Many controversial provisions were toned down from the original drafts

The Nation-state Law: The religion-state angle

The Nation-state Law has captured the headlines for quite some time now, culminating in its adoption by the Knesset yesterday. There are a number of facets to this bill, which should be highlighted as far as matters of religion-state and Israel-Diaspora relations are concerned.

19/07/2018 10:34

Tags: Nation-state bill ·  Nation-state law ·  Declaration of Independence

Israeli flag

The Nation-state Law has captured the headlines for quite some time now, culminating in its adoption by the Knesset yesterday.

Hiddush focuses exclusively on issues of religious freedom and equality. Since much of the debate on this bill revolved around other aspects, such as non-Jewish minority rights and the status of the Arabic language (demoted from being an official language to "special status"), Hiddush has refrained from taking an active role in the overall debate.

However, there are a number of facets to this bill, which should be highlighted as far as matters of religion-state and Israel-Diaspora relations are concerned.

Clearly, comparing the original drafts and the final product reveals that many rough edges were eliminated, and many controversial provisions were toned down. The proponents of the bill emphasized their desire to entrench and safeguard Israel's status as the nation-state of the Jewish people in constitutional legislation, maintaining that there was need for such a bill to elevate this matter to be on par with the constitutional protections already provided for human rights and the state's democratic character, in the spirit of the Declaration of the Independence.

It's unfortunate that many of the bill's proponents felt the need to juxtapose one against the other.

They did not feel, therefore, the need to incorporate the "values" of the Declaration of Independence into this bill... or, better yet, grant explicit constitutional status to the operative provisions of the Declaration of Independence. This clearly resulted in many individuals and groups throughout Israel and the Diaspora who viewed this bill as intended to undermine the principles of the Declaration, rather than be harmonized with them.

In the previous round, when attempts were made to legislate the nation-state bill, Hiddush commissioned a poll during the summer of 2017, asking the Israeli adult Jewish population whether they would support or object to the pending bill, if it were to include an explicit provision ensuring religious freedom and equality.

Hiddush’s 2017 Israel Religion & State Index examined the extent to which the public supports anchoring the principle of freedom of religion in the Nation-State bill. We therefore asked as follows: "The proposed Basic Law: 'Israel - The Nation State of the Jewish People' is being debated in the Knesset and there is disagreement over how the law will establish the State's Jewish identity in relation to its democratic identity. In your opinion, should the law include or not include the promise of the Declaration of Independence for 'freedom of religion and conscience'?"

A large majority of 65% (80% of those who expressed an opinion on the issue) believe that the Nation-State bill should include the anchoring of the Declaration of Independence's promise of freedom of religion and conscience. Only 16% (20% of those who expressed an opinion) opposed this (19% did not express an opinion). Support for the inclusion of the principle of freedom of religion and conscience was expressed by 79% of secular Israelis, a large majority of the "traditional - not so religious" (67%), as well as the traditional - close to religion" (62%).

Unsurprising, this bill's proponents and the make-up of this government had no interest in granting constitutional protection to religious freedom in Israel.

Unsurprising, this bill's proponents and the make-up of this government had no interest in granting constitutional protection to religious freedom in Israel. If anything, many in the religious parties are hoping that the article, which is included in the bill, defining the Sabbath and Jewish holidays as the official days of rest in the state will give them further leverage in their attempts to counter growing trends of local municipalities to legitimize opening up of some businesses and facilitating public transportation on Shabbat.

A special article is dedicated to the bonds between Israel and the Jewish people. In the explanatory note to the bill, its initiator MK Avi Dichter writes that it is intended to anchor the deep principled commitment of the State of Israel to the Jewish Diaspora, Israel's foundations as the State of the whole Jewish people, renewing the historical covenant among all world Jews, and to strengthen the bond of Diaspora Jewry to Israel and vice-versa. Reading the actual language of the bill points to the disparity between these noble aspirations and what Israel's politicians (under watch by their Haredi partners) were willing to acknowledge.

The paragraph starts with a praiseworthy clause, stating that Israel will labor to ensure the well-being of world Jewry and its citizens who find themselves under oppression or bondage due to their Jewishness or their Israeli citizenship. It then moves to a one-sided relationship, rather than one of mutuality and reciprocity claimed in the explanatory note: "The state will operate in the Diaspora to preserve the bond between the state and the Jewish people" and "the state will operate to preserve the cultural, historical, and religious heritage of the Jewish people among Diaspora Jewry."

The first is clearly a reflection of a growing concern over the growing rift between world Jewry and Israel. Realizing the strategic value of world Jewry, especially American Jewry, for the state of Israel, one can easily understand that this article reflects self-interest no less than an existential genuine statement of mutuality and solidarity.

The language shifts from "reciprocity" to this one-sidedness because some have feared that the original two-sided equation would lead to Israel having to reflect the commitment to the pluralistic world Jewry and accommodate its diversity within Israel as an integral part of the task of preserving the bond. Needless to say, there is no way that this bond will last long in an environment in which Israeli politicians repeatedly insult, degrade, and discriminate against major segments of world Jewry; and refusing to accord respect and equality to those who choose to cast their lot with Israel (such as hundreds of thousands of immigrants from the FSU denied the right to marry and non-Orthodox and Modern Orthodox converts to Judaism who find that Israel treats them as gentiles or worse).

Egalitarian worship at the Kotel and the insulting suspension of the compromise agreement reached with the Women of the Wall and the non-Orthodox movements (because it was vetoed after the fact by the extremist ultra-Orthodox parties) is but an additional example of the misguidedness of the notion that one can preserve and heal the bond merely by acting overseas, while refusing to accord equality and dignity at home.

The latter is a demonstration of cynicism on the part of the powers-that-be in Israel's political scene. First and foremost among them is the leader of the Jewish Home party Minister Naftali Bennett - Minister of Diaspora Affairs. Here again, the final language is one-sided. Israel will invest in projects aimed at preserving the Jewish Heritage in the Diaspora, but not Diaspora Jewish heritage and traditions within Israel. Clearly, this language was intended to block the possibility that a reciprocal language focusing on global Jewish unity would result with a claim that Diaspora Jewish pluralism should be introduced and shared with Israeli Jewry.

Moreover, the seemingly benign language of "cultural, historical, and religious heritage" in the hands of the likes of Minister Bennett has already been translated into investing tens of millions of dollars of Israeli tax monies in the work of Chabad and Olami / Aish - ultra-Orthodox operations among Jewish youth on campuses as a necessary means to save the next generation from assimilation. This is not a good faith expression of how Western Jewry views Jewish cultural, historical, and religious heritage, but rather - it's a slap in the face.

Hopefully Diaspora Jewish leaders will stand up against Israeli politically motivated and narrowly Orthodox oriented outreach to their communities. They should make it clear to Israeli leadership that a key to healing the partnership and nurturing Jewish unity in the future lies in respect for Jewish diversity and religious pluralism to be shown not only with empty verbiage, but with tangible changes in governmental policies.