Philosophy

Raphael Cohen-Almagor

Avoiding the Destruction of the Third Temple: Separating State and Religion in Israel 1

Know from whence you came in order to know where you are going. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. Article 18, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Introduction

T

he history of a people is important to instruct us what the keys for success and prosperity are, to warn us against pitfalls, and to educate us not to repeat grave mistakes. Jewish history is rich and diverse. It has known many vicissitudes – times of prosperity and times of decline. Behind Moshe Feiglin’s desk there is a large photomontage of the Second Temple. Feiglin would like to see the Third Temple built on the Temple Mount. He believes it is just a matter of time until “what still remains to be done will happen”.2 Like Feiglin, I am also a student of history but my interpretation and reading of Jewish history is vastly different. I believe that if the required lessons are not learned, not only won’t the Third Temple be built but the metaphoric third temple, the State of Israel, might not be able to withstand the formidable challenges along the way. According to our tradition, one of the peaks of history was King Solomon’s reign (traditionally dated to the 10ht century bc), known also as the Golden Era. According to the biblical text, Israel was a center of commerce, richness, splendor,

1 2

I thank Moshe Fischer, Lester Grabbe and Dareen Daniel for comments on an early draft of this paper. David Remnick, “The Party Faithful, The Rise of Israel’s New Radical Right”, The New Yorker (21 January 2013): 46.

]1 E[

]E 2[

Raphael Cohen-Almagor

and wisdom. King Solomon wisely reached peace with his neighbors. The Land of Israel prospered. In the 4ht year of his reign, King Solomon began the construction of the Holy Temple which symbolized Jewish life, Jewish religion, and a life of affluence. Heavy taxation was imposed by King Solomon to finance his massive expenditure but he nevertheless managed to survive for forty years.3 Things went sour after King Solomon’s death. The rift between believers in God and the idolatries increased and the ten northern tribes refused to accept Solomon’s son Rehoboam as their king. After Solomon’s death the country was divided into the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judea. The dissension between the two kingdoms led to their destruction. In 722 BC, Samaria, the capital of the Kingdom of Israel, fell to the Assyrians and the kingdom came to an end. Some of the people of the ten tribes were led to slavery (from which came the legend of “the lost ten tribes”). The Kingdom of Judea survived for another 150 years until the year 597 BC when it succumbed to the first invasion of the Babylonians. A second siege of Jerusalem ended on the ninth of the month of Av of 586 BC, when the Holy Temple that symbolized the magnificent period was destroyed.4 With its destruction, ended a 400-year period of grandeur and Jewish independence. Another period we cherish and celebrate each and every year during the festival of Chanukah is that of the Maccabeans and Hasmonaeans (168-63 BC). The Maccabees re-established the political and religious independence of the Jewish people for the first time since the destruction of the First Temple. Yehudah Hamaccabi (Judah Maccabaeus) liberated Jerusalem about 165 BC and cleansed the Holy Temple. Yehudah died about 160 BC and his younger brother Jonathan took over the struggle and became high priest in 152 BC.5 In 142 BC he forced the Hellenistic Seleucids to withdraw from Jerusalem. After Jonathan’s death the rule passed to his brother, Simon, who then reigned from 142 BC to 135 BC. Simon was the last of the Maccabean brothers and the founder of the Hasmonean dynasty. The Hasmonean Kingdom was able to establish its relative independence for about a century, until 63 BC, but then it came under the Roman tutelage. At the same time, the internal political polarization and the tumultuous rift between 3

4

5

J. Alberto Soggin, An Introduction to the History of Israel and Judah (London: SCM Press, 1999): 83-93; Henry Hart Milman, The History of the Jews (London: J.M. Dent, 1943): 265. In recent decades, historians of ancient Israel have expressed varying degrees of doubt about the biblical picture of the reign of Solomon. For a discussion of the problems and issues, see Lester L. Grabbe, Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It? (London: T & T Clark, 2007): 111-115. Israel Finkelstein and Neil A. Silberman, The BibleUnearthed (NY: Free Press, 2001); H. Ben-Sasson, A History of the Jewish People (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1985); Psalm 79, A psalm of Asaph. Bezalel Bar-Kochva, The Hasmonean Wars (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi and Ministry of Defence, 1980, Hebrew); Baruch Kanel, “The Heroic Wars of Yehudah Hamakabi”, Machanaiim, Vol. 87 (Hebrew), http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/mahanaim/kanel-2.htm

Avoiding the Destruction of the Third Temple: Separating State and Religion in Israel

]3 E[

parties increased. Jews did not hesitate to shed each other’s blood. Extremists fought against moderates, and partisan bands fought everyone. The country was divided and considerably weakened by internal rivalries. The invading Roman army benefited, of course, from the situation. At the conclusion of fighting, an estimated 25% of the population had been killed and a further 25% of the population were taken prisoners or sold as slaves.6 Unlike the period of the First Temple, the whole period of the Second Temple (539 BC-70 AD) was far more modest. Gone was the great affluence and military power alleged in King Solomon’s time. For a large part of this period Israel was a vassal state under various foreign dominations. Internal rivalries ripped it apart. While the Romans were besieging Jerusalem in the 66-70 revolt, the warring factions of Jews continued to shed their own blood. On the 9ht of Av of 70 AD, exactly 655 years after the destruction of the First Temple, the Second Temple was burned to the ground.7 A period of second exile began. Thousands of Jews were sold as slaves throughout the empire.8 The destruction of the two temples and the subsequent exiles and destruction of Jewish national entity in the Land of Israel occurred to a large extent because of warfare among Jews. The Jews were plagued by turbulent politics which divided them into many factions. The politicization of the position of the High Priest by the Maccabees and Hasmonean rulers did not relax the tension. Quite the opposite. Mixing politics with religion fueled rivalries and made the situation more volatile and made unity a remote prospect. The Jews had to wait nineteen centuries to regain sovereignty over the Land of the Bible. We are now, metaphorically, in the period of the Third Temple, and yet again we witness internal rivalries and external pressures. Think of the following scenario. A mounting pressure by external powers threatens Israel. The society, saturated with generations of rifts and schisms, is unable to unite. In the face of the threat, the society disintegrates. The zealots mount a heroic defense against the challenge, but they lack the ability and international legitimacy to withstand the external and internal pressures. The liberal forces that provided the backbone of society have been so weakened and so disillusioned that they simply give up. The minorities within society that never integrated into it do not mind the destruction. The third temple, metaphoric or real, is captured and destroyed. Students of history must devise ways to mitigate internal rifts and secure ways 6 7 8

J. Alberto Soggin, An Introduction to the History of Israel and Judah: 372-377. Paolo Sacchi, The History of the Second Temple Period (Sheffield: T & T Clark International, 2004). James Parkes, A History of the Jewish People (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1962): 38. See also Martin Goodman, Rome and Jerusalem: the clash of ancient civilizations (London/ New York: Allen Lane, 2007).

]E 4[

Raphael Cohen-Almagor

to withstand external pressures. This article addresses only the first challenge of internal rifts, arguing for separation between state and religion. Such a separation is necessary for Israeli democracy to survive and for Israel to remain a home for all Jews in the world. The article is written from the liberal spirit that endorses liberty and abhors coercion. The majority of Israeli-Jews deeply appreciate religion yet they see it as a matter of personal choice, not as an overwhelming dictate from above. A 2010 survey of Israeli Jews over the age of 20 asked about self-definition. 8.8% defined themselves as Haredi. 9.6% defined themselves as religious. 13.7% defined themselves as traditional/religious. 24.4% defined themselves as traditional/not very religious, while 43.4% defined themselves as not religious/secular.9 That means, 67.8% of the Jewish population in Israel would most likely object to religious coercion. Minorities and majorities alike should not coerce others to abide by a particular conception of the good. By “conception of the good” it is meant a more or less determinate scheme of ends that the doer aspires to carry out for their own sake, as well as of attachments to other individuals and loyalties to various groups and associations. It involves a mixture of moral, philosophical, ideological, and religious notions, together with personal values that contain some image of a worthy life. The paper begins by postulating ground premises and concepts. Next, it asks whether Israel is a liberal democracy, whether Judaism and liberal democracy are reconcilable, and whether Israel should be a liberal democracy. It is argued that Israel cannot be described as a liberal democracy, that Judaism and liberal democracy are irreconcilable and that Israel should aspire to be a liberal democracy. A focus of my paper is the status of women in Israeli society. Due to space constraints, this paper does not analyze the status of IsraeliPalestinians in society. Data shows in abundance that the lack of separation between state and religion puts the Israeli-Palestinians in a precarious position, undermines their equal rights and liberties, paves the road for systematic discrimination against them in almost all spheres of life, and makes them second class citizens.10 At the same time, this situation makes Israel an illiberal society, one that cannot be considered a “light unto the nations” as many people aspire.11 Indeed, the litmus test for assessing the democratization of any given society is the status of its minorities. The more minorities are integrated into society and receive equal treatment, respect 9 10

11

Asher Cohen and Bernard Susser, “Religious Pressure Will Increase in the Future”, Israel Studies Review, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Summer 2012): 16. Ilan Peleg and Dov Waxman, Israel’s Palestinians (NY: Cambridge University Press, 2011); Kais Nasser, Severe Housing Distress and Destruction of Arab Homes: Obstacles and Recommendations for Change (Dirasat, February 2012). Motion to take note, “Israel: Arab Citizens”, House of Lords Official Report, Hansard, Vol. 741, No. 84 (13 December 2012).

Avoiding the Destruction of the Third Temple: Separating State and Religion in Israel

]5 E[

and concern, the more light that society would shed unto other nations, serving as an inspiring model to follow. Presently Israel is severely criticized by foes and friends for its treatment of Palestinians on both sides of the Fence. This concern, however, merits a separate discussion.12

Underpinning Premises and Concepts

• The Great Chain of Being: As students of history we are required to see conduct • • • •

•

in context. We live the present while acknowledging the past, and with a sense of direction for a positive future. Know from whence you came in order to know where you are going. Israel – The Land of the Jewish People: Israel is and should remain the Land of the Jewish People. History taught us of the need to have an independent, sovereign Jewish State, free from anti-Semitism. Israel should be maintained as a State of refuge to all Jews who decide to live their lives in a Jewish framework. Freedom v. coercion: People are born free and would like to lead their lives as free and autonomous human beings. Thus, coercion is foreign to us, offensive to sensibilities and leads to an increased sense of alienation and resentment. Religion is a matter of personal choice, faith and belief. Because religion provides an all-encompassing framework for all issues, people should be free to take what is appealing to them and reject aspects that are less appealing. Consequently, freedom of religion, and freedom from religion are equally important. Both are matters of personal choice. Citizens in a democracy should enjoy the ability to choose one or another. All individuals should be allowed to choose their own conception of the good, as they see fit and appropriate for themselves, as long as they do not harm others. Liberal democracy: Democracy is procedural in character. It is about the rule of the people by the people. Democracy provides a framework of governance aiming to entertain as many public interests as possible.

Liberal democracy is a democracy enshrined in the liberal ideology which can be summed up as a system of government for the people, by the people, designed to promote respect of citizens qua citizens. This notion is called the Respect for Others Principle. The liberal ideology promotes human individuality, pluralism, liberty, equality before the law, diversity and the dignity of the person. These values should underpin the foundations of Israel as a nation. Explanation and elaboration are offered below. 12

See R. Cohen-Almagor (ed.), Israeli Democracy at the Crossroads (London: Routledge, 2005) and R. Cohen-Almagor, “Israeli Democracy and the Rights of Its Palestinian Citizens” (forthcoming).

]E 6[

Raphael Cohen-Almagor

• Public v. private: A clear distinction has to be made between the communal character of the State, and personal matters. Personal matters are, by definition, personal. The State should limit its involvement in them to minimum.

Religion and politics belong to two different spheres. Religion provides a system of belief, personal identification and personal conduct. Politics concerns policies designed to promote the general good. Politics should not intervene in religious matters; religion should not intervene in political matters. Mixing the two is a recipe for coercion, for increased sense of alienation, and for destabilisation of democracy. Mixing politics and religion increases rifts and the possibility of internal wars.

• Values: As Jews, as human beings, we uphold Hillel’s postulate “What is hateful to you do not do unto your fellow people”.13

As liberals, we uphold John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle which holds that the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of the community, against their will, is to prevent harm to others.14 On this issue, Judaism and liberalism are in complete agreement.

• Gender equality: Men and women should enjoy equal human and civil rights.

•

Men are not inferior to women. Women are not inferior to men.15 Granted that men and women are biologically different but biology should not lead to differentiation of rights and liberties. Countries that perceive biology as the dictating factor are racist countries. Racism: As racism conflicts with the above premises, it should be excluded altogether from policy making in Israel.

These are the underpinning premises of this article. Those who accept these premises 13 14 15

Hillel (Babylonian Talmud. Sabbath 31a). J. S. Mill, Utilitarianism, Liberty, and Representative Government (London: J. M. Dent, 1948), Everyman’s edition, at 114 or On Liberty, http://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/three.html The following international declarations emphasize gender equality:1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights; 1966 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; 1966 UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; 1966 UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; 1967 Universal Declaration of Women’s Rights; 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; 1980 Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. For further discussion, see Susan Moller Okin, “Feminism, Women’s Human Rights, and Cultural Differences”, Hypatia, Vol. 13, no. 2 (Spring 1998): 32-52.

Avoiding the Destruction of the Third Temple: Separating State and Religion in Israel

]7 E[

are likely to accept my recommendations and conclusions. Those who object to one or more of the above premises will probably have problems agreeing with my recommendations and conclusions. Now we need to face two pertinent questions: Is Israel a liberal democracy? And the second is: Should Israel be a liberal democracy?

Is Israel a Liberal Democracy? Israel is a Jewish democracy. The framework of governance is democratic, but its underpinning concepts give precedence to Judaism over the Respect for Others Principle, and the Harm Principle. Judaism does not accord men and women equal standing in society. Judaism infringes upon the right of women, harms and offends them. Liberal democracy cannot endure norms that deny respect to individuals and that are offensive to potentially half of society, although they might be dictated by some religions. Some norms are unacceptable by liberal standards because they are perceived to be intrinsically wrong. Among these are norms prescribing discrimination on illegitimate grounds: sex, color, religion, race, ethnic affiliation, etc. This holds true for coercive religious practices. In Israel, there are inherent contradictions between the religious and the liberal worldviews. Many believe that in order to survive, the Jewish character of the State should be preserved and promoted even if that entails inequitable treatment of the other.16 The first source of contention between liberalism and Judaism relates to the notion of liberty. Liberals believe in Live-and-Let-Live, as long as you don’t harm others. On the other hand, religious people believe that people are not at liberty to conduct their lives. People are bound by a given set of rules and dictates. Consequently, some religious people see the liberal concept of liberty as dangerous. Equality is another highly contentious issue. Whereas liberals believe all humans are equal, religious people tend to believe in well-defined hierarchies that by definition assume a certain order and inequalities: Jews are different and special people, not to be compared with gentiles; women are not equal to men and thus different standards should be applied to their treatment; heterosexual people conduct their sexual affairs as God prescribes while homosexual practices constitute a clear deviation from God’s chosen way-of-life and therefore do not deserve equal treatment. In the center of analysis of the liberal stands the individual. All stems from the individual; all returns to the individual. Conversely, in the theocratic worldview, God is the center of the universe, the source of all authority and the mighty power which we all respect and fear. In the liberal worldview, God is a debated concept, 16

Yehezkel Dror, Israeli Statecraft: National Security Challenges and Responses (London and New York: Routlege, 2011), p. 20.

]E 8[

Raphael Cohen-Almagor

a question of belief. God does not guide life. While religious people believe men were created by God, liberals tend to believe that God is the creation of men. The question of authority is central. In a democracy, liberals believe that the government has the authority to govern lives. Laws enacted by the legislature should be abided by. Everything that is not explicitly prohibited by law is allowed. In the religious worldview, God is the source of authority. His laws and dictates, as prescribed by Halacha, Jewish law, are binding. Problems arise when the laws of the state and the dictates of government contradict Halacha. While liberals would hold the former as superior, religious people perceive the latter as superior. The primary allegiance is not to democracy, or to the State; the primary allegiance is to God and to Jewish law. Liberal legislation tries to find the Golden Mean between individual rights and liberties, on the one hand, and state authority, on the other. The state is perceived as an enhanced and complex machinery to enable self-development and enriched autonomy. Restrictions stem from the concepts of respect for others, and not harming others. A religious worldview is guided by utterly different considerations. Legislation has to conform to the will of God. People are merely uncovering the will of God. Legislators are mere interpreters of that will, intent on achieving the most faithful interpretation of Godly categorical imperatives that are obviously external to man (women do not count that much). Consequently, the freedom that the legislators can take upon themselves is limited. They must constantly direct themselves toward clarifying the exact requirements of the divine commands.17 Tolerance is viewed very differently by liberals and religious people. Liberals tend to view tolerance as a virtue, suited for advanced societies that strive to reconcile between differences and seek accommodations and compromises. Tolerance is viewed by liberals as strength: despite deep-seated views, convictions and prejudices, we are willing to acknowledge other ways of life that offend us deeply. We do this out of strength, believing in our ability to persuade that our way of life provides the right guidance to follow.18 Religious people, on the other, tend to perceive tolerance as a weakness. They do not see the reason why we should tolerate others who are set to offend or to hurt them, to undermine their being, 17

18

Yuval Cherlow, “‘Jewish’ and ‘democratic’ – Can they coexist?”, Justice, Vol. 49 (Fall 2011), pp. 8-9. See also Cherlow, “Leadership and Taking Responsibility in Halacha”, in R. CohenAlmagor, Ori Arbel-Ganz and Asa Kasher (eds.), Public Responsibility in Israel (Tel Aviv and Jerusalem: Hakibbutz Hameuchad and Mishkanot Shaananim, 2012, Hebrew): 100-122. John Locke, A Letter about Toleration (1689), http://www.constitution.org/jl/tolerati.htm; R. Cohen-Almagor, The Boundaries of Liberty and Tolerance (Gainesville, FL: The University Press of Florida, 1994) and The Scope of Tolerance (London and New York: Routledge, 2006); Thomas Scanlon, The Difficulty of Tolerance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003); Melissa S. Williams and Jeremy Waldron (eds.), Toleration and its Limits, NOMOS XLVIII (New York: New York University Press, 2008).

Avoiding the Destruction of the Third Temple: Separating State and Religion in Israel

]9 E[

and to stifle their conception of the good. Tolerance is more of a hindrance than a virtue.19 The concept of coercion is another major source of contention. Authority is one thing; coercion is another. Liberals believe in freedom and dread coercion. They may respect order and accept some restrictions on their freedoms so as to enable others’ freedoms, but they oppose coercion tout court. Regulation, on the other hand, is acceptable. When one speaks, the other keeps quiet. Then the other responds while the first listens. Similarly, the gay movement may hold a parade in the major square of the city, and the following day the anti-gay movement may hold its own parade in the same square. No movement is coerced to accept the other’s way of life. No movement is silenced or censored. By contrast, religious people have no qualms coercing others because they believe people are not free to start with. Moreover, some of them believe that if some people go astray, they may lead the entire community down the drain. We Jews sit in the same boat, and if some are leading reckless lives, they knock holes in the boat and we all sink to rock bottom. Thus, the only way to avoid this fate is to coerce the reckless to change their way of life and adopt the “correct” one. Thus it is very difficult, if not impossible, to find a modus vivendi, some form of reconciliation between liberals and religious people. Indeed, the discourse between liberals and religious people is difficult. While liberals base their reasoning on trying to understand the other, finding compromises, establishing paths for discourse, appreciating pluralism, religious people remain immovable in their unshaken beliefs. Concessions to the religious only bolster their stand and empower them to make further demands. Today, in 2013, the struggle for power is more between the national religious and the ultra-religious than it is between both these camps and the secular population. Although secular people resent coercion, somehow they allowed the government, the Knesset and the army, three major bases of power, to become more religious. How can we explain this? Internal conflicts were and remain secondary to the Arab-Israeli conflict. From Ben-Gurion until today, unity against external threats is most important. Lack of religious pluralism and the Orthodox monopoly provides very strict interpretation of religion in the life of the young nation. Due to the Orthodox monopoly, secular people who on the whole wish to retain the Jewish character of the state do not push hard for separation between state and religion. But there is a way to retain the Jewish character of Israel while promoting pluralism and tolerance and subduing religious coercion. People wish to live life free of coercion. At some point, due 19

Jacob Katz, Exclusiveness and Tolerance (NY: Oxford University Press, 1961); Zagorin Perez, How the Idea of Religious Toleration Came to the West (Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press, 2003); Graham N. Stanton and Guy G. Stroumsa (eds.), Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008).

]E 10[

Raphael Cohen-Almagor

to increased religious demands that will encroach upon their freedoms and due to demographic changes favoring the illiberal camp, liberals will stand up for their rights and rebel against strict religious dictates. In the long run, Israel as a modern, western state cannot agree to continued discrimination against half of its population.

Discrimination against Women Israel has taken significant strides to promote gender equality. Since the 1950s, women’s opportunities in the workplace have been secured by legislation guaranteeing 14-week maternity leave allowance paid by the National Insurance Institute, protection against dismissal during pregnancy, and affordable childcare facilities. The Equal Retirement Age Law and the Equal Employment Opportunities Law were passed in 1987 and in 1988 respectively. In 2000, amendments to the Equal Rights Law mandated representation by women at all levels in public entities. In the Israeli national trade union (Histadrut), women are represented at each level. The Histadrut has adopted a resolution requiring that 30 percent of its leadership be women. The Israeli educational system treats boys and girls equally. No measurable educational gap exists between male and female students through high school. The Ministry of Education introduced programs designed to encourage a culture of gender equality and to maintain a climate of respect, growth and confidence regarding gender. It has adopted a policy of gender equality that requires schools to provide and promote equal opportunities for both genders. In the army, approximately 80% of army professions are open to women. The number of women in clerical positions has decreased to 20%, and almost 26% of IDF officers are women.20 However, women still do not receive equal pay for the same work. Throughout Israeli history, only ten women served as cabinet ministers. Only 26 women serve in the 19th Knesset, commencing in January 2013. The situation in local government is even worse. Only 7% of mayors are women, and only 16% of municipality councilors are women. Only 4% of the CEOs in the 400 large companies in Israel are women.21 The status of women in personal matters is especially problematic and calls for drastic reform. In Jewish law, the establishment of patriarchy negates the premises of gender equality, respect for others, not harming others, anti-coercion and the 20 21

Embassy of Israel, London, 2013 International Women’s Day – Israel celebrates Women Rights (8 March 2013). Yossi Chatav, “Lost women: only 4% CEOs in the major 400 companies”, HRus (22 March 2012), http://www.hrus.co.il/%D7%A0%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%90%D7 %95%D7%91%D7%93%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A8%D7%A7-4-%D7%9E%D7%A0%D 7%9B%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%9A-400%D7%97%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%95 (Hebrew).

Avoiding the Destruction of the Third Temple: Separating State and Religion in Israel

]11 E[

preservation of the dignity of the individual. The man enjoys clear power over the woman. The Chief Rabbinate, which at present enjoys a monopoly on all matters relating to personal status, maintains a clear bias against women. While not all Israelis necessarily object to wed in a religious ceremony, many Israelis believe that the right to wed in any kind of ceremony – religious or secular – should be granted.22 At present, however, the Interior Ministry does not recognize any marriage in Israel not conducted by the Chief Rabbinate. This problematic, illiberal situation is especially onerous for anyone who is not considered Halachically Jewish. In Israel, there are some 300,000 immigrants from the former Soviet Union and Ethiopia whose personal status is deemed problematic by the Orthodox monopoly. They are categorized as “absent religion” (“Chasrei dat”). They face difficulties with marriage raising families, divorce, and securing an appropriate burial place.23 Diaspora Jews who are eligible for Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return but who, nevertheless, may not be recognized as Jews by the Chief Rabbinate because of non-Orthodox conversions, cannot marry.24 The Chief Rabbinate also determines who is buried in Jewish state cemeteries, limiting this right to individuals considered Jewish by Orthodox standards. Since personal status matters are solely controlled by the Chief Rabbinate, which does not recognize non-Orthodox converts to Judaism as Jews, Reform and Conservative converts in Israel cannot marry or divorce in the country and cannot be buried in 22

23

24

A 2011 poll showed that while more than 60 percent support civil marriage, only a third thinks that they would actually wed in civil marriage. See “Two thirds of the public support civil marriage, third will marry in civic ceremony” (26 July 2011) (Hebrew), http://www. hiddush.org.il/%D7%AA%D7%AA%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A5-15-0-%D7%A0 %D7%99%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%90%D7%99%D7%9D_%D7%90%D7%96%D7%A8%D 7%97%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D.aspx. See also “Freedom to wed Index: Israel is in the lower tier”, YNET (28 April 2013), http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4373290,00.html (Hebrew). Irit Rosenbloom, Absent religion in Israel – what is the significance?, New Family, http://www.newfamily.org.il/blog/press-and-media/%D7%97%D7%A1%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%93%D7%AA-%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%94-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%95%D7 %AA-%D7%9E%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%9A-%D7%A9%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A9/ On 3 April 2013, the National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW) called on the government of Israel to adopt a system of civil marriage and divorce. The NCJW stated that “The monopoly of authority given to Orthodox rabbinical courts in Israel regarding issues of personal status, particularly marriage, weakens rather than strengthens the state itself by causing disunity, disrespect for the law, and even hostility among Israelis and between Israel and Jews abroad. In addition, twenty percent of the Israeli population is made up of members of minority groups whose marriages are similarly governed by the religious authorities of each faith, and who, as a result, face marital issues of their own. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens are denied the right of marriage solely based on issues of religion”. See http://www.ncjw.org/content_9812.cfm

]E 12[

Raphael Cohen-Almagor

cemeteries administered by the Chief Rabbinate.25 The religious coercion brings about continued agony and a great deal of hardship that alienate many parts of the population from the State and its institutions. People should be free to choose their religious beliefs (if at all) and the government should not discriminate people on the basis of their religious views.26 Thus Israel’s Jewish law contravenes Article 16 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights which holds: “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution”.27 Furthermore, the establishment of patriarchy is most clearly expressed in the ultimate power of the man not to release his wife from the bonds of marriage. Divorce is not a judicial act and may be achieved only in accordance with the husband’s wish. In Deuteronomy 24:1 is written: “A man takes a wife and possesses her. She fails to please him because he finds something obnoxious about her, and he writes her a bill of divorcement, hands it to her and sends her away from his house”. The asymmetry and inequality are clear: A Jewish woman cannot give a divorce to her husband. If the wife refuses her consent, the husband may be able to acquire a rabbinical dispensation to remarry.28 Until the husband declares that he is willing to divorce his wife, there is no way a woman can be released from marriage. Women who refuse a divorce cannot remarry.29 Furthermore, a husband’s refusal to divorce his wife results not only in the wife’s inability to remarry but also in strict restrictions on her freedom to set up a new family life. Should she have a sexual relationship with another man, she is considered a rebellious wife and may lose her rights to child custody and spousal maintenance although she remains married; she will also be prohibited from marrying her lover if at any future time her husband dies or releases her from the marriage. Should she, while still married, have a child from another man, that child will be considered a “mamzer”, a form of bastardy applicable only to the

25

26

27 28 29

Reform Jews constitute about 4% of the Israeli population, while Conservatives about 3%. See Tamar Hermann and Chanan Cohen, “Reform and Conservative Jews in Israel: A Profile and Attitudes”, Israel Democracy Institute (30 June 2013, Hebrew), http://en.idi.org.il/analysis/ articles/the-reform-and-conservative-movements-in-israel-a-profile-and-attitudes See Justice Zamir in H.C. 1438/98. The Conservative Movement v The Minister for Religious Affairs (1999) 53(5) PD 337. For further discussion, see Gila Stopler, “Religious Establishment, Pluralism and Equality in Israel – Can the Circle be Squared?”, Oxford Journal of Law & Religion (2012): 1-25. 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index. shtml P. Shifman, Family Law in Israel (Jerusalem: The Sacher Institute, Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1984, Hebrew): 178-179. Deuteronomy 24:1; Gittin 85a–b.

Avoiding the Destruction of the Third Temple: Separating State and Religion in Israel

]13 E[

children of adultery by a woman.30 The woman will not be eligible to marry under Jewish law except if he/she marries another “mamzer” or a convert to Judaism.31 In contrast, for men whose wives refuse to agree to the divorce there is no problem of “mamzerut” and there are ways in which the husband may acquire the right to remarry without a divorce.32 The asymmetry and inequality are also evident in the Talmudic discussion on “Isha Katlanit” (“Lethal Woman”): A woman who was married twice and whose husbands both died shall not marry a third husband while a man whose two wives died does not or need not abstain from marrying again.33 Women are different than men. Contra the liberal premised supra, the differences lead to inequalities that are deemed unjustifiable in the present liberal democracy. Reconciling between Judaism and liberalism is possible only if there is awareness and recognition that biological gender differences should not serve as platform for discrimination. Another intricate and sensitive issue involves agunot (chained) women. An agunah is a woman who is unable to live with her husband because of his disappearance, insanity or abandonment while refusing to give her a get (to divorce her), and yet is declared by Jewish law as married. She is unable to remarry until she obtains the get. In many cases, refusal to give a get is a form of spousal abuse, designed to exert control over a wife. An abusive husband may refuse to grant his wife a get because he wants to leverage his power in civil court over his spouse so she will consent to less spousal support or grant him custody or visitation with the children. This puts the abused woman in the difficult predicament of potentially being coerced into making decisions that might harm her and her children. Many such women are waiting to receive their divorce bills from the Rabbinate.34 The state, through its agencies, implements further coercive traditions that are objectionable to most of its population, among them halizah. In this ceremony a 30 31 32

33

34

Mamzerim (bastards) cannot marry within the Jewish community: Deuteronomy 23:3; Shulhan Arukh, Even HaEzer. Frances Raday, “Religion, Multiculturalism and Equality: The Israeli Case”, Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Vol. 25 (1995): 193-241. Frances Raday, “Women’s Rights”, in R. Cohen-Almagor (ed.), Israeli Democracy at the Crossroads: 81; Eliav Shochatman, “Woman’s Status in the Law of Marriage and Divorce”, in Frances Raday, Carmel Shalev and Michal Liban Kooby (eds.), Women’s Status in Israeli Law and Society (Tel-Aviv: Schocken, 1995): 380 (Hebrew). Talmud Bavli, Yebamot, 64, 2; Shulchan Aruch, Iban Haezer, 9. For further discussion, see Isaac Sassoon, The Status of Women in Jewish Tradition (NY: Cambridge University Press, 2011). See “For Sarah’s & Tami’s Sake...”, ICAR (International Coalition for Agunot) (without date or place of publication); “Marriage and Divorce”, in David Golinkin (ed.), Selection of Answers and Halachic Judgments in Marriage (Jerusalem: Masorti Movement Publications, 1993): 68-71 (Hebrew); What is an Agunah?, http://www.jwi.org/page.aspx?pid=1060

]E 14[

Raphael Cohen-Almagor

Jewish widow who has no children releases her brother-in-law from the obligation to marry her in accordance with the law of levirate (yibum), and obtains her own freedom to remarry. The Bible says the following: “If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not be married abroad unto one not of his kin; her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto her” (Deuteronomy, XXV, 5). By the law of Moses it became obligatory upon the brother of a man dying childless to take his widow as wife. This was in order to ensure the continued existence of the name of the deceased. If the brother refused, “then shall his brother’s wife come unto him in the presence of the elders and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, so shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother’s house”.35 The practice of halizah is offensive to the sensibilities of women, and involves coercion, which conflicts with the liberal elements of democracy vouchsafing the rights of individuals.36 One of these is the right to follow one’s conscience and to practice one’s beliefs as one sees fit, as long as this practice does not entail harm to others (see the above premises).

Are Judaism and Liberal Democracy Reconcilable? Many leaders in Israeli society think it is possible to reconcile the contradictions between the liberal and religious worldview in Israel. Politicians (David BenGurion, Menachem Begin, Shimon Peres, Benjamin Netanyahu, to name a few), Supreme Court justices (Meir Shamgar, Aharon Barak and Elyakim Rubinstein), public intellectuals (Ruth Gavison, Asa Kasher, Fania Oz-Salzberger) think this is possible.37 They think that Judaism is not hostile to human rights; therefore there is no contradiction between democracy and Jewish religion. I disagree. I think that the contradictions between the two are fundamental and irreconcilable. Both liberalism and Judaism offer comprehensive weltanschauungs, aiming to affect society and politics. Thus, unlike Fania Oz-Salzberger, who contends that liberalism and Judaism belong in different spheres and thus they “could work quite 35 36

37

“Halisah”, in The Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 12 (London, 1926, Thirteenth Edition): 844. R. Cohen-Almagor, “Israeli Democracy, Religion and the Practice of Halizah in Jewish Law”, UCLA Women’s Law Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1 (Fall/Winter 2000): 45-65. For further discussion on the status of women, see Moshe David Herr, “Retreat in the Position of Women in Halacha”, New Directions, Vol. 27 (November-December 2012): 61-81 (Hebrew). Personal conversations with Shimon Peres, Meir Shamgar, Aharon Barak, Elyakim Rubinstein, Ruth Gavison, Asa Kasher and Fania Oz-Salzberger. See State of Israel as Jewish Democracy (Jerusalem: International Association for Judaic Studies, Reut Institute, 1999, Hebrew); Asa Kasher, “‘A Jewish and Democratic State’: Present Navigation in the Map of Interpretations”, in R. Cohen-Almagor (ed.), Israeli Democracy at the Crossroads: 165-182.

Avoiding the Destruction of the Third Temple: Separating State and Religion in Israel

]15 E[

well together”,38 I think that, unfortunately, liberalism and Judaism are competing against one another in the same sphere, so long as no separation between state and religion is established. Unlike Oz-Salzberger who thinks that the solution is “to fatten one cow” (democracy) and “slim down the other” (Judaism),39 I think the solution is to establish two separate spheres so as to ensure that liberalism and Judaism will not clash. Essentially, the private sphere of Israeli citizens should be significantly enlarged to enable individual development and autonomy as people see fit, this within the confines of the fundamental underpinnings principles of respect for others, and not harming others. Believers cherish first and foremost Halacha, Jewish Law, as they see it as Godly directives that are superior to any other competing values. Between the rule of law and the rule of the Torah, people are not in position to freely balance and choose. They must follow the dictates of Jewish Law. Thus, in a case of conflict believers have no hesitation as to how to act. Liberals, on the other hand, believe in the rule of law and would see any competing worldview that posits itself as superior to the law of the state as dangerous and subversive, undermining democracy, civil rights and freedoms. Doubt is limited for believers. They believe that they are ill-equipped to try to understand the remarkable, sometimes devious ways of God. Strong belief means no question marks, no hesitations and complete submission. Liberals perceive such conduct with horror as their world is filled with question marks; liberals believe that the only way to attain truth is by contesting everything, raising doubts, challenging dogmas, exploring new ways of thinking. Thus while religion constricts and restricts, liberalism is open, free-spirited, aiming to make restrictions as few and far between as possible. Both Judaism and liberalism promote communal values and seek to shape the public domain. But while liberalism endorses quite an elaborate private domain, Judaism endorses the precedence of the public over the private. Both liberalism and Judaism aim to construct through law a certain way of life and take great interest in people’s tangible actions. But while liberalism aims to promote individual autonomy, Judaism is aimed to constrict individual autonomy. While liberalism appreciates pluralism and diversity and endorses human equality for all, Judaism is a national religion, in that most of its commandments and directives pertain to a particular people, the congregation of Israel, and only a few are directed toward humanity per se.40 Once we understand the depth of the irreconcilable differences between liberalism 38 39 40

Fania Oz-Salzberger, “Democratic first, Jewish second: a rationale”, Justice, Vol. 49 (Fall 2011), p. 16. Oz-Salzberger, Ibid., p. 37. Aviezer Ravitzky, “Is a Halachic State Possible? The Paradox of Jewish Theocracy”, in R. Cohen-Almagor (ed.), Israeli Democracy at the Crossroads: 137-164.

]E 16[

Raphael Cohen-Almagor

and Judaism, we now need to ask what kind of society we wish to have, democratic or theocratic; a society in which there are two set of laws (State and Halacha) or one set of laws; a society of regulated freedom or one that is built on coercion of believers over non-believers. Patriarchal religious norms which exclude women from the public sphere are illadapted to a society in which women are out at work and responsible for their own, and often also for their children’s survival, rather than “protected” and “supported” within the hierarchy of an extended family. Furthermore, if traditionalism is allowed to oust egalitarianism, it is an effective way of continuing to silence any voices which were not instrumental in determining the traditions. In Israel, women were excluded not only from the active process of formulating those traditions but also from inclusion as full human subjects.41 And if women are not equal to men in the most personal and sensitive concerns, why should they be equal to men in other spheres, say in the job market? Indeed, in 2011 women’s salaries averaged 66% of men’s.42

Should Israel be a Liberal Democracy? Answering this question is a matter of preference. Those who describe themselves as religious are not disturbed by the lack of Israel’s liberalism. Israeli liberals, however, are most concerned as for them it is more important to have a liberal value system than a coercive Jewish system. The preservation of the Jewish character of the state should not entail coercion of the predominant secular circles of Israel. The guiding principle should be ‘live and let live’. We need to differentiate between the symbolic aspects and the modus operandi aspects. As far as the latter are concerned, separation between state and religion should be achieved. People are born free and wish to continue their lives as free citizens in their homeland. A poll conducted in September 2011 showed that 56% of Israeli-Jews think that there should be separation between religion and state.43 A year later, the State and Religion Index repeated the exact same finding. 80% 44 of those who define

41 42 43 44

Frances Raday, “Religion, Multiculturalism and Equality: The Israeli Case”, Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Vol. 25 (1995): 193-241. US Department of State, Israel and the Occupied Territories (Washington DC: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, 2012): 18. Kobi Nachshoni, “Poll: 80% for core obligation, 63% for Shabbat transportation”, Ynet (28 September 2011) (Hebrew). Rafi Smith and Olga Paniel, State and Religion Index, Report No. 4 (Jerusalem: Hiddush, September 2012, Hebrew).

Avoiding the Destruction of the Third Temple: Separating State and Religion in Israel

]17 E[

themselves as “secular” support separation; 54% of Massortiim (traditional) support this, while the vast majority of religious people in Israel oppose this motion.45 The schism between Charedim and secular was deemed the most severe schism in Israeli society (37%), followed by the schisms between right and left (33%), between rich and poor (14%, at the peak of the Social Justice movement), between Mizrachiim and Ashkenazim (4%), and between immigrants and sabras (2%).46 According to the State and Religion Index of September 2012, 71% of the public think that the tension between secular and ultra-religious is the most difficult, or the second most difficult in Israeli society. 85% support freedom of religion and conscience. This figure includes 56% of the Haredi.47 For a number of years, the vast majority of Israelis support freedom of religion and conscience. The 2011 poll showed that 83% support freedom of religion, meaning enabling people to lead their lives in accordance with their worldview. Only the majority of Charedim (51%, slight majority) oppose freedom of religion while religious (68%), Massortiim (84%) and secular (91%) support freedom of religion.48 Another poll shows that 51% of Israeli-Jews think civil marriage outside the rabbinate should be instituted in Israel; 68% percent support keeping movie theatres, coffee shops and restaurants open on Shabbat, and 58% are supporting open shopping malls and public transportation on Shabbat.49 As premised, coercion is alien to our natural sentiments and desires to lead our lives free as possible from alien restraints and impediments. Hence, while Shabbat should be observed, malls and shopping places outside the cities should be available for the many people who work during the week and do their shopping during weekends. Some of the Jewish characteristics contradict and undermine the democratic nature of the state and here I would like to take issue with them. Israel, being the only Jewish state in the world, should strive to retain its Jewish character. The symbols should remain Jewish with some accommodations in order to make the state a home for its Palestinian citizens as well. Public transportation should be made available for all people who cannot afford a car and for those who do not drive. The 2012 State and Religion Index showed that 63% of the public (36% of religious people) support public transport 45 46 47 48 49

Kobi Nachshoni, “Poll: 80% for core obligation, 63% for Shabbat transportation”, Ynet (28 September 2011) (Hebrew). Ibid. Rafi Smith and Olga Paniel, State and Religion Index, Report No. 4. Kobi Nachshoni, “Poll: 80% for core obligation, 63% for Shabbat transportation”, Ynet (28 September 2011) (Hebrew). Tamar Hermann, “More Jewish than Israeli (and Democratic)?”, Israel Studies Review, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Summer 2012): 6.

]E 18[

Raphael Cohen-Almagor

on Shabbat.50 The state should cater to the needs of as many citizens as possible. The state should prefer regulation to coercion. Thus public transportation should not pass in the vicinity of religious neighborhoods whose residents object to any transportation on Shabbat and religious holidays. But, at the same time, public transportation should be available for those who want it and need it. Furthermore, religious people may operate their own public transportation in a way that suits their conception of the good. Thus, if they so wish they may segregate between men and women in a way that dignifies both genders. Religious people should not coerce others who uphold alternatives conceptions of the good to abide by their own conception.51 Women in the September 2011 poll were asked how they would behave if they were to take the “Mehadrin Public Service” designed for religious people. 35% said that they were willing to sit in the back, 18% would behave as if it were a regular public service, and 47% would find other means of transportation. 94% of the Charediot (ultra-religious women) and 56% of the datiot (religious women) said they would sit in the back of the bus.52 So we see that this is a contentious issue within the religious community. Many women oppose being second-citizens in their own community. Kosher shops and restaurants should be available and with them non-Kosher shops and restaurants for the secular, agnostic population. Culinary pluralism and diversity are preferable to dietary coercion. The September 2011 poll showed that 62% (among them 91% of the secular population) support state recognition of many forms of marriage: Orthodox, Conservative, Reform and civic. Only 38% are opposed to this, of them 92% Charedim, 81% religious, and 54% of the Massortiim.53 The State and Religion Index of 2012 showed a similar figure, 59%.54 52% (69% of the secular population) support same-sex marriage or civil union. 48% oppose, of them 91% Charedim, 84% religious, and 51% Massortiim.55 A small majority adopt egalitarian principles, in accordance with the above premises. Discrimination against gay people is a form of racism that should not be part of Israeli society. Most importantly, the most significant events in one’s life: birth, wedding, 50 51

52 53 54 55

Rafi Smith and Olga Paniel, State and Religion Index, Report No. 4 (Jerusalem: Hiddush, September 2012, Hebrew). For further discussion, see High Court of Justice 746/07, Naomi Ragen v. The Ministry of Transportation (5 January 2011); (Hebrew); Miriam Feldheim, “Balancing Women’s Rights and Religious Rights: The Issue of Bus Segregation”, Shofar, Vol. 31(2) (2013): 73-94. Kobi Nachshoni, “Poll: 80% for core obligation, 63% for Shabbat transportation”. Nachshoni, “Poll: 80% for core obligation, 63% for Shabbat transportation”. Rafi Smith and Olga Paniel, State and Religion Index, Report No. 4. Nachshoni, “Poll: 80% for core obligation, 63% for Shabbat transportation”.

Avoiding the Destruction of the Third Temple: Separating State and Religion in Israel

]19 E[

divorce and death should be handled in accordance with the people’s own choices. If they so desire, people may involve rabbinate and other religious institutions in their private lives. But this option should be left to them. If people wish to have secular ceremonies then they should have the ability to conduct them and not to be forced to undergo practices which mean very little to them, if anything. The state should have as little as possible say in family, intimate affairs. Due to the unshaken convictions of the religious, and their having no qualms about resorting to coercion, in recent years we have been witnessing more and more manifestations of segregation of women. We observe attempts to control women’s conduct, dress code and freedoms in ways that contravene Israel’s commitment to gender equality. Women are discriminated against in cemeteries, at public events even when they are state-sponsored, in health clinics, in public transportation, and in public streets where signposts direct women to seek alternative paths or to adhere to a strict dress code if they wish to pass through certain neighborhoods. One local radio station, “Kol Barama”, prohibits the broadcasting of women voices and hiring women presenters. All these developments negate women’s basic rights and should not be accepted.56 Israel should secure basic rights and liberties for all its citizens, notwithstanding gender, religion, nationality, race or sexual orientation.

Conclusion There is an inbuilt tension between the liberal spirit of ‘live and let live’, and between religion that tells you how to lead your life. Judaism, like any other religion, offers clear answers to all questions. Like all other religions, it is full of exclamation marks. It provides a clear recipe for leading one’s life. Its self-assurance and doctrinal nature reassures the believers, but alienates the non-believers. Most people in Israel wish to retain the Jewish character of the State. Separating state and religion will not bring the end of Israel as a Jewish State. Israelis need not be compelled to be Jewish. For most Jews in Israel, Jewish identity is an important and significant component of their conception of the good. Thus there is no need to resort to coercion. Coercion actually undermines the Jewish character of Israel as people are born free and resist dictates from above on personal matters (see the above premises). A recent poll shows that 94% of Israeli-Jews define circumcision as very important or important to them; 93% feel part of the Jewish people throughout the world; 92% consider sitting shiva after the dead as very important or important to them; 91% celebrate Bar Mitzvah; 90% participate in Seder Pesach; 86% opt for a traditional Jewish burial; 85% celebrate the holidays in the traditional manner; 56

Report of the Committee Established to Examine Women Exclusion in the Public Place, Submitted to the Legal Advisor to the Government (Jerusalem, 7 March 2013, Hebrew).

]E 20[

Raphael Cohen-Almagor

80% consider being married by a rabbi as “very important” or “important”. 76% eat Kosher at home while 70% eat Kosher outside the home. 73% believe that Jews in Israel and Jews in the Diaspora have a shared destiny.57 Tamar Hermann opines that Judaism serves as social glue, bringing together secular Jews, Orthodox, traditional and Haredim, all feeling a strong affinity to the Jewish religion.58 This glue would remain a forceful factor even if the state were to be separated from religion as the majority of the above practices are chosen freely by Israelis. They formulate their own conception of the good voluntarily, because identification as Jews is important to them. There is no need for coercion. This article explains the need for separation between state and religion in order to promote Israel as a democracy and to avoid self-destruction. Let us consider one final question: what might happen to secular people if they continue living under perceived coercion? It is rational to assume that some would abide by the coercion; others would reject and fight against; still others would leave, clearing the stage for further coercion. Israel, I maintain, should be a place for all Jews, not a coercive state designed to serve the best interests of Jewish believers. It should strive to accommodate, not reject; promote unity rather than divisiveness; allow pluralism and diversity rather than insist on uniformity. Thus Israeli leaders and the public at large need to decide whether they wish to have a liberal state or to promote its Jewish character. One thing is certain: As long as there is no separation between state and religion, whatever decision Israel takes – liberalism or Jewishness – one would come at the expense of the other. It is impossible to promote both. Mixing religion with politics is problematic. It becomes destructive when the religion is unyielding and coercive. Whenever religious powers are on the rise, the foundations of liberal democracy are shaken and its protective mechanisms regress. Orthodox Judaism and liberal democracy are conflicting. We should learn from history and avoid the ostrich syndrome of putting our heads deep in the sand and hoping for the better.

57 58

Tamar Hermann, “More Jewish than Israeli (and Democratic)?”, Israel Studies Review, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Summer 2012): 6. Ibid., p. 7.