International terrorism and traffic in narcotic drugs would seem at first sight to represent two categories of offences that ought to be kept apart in a discussion concerning the problems of extradition in respect of them. The prima facie approach of differentiating, for extradition purposes, between international terrorism, on the one hand, and traffic in narcotic drugs, on the other hand, would appear to be warranted by the different perception of these two groups of offences prevailing in the mind of the general public. While crimes of international terrorism are perceived as being normally inspired by political motives, traffic in narcotic drugs is generally believed to be motivated solely by the prospects of quick enrichment. Since extradition treaties almost invariably exclude political crimes from their scope of application, the distinction, for extradition purposes, between terrorism and drug crimes is not far to seek.

However, these different perceptions of the two categories of crimes are somewhat deceptive, and more apparent than real, and the differences between them are, at most, differences of degree rather than of substance.

In his case note on the famous Bergmann decision of the Supreme Court, Professor Akzin wrote:

These remarks probably express the most original view ever put forward on this land mark case. They emphasize the crux of the complex constitutional problem discussed in the Bergmann case, i.e., the definition of the legal nature of the basic laws in the legal order of Israel. The extremely abstract questions involved in that discussion, indeed, the most abstract that exist in public law, concern the definition of the nature of the power which adopts the Constitution and more specifically, of the power which amends the Constitution.

Bill No. 1306 of 25 July 1977 would amend the Extradition Law of 1954 so as to preclude entirely the possibility of extraditing to foreign States any nationals of Israel. Sec. 1 of the Extradition Law would be replaced by the following section: “A person who is in Israel may only be extradited to another State if he is not an Israeli national and only in accordance with this Law”. A (majority) report of a committee established by the Minister of Justice and chaired by Judge Nathan proposed in October 1976 to amend the Extradition Law so that in the future Israeli nationals would be extradited only to States which extradite their nationals to Israel. The Committee proposed also that Israeli courts be granted jurisdiction to try, under Israeli law, Israeli nationals who have committed abroad offences covered by the Extradition Law. A minority recommendation submitted by Judge Nathan proposed that a total prohibition be imposed on the extradition of Israeli nationals. The Government Bill is based on the recommendation of Judge Nathan. The object of this article is to consider some of the questions to which this Bill gives rise.

Israel's press plays a distinctive role in the country's political structure. Comprised of 27 dailies and 135 magazines, some with distinctive partisan affiliation and others committed to political neutrality, it has wide circulation and enjoys considerable political influence.

Israeli newspapers were not always as independent as they are today. During the struggle for liberation, the press placed itself at the disposal of the Yishuv (Jewish community) leadership, to be used as a political tool for promoting the objectives of the Jewish population in Palestine. Only in the fifties, after the establishment of the sovereign state of Israel, did the press begin to develop consciousness of its distinct and autonomous role in the political process.

Several institutions founded by the press itself have moulded it into a politically viable establishment: the Editors' Committee, the Press Council, the National Union of Journalists and the Union of the Daily Papers. The Editors' Committee is the most powerful and long standing of the four. Organised in 1948 by the chief editors of the Hebrew dailies, it functions as an intermediary between the Government and the public in matters concerning important policy decisions.