2008 Woodie Awards
The Soul of the Matter?
Avi Narrow-Tilonsky
Issue date: 4/18/05 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
In the recent Israeli media, there has been much talk of Jewish infighting. In particular, the Gaza Disengagement plan has struck fear of a civil war in the hearts of many. Yet with all the focus on the disengagement, another internal Jewish conflict is being overlooked. The religious-secular divide has been flaring up and threatening chaos, or at least so claims the Israeli press. This rift in the Israeli population has been particularly manifest in claims of religious coercion which have surfaced following two precedent setting Supreme Court cases.
About three weeks ago, the Supreme Court ruled that Conservative and Reform conversions performed outside the State of Israel would gain recognition, enabling the converted to move to Israel under the Law of Return. Approximately one week later, the court, under the leadership of Justice Aharon Barak, ruled that the 1951 law which states that Saturday is to be the national day of rest, does not contravene of a 1994 Freedom of Employment law.
The ruling about conversions was hailed as a victory by many in the American Jewish community. Israeli law mandates that lifecycle events, such as marriage, burial, and conversion, are placed in the hands of Orthodox religious courts. Many members of the ninety percent of American Jewry that is non-Orthodox find this situation unconscionable. The large American Conservative and Reform religious movements, together with their small Israeli constituencies, feel that this ruling is a first step towards full recognition by Israeli law. Some viewed the ruling as a victory against religious coercion by the Orthodox hegemony. Others see this ruling as a compromise with powerful diaspora Jews who were pressuring Israel. It seems more likely that the second interpretation is true, since the new law does not account for Reform and Conservative conversions performed in Israel. The decision seems more pragmatic than revolutionary.
Similarly, the second case, which maintained the centrality of Shabbat, is misconstrued by many as a victory for the proponents of coercive religious theocracy. The case was raised by a furniture company which hired 18 workers and wished to "allow them to choose" their own day off. This phrase is code for, "the company wishes to force them to work on Shabbat so that it can rake in the profits of sales margins which are double those of an average weekday."
About three weeks ago, the Supreme Court ruled that Conservative and Reform conversions performed outside the State of Israel would gain recognition, enabling the converted to move to Israel under the Law of Return. Approximately one week later, the court, under the leadership of Justice Aharon Barak, ruled that the 1951 law which states that Saturday is to be the national day of rest, does not contravene of a 1994 Freedom of Employment law.
The ruling about conversions was hailed as a victory by many in the American Jewish community. Israeli law mandates that lifecycle events, such as marriage, burial, and conversion, are placed in the hands of Orthodox religious courts. Many members of the ninety percent of American Jewry that is non-Orthodox find this situation unconscionable. The large American Conservative and Reform religious movements, together with their small Israeli constituencies, feel that this ruling is a first step towards full recognition by Israeli law. Some viewed the ruling as a victory against religious coercion by the Orthodox hegemony. Others see this ruling as a compromise with powerful diaspora Jews who were pressuring Israel. It seems more likely that the second interpretation is true, since the new law does not account for Reform and Conservative conversions performed in Israel. The decision seems more pragmatic than revolutionary.
Similarly, the second case, which maintained the centrality of Shabbat, is misconstrued by many as a victory for the proponents of coercive religious theocracy. The case was raised by a furniture company which hired 18 workers and wished to "allow them to choose" their own day off. This phrase is code for, "the company wishes to force them to work on Shabbat so that it can rake in the profits of sales margins which are double those of an average weekday."