WHY THE BREAK-UP OF THE MINISTRY OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS MAY
BE THE BEST HOPE FOR THE SOUL OF ISRAEL
Contact: Cara Wides - 020 7631 9831 - c.wides@liberaljudaism.org
Date: 30th November 2003
Following the vacuum left by the end of Turkish rule at the
close of the First World War, the Chief Rabbinate and its rabbinical
courts were established with the approval of the British High
Commissioner for Palestine in the 1920s. The Mandate authorities
were content to devolve to the rabbinical courts ‘exclusive
jurisdiction in matters of marriage and divorce, alimony and
confirmation of wills…’, ‘…other matters of personal status
where all parties…consented…’, and other religious administrative
tasks. At the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 this Article
Two was incorporated into the Basic Principles: The state will
provide for the public religious needs of its inhabitants but
will prevent coercion in matters of religion. The Sabbath and
the Jewish holy days will be fixed days of rest in the State
of Israel. The right of non-Jews to their Sabbath and days of
rest will be safeguarded. This principle was restated on a number
of subsequent occasions, and the insertion of the key phrase
‘to maintain the status quo in the state in religious matters’
reaffirmed the Mandate’s and Provisional Government’s desire
to remain aloof concerning religious matters. The Ministry of
Religious Affairs took over the administrative powers of the
Mandate High Commissioner for the Chief Rabbinate, rabbinical
courts, kashrut, yeshivot, mikva’ot and burials, and also for
the provision for the religious needs of Karaites, Samaritans,
Muslims, Druze and Christians. The Ministry granted autonomy
(even independence) to the rabbinical courts in a number of
matters including marriage, divorce and conversion for all Jewish
residents including foreign nationals. Progressive Judaism was
introduced into Israel in the late 1950’s with the foundation
of a congregation in Jerusalem, headed by Shalom Ben-Chorin.
In the face of bitter Orthodox (and often official) opposition
the Hebrew Union College was able to establish a campus for
the training of Progressive rabbis in Jerusalem in 1963; the
World Union For Progressive Judaism (WUPJ) moved its headquarters
to Jerusalem in 1973 and affiliated to the World Zionist organization
two years later, The Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism
(IMPJ) was founded; Progressive kibbutzim were established at
Yahel in 1976 and Lotan in 1983; Progressive communities sprang
up in all major cities in Israel; and a liturgy for use in Israeli
Progressive worship was published. Today the IMPJ has more than
twenty constituent congregations (many served by rabbis), represents
two kibbutzim and two alternative communities, incorporates
departments for education and community development, and is
affiliated to by a youth movement, a scouting organization,
a secondary school, a residential, cultural centre, a museum,
and more than two dozen kindergartens.
Nevertheless Progressive (and Conservative) Jews in Israel find
themselves victims of discrimination in matters of marriage,
divorce, conversion and burial, and in the allocation of state
funding. Because of the historical precedents (referred to above)
Progressive rabbis in Israel may not perform weddings, grant
divorces or carry out conversions, and, although the Israeli
taxpayer supports a full range of facilities for Orthodox Judaism,
most Progressive Jewish institutions find it impossible to receive
state funding and even to be allotted land for purchase upon
which Progressive Jewish institutions will be built. This manifest
unfairness by which the Chief Rabbinate attempts to maintain
its coercive power over individual Jews is implemented most
graphically by the rabbinical courts, until recently under the
patronage of the Ministry of Religious Affairs. The recently
proposed dissolution of the Ministry cannot come too soon for
a large number of Israelis. The initiative is a demand of the
Shinui Party in the governing coalition of Ariel Sharon. Headed
by Hungarian-born Shoah survivor and Justice Minister, Tommy
Lapid, Shinui has a secular agenda but the decision to transfer
the rabbinical courts to the Justice Ministry may allow ‘a decade
of injustice to be corrected’. Continuing Lapid observed, ‘I
promise not to exploit my new authority and to show full respect
for the rabbinic courts.’ For many years the State Comptroller
has revealed that the Ministry is as inefficient as it is corrupt.
Its budget allocations and staff appointments have had more
to do with narrow political/religious interests than the needs
of the community, and only two percent of its budget goes to
services for non-Jews and next to nothing to non-Orthodox Judaism.
The transfer of religious councils and their budgets to local
authorities and the placing of the rabbinical courts in the
Justice Ministry may well herald the beginning of a transparent
and fair system for the provision of services to Israeli citizens
of all faiths. It is expected that the religious councils will
now be required to operate, and make allocations, in accord
with normative democratic principles which take into account
the wishes and religious persuasions of the local residents
whom the councils were established to serve. Of the two proposals
the transfer of the rabbinical courts to the Justice Ministry
is undoubtedly the more controversial. Having agreed to the
dismantling of the Ministry and the transfer of religious councils,
the coalition’s National Religious Party ministers have already
protested about the proposal for the rabbinical courts. Indeed
one Orthodox school of thought has suggested that it would be
better if the rabbinical courts were abolished altogether, than
come under the aegis of the avowedly secular Justice Minister,
Tommy Lapid. Much of the backlash undoubtedly arises from the
realization that, if the rabbinic courts are forced to operate
in accord with the principles of equity and fairness, then the
stranglehold, which the Orthodox rabbinate currently holds over
women, soldiers and other immigrants who cannot ‘prove’ their
halachic status and the descendants of Progressive Jewish converts
to name but some groups who suffer discrimination, may soon
be removed. Underpinning this fear may be a further concern
that the current measures may lead to a more comprehensive review
of the relationship between state and religion in Israel. In
most senses Israel is a vibrant democracy. It has one of the
world’s most admired judiciaries; it has a free press which
is trenchant in its criticisms of government policies; and it
has regular elections with a multiplicity of parties including
ones seeking to destroy the State of Israel itself. However,
Israel ranks low among democracies on the question of religious
freedom. Progressive Jews are not free to marry and be buried
in the manner of their choosing, Israeli citizens are not free
to change their religion in the style of their choosing, and
Progressive Judaism in particular suffers official discrimination
in the allocation of state land and resources. Large numbers
of Israeli citizens and foreign residents are not free to identify
in an equal way with the stream of Judaism they might wish to.
As a result many opt for a secular life-style because the State
of Israel itself appears to say that the only alternative is
Orthodox Judaism which those very citizens believe, or have
experienced, it to be coercive and unable to meet their religious
needs. An Israel in which citizens could practise Judaism in
the manner they desired and without inequality would be fruitful
for individuals and good for Israeli society. If the dismantling
of the Ministry of Religious Affairs were to lead to such a
scenario then it would be right to say that this political decision
might well be the best hope for the soul of Israel. |
