Updates:

Click to read the Jewish Federation of St. Louis Statement on the Kotel and Conversion issues.

Click to read a Statement from the Jewish Agency for Israel.

Updated July 4 to explain why this is not a religious one but a political one (responding to the statement by Agudath Israel).  See bottom.

What are the issues about?

On Sunday, June 25, 2017, the Government of Israel (that is the leadership of the 61 member governing coalition of the Parliament led by the Prime Minister) made two important decisions concerning religious pluralism – the legal acceptance of multiple forms of Jewish religious expression.

The first decision suspended the landmark Kotel (Western Wall) agreement, which provided proper and dignified space for Jews of every denomination to pray at Judaism’s holiest site, the Western Wall in Jerusalem. It would have maintained the current separation of men and women at the wall as is.  The innovation was to establish a more permanent place for mixed gendered prayer just south of the current areas on a temporary platform at a place called Robinson’s arch. This area, like the Western Wall itself is part of the retaining wall for the courtyard that surrounded the ancient Temple.  The space has not been used as sacred space before.  In fact, its historic use was rather mundane:  perhaps 40 or 50 feet below where the pavement now is lies the location of a two thousand year old market place at which pilgrims could buy small animals to sacrifice while on pilgrimage to the temple.

The second decision was to advance legislation that would concentrate the authority of conversions to Judaism to the official Israeli Chief Rabbinate.  The legislation would end the ability of other Orthodox rabbinic courts outside the official Chief Rabbinate system to perform conversions as they are now able to do.  This conversion legislation does not change the status of non-Orthodox conversions which are still not accepted for religious purposes within the State of Israel.  The conversion legislation also does not directly affect the “who is a Jew” issue–for more on that see below.

The Conversion bill as written would also be retroactive, thereby nullifying hundreds of thousands of conversions performed in the last decade or so. Laws like this are called ex post facto laws, and in the United States are generally unconstitutional. In Israel, they have been accepted in a number of cases, notably around settlement issues and most famously with regard to Nazi crimes.

(UPDATE:  on June 30, the legislation to centralize Conversion authority was put on hold for 6 months.)

What is “religious pluralism?”

“Religious pluralism” is the idea that there should be a greater diversity of legally accepted ways to be Jewish in Israel.  Right now all religious decisions that govern public prayer spaces as well as personal status and domestic law–weddings, divorce, etc–are controlled by the Chief Rabbinate in Israel, a political office that has the authority to rule on these matters.

In Israel, there is no separation between Church and State.  Different religious communities (Jews, Muslims, etc.) are given political authority to make laws concerning a range of religious issues, like who counts as a member of a religious group (including conversions, who may officiate at weddings, and who can get a divorce). Jews in Israel who want to engage in these activities must thereby abide by the decisions of the Chief Rabbi of Israel.  There is no “civil-marriage” in Israel.

This arrangement of allowing each community legal authority over domestic and family law dates back to the Ottoman period and was continued during the thirty years of British Mandatory control (from around 1920 through 1948). Since Israel does not have a Constitution, this arrangement could be changed through legislation, though it would it be a very complicated process.  The continuation of this practice is thus ultimately a political and logistical issue.

In Israel the rules set by the office of the Chief Rabbi apply to all Jews, Muslims follow the rules set by the Muslim religious authority. Because of these laws, weddings between members of different religions are not legal in Israel, and there is no civil-marriage. Non-Orthodox rabbis may perform these ceremonies as a matter of religious and symbolic ritual, but they have no legal standing.  All weddings of Jews must be officiated by a rabbi through the Chief Rabbi’s office.

Is this just an American concern, particularly of the liberal movements? Do Israelis really care about this?

The specific issue of praying at the Western Wall is generally much more important to Americans than to Israelis who do not view the Wall in quite the same way as it is viewed outside of Israel.  There are also more immediate economic and political issues that Israelis generally prioritize.  Yet having a space for men and women to pray peacefully and respectfully is still an important issue to them.  One Israeli family who follow most, but not all Orthodox customs told me how painful it was for them not to able to pray together as a family when they went to Jerusalem (because men and women are separated at the wall).  The agreement would have made permanent a mixed area that was recently constructed under a preliminary action.

The Conversion bill is far more important to Israelis because it affects many of their lives; in fact it does not directly affect Americans or others living outside of Israel.  Legally, Israelis who want to receive the benefits of marriage but do not want an Orthodox wedding must be married outside of Israel.  This includes weddings by Reform and Conservative rabbis, and also civil-marriages.  Israel does recognize marriages that are performed outside of Israel.  Thus, Israelis who do not want an Orthodox wedding–including intermarried couples, same-sex couples and anyone interests in being married by non-Orthodox rabbis–are required to go abroad to get married.  The state then grants them the legal status of “married.”  (Mostly–the practice and law around same sex couples is still developing as it is a relatively new issue worldwide.)

Currently, the decisions about conversions are decentralized among local area Orthodox rabbis, allowing multiple interpretations of Jewish law (though all still Orthodox).  The proposed legislation would concentrate this power back in the Chief rabbi’s authority.   Israelis care a great deal about the Conversion legislation because it would undo this decentralized practice and instead concentrate religious authority.

In fact, Israelis are mobilizing for increased religious pluralism in a number of different ways.

The Giyur Kahalacha movement, for example, is a religious movement of Orthodox Israelis who want to decentralize conversion authority.    Three key Israeli organizations now actively engaged in these issues:  ITIM, Tzohar (a Zionist Orthodox organization) and the Israel Religious Action Center (Reform/Progressive). The Center for Women’s Justice fights for Orthodox women who are put at significant risk by religious laws that do not allow them to get a divorce without their husband’s permission, thus keeping them from remarrying and having children with a new partner.  Each organization has a different religious perspective and approach to the issue. Some Americans are involved, but all are Israelis who are fighting to secure religious pluralism for the sake of Israel.

More than anything religious pluralism matters to Israelis because the concentration of greater religious power in the hands of a single, centralized authority affects the nature and feeling of Israeli society.  Over the last 20 years the haredi (ultra-Orthodox) are expressing more and more political and legislative power.  This trend is troubling to many Israelis, particularly those outside of the these communities.

In many cities and regions are now speaking out.  In St. Louis’s partnership region of Yokne’am and Megiddo, for example, the residents are increasingly concerned about this concentration of political and legal power in a small group of religious leaders.  They see a society changing away from one that was broadly tolerant of religious diversity.  As one of them said to me, “This is not the Israel for which my parents and grandparents lived and died for.”

Is the Conversion issue the same as the “Who is a Jew?” controversy that arises from time to time?

The Conversion issue does NOT affect the “Who is a Jew?” issue that determines whether Jews living outside of Israel could immigrate to, or take refuge in the State of Israel under its law of return.  But the full answer is a bit more complicated.  It depends on making the distinction between “religious status” and “citizenship status.”

The conversion issue, as it is now before the Knesset, concerns the religious status of individuals: if you are not converted to Judaism by an recognized authority in Israel, you are not considered a Jew under the law for the sake of marriage, divorce and other personal status and domestic issues.  This has no bearing on Jews who are not citizens of Israel.

By contrast, the “Who is a Jew?” controversy is a question of citizenship status in the State of Israel. It affects whether individuals outside of Israel can qualify under the state’s “right of return” that the state grants to all Jews. The Conversion legislation does NOT affect that question because citizenship status in Israel is a political question determined by the Knesset.  (This was affirmed by the Israeli Supreme Court in the famous “Brother Daniel” Case.)

The Knesset thus has the power to make different rules to determine citizenship status.  While the Israeli government has refused citizenship to those who are otherwise religiously Jewish, it leaves the question of who is religiously Jewish up to the office of the Chief Rabbi. The Conversation legislation before the Knesset does nothing to change this status. However, by centralizing conversion authority it makes it less likely that non-Orthodox conversions will be allowed anytime soon.

Why is this happening now:  This is primarily about politics, not religion or religious disagreements? 

Because there is no separation between Religion and Politics, the issues being debated now involve a mix of both religious principle and political calculus.   I suspect there are significant economic motives driving what is going on that will be seen in the weeks to come.

Look first at the structure the current government in Israel that controls only 61 of the 120 seats of the parliament. Those 61 seats are made up of a number of different parties. Because of the rules of the Israeli electoral system, if one of the parties decides to quit the government, the entire government will fall and new elections will need to be held.  The Prime Minister was pressured by the religious political parties who are part of his coalition to go back on the Kotel agreement and to permit the Conversion bill to advance to secure their continued support, and avoid the collapse of his coalition.

But why would religious political parties want to back out of these agreements?  It is certainly possible that there is a matter of disagreement about religious law.  But that explanation is not persuasive because there was wide agreement by Orthodox rabbis and Orthodox political figures in favor of the Kotel agreement as well as the earlier decentralization of conversion authority (which, again, was only allowed by Orthodox Rabbis).

We have to thus consider more mundane explanations.  Both of these decisions have significant economic implications for those who currently benefit from current practices.  At the Kotel, Bar and Bat Mitzvah celebrations cost money and involve the significant expenditure dollars on ancillary celebrations.  It is likely that some of the pressure on the current political parties is coming from those who stand to lose what is a significant business.  Similarly the loosening of the monopoly on conversions may also create some economic winners or losers that may be playing out.  This is something we need to be sensitive to as these issues play out over the next few months.

The fact that these are mundane political issues about significant religious matters means that sometimes people make mistakes.  I have heard from many people that they believe the Prime Minister made a significant political miscalculation not realizing the significant backlash his decision would bring about.  At the very least, the decisions had unexpected political consequences.  For example, MK Michael Oren in the Likud party, a staunch Netanyahu supporter, and a former Israeli Ambassador to The United States, announced that he would oppose the Conversion legislation, saying that he would be willing to lose his post rather than support it.

There are politics on the other side as well–or at least deeply hurt feelings.

The Kotel agreement was an initiative led by Natan Sharansky four years ago. As chair of the Jewish Agency for Israel, Sharansky took the egalitarian prayer issue on as a major project, united the major streams of Judaism and, along with the Jewish Federations of North America, forged a deal that was agreed to by Orthodox and non-Orthodox leadership. The immediate, strident and unprecedented reaction of the Jewish Agency for Israeli leadership to cancel its state dinner with the Prime Minister and to object publicly, vocally and in the strongest terms reflects a deep sense of betrayal and loss of trust.

I was in some of the meetings leading where these decisions were made and understand those hard feelings.  With Heschel Raskas, former Jewish Federation of St. Louis Board Chair and current member of the JAFI Board of Governors, I attended an almost surreal meeting of Knesset in which JAFI board leadership expressed their collective concern and asserting our unity as a Jewish People. It was a difficult and an inspiring few days.

Finally, let’s not forget the substance and symbolism of the issue itself. Whatever one thinks of the value and importance of preserving some space for egalitarian prayer at the Wall, the treatment of women who are there to pray is offensive. It does not represent the vast majority of religious Jews who find the whistling, cat calling, shrieking and harassment to go well beyond any reasonable protest.  And since the conversion legislation is retroactive, it would delegitimize the conversions of hundreds of thousands of Jews who have served in the Israeli armed forces over the last decade.  That is why many Israelis are reacting so strongly to these issues.

What can we in America do about it? 

Many Jewish Communities around North America are mobilizing to oppose these actions.  The Jewish Federation of St. Louis has worked hard to support religious pluralism in Israel. On Friday morning Our Board of Directors issued a statement. In that statement, we recommend a number of actions, including contacting the Ambassador Judith Varnai Shorer, Israeli Consul General to the Southeastern United States. Let her know that you support “one Wall for one People,” and oppose the current Conversion legislation that would concentrate authority in one office:

Ambassador Judith Varnai Shorer
Israeli Consul General to the Southeastern United States
1100 Spring St. N.W. Suite 440
Atlanta, Georgia 30309.

Or via email: cg-sec@atlanta.mfa.gov.il​

What are others doing? 

There is increasing discussion of economic boycotting of Israel over this issue, including this suggestion by Israel stalwart supporter and AIPAC speaker Daniel Gordis.

While we appreciate the sense of frustration in Gordis’s call, and appreciate the motivations of those who wish to use non-violent economic means of social change to bring about justice, the Jewish Federation of St. Louis remains strongly opposed to boycotts of Israel. We believe that the best way to support the democratic Jewish state, even and perhaps especially in hard times, is to invest and engage, deeply and actively.

Something we have been doing since even before Israel was founded almost 70 years ago.

Stay tuned…

—Andrew Rehfeld, President and CEO

Update (July 4):  Response to the AI Statement.

Agudath Israel (AI) has issued a statement criticizing Federations for “taking sides in religious controversies anywhere, and certainly in Israel.”   I appreciate the heartfelt passion and concern expressed.  These are sincere and difficult issues involving sacred spaces and Conversions that are very important, and I deeply respect the intent and work of the Agudah to strengthen our community in St. Louis and the Jewish people more generally.  But we must recognize that the Kotel and Conversion controversies are not religious issues, but a political ones. The question at hand right now in both cases is not “which religious tradition should be followed?” It is instead “which religious tradition should the state’s power be deployed to coerce or prohibit?” This conflict is simply one about control over that decision making power. And thus it is question not of religion, but of politics.