Israel's Religion and State Conundrum - Part VII of Religion and Politics

For almost two thousand years, Jews prayed daily for their return to the land of Israel. Beginning in the late nineteenth century, Jews began to migrate there, mainly from Russia. Most of these early pioneering Jews were secular. However, there had always been some religious Jews located throughout the land. The type of country that Israel was to become was as varied as the opinions of those who flocked to it. Theodore Herzl, the father of the Zionist movement, envisioned the new state to be a pluralistic advanced society, a type of “light to the nations.” Traditionally, religious Jews believed that the Messiah to come would draw the Jews back to the land, and thus most were opposed to the early attempts to form a Jewish nation state. One key bridge builder, however, was Rabbi Avraham Kook, a highly respected rabbi and the first Ashkenazic (European) chief rabbi of the British Mandate in Palestine. He argued that God was using the secular Jews to establish Jewish presence in the land, to eventually bring wholeness to the world, and to usher in the coming of the Messiah. He essentially is considered to be the father of Religious Zionism, the view that God is calling the Jews back to the land of Israel.

Some form of democracy was embraced by almost all of Israel’s modern founders. A constituent assembly was formed in the 1920’s, appointing an executive council to govern the Jewish inhabitants and institutions of the land. The constituent assembly was constructed upon proportional representation. Due to Rabbi Kook’s influence, various religious parties served in the assemblies, along with many other parties. When the modern state of Israel proclaimed her independence in 1948, the Declaration of Independence contained the following statements:

Accordingly we, members of the People's Council, representatives of the Jewish Community of Eretz-Israel and of the Zionist Movement, are here assembled on the day of the termination of the British Mandate over Eretz-Israel and, by virtue of our natural and historic right and on the strength of the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly, hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel. . . The State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture.

Since that time, the Israeli government has argued that Israel is a Jewish and democratic state. In fact, it is possibly the only modern democratic nation that is defined and identified as a type of religious state.

Two factors control the level of religion and its influence in Israel: 1) the Chief Rabbinate; 2) politics. The Chief Rabbinate is headed by two rabbis, one from the Ashkenazic (European) community, the other from the Sephardic (Spanish, Mid-Eastern) community. The Chief Rabbinate controls numerous aspects of Jewish life in Israel: marriage and divorce, burials, conversion to Judaism, kosher laws, immigration, Jewish schools, Jewish holy sites, and rabbinical courts. The power of the Chief Rabbinate originated with an agreement reached between David Ben-Gurion, first Prime Minister of Israel, and one of the major religious parties, just prior to the founding of the State. Ben-Gurion sought to garner the support of the religious sector in order to present a unified front before the United Nations, which was about to determine whether Israel would be considered its own nation state. The religious parties were concerned that the country would be a solely secular state and would thus hurt the status of the religious institutions and participants. 

This arrangement by Ben-Gurion became known as the status quo agreement. It covered four primary areas that are important to Orthodox Judaism: the preservation of Shabbat for the nation, the regulation of kitchens in government owned areas according to Orthodox kosher rules, the conducting of marriage and divorce under the Chief Rabbinate, and control over educational curriculum in the schools, where full autonomy would be given to the different Jewish denominations. In addition, issues of personal status (who is a Jew) would be determined by the Orthodox definitions. These concessions to the Orthodox community have led to numerous unintended consequences played out mainly in the political arena.

Israel’s government is based on a parliamentary system. Throughout her seventy-one-year history, no single political party has won a majority of parliamentary seats. Consequently, governments are formed through a coalition of parties, often with smaller, narrow interest parties. Those smaller parties invariably include religious ones. The religious parties seek to protect and even expand upon the status quo agreement above, despite the fact that the vast majority of Israelis are secular. For example, the religious parties successfully prevent the operation of public transportation on Shabbat in almost all areas of the country. This ultimately affects primarily the poor because those with cars can travel if they want.

 Another example is the religious control over marriage. Orthodoxy has very strict standards as to who is a Jew, and will not marry a couple if either party fails to meet their definitions. Since the only rabbis approved by the Chief Rabbinate are Orthodox, and a Jew can only be married by the Orthodox, many citizens cannot be married in Israel. This has negatively affected thousands of Russian immigrants, among many others, who do not have acceptable papers to prove “pure” Jewishness. Around twenty percent of Jewish Israelis marry outside of Israel, either because they don’t meet the Orthodox definitions or they do not want an Orthodox style wedding, especially when most of the couples marrying are not Orthodox themselves. The religious parties so far have blocked the institution of civil marriage in Israel.

A final example is the maintenance of military exemptions for the religious who are studying in special religious schools. This was also an arrangement made between David Ben-Gurion and the religious parties at the founding of Israel. At that time the religious parties implored the Prime Minister to permit the study of Torah for a select group of scholars as a substitute for required military service. As of now, that has expanded to thousands of potential military recruits each year. The military exemption for the religious community has caused tremendous resentment among the majority in Israeli society, whose children serve and die in the Israeli military. There have been many attempts to change the law, but the religious parties have successfully thwarted them.

As was stated earlier, Israel was formed to be a Jewish state, a place where the perennially persecuted Jew could come and live in freedom. But the Jewish people are not just an ethnic group. Rather they are a people, in part, defined by a religious and historical experience. Consequently, religion always will play a part in Israel’s national identity. As has been discussed in earlier articles, the merger of the state and religion throughout history has a poor track record. The question for Israel is, can she find a way to maintain a Jewish identity without imposing strict religious standards upon a society that largely balks against them. This probably is the only way for Israel to flourish, to be a Jewish and democratic state and to fulfill Theodore Herzl’s vision of being “a light to the nations.”

Next time: “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”