On Thursday and Friday, February 12-13, IDI and Tzohar Rabbinic Organization, a leading association of rabbis in Israel, organized a conference to continue their ongoing dialog on the major dilemmas posed by the issue of religion and state in Israel. The conference, entitled Religion, State and the 18th Knesset: A New Social, Cultural and Political Agenda, was held in Caesarea and included almost 70 rabbis, academics, economists, educators and media personalities.
The timing of the conference, which was held two days after the national election, was no coincidence. Although the question of religion and state was not widely discussed during the recent election campaign, the conference sought—as one of its goals--to assure that certain religious concerns be voiced and taken into account during the coalition negotiations and prior to the formation of the next government.
IDI President, Dr. Arye Carmon, delivered the opening remarks and pointed out the historical significance of the conference — a renewal of the pact between religious and socialist Zionism. Carmon went on to describe the gathering as an "historic moment", while still recognizing the challenges ahead. Rabbi Rafi Feuerstein, Chairman of the Tzohar Rabbinic Organization, expressed the need for support from within each social sector represented, if the joint initiative is to succeed.
The conference comprised three sessions. The first dealt with the theoretical underpinnings of religion and state in Israel. Prof. Yedidia Stern, Vice President for Research on the Jewish State at IDI, opened the first session by recalling his days as a religious youngster in Tel Aviv. He was active in the EZRA youth movement, which clearly called for the installment of a "Torah regime" in Israel. On the other hand, Prof. Stern recalled how the secular community around him paid little or no attention to religious people. According to Stern, reality has changed and neither of these extremes are relevant today—a state governed by Halacha (Jewish religious law)--or the complete separation of religion and state. Stern turned directly to his fellow religious Israelis, asking them to reconsider the meaning of a sovereign Jewish State with a secular majority: "Have we set a minimal standard of responsibility vis-à-vis the content of a Jewish and democratic state? Has religious Judaism in Israel responded seriously to the reality of a modern Jewish State? I do not believe so."
The bulk of the conference dealt with two specific issues—national Sabbath observance and conversion. The question of the Sabbath was raised because it enjoys the widest consensus and is, thus, the easiest to resolve. Conversion, on the other hand, is one of the most pressing social issues in Israel today. As a result of the massive waves of immigration from the FSU during the past two decades, there are approximately 320,000 non-Jewish immigrants who are unable to marry in the State of Israel because of the religious authorities' monopoly on marriage registration and wedding ceremonies.
Near-consensus on the issue of Sabbath was indeed evident from the first session. One of Israel’s most prominent authors, Amos Oz, opened the session with a nostalgic description of the Sabbath of his childhood on Kibbutz Hulda. "It was no halachic Sabbath, but it was different from the rest of the week: early showers, white shirts only, candle lighting and Kabbalat Shabbat (the special prayers for Friday night)." Oz expressed his desire to continue cultivating a unique Sabbath atmosphere in Israel, with shopping centers, most businesses and centers of commerce remaining closed, as they are today. Rabbi Yakov Meidan, Director of the Har Etzion Hesder Yeshiva, displayed surprising moderation when he did not object to public transportation on the Sabbath, "albeit on a different schedule than the rest of the week".
One compromise seemed to be acceptable to most of the speakers: restaurants, cultural events and entertainment—yes; trade and commerce—no; public transportation—yes, although more limited than usual. When one secular participant claimed it would be difficult to reverse the existing policy on Sabbath commerce, Rabbi Meidan retorted that "30 settlements established in the Gaza Strip could be reversed, but the business hours of shopping malls cannot?!"
The final session, which was held on Friday morning, dealt with the issue of conversion and focused on the possibility of establishing an alternative, less stringent conversion system to replace the existing process. Prof. Menahem Ben-Sasson of Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who served as the head of the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee in the 17th Knesset, supported the idea of constructing a new framework for conversions. His experience led him to the conclusion that the existing framework cannot be reformed from "within". Both Rabbi Benjamin Lau, head of the Ramban community, and Rabbi Shai Piron of Tzohar opposed his proposal, claiming that the best way to change the existing institution was for rabbis who hold moderate views to assume key positions within the present conversion infrastructure rather than by establishing external alternatives.
According to Lau "we should not establish an alternative rabbinical court because we represent the majority of Israeli society, and it is unacceptable that the majority devise external options and allow the minority to remain in charge". Piron presented a similar argument, stating that "establishing alternative institutions is akin to withdrawing from Zionism. What would follow? Would we encourage those who are unhappy with the Knesset to establish an alternative Knesset? Should the people who are unhappy with Supreme Court rulings establish a new Supreme Court?"
In conclusion, the conference organizers proposed that the participants launch a large-scale appeal to the parties involved in the coalition negotiations to present the incoming government with a draft of the "Sabbath Law", which was formulated by IDI several years ago as part of the Constitution by Consensus Project. This law would permit cultural events and entertainment, as well as limited public transport on the Jewish Sabbath, and would prohibit activity in the public and commercial spheres.
In addition, the proposal called on the government to entrust the Tzohar Rabbinic Organization with the responsibility for national conversion policy and for oversight of the conversion process itself. Some rabbis expressed their apprehension at being given exclusive responsibility for the conversion process. It was decided that the Tzohar contingent should resolve its internal disagreements, and then present its recommendation to the conference’s organizers for integration into the final proposal.