Thursday, 5/22/97 Religion and politics Israel’s democratic.
Jewish qualities can coexist in delicate balance
By Netanel Livni In my experience, most Jews in the United
States support the strong line between church and state, opposing
any involvement by the government in religious affairs. This is
evident through many Jewish organizations’ opposition to prayer in
schools or governmental money going to religious institutions.
While it is true that some Jews do support such measures, the vast
majority do not. But the questions of church-state involvement in
Israel is different. In Israel the question of religion’s role in
government has dynamics that do not exist in the United States
because Israel is a Jewish state. The minimal definition of a
Jewish state is one which has a majority of Jews. Israel easily
fills this requirement with 82 percent of its population being
Jewish. However, beyond a Jewish majority, what does it mean to be
a Jewish state as far state policy is concerned? This is the
essence of the debate that has existed in Israel for 49 years,
since the rebirth of the state. The founding fathers of Israel were
more concerned with surviving the constant attacks by Israel’s
neighbors than with the internal issue of religion and politics.
Now, however, with Israel in a more secure state than at its
founding, the debate has taken a more urgent and sometimes
emotional tone. To understand the issues involved, we must first
understand the religion of the Jewish people. The Jewish religion
has a very extensive canon of law called Halacha. Most Jews have
followed these laws throughout their history. Halacha served to
strengthen a Jew’s cultural and religious identity. But with the
Enlightenment in Europe came the challenge of modernity and today,
a large number of Jews do not follow strict Halacha. The issue in
Israel is the following: How does Israel maintain its democratic
character while at the same time strengthening its Jewish identity,
which for so many years has been defined in terms of religion? This
issue does not have one clear-cut answer, but what I will present
are methods I believe will reinforce both traits of the Jewish
state. Let me just say that Israel is not now, nor has it ever
been, a religious state. Israel has, from its beginnings,
guaranteed freedom of religion and conscience to all and has stayed
away from mixing Halacha and state law. This is not to say that
Halacha has had no place in the Jewish state. People engaged in
civil disputes have a choice of going to either a civil or
religious court to settle their dispute. This is also true for
Israel’s Muslim citizens, who have set up Muslim courts that settle
their own disputes according to Islamic law. One of the big issues
facing Israel is that of Shabbat, the Jewish Sabbath. Shabbat
starts Friday at sunset and ends Saturday after dark. It has
traditionally been a day of rest when Jews take a break from
everyday life. This means that in some Jewish communities,
businesses are closed and people refrain from doing anything
associated with work. The question is, should Israel "be open" on
Shabbat? In my personal opinion, the answer is clear. All
government services except the emergency ones (such as the police
and medical services) should be closed. This will not present a
problem to the non-Jewish communities, because in most countries,
such government services are closed on the weekend anyway. This is
fine for the government, many argue, but what about private
businesses which might disturb the peace of Shabbat in religious
communities? The Shabbat laws concerning private business should be
established on a local community level. This way, non-Jewish and
non-religious populations are not bothered, while neighborhoods
which have large religious communities can solve their Shabbat
disputes internally. All that the government will guarantee is to
enforce the laws which the community passes. The Shabbat laws can
serve as a model for solving other questions of law and religion.
Basically, when you speak of official government institutions,
Jewish law should be applied. It does not adversely affect anyone
for a government office to be closed on holidays and serve only
kosher food. The food served in the post office’s cafeteria, for
example, can be supervised by the strictest rabbinical supervision
so that all citizens would be able to enjoy it. Yet private
business owners will still have some discretion over their own
observance. The balance is delicate, and Israeli legislators must
constantly walk a fine line in order to strengthen the Jewish
democracy. What I believe is that in the process of these debates,
Israel will both strengthen its democratic and Jewish character,
and Israeli society will benefit from a complementary pluralistic
mix of the two.