Al-Ard’s own gloss, belief versus conduct, concrete proof, the Jews on the list — and his self-defending democracy authorities (Witkon’s Weimar passage, Barker’s cold-war foreign-allegiance party, Lincoln’s Civil War address), concluding that survival anxiety “paralyzed his Progressive convictions”, that Yeredor was also a response to the rabbis in the Golan crisis and a new chief justice’s bid for continuity, and that military rule was abolished in 1966 before the Six Day War reframed everything (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 2102-2271).

Chapter 12: Who Is a Jew? — the Shalit Case (lines 2272-2551)

Benjamin Shalit’s petition (filed winter 1968) asked that his children by his non-Jewish wife Anne be registered as Jewish by nationality; a nine-justice panel — Agranat’s choice — held 5–4 for Shalit on a subjective, sincere-belief test, Agranat among the dissenters. The chapter situates the case in the religion–state status quo, the separate “religion” and “nationality” registry columns (devised, Lahav notes, more to tell Arab from Jew for security than to define Jews), the post-1967 national-unity government and religious nationalism, and the Cohn–Silberg clash (subjective versus objective tests; Silberg’s “strikes at the heart of our political claim to the land of Israel [Erets Yisrael]” and his good/bad Jew and Gentile camps; Berinson’s Kamal Nimri example). Agranat first proposed the government legislate the “nationality” designation away; rebuffed in three days, he could not write, lost the first-opinion initiative to Cohn, and finally dissented on a historical argument — the Jewish people as a religio-nation (“Torah and Israel Are One and the Same”), the halakhic intermarriage prohibition as survival instrument, and American Jewry’s loyalty to the halakhic definition as a warning against splitting world Jewry — while also stating the modern approach in full (“The present has its own dynamic”) and concluding no branch of government could decide the question; only society, in due course, could. Lahav reads this through Process Jurisprudence and Ahad ha-Am’s “Between the Two Jurisdictions” slow-incubation strategy: possibly Conservative status-quo preservation, possibly a subversive patience. The aftermath: the rabbinate’s isur torah, a package deal after six days, a non-retroactive Knesset amendment writing the halakhic definition into law, Oren and Galia Shalit the only halakhically non-Jewish Israelis ever registered as Jews, and a chastened Court turning deferential on standing in the yeshivah-exemption and Sabbath-television petitions; in late 1972 Agranat declined Golda Meir’s presidency feeler to keep his remaining years on the bench (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 2272-2551).

Chapter 13: War and the Agranat Commission (lines 2552-2791)

Part VI. The Yom Kippur War (6 October 1973; more than 2,500 Israeli soldiers dead in three weeks) is told through Agranat’s anxiety for his son Ronnie in the Golan, the Yurman tort opinion he clung to “no matter what” with Gilbert and Sullivan’s “The flowers that bloom in the spring, tra-la” stuck in his mind, and the accountability demand Meir and Dayan refused until the cabinet appointed a commission of inquiry (Agranat chairing, with Landau, Nebenzahl, Yadin and Laskov) — Agranat insisting on unanimity. The first report (1 April 1974) declined to judge parliamentary responsibility (a political question for Knesset, parties and cabinet), found neither Meir nor Dayan personally negligent — Dayan judged as a “reasonable minister of defense”, his military expertise disregarded — the report insisting on a standard which does not change “with the particular attributes of the individual who serves in the particular position” — but held Chief of Staff Elazar (on an essentially strict-liability standard), two brigadier generals and lower officers responsible under the military’s “conception” and recommended their discharge. Critics charged the report missed the mother conception (post-1967 euphoria and the official image of Arabs as weak and incompetent), Dayan’s contradictory statements and the Sharon-for-Gonen replacement, and betrayed officers’ sense that Dayan charmed the commission through counsel. Lahav asks whether the commission had its own conception — founding-generation solidarity, catastrophe Zionism’s “nation in arms”, Churchill’s “correct that which needed correction” — and treats at length the commission’s war with the press, culminating in the final report’s opening media section (invective, sub judice and security complaints, and a footnote urging reconsideration of the policy of not prosecuting journalists), from which only Nebenzahl dissented in favour of freedom; Agranat wrote the press text but let Landau’s criminal-law recommendation sit in a footnote, quoting his own Kasztner admonition and Frankfurter’s “strong pull of the unconscious”. The report’s legacy, on Lahav’s reflection: it forced Labor to act and taught Israelis governmental change was safe (dividends in 1977), but it was internally incoherent, uncharacteristically brief, and left Agranat, reading Trollope’s Palliser Saga through the inquiry, a distressed man whose commission’s reputation splashed onto his Court (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 2552-2791).

Chapter 14: Retirement, 1976–1992, and Epilogue (lines 2792-2861)

Agranat’s judicial tenure ended on his seventieth birthday, 5 September 1976, with only Carmel, Israel and Ilana present — “It was pathetic”, Israel recalled — despite the Knesset party two days later, the Hebrew encyclopedia from the justices and the silver menorah from the lower courts; colleagues did not share his recollection of a farewell tradition he had created. In retirement he taught part-time and wrote little; the 1980s “constitutional revolution” canonised Kol ha-Am and his rights foundations. He deplored the occupation regime’s means (house demolitions “inhumane”), the dismissal of an attorney general who would not bend the rule of law to raison d’état, and fellow American Meir Kahane’s Kach platform, voted Labor in 1992, and died at home on 10 August 1992; at his private funeral Landau alone eulogised him, only sons said kaddish (Lahav’s indignation at the women’s exclusion recorded), and his gravestone reads “Ha-Shofet Shimon Agranat, Dan Din Emet La-Amito” (“Justice Simon Agranat, who judged the truth truthfully”). The Epilogue, epigraphed with Paul Goldberger’s 1995 New York Times praise of the new Supreme Court building, records Agranat’s misgivings about the Rothschild gift and the Court’s siting beside the Knesset, and Shamgar’s and Barak’s revival of his 1950s adjudication of substantive values — alongside the same court’s “jurisprudence of repression” legitimating administrative detentions, house demolitions, deportations and suppression of political expression in the occupied territories (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 2792-2861).

Notes, opening (lines 2862-2940)

The whole-book Notes begin after the Epilogue. In this range: the Prologue notes (notes 1–5: the upbringings of Golda Meir and Abba Eban; the Cheshin and Mani exceptions; Lev v. ha-Mashbir ha-Merkazi; the statement that the book draws heavily on interviews with Agranat conducted between 1983 and 1991, quotations from him based on the interview notes, and Hebrew quotations translated by the author; and the note that Agranat refused to hebraize his family name, as most Supreme Court justices refused the government policy requiring Hebrew names) and the first ten Chapter 1 notes (family genealogy, Allswang, Aaron’s Haifa lectures, Howe, the interview citations and Canetti). The remaining Notes continue in the following parts (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 2862-2940).

Notes, continued (lines 2941-4410)

The Notes to Chapter 1 are completed (notes 11-77), the Notes to Chapters 2 and 3 are given in full, and the Notes to Chapter 4 run through note 36. Most are citations — to the Agranat papers and family letters (to Louis and Mini Orloff, 1930), to interviews and letters to the author (Wolf, Sacks, Benjamin, Despres), to The Herzlite, the Avukah Annual and the Chicago Yidisher Kuryer of September 1929, and to the secondary literature the narrative uses (Hofstadter [as printed, “Hofstader”] and Ekirch on Progressivism, Strum on Brandeis, Horwitz and White on American legal thought, Shapira on Tel Hai and the “defensive ethos”, Zerubavel on collective memory) (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 2941-3381). The substantive Chapter 1 notes add Agranat’s own closed/open legal-system contrast (from his 1973 Jerusalem Post article), the account of his Hebrew University professorship of criminal law and the pension denied him after more than fifteen years of teaching (note 44), Avukah’s later militancy, its burden on the ZOA and its closure in 1943 (note 57), and Hall’s and Pound’s Chicago synthesis of the case method with sociological jurisprudence (note 49) (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 3088-3381). The Chapter 2 notes (1-76) supply the documents behind the Palestine narrative: the 1925 Sacher-Joseph memorandum to the high commissioner on judicial bribery (file P6/857, Bernard Joseph Archive), Article 46 of the Palestine Order in Council, 1922 and Article 2 of the Mandate, both quoted in full, the Farouqi litigation’s trail from Jaffa to the Privy Council and back with its three citations (1935, 1937, 1941), the legal profession’s growth (83 lawyers at the end of 1921, 360 by 1936 of whom only 112 were Arabs, on Shtrasman’s figures), the illegal-immigrant defense’s procedure (£5 a month as national service, three-month sentences, bail discretion, the £100-per-person bail and the hunger-strike prison visit), the Agranat children’s birth years (Israel 1935, Zilla 1939, Hillel 1941, Yael (Didi) 1942, Ronnie 1951), Lilian Friedlaender’s biography with Cyrus Adler’s warning and Leonard Bernstein’s foreword, Agranat’s loss of United States nationality on 17 March 1941 (certificate approved 20 September 1941), the Peel Commission’s 43 percent non-citizen figure, and the Haifa historiography cited for 1948 — Morris, Flapan and Pappe, with Walid Khalidi’s “The Fall of Haifa” given as the description from the Palestinian perspective (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 3382-3969). The Chapter 3 notes (1-31) document the Supreme Court’s founding (the five candidates and their political balance, Shams put on trial by the Haganah, Agranat’s temporary appointment made permanent on 28 December 1949), the Altalena and Palmah-dissolution background, and the Bernadotte commission — its quoted conclusions, the censored cabinet protocols and Segev’s question whether the cabinet knew who assassinated Bernadotte and concealed it, and the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance’s later Likud use against the PLO (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 3823-4116). The Chapter 4 notes (1-36) document the early rights cases: Brun and Zeev with Marbury, the distinction between the housing confiscation Agranat refused to benefit from and the confiscation of Arab land (Lustick and Kretzmer cited for the latter), the Court’s first methodology in Sylvester, Bezerano and Sheib, Agranat’s own early Selinger deference and Goldstein legality opinions, the Al-Couri pin citations, Llewellyn’s grand style as Agranat’s exception, Olshan’s Sax rebuke, Agranat’s 1954 customs letter over the 39.305-pound duty on Hillel’s Bar Mitzvah fountain pen, the Hohfeld-Salmond apparatus of Podamsky, the expiry of the Podamsky detention order (fifteen days, expired by 15 October 1950, so the prisoners were free men), and Ben-Gurion’s first-anniversary speech on attitudes to judge and policeman against Lahav’s statement that the government’s austerity and rationing program caused a black market to flourish (citing Segev, 1949: The First Israelis, 297-323) (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 3970-4410).

Notes, continued (lines 4411-5880)

The Chapter 4 notes are completed (notes 37-75), the Notes to Chapters 5 and 6 are given in full, the Notes to Chapter 7 are given in full, and the Notes to Chapter 8 open (notes 1-7). The Chapter 4 completion adds Podamsky’s apparatus in full (Salmond, Paton, and Corbin as Agranat listed them; the coequality/ultra vires significance of the homeowner passage, read against the contemporary attack on judges in the Knesset; the partial success of the appeal on the weapons conviction; the habeas corpus dictum; the liberty categorisation’s preclusion of charges against the police; Lahav’s conjecture that it may well be that the pragmatic Israelis had no patience with the opinion’s highly analytical concepts, and that shortly thereafter, when Israeli Supreme Court opinions were proudly translated into English, Podamsky was not included; and its 1956 sequel Cohen v. Ministry of Defense introducing Hohfeld’s immunities) and a long sample of Agranat’s other civil-liberties opinions of the period: the deportation cases Khalf, Al-Ayoubi, Abu Gosh (his dissent — no “free will” where the petitioner faced retribution for helping the Israeli forces) and Bader; Sternhal on contempt; and Attorney General v. Amos Keynan, with its lengthy treatment of the right to remain silent and a journalist’s telephone message as “a professional secret, that he should not divulge to others, including to the police” — probably the first recognition of a reporter’s privilege in Israel. The judiciary-bill crisis notes give the party history of the Ministry of Justice (Progressives to 8 October 1951, Bernard Joseph, Rosen’s return on 23 December 1952), Joseph’s Ha-Arets remark that “it is not necessary to publicize” Israel’s bad financial situation “so that the enemy will know”, and the fraught context of Agranat’s 1953 American trip (Smoira’s stroke, the Olshan–Silberg silence, the diplomatic-passports confrontation, a fifth child) (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 4411-4704). The Chapter 5 notes give the Zriffin underground memorandum in full: Ben-Gurion proposed Agranat judge the military trial of the right-wing activists charged after the 1952 Czech and Soviet embassy attacks; Agranat refused on separation-of-powers grounds, Halevy accepted, and Agranat, reluctantly appellate judge, advised the minister of defense confidentially (16 September 1953) that mens rea was necessary (strict liability “collided with the most basic principles of criminal law”), that two defendants’ confessions could not be used against others, and that the teenagers should be rehabilitated, not deterred — “They did what they did out of lightheadedness or because of adult influence” — Lavon accepting the recommendations in full and Ben-Gurion pardoning the remaining prisoners on 24 April 1955. They also give the Soviet background (the July 1952 trial of twenty-three senior Jewish intellectuals; the January 1953 Doctors’ Plot accusation against nine physicians, seven of them Jewish) and the First Kol ha-Am puzzle: Agranat concurred in Olshan’s First Kol ha-Am (H.C. 25/53) and never mentioned it in his own opinion, a silence Lahav can explain only by his not wishing to single himself out as “too Progressive” before Olshan, who controlled panel assignment, until a supportive panel (Landau and Sussman), his American trip, and eased Soviet tensions combined. Regulation 94 of the Defense (Emergency) Regulations and section 19(2) of the Press Ordinance, 1933 are quoted, as is the note that the Declaration had by 1994 been recognised in two Basic Laws as a guiding interpretive tool (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 4705-4998). The Chapter 6 notes quote sections 11 (Intention, Motive) and 14 (Insanity) of the Criminal Code Ordinance in full, record Goitein’s Mandelbrot protest (“We are subject to the law as it is and not as we would wish to see it”) and his verdict that in some Israeli decisional law “English conservatism won a victory over Israel-American liberalism”, note that Meysan (1955) adopted Agranat’s Mandelbrot position — the prosecution itself arguing for it — and sample his later rights opinions: the licensing cases, Taufik Ziad (police may order a prisoner only what law expressly permits, lest they end up “torturing the prisoners who are within their jurisdiction and treating them tyrannically”), Heruti as Kol ha-Am’s companion (proof of passing “from the stage of preparation to the stage of [violent] action”, the government’s terrorist designation not dispositive lest the trial be a “show trial”, Brun expressly narrowed, sedition considerably narrowed), and Ajami, rejecting a husband’s claimed right to have strangers invade his estranged wife’s bedroom as treating “his wife’s body as an object abandoned in their hands” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 4999-5292). The Chapter 7 notes document the trial behind the narrative: the Joseph/Cohn conflict over who pressed Kasztner to sue, kept side by side from their conflicting accounts; Halevy sitting alone and his opinion’s publication only in 1965; the assassins’ 1963 pardon and Ekstein’s 1993 account; Agranat’s acquaintance with Herut’s Yohanan Bader and his new doubt of Ben-Gurion’s no-coalition dictum; the Akademon logistics of reproducing the appeal opinion under a “complete veil of secrecy”; the authorities Agranat used on judging history (Trevelyan’s “Bias in History”, Berlin’s Historical Inevitability, Frankfurter, Pound’s “Mechanical Jurisprudence”, Kirchheimer’s “Criminal Omissions” rejecting the presumption that a man intends the natural consequences of his actions); the implicit criticism that Halevy, holding Kasztner’s conduct did “not differ morally, publicly and even legally from handing over most Jews to their murderers”, cited no substantive criminal offense; Zertal’s “Poisoned Heart” and Zuckerman’s “If you could lick my heart, it would poison you to death”; Agranat’s 1968 Ben-Moshe defence of a Knesset member’s free speech as “the mirror image of the strong link between the principle of freedom of expression and debate and the … democratic process”; Silberg’s “we paid less” conclusion (“here is egocentrism and its reward”); and the MAPAI-and-the-Holocaust historiography (Ofer, Eshkoli, Zertal) behind Tamir’s trial evidence (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 5293-5880). The Chapter 8 notes open with the claim that Israel did not actively search for Eichmann until 1957 and that the pending Kasztner appeal probably spurred the abduction from Argentina, the Halevy compromise (Herut’s opposition producing his service on, but not chairing of, the trial panel), Arendt’s praise of Landau, and the Eichmann appeal citation (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 5734-5880).

Notes, continued (lines 5881-7350)

The Chapter 8 notes are completed (notes 8-45), the Notes to Chapters 9, 10 and 11 are given in full, and the Notes to Chapter 12 open (notes 1-31). The Chapter 8 completion adds Carmel Agranat’s aversion to Germans (she shunned official ceremonies involving Germans throughout Agranat’s chief-justiceship, and refused an overnight stay in Dusseldorf after an emergency landing on a return flight from Liberia), the scholarly objections to the trial (Musmanno, Rogat, Lasok, Wechsler) and their supporters (Baade), Agranat’s authorities on aggressive war and Nuremberg (Glueck and Quincy Wright, quoted at length), two translation omissions flagged in the notes (“thereby absolving the executioners” omitted from the English translation; “at all times and in all seasons” not appearing in it), and the execution press, with the timing note that Eichmann was hung on Thursday minutes before midnight (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 5881-6321). The Chapter 9 notes document the attorney-general crisis: Hausner’s belief (in interview, via Gutman) that Ben-Gurion decided to revive “the mishap” and replace him because he might not assist, Ben-Gurion’s insistence on a judicial resolution, the three questions in Ben-Gurion’s letter of 26 June 1962 quoted in full, the Schor presumption that the attorney general acts in good faith, and the Jurists’ Report itself — unanimous, written by Agranat, reviewing the powers to indict, to invalidate district attorneys’ decisions and to halt proceedings, all dealing with the power “to activate the judicial branch in order to punish a person for having committed a certain offence” and inherent “legal discretion”, with the government’s responsibility to the Knesset for the attorney general’s actions “rather narrow” and the limited Knesset supervision a low “price” to “pay” for an a-political guardian of the public interest; a tangible reason for the hasty Soblen deportation is suggested — Yosseleh Shuhmacker, the child abducted by his ultra-Orthodox grandfather, was located by the Mossad in New York on 27 June 1962, and “It may well be that Israel feared that the American government would not cooperate in releasing Yosseleh if Israel withheld cooperation in the Soblen matter” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 6175-6615). The Chapter 10 notes give the seniority principle’s origin in Smoira’s stroke and the 1953 crisis (Olshan appointed 5 August 1954), Bernard Joseph’s blocked objection to Silberg as deputy chief justice (an Orthodox believer in Jewish-law governance appearing to Joseph as more representative of galut than of the nation reborn, with Lahav’s conjecture that Joseph wanted secular Court leadership), Agranat’s Judges Conference opening remarks (a judicial decision “contains what is generally called a value judgment, an ethical judgment”), and a long sample of his chief-justice work: the Conservative-flavour Mekitan concurrence and Turjeman prostitution holding, Segev’s refusal to make the Court a forum for the religious-marriage reform struggle, the still-classified opinion (Agranat, Silberg, Landau) upholding prohibition of Isser Harel’s Eichmann-abduction memoirs, and the reformist counterweight of Bergman (1969), the first case in which the Court exercised judicial review and invalidated a Knesset law; the Tel Giborim notes fix the 220,000-pound “contribution” to the Rav Kook Institute and a yeshivah named after Rev Maimon, the rabbinical courts’ jurisdiction, and the roots in the affair of MAFDAL’s later break of its “historic alliance” with MAPAI (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 6469-6762). The Chapter 11 notes document Yeredor and Qardosh: the terms used since 1948 for the Palestinian Arabs who remained (Israel’s Arabs, Israeli Arabs, Palestinian Israelis, Falastini Israelis), the Kafr Kassem incident of 1956 (forty-seven Israeli Arabs, including fifteen women and eleven children, massacred by members of the border police; Halevy’s military court convicted eight and acquitted three), Al-Ard’s 1961 and 1964 protests to the United Nations and foreign embassies over the “military government, expropriation of land, and the condition of Arab culture in Israel”, a possible Communist Party encouragement of the ban (Al-Ard as a competitor for Arab votes), the irony Lahav marks — the sovereign Jewish state applying to the Palestinian Arabs the French emancipation slogan (“to the Jews as a nation — nothing, to the Jews as individuals — everything”) that Zionism had rejected for the Jews — Agranat’s recollection of ordering an Arab café reopened against a military governor, his Qardosh prior-restraint passage, the panel-assignment change from Olshan’s complete control to random composition under Agranat, Yaacov Yeredor’s biography (LEHI leftist, binationalist, father of a later commander of Israel’s high-security intelligence unit), Sussman’s Weimar/“fighting democracy” concurrence and his own 1933 dismissal as a Jewish clerk in Berlin-Pankow, Cohn’s dissent quotation (“We do not sit here as a court of law”), the post-1965 trajectories of Al-Ard’s leaders (Qahwaji to Syrian intelligence, Jiryis to the PLO), Agranat’s interview defence of Yeredor (“I did what the people wanted”), his dictum that the Declaration stated Arabs should be adequately represented in all government institutions, and Lahav’s judgement that fear for the Jewish state after the Eichmann trial “paralyzed” the Israelis and cost the Court an opportunity to encourage Arab-Jewish dialogue (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 6616-7203). The Chapter 12 notes open with the Shalit apparatus: the second Shalit (1972, Tomer’s registration denied as an impermissible dodge of the 1970 Amendment), the Rufeisen (Brother Raphael) precedent — a converted Jewish monk held Jewish under the halakhah but not under the Law of Return’s popular meaning, Agranat not on the panel — Galia Shalit born 11 February 1967 and the petition filed 25 February 1968, Halevy’s resignation from the panel to run for the Knesset under the Likud ticket and Kister’s replacement, the Yediot Aharonot headline distinguishing the native-born Jewish man from the “other” Fatah man while ignoring that the Palestinians are also native born, Shapiro’s Knesset presentation of the identity-card amendment with mistanenim (“infiltrators”) noted as a euphemism for Palestinian refugees, and Mani’s fifth majority vote, which Agranat had expected to go the other way (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 7057-7350).

Notes, continued (lines 7351-8820)

The Chapter 12 notes are completed (notes 32-76), the Notes to Chapters 13 and 14 and the Epilogue notes are given in full, and the Glossary opens (entries A-S, through Six Day War, with the Stern Gang entry begun). The Chapter 12 completion gives the Shalit opinion’s scholarly apparatus in full: Philip Roth and Proverbs 6:24-25 behind the “strange woman” theme; the quotation “Today pure logic denies the [discriminatory] distinction against the other [the child of the Jewish father]” (Shalit, 595); the phrase “Torah and Israel …” as Agranat’s own (Shalit, 580); and the long note on the books he borrowed for the opinion — Kaufmann’s Golah ve-Nekhar and Rav Tsa’ir’s Toldot ha-Halakhah from his late father Aaron’s library, his father-in-law Israel Friedlaender’s Past and Present quoted at length, Barker’s Principles of Social and Political Theory from Carmel’s uncle Eugen Meyer, Eisenstadt’s Israeli Society from his son-in-law Oved Cohen, Finkelstein’s The Jews borrowed from his daughter Zilla, Rotenstreich from his son Hillel, and Kelman’s article from his neighbour Shimon Herman — together with the Kaufmann/Rav Tsa’ir analysis he returned to (the Jewish people as guardians of a Torah whose content is universalist), Lerner’s post-war American-Jewry trend “away from assimilationism and toward … assertion of their uniqueness and separateness as a historical community”, and Herskovits quoting Kennedy’s “religionational group”. The notes then give Tamarin (1972), in which Agranat for the Court rejected registration as “Israeli” rather than Jewish while holding the emerging Israeli identity should retain a religious element and that Israel is built on “Liberal-secular elements”; the legal-process apparatus (Hart and Sacks, Bickel, Wellington on consensus); Lahav’s own recollection of Barak’s and Zamir’s student enthusiasm for the “new approach”, Zamir’s 1970 proposal to repeal the word justice from the Court’s jurisdiction statute, and Rubinstein’s 1966 formal/substantive justice call, heeded fifteen years later under Barak; the failed later attempt to add “in accordance with the halakhah” to the conversion law, defeated in 1985 largely by American Jewish opposition (Knesset vote 62 to 51); and the long note 76 sample of post-Shalit deference and Agranat’s later cases — Elizur (Saturday broadcasting), Zaksh (no standing), Hugim Leumiyim (Temple Mount prayer held non-justiciable, the issue threatening escalation of the Jewish-Muslim conflict over the holy places), Shik (name change denied), Lansky (Law of Return section 2 used against a petitioner linked to organized crime), Fauzi Al-Asmar (a former Al-Ard member’s confinement to Lod left undisturbed), Kaniel (refusing to extend Bergman to a substantive violation meeting the formal 61-vote requirement), Burnovski (rabbinical power to permit a second wife; the plight of agunot unresolved), Rivkin, the Holzman dictum that Reform conversions in the United States were valid, and Shimshi on criminal-procedure liberalism (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 7351-7938). The Chapter 13 notes document the Agranat Commission: Yurman and Ronnie Agranat’s wounding on 16 October 1973 and recovery, with Olshan’s memoir passage on a parent’s grief for his only child Yoram; the Saturday Night Massacre of 20 October 1973 as the Watergate backdrop; the 31 December 1973 election figures (Alliance 51 of 120, down from 56; Likud 39, up from 33; RATZ 3; MAFDAL 10) and the late-November 1973 poll (almost 56 percent for personal conclusions, 73 percent against replacing Dayan), with Lahav’s conjecture that it may well be that the voters hoped the commission would do the task for them; the sample of post-report criticism (Rabin’s “fundamentally defective”, Davar’s double-standard charge, Ben-Aharon’s “a dark day for Israeli law”, Moked’s cover-up charge, Rubinstein’s minister-of-defence-powers objection) beside the voices defending the commission; the report’s recommendations (intelligence officers removed, Southern Command chief suspended, chief of staff’s service terminated; a war cabinet of not more than five; a national security council in the prime minister’s office) and its implicit criticism of Meir’s government — the Ministerial Committee for Security Affairs expanded to almost the whole cabinet “for the sole purpose of guaranteeing thereby the secrecy of its deliberations”, its function passing to the “kitchen”, whose members not living in Tel Aviv missed the critical Yom Kippur decisions; Elazar’s resignation letter refuting the commission (“the minister of defense was an operational authority above the chief of staff and all the operational and tactical plans before the war were submitted for his approval”) and Dayan’s 21 May 1973 General Command speech quoted against it; Zeira’s claim that Agranat himself advised him not to be represented by an attorney; the Kahan Commission on Sabra and Shatila as the bolder contrast on “personal responsibility” (Sharon removed as minister of defense but kept in the cabinet); the press section’s quoted position — “Journalists and publishers who take the liberty to publish such things cannot argue that it is in the public interest” — with Agranat’s classified late-1960s censorship opinion cross-referenced; and note 66’s account of the commission’s “excessively narrow” reading of sections 15(a) and (b) of the Commissions of Inquiry Law, denying cross-examination where conclusions rested on the officer’s own testimony, and of the Court’s denial of Gonen’s two petitions, perceived publicly as the Court assisting a commission on which two of its most senior justices sat (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 7792-8673). The Chapter 14 notes give the retirement record: the only constitutional-law opinion in the final volumes is Noah Films (film censorship reversed); Agranat’s last reported panel case, ATA Textile Company v. Schwartz, is dated 5 September 1976, and his very last single-judge opinion was not published; his teaching at Bar-Ilan, Yeshiva University and Santa Clara; his major retirement writings; his prizes (the 1986 Sussman Prize for his “Life work of truth and justice”; the bar’s 1990 recognition of him as among “the founders of democracy in Israel”); his 1988 agreement to serve as president of the Israeli Association of Civil Rights (ACRI), which the legal establishment frowned on and which Lahav reads as showing his chief-justice prudence stemmed from his conception of his position, not a change of heart on rights; and Cohn’s Talmudic gloss on the gravestone phrase — “[T]he one who judges the truth truthfully is like an accomplice to the Lord in the Creation.” The Epilogue notes record Agranat’s refusal after 1967 to move the Supreme Court to East Jerusalem (“There are enough good places in Hebrew Jerusalem”), the suspended 1973 Mount Scopus building plans, the 1992 Basic Laws, and the literature of the Court’s occupation jurisprudence (Kretzmer on the Fourth Geneva Convention, Simon on house demolitions, Shamir on landmark cases) (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 8527-8820). The Glossary then opens with the book’s own one-line definitions, among them Al-Ard as “A pan-Arab Israeli movement”, Galut as “Exile; the history and consciousness of the Jewish people after the destruction of the Second Temple in the first century A.D.”, Mamlakhtiyut as “A variation of etatism developed in the early years of Israeli statehood”, and the Peel Commission as appointed “to investigate the causes of the 1936 Arab rebellion in Palestine” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 8674-8820).

Glossary (concluded), Photo Section and Index, opening (lines 8821-10290)

The Glossary is completed: Stern Gang, “See LEHI”; Succot, the seven-day festival commemorating the tabernacles in the wilderness after the Exodus; Tel Hai, a Jewish settlement in the Upper Galilee, site of a 1920 battle between Jewish settlers and Arabs; Yiddishkeit, “Eastern European Jewish culture”; Yom Kippur War, “Arab-Israeli war, October 1973”; and Young Judea, “American Zionist youth organization” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 8821-8835). The Photo Section follows, in captions only: eleven figures from Simon Agranat in Chicago (circa 1910), the Agranats in Chicago (circa 1918), Agranat under Lincoln’s statue in Springfield on receiving his license (13 February 1930), Simon and Carmel’s wedding in Zikhron Ya’acov (3 May 1934), the Eichmann appeal (22 March 1962, two figures), the justices at the president’s home on Agranat’s appointment as chief justice (18 March 1965), Agranat with Chief Justice Earl Warren (July 1968), Golda Meir’s departure for the United States (24 September 1969), the Agranat Commission (December 1973), and Agranat at the end of his career as chief justice (summer 1976, photograph by David Rubinger) (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 8836-8967). The Index then opens and runs in this range from A through K, breaking off in the Kasztner opinion entry: the fullest entries are Agranat, Simon (with subentries for his judicial opinions, law practice, rights discourse and Zionist beliefs), the Agranat Commission (Bernadotte, Ministry of Justice and Yom Kippur War investigations), Al-Ard and the Arab Socialist Party, American law and American Zionism, Attorney general, Ben-Gurion, Cohn, Constitutionalism, Criminal law, Dayan, the Declaration of Independence, Eichmann (the trial and the Eichmann v. Attorney General opinion), Freedom of speech, Galut, Haifa, Halakhah, Halevy, the Holocaust, Hohfeld, Israel (State of), Israeli Arabs, Jewish identity, Jewish immigrants, Joseph, the Judiciary, and Kasztner and the Kasztner opinion begun; the remaining entries are single-locator or short entries for the book’s other people, places, cases, works and concepts, each given in the reading notes in order (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 8968-10290).

Key passages

• “Simon Agranat was to Israeli law what David Ben-Gurion was to Israeli politics.” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 126-130)
• “I don’t always agree with you, but it is your book. You should go ahead and do what you think is right.” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 185-192)
• “To be better Americans we must become better Jews, and to be better Jews we must become better Zionists.” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 368-375, Brandeis as quoted by Lahav)
• “They wanted clear-cut answers,” he recalled; “I gave complex ones.” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 590-600, on the first Illinois bar examination)
• “They consider themselves and we see them as citizens of this country.” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 900-915, Agranat to a British judge in an illegal-immigration case)
• “Your advice flies in the face of the entire Zionist education you have given me,” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 880-895, Simon to Aaron on Palestinian citizenship)
• “no one forced them to go. They left.” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 985-996, Agranat on the Arab flight from Haifa, as reported by Lahav)
• “we are bound to pay attention to the matters set forth in it, when we come to interpret … the laws of the state.” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 1355-1370, Kol ha-Am on the Declaration of Independence, as quoted by Lahav)
• “We can afford it,” Douglas retorted, “can you?” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 1295-1308)
• “had sold his soul to Satan.” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 1500-1515, Halevy on Kasztner, as quoted by Lahav)
• “put himself in the shoes of the participants themselves; evaluate the problems they faced as they might have done; take into consideration sufficiently the needs of time and place, where they lived their lives; understand life as they understood it.” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 1580-1610, the Kasztner appeal on judging contemporaries)
• “completely irrelevant” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 1650-1685, Agranat on Halevy’s watchman metaphor)
• “the gravest crime against humanity” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 1830-1845, the Eichmann appeal)
• “continuity—and if you wish: ‘the immortality—of the state of Israel—is a fundamental constitutional premise’” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 2160-2195, Yeredor)
• “When the judge encounters a problem … about which the opinions of the enlightened public are fundamentally divided so that between them there is a deep abyss— … it would be better for the judge to refrain from expressing his private opinion, … provided that he has a legal outlet which enables him to do so.” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 2500-2520, Shalit dissent, as quoted by Lahav)
• “You ate the prejudices of the rest of the crowd.” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 2555-2575, Agranat to Lahav on the Agranat Commission)
• “a standard which changes with the particular attributes of the individual who serves in the particular position” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 2685-2700, the Agranat Commission report, as quoted by Lahav)
• “to activate the judicial branch in order to punish a person for having committed a certain offence.” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 6322-6468, the Jurists’ Report, as quoted in the Chapter 9 notes)
• “I did what the people wanted,” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 6910-7056, Agranat in interview defending Yeredor, as reported in the Chapter 11 notes)
• “Today pure logic denies the [discriminatory] distinction against the other [the child of the Jewish father].” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 7498-7644, Shalit, 595, as quoted in the Chapter 12 notes)
• “Journalists and publishers who take the liberty to publish such things cannot argue that it is in the public interest. The Law decides what is permissible and what is forbidden in the public interest, and once the legislature has spoken all arguments about the public interest are terminated.” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 8380-8526, the Agranat Commission report, as quoted in the Chapter 13 notes)
• “absolutely undermine the inquiry, by irreparable entanglement of its processes” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 8527-8673, the Agranat Commission on a literal application of the Commissions of Inquiry Law, as quoted in the Chapter 13 notes)
• “There are enough good places in Hebrew Jerusalem.” (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 8527-8673, Agranat on moving the Supreme Court to East Jerusalem, as reported in the Epilogue notes)

Evidence the work relies on

As presented in this part: interviews conducted by Lahav with Agranat from 1984 (two or three times a week over a year in Israel, continuing thereafter) and with his family, Chicago friends (Arthur and Dorothy Goldberg, Ben Sackheim, Mary Satinover, Esther Schour, Leo Wolf), Haifa contemporaries (Jacob Halevy, Itzhak Kahan, Naphtali Liphshitz, Jacob S. Shapiro) and judges and officials (Miriam Ben-Porath, Haim Cohn, Moshe Landau, Ayala Proccacia, Moshe Ravid, Yitzhak Shiloh, Judith Karp, Chaim Zadok, Meir Shamgar, Aharon Barak), all named in the Acknowledgments (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 88-125); Agranat’s own writings quoted in the text — the Von Humboldt and Tuley school records, The Herzlite (one issue), his 1925 Yidisher Kuryer article “Concerning the Hebrew University”, his 1927 Avukah report, his 1930 Avukah Annual eulogy “A Modern Maccabean, The Life and Death of Ephraim Chizik”, family letters (to his Chicago aunt and uncle, to Mini and Louis), and his opinions in Al-Couri, Podamsky, Kol ha-Am and Mandelbrot; Bernard Joseph’s 1925 memorandum on bribery in the Palestine courts; the Agranat Commission report of 1950 on the Bernadotte assassination (kept secret for more than forty years) and the Swedish inquiry it answered; a dispatch from the American Consulate in Jerusalem on the protection of American citizens in 1947–1948; and secondary works quoted in the narrative, among them Irving Howe on American Zionist membership, Richard Hofstadter and Arthur Ekirch on Progressivism, Elias Canetti on the conductor, Philippa Strum’s Brandeis biography, and Arthur Koestler’s Thieves in the Night for the Haifa magistrate’s court.

Part 2 adds: Agranat’s opinions in Kasztner (194 pages), Eichmann (his per curiam jurisdiction portion), Qardosh and Yeredor, and his Shalit dissent; the 1962 and 1973–74 Agranat Commission reports (the latter’s public and classified parts, prologue, epilogue and press section with its footnote); Halevy’s 234-page Kasztner opinion; Kasztner’s report to the Zionist Congress; Al-Ard’s constitution (in the military authorities’ interpretation and in Lahav’s own reading of its articles); the Golan report on Tel Giborim; interviews with Agranat on the commissions (“You ate the prejudices of the rest of the crowd”), with Nebenzahl on the press footnote, and with family members (Israel Agranat on the retirement day); and the works quoted in the narrative, among them Susan Sontag on the Eichmann trial, Ahad ha-Am’s “Between the Two Jurisdictions”, Bialik’s “On the Slaughter”, and Anthony Trollope’s Palliser Saga as Agranat’s reading during the 1973 inquiry. The Notes opening states the interview basis directly: interviews with Agranat conducted between 1983 and 1991, his quotations based on the interview notes, and Hebrew quotations translated by the author (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 2862-2920).

Part 3 (the Notes to Chapters 1-4) adds the apparatus behind the early chapters in full: the Agranat papers (family letters of 1930 and 1956, the Rutenberg memorandum, the unpublished magistrate opinions, the 1954 customs letter), the Bernard Joseph Archive file P6/857, the provisional government protocols of 14 July 1948, the Bernadotte Report in the author’s files, the case reports in P.D. and P.L.R. cited pin by pin, and the Hebrew and English secondary literature listed in the Section by section entry above, each credited in the reading notes (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 2941-4410).

Part 4 (the Notes to Chapters 4-8) adds: Agranat’s confidential Zriffin memorandum to the minister of defense, 16 September 1953 (Agranat papers); the full statutory texts the opinions construe (Criminal Code Ordinance sections 11 and 14, Defense (Emergency) Regulation 94, Press Ordinance section 19(2)); the case reports sampled in the notes (Khalf, Al-Ayoubi, Abu Gosh, Bader, Keynan, Meysan, Heruti, Taufik Ziad, Ajami, Ben-Moshe, the two Kol ha-Am cases), each with its P.D. citation; the conflicting Joseph and Brand accounts of who pressed Kasztner to sue; Zeev Ekstein’s 1993 interview on the assassination; and the scholarly apparatus of the Kasztner appeal (Trevelyan, Berlin, Frankfurter, Pound, Glueck, Kirchheimer, Wechsler and Michael) and of the MAPAI/Holocaust debate (Ofer, Eshkoli, Zertal), each credited in the reading notes (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 4411-5880).

Part 5 (the Notes to Chapters 8-12) adds: the Jurists’ Report as reprinted in the Klinghoffer Book on Public Law (1993), with Ben-Gurion’s 26 June 1962 letter of instruction quoted in the notes; Gutman’s The Attorney General versus the Government; Isser Harel’s Operation Yossel’eh on the Shuhmacker search; the Judges Conference protocol of 13 October 1965 (Agranat papers); Moshe Ben-Ze’ev’s untitled essay in honor of Agranat (Agranat papers) as the source for the still-classified Harel-memoirs opinion; Moshe Golan’s Tel Giborim report of 7 March 1965 (in the author’s files); the Kifakh Al-Ard issue of 7 December 1959 (in the author’s files); the case reports sampled in the notes (Schor, Mekitan, Turjeman, Segev, Bergman, Bar Shalom, Jiryis, Qahwaji, Cite, Ploni, Rufeisen, the second Shalit), each with its P.D. citation; and interviews (Hausner via Gutman, Cegla on Sussman, Agranat on Yeredor and on the Arab café), each credited in the reading notes (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 5881-7350).

Part 6 (the Notes to Chapters 12-14 and the Epilogue, and the Glossary opening) adds: the Shalit opinion’s borrowed-book apparatus as listed in Chapter 12 note 40; the case reports sampled in Chapter 12 note 76 and elsewhere (Tamarin, Ben-Menashe, Becker, Miron, Elizur, Zaksh, Hugim Leumiyim, Shik, Lansky, Fauzi Al-Asmar, Kaniel, Burnovski, Rivkin, Holzman, Shimshi, Koby, Katz, Noah Films, ATA Textile), each with its P.D. citation; the Agranat Commission Report, Din ve-Heshbon Vaadat Agranat (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1975), pin-cited throughout the Chapter 13 notes, with Elazar’s resignation letter and Dayan’s 21 May 1973 speech as quoted in it, the Gonen petitions (H.C. 128/74, H.C. 469/74), and Segal’s “The Power to Probe” for the Kahan Commission comparison; Olshan’s Din u-Dvarim on a bereaved parent; the Agranat papers for the 1986 and 1990 prize citations; and the Glossary’s own definitions, each credited in the reading notes (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 7351-8820).

Part 7 (the Glossary conclusion, Photo Section and Index opening) adds: the Glossary’s closing definitions; the Photo Section captions for Figures 1-11 (the Rubinger photograph credited in Figure 11); and the Index itself as a locator map of the book’s contents from A through the Kasztner opinion entry begun, each entry credited in the reading notes (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 8821-10290).

Analysis

Lahav’s method in this part is intellectual biography: a life is used as the prism for a legal culture, and she is explicit that the telling is hers — her interpretation of Zionism is “much more critical” than Agranat’s could ever be, she disagrees with some of his solutions, and she uses psychological readings (the conductor fantasy, the Benedict Arnold association, the projection in the train-station farewell) that Agranat himself was ambivalent about, recording his ambivalence rather than suppressing it (Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, lines 178-193). The argument is built as a series of bridged antinomies (Washington/Pinsk, formalism/sociological jurisprudence, collectivism/individualism, catastrophe/utopian Zionism), and the narrative repeatedly marks where the record is family lore, a favourite family explanation (the absence of electricity in 1922), or a participant’s late recollection, rather than a document. Two judgements are Lahav’s own and are attributed as hers in the text: that the 1950 Bernadotte commission’s language “amounts more to a defense of the Israeli government than to the findings of an impartial arbiter”, and that the Jewish profession’s contempt for Ottoman law served to “obfuscate the colonialist face of Zionism”. The account of Haifa in April 1948 keeps two incompatible framings side by side: Lahav’s “tragic irony” of a Palestinian exodus brought about by the Yishuv, and Agranat’s lifelong insistence that the flight was voluntary (see Open questions).

People, organizations, places and events

Simon Agranat, Pnina Lahav, Louis D. Brandeis, Chaim Weizmann, David Ben-Gurion, Moshe Landau, Pinhas Rosen, Jacob S. Shapiro, Mordechai Eliash, Norman Bentwich, Moshe Smoira, Chaim Arlosoroff, Moshe Sharett, Theodor Herzl, Rudolf Kasztner, Folke Bernadotte, Vladimir Jabotinsky, Haim Cohn, Shmuel Tamir, Benjamin Halevy, Adolf Eichmann, Gideon Hausner, Golda Meir, Moshe Dayan, David Elazar, Benjamin Shalit, Al-Ard, Avukah, Israeli Supreme Court, Haganah, Histadrut, Mapai, Stern Group, Herut, Mapam, Brit Shalom, Hebrew University, Haifa, Balfour Declaration, Israeli Declaration of Independence, Brandeis-Weizmann Split, Kol Ha’am Case, Podamsky Case, Mandelbrot Case, Kasztner Trial, Eichmann Trial, Yeredor Case, Shalit Case, Qardosh Case, Agranat Commission, Lavon Affair, Yom Kippur War, British Emergency Regulations

Concepts

Zionism, Mamlachtiut, Negation of the Diaspora, Haskala, Labor Zionism, Sociological Jurisprudence, Catastrophe Zionism, Freedom of Expression, Administrative Detention, Process Jurisprudence

How it relates to other sources

Lahav’s mamlakhtiyut is the same Ben-Gurion etatism Dowty treats as a civic-state drive, but Lahav stresses what Dowty also notes — that it carried no legal theory and encouraged suspicion of constitutionalism — and supplies the judicial counter-project (Agranat’s rights jurisprudence) that Dowty’s account lacks. Her presentation of the Kol Ha’am Case is far fuller than Dowty’s Chapter 5 treatment: Dowty places the decision within press censorship under the emergency regulations, Lahav reconstructs its doctrine, its American sources and its place in a sequence (Zeev, Al-Couri, Podamsky) building a judicial bill of rights without a constitution. On Haifa in 1948 her figures (70,000 Arabs in 1947, 3,000 remaining) and her “exodus” framing sit beside the flight/expulsion accounts in other ingested sources; she records without endorsing Agranat’s insistence that the departure was voluntary and unforced. Her account of the negation of galut in the Agranat household complements the doctrine’s presentation in Zionism in the Age of the Dictators: A Reappraisal and Negation of the Diaspora: here it is a lived family ideology whose costs (the 1922 return, the suppressed American self) are part of the record.

Open questions

• The text copy prints the Marbury v. Madison precedent first as “Marhury v. Madison” (in the Zeev v. Gubernik discussion, Chapter 4) and correctly as Marbury in the following sentences; kept as printed.

• The revolver Agranat bought in Louisville is given as “a 45mm Colt” (line 601); kept as printed.

• The Chicago Yidisher Kuryer is spelled both “Yidisher” and, in Simon’s 1925 article passage, “Yiddish”/“Yidisher Kuryer” variants in the text copy; Ha-Arets and Haaretz spellings both appear in the text copy for the same newspaper, as printed in each place.

• Agranat’s account of Huldah (a force of thirty volunteers against “a thousand Arabs”, and the British refusal to allow evacuation of Ephraim Chizik’s body) is presented as Simon told the story; no second account is given in this range.

• Haifa, April 1948: Lahav writes that “the Yishuv had helped bring about the exodus of the Palestinians” and that of 70,000 Arabs in Haifa in 1947 only 3,000 remained, while recording Agranat’s lifelong insistence that “no one forced them to go. They left.” The two accounts are kept side by side, as the work itself keeps them.

• The Landau recollection (Agranat personally kicking the court door open) and Agranat’s own recollection (instructing the clerks to kick it) are both given in Chapter 3 without resolution.

• Aaron Agranat’s death is narrated in a subsection dated Spring 1946 placed after the account of Agranat’s 1940–1948 magistracy and before “The Struggle for Independence”; the chronology is as printed.

• Part 2 slips as printed in the text copy, kept as printed: Eichmann’s first name is spelled “Adolph” throughout the text copy, in the Prologue, Chapters 7 and 8 and the Notes alike; the Wannsee Conference appears as “Wansee”; Yad Vashem appears as “Yad va-Shem”; Robert Soblen is described as a “former Troskyite”; the Reform/Conservative/Reform list of American movements includes “Reconstructive”; Eichmann is said to have been “hung” (execution report); “chief j justice” appears with wide spacing once in Chapter 12; and in the collaboration discussion the phrase appears as “in the squares of jerusalem” with a lowercase j.

• In the “Game of Roulette” discussion Lahav writes that Agranat “thus resisted the conclusion that Kasztner’s behavior could be morally justified” in the same passage that concludes Agranat held Kasztner’s conduct “not unreasonable” within the occupation context and did not exculpate him; the two formulations are kept as printed.

• The factual basis of Yeredor is itself an open question the work raises: the “intent to destroy the state” finding rested on the 1964 holding, the military’s decoding of Al-Ard’s constitution, Arab media praise and one unlicensed-publishing conviction, with no further conviction evidence presented; Lahav records Al-Ard’s own gloss (living in dignity side by side with the Jews, Israel implicitly acknowledged) beside it.

• Agranat’s recollection of his retirement day (colleagues absent, a farewell tradition ignored) is contradicted within the work by Landau’s and Cohn’s recollections; all three are kept.

• Several of Lahav’s readings in this part are flagged in the text itself as her inferences, not established fact: the Yurman insurance projection, the Ahad ha-Am incubation strategy attributed to Agranat in Shalit, and the Agranat Commission’s own unarticulated “conception”. They are recorded on this page as her interpretations.

• Part 3 slips as printed in the text copy, kept as printed: Richard Hofstadter appears as “Hofstader” in Chapter 1 note 11; Horowitz and Lissak’s book is titled “Origins of the Israeli Policy” in Chapter 4 note 2, with its publisher printed “University of Chicago Pres”; British Military Intelligence is quoted in Chapter 2 note 75 on “an extensive Jewish operations at present”; and Margery Bentwich’s publisher appears as “Rout-ledge”, split across a line, in Chapter 2 note 27.

• The Notes in the text copy repeat many notes verbatim — the Chapter 4 notes 13-18 up to five times for a single note, and the Chapter 7 notes 43-51 many more times (seven more times in lines 5587-5733 alone, in part 4’s range) (see What the file is); whether the duplication belongs to the HTML edition itself or only to its text rendering is not resolved in this range, and each note is counted once in the reading notes and on this page.

• Part 5 slips as printed in the text copy, kept as printed: Al-Couri appears as “Al Couri” in Chapter 11 note 20; Sussman’s Berlin magistrate court appears as the “Ausgericht” Berlin — Pankow in Chapter 11 note 30; the Law of Return (Amendment No. 2) is dated “5370-1970” in Chapter 12 note 6; Rabinowitz’s article is cited in Chapter 11 note 39 by the short title “Nostalgiyah” against its full transliterated title in Chapter 11 note 1; and the Chapter 10 note 20 citation prints the Burnovski report as “25[1] P.D. 7 [1971]” with square brackets as printed.

• Part 6 slips as printed in the text copy, kept as printed: Chapter 12 note 54 uses “incestual” for the mamzer definition; Chapter 12 note 55 cites Shalit at page 394, against the 477-606 range of every other Shalit pin citation in these notes; Rotenstreich’s surname is split across a soft marker (Roten-, then streich) in Chapter 12 note 40, and Milhemet is likewise split across a soft marker (Mil-, then hemet) in the Agranat Commission Report’s title in Chapter 13 note 20; Lanir’s book is titled “Ha-Haftaah ha-Bsisit” in Chapter 13 note 26; Menahem Mautner appears as “Mauntner” in Epilogue note 7; Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom is dated “(5754-1992)” in Epilogue note 4; Chapter 14 note 1 prints Koby at 30(2) P.D. 757 and Noah Films at 30(1) P.D. 757; “Sharm-al-Sheik” appears in Chapter 13 note 7; and the artifacts “continue” (Chapter 12 notes 71 and 76, Chapter 13 note 3, Chapter 14 note 1) and “break” (Chapter 12 note 56, Chapter 13 notes 34 and 53, Chapter 14 note 7, Epilogue note 8) stand in the text copy in the middle or at the end of notes.

• Part 7 slips and duplicates as printed in the text copy, kept as printed: the Index lists “Orit (grandson)” under Agranat, against Orit’s place in the family elsewhere in the book; the Agranat entry gives the “Avuka project” for Avukah, and a “lawjustice dilemma” without a separator; the B entries give “Black Sabbath” for Black Saturday; Carmel’s mother appears as “Friedlander, Lilian” without the second e used in Friedlaender elsewhere; Herut has two separate Index entries (the party, and the newspaper at 161) with no distinguishing label in the text copy, and Herzl has two separate entries, “Herzl, Theodor” and “Herzl, Theodore”; the IDF appears twice, as “IDF (Israel Defense Forces)” and as “Israel Defense Forces (IDF)”, both at 268 n22; the Index spells Hofstadter correctly, against “Hofstader” in Chapter 1 note 11; the Index gives the “Commissions of Inquiries Law (1969)”, against the Commissions of Inquiry Law (1968) as cited in Chapter 13 note 66; Etatism is glossed “(mamlakhitiyut)” in the Index, against mamlakhtiyut elsewhere; and “The Four Modern Sons of the Hagadah” is credited in the Index to “(Licterman)” as printed.

Coverage

lines 1-10290 of 11756 read in parts 1-7 of 8. Remaining: part 8 (lines 10291-11756).