ld that: "The conditions of this contract
are so precisely defined by the nature of the agreement that the
slightest alteration would make them null and void. The consequence is
that, even where they are not expressly stated, they are everywhere
identical, and everywhere tacitly accepted and recognized," etc.

A logical and historic refutation of Rousseau's theory was never, nor
is now, difficult, however terrible and far-reaching its effects may
have been. The question whether a social contract with "conditions not
expressly stated, yet unalterable," existed before the framing of a
constitution, is of no practical interest to States under modern forms
of government. The legal relationship between government and citizen
is in any case clearly established now.

But previous to the framing of a constitution, and during the creation
of a new State, these principles assume great practical importance. We
know and see for ourselves that States still continue to be created.
Colonies secede from the mother country. Vassals fall away from their
suzerain; newly opened territories are immediately formed into free
States. It is true that the Jewish State is conceived as a peculiarly
modern structure on unspecified territory. But a State is formed, not
by pieces of land, but rather by a number of men united under
sovereign rule.

The people is the subjective, land the objective foundation of a
State, and the subjective basis is the more important of the two. One
sovereignty, for example, which has no objective basis at all, is
perhaps the most respected one in the world. I refer to the
sovereignty of the Pope.

The theory of rationality is the one at present accepted in political
science. This theory suffices to justify the creation of a State, and
cannot be historically refuted in the same way as the theory of a
contract. Insofar as I am concerned only with the creation of a Jewish
State, I am well within the limits of the theory of rationality. But
when I touch upon the legal basis of the State, I have exceeded them.
The theories of a divine institution, or of superior power, or of a
contract, and the patriarchal and patrimonial theories do not accord
with modern views. The legal basis of a State is sought either too
much within men (patriarchal theory, and theories of superior force
and contract), or too far above them (divine institution), or too far
below them (objective patrimonial theory). The theory of rationality
leave