National interests should decide issue of religion and state

Most Israelis want to live in a country where Judaism has meaning, but do not want too many limits to their freedom of choice. Politicians must strike coalition agreements that keep this in mind.

by Dr. Shuki Friedman, ISRAEL HAYOM

Ultimately, politicians will have to close coalition deals, and one of the main issues on the negotiating table will be the question of religion and state, which more than ever requires new thinking and new criteria for possible solutions.

The historic status quo when it comes to religion and state has been worn thin, and the arrangements that go along with it are less and less relevant. After decades of being nibbled away at as a result of political battles, court rulings, and de facto behavior, the law itself has become irrelevant – we can declare the status quo dead.

The result is chaos. Continuing the current situation harms personal freedoms and the nation’s Jewish character, and leaves them to be resolved almost by chance. The battle over questions of religion and state in the last election both illustrates the urgent need for change and creates an opportunity for that change.

What are the desirable agreements on matters of religion and state? Over the years, many solutions have been proposed that fall somewhere on the spectrum between full separation between religion and state, France-style, and models that are closer to religious states like Saudi Arabia or Iran. These are both extremist approaches, and neither is appropriate for Israel. Full separation of religion and state would bring Israel closer to becoming a state “of all its citizens,” whereas rule by Jewish law would harm its democratic character. Most of the public doesn’t support either extremist approach, and the important debate is taking place somewhere in the middle.

I would like to suggest a criterion to be used in shaping any future solution to the question of religion and state: national interests. The larger issue includes smaller ones that pertain to individuals and their relationship to God, as well as some that affect the Jewish character of the country. The degree to which a person keeps kosher or how a woman should bathe in a mikveh are questions deal strictly with the believer’s relationship with God. They have no ramifications for the nation or its character. On the other than, there are questions that directly affect the Jewish nature of Israel, the most critical of which is conversion. Since the Law of Return grants Israeli citizenship to people who convert to Judaism, the question of what kind of conversion will be recognized in Israel affects not only the convert but also the nation’s Jewish character. For example, if a large group of people from somewhere or other undergo a quickie conversion, Israel will have no choice but to let them in.

In addition, there are also specific issues that have ramifications not only for the character of the state but also for individual rights, such as laws on marriage and divorce, or the extent to how far laws about Shabbat are to be enforced.

Recognizing the need to solve the question of religion and state based on national considerations – in other words, in a way that addresses the ramifications that any agreements would have for the population as a whole – means major changes in the degree to which the government is involved in arrangements for religious issues. On questions that have no bearing beyond the individual, the government must not intervene. Therefore, it has been proposed that the government gradually back off from intervention in issues of kosher certification or the rules of mikveh use. On these matters, the government will supply religious services, but will not determine the halachic line that guides them. On the other hand, as long as the Law of Return applies to converts to Judaism, the government must decide on what conversion is recognized and must base that decision on the status quo. On the matter of a civil marriage option, the government may intervene – even if based on religious parameters – but the option of civil marriage must also be available. The same applies to Shabbat laws: while it is clear that the special character of Shabbat must be preserved in public in Jewish areas, different communities must also be allowed to make consensus-based rules about Shabbat observance, according to what suits them.

Most Israelis want to live in a country where Judaism has meaning, but do not want too many limits to their freedom of choice. Politicians who enter negotiations have an obligation to keep their eyes on the national interest, and find solutions everyone can agree on.