Case Studies of Democracy

Freedom #2 – Case studies of Democracy Introduction While a People may choose to be free from religion in its governance, so too a People may choose to be allow religion to play a free role within the nation’s governance. And if this governance is freely elected by the People, then this too is a form of freedom.

When the State was founded in 1948, the Declaration of Independence became the mission statement of Israel. One of the intentions was to preserve the “Jewish character” of the State while also preserving the freedoms of the variety of people living here, Jews and non-Jews alike: “The State of Israel will be open for immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles…it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex…it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture and will safeguard the Holy places of all religions.” (Declaration of Independence, 1948)

How does Israel maintain the Jewish character of the State, while also maintaining freedoms? When there are different opinions about what “Jewish character” should look like, it can be challenging to create a unified governing body to preserve that character with many Jewish perspectives equally represented.

Culturally, however, Jewish traditions and sacred text play a central role in public life. There is one weekly day off in Israel – the Jewish Sabbath on Saturday. There is no public holiday at Christmas, New Year’s, or Easter: rather, Chanukah, Pesach, Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur and Sukkot are the Israelis’ holidays. Few Israelis dress up for Halloween, but the streets are full of costumes at Purim. The public bus system stops in Jerusalem for Shabbat, Bible is taught in public schools and the Rabbinate is in charge of official marriages, even if the couple isn’t Orthodox.

At the same time, about 75% of the country’s Jewish citizens see themselves as secular and don’t live their lives according to Jewish law1. In this session, we will explore what questions arise when Israel strives to be both democratic and Jewish.

1 A Portrait of Israeli Jews: http://www.idi.org.il/media/1026905/Abstract_GuttmanAviChai2012_Eng.pdf 1

Goals  Participants will discuss and analyze current case studies that involve balancing Jewish and Democratic values  Participants will develop a deeper understanding of the challenges that arise when trying to hold democratic and Jewish values together  Big Question: What happens when a state tries to be both Jewish and democratic?

Guiding Questions  How do you instill the Jewish character of the State while still preserving the personal freedoms of its individuals?  When Jews of all different backgrounds experience life cycle events, what are the responsibilities of the State vs. the Rabbinate when there are diverse needs and desires of the citizens?

Preparation for Facilitator 1. Because of the material in this session, we recommend reading some background information about Israel’s government, since students might ask you clarifying questions. Specifically, we recommend: https://www.knesset.gov.il/description/eng/eng_work_org.htm https://www.knesset.gov.il/description/eng/eng_work_chak1.htm https://www.knesset.gov.il/faction/eng/FactionMain_eng.asp 2. Make sure to read all of the articles and information prior to the session. Additionally, make sure to watch the Donniel Hartman video. If you have time, it would be helpful for you to fill out the chart for each case study, so you clearly understand both sides of each issue. 3. Decide how you want the participants to sign up for the case studies. In order to break up the partners clearly and efficiently, it is recommended to prepare pieces of paper in advance, with the names of each case study as the title and an allotted number of spots in each category where students can sign up. However, if you prefer not to do that, you could also announce each case study, and have them volunteer before they split up into chevruta. It is important that the group is dispersed equally among the 4 categories. 4. Make sure to set up a computer with the video ready to go. 5. Make sure the screen and projector are working and connected to the computer, and that your speakers are LOUD without distortion.

6. Have extra copies of the case studies ready in case students forget their handbooks. 7. Cut outs of each of the applicant’s claims (from the Brother Daniel case), folded with the number written on the paper 8. The verdicts of each case study, in a sealed envelope with the name of the case study on the envelope. 9. If you have time, it is recommended to read the first article under “Continuing Education” on page 31 entitled A Zionist State, a Binational State and an In- Between Jewish and Democratic State. This article thoughtfully outlines some of the suggested models for Israel as a State and will give provide you with some baseline knowledge that might be important to know prior to facilitating this session.

Pre-Session Assignment Instructions: Please read the following letter. All of the modern day case studies, which will be done in our session, will stem from the four categories that Ben Gurion addresses in his letter.

Background Information: In Israel, the term status quo (or the secular-religious status quo) refers to the political understanding between religious and secular political parties not to alter the communal arrangement in relation to religious matters, in a predominantly non-Orthodox population. The established Jewish religious communities in Israel desire to maintain and promote the orthodox religious character of the state, while the secular community wishes to reduce the impact of Orthodox regulations in their everyday lives. Occasionally, one political side seeks to make changes to inter- communal arrangements, and these are often met by fierce political opposition from the other side. The status quo is seen to preserve the established religious relations in Israel.

Ben Gurion’s Status Quo Letter of 1947 For over sixty years, Israel’s religious laws have been determined by the famous “status quo” agreement entered into before the state was founded. The following letter was written by David Ben-Gurion, (who at the time was the Chairman of the Jewish Agency – there was still no State of Israel) to Agudath Israel (the original political party representing the Haredi population of Israel) in order to form a united policy to present to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), which had commenced its fact-finding tour 4 days earlier. The letter was meant to address their concerns that the emerging State of Israel will be a secular one, which might hurt the status of religion and religious institutions, as well as the values of their followers. 3

From: The Jewish Agency for Palestine, etc. To: The World Organization of Agudath Israel, etc., Jerusalem

Dear Sirs,

The Agency’s Executive has learned from its chairman of your requests concerning guarantees on matters of matrimony, Shabbat, education, and kashrut in the Jewish state, once it is established in our days.

As you were informed by the Chairman of the Executive, neither the Agency’s Executive nor any other body in the country is authorized to determine the law of the Jewish state in advance. The establishment of the state requires the approval of the United Nations, and this is impossible unless freedom of conscience in the state is guaranteed to all its citizens, and unless it is clear that there is no intention of establishing a theocratic state. The Jewish state will also have non-Jewish citizens, Christians and Moslems, and, evidently, it will be necessary to ensure in advance full equal rights to all citizens and the absence of coercion or discrimination in matters of religion or in any other matter. We were satisfied to hear that you understand that there is no body authorized to determine in advance the constitution of the state, and that the state will be, in some spheres, free to determine its constitution and regime according to its citizens’ wishes.

Still, the Executive appreciates your demands, and is aware that these are matters that worry not only the members of Agudath Israel, but also many of the religious faithful in all Zionist parties or in no party, and it is sympathetic to your demands that the Agency’s Executive inform you of its position regarding the issues you have brought up, and what it is willing to do, as far as its influence and directives reach, in order to fulfill your wishes regarding the said issues. The Agency’s Executive has authorized the undersigned to formulate its position regarding the issues you have mentioned at the meeting. The position of the Agency’s Executive is as follows:

“A. Shabbat. It is clear that Saturday will be the legal day of rest in the Jewish state. Permission will naturally be given to Christians and to those practicing other religions to rest on their weekly day of rest.

“B. Kashrut. All means should be pursued to ensure that every state-run kitchen for the use of Jews serve kosher food.

“C. Marital Law. All the members of the Executive appreciate the seriousness of the problem and the grave difficulties pertaining to it, and all the bodies represented in the Agency’s Executive will do whatever possible to satisfy the deep need of the religiously observant in this matter, lest the House of Israel be divided in two.

“D. Education. Full autonomy will be guaranteed to every education network (incidentally, this policy already exists in the Zionist Federation and Knesset Yisroel) and the state will not infringe on the religious philosophy or the religious conscience of any part of the Jewish people. The state will naturally determine the minimum requirement of compulsory studies in Hebrew language, history, science, and so forth, and will supervise this minimum, but will allow full independence to each network to educate according to its outlook and will avoid any injury to the religious conscience.

Sincerely, On behalf of the Jewish Agency Executive, D. Ben-Gurion, Rabbi Y.L. Fishman, Y. Grinboim.”

Source: Israel in the Middle East: Documents and Reading on Society, Politics and Foreign Relations Edited by Itamar Rabinovich and Jehuda Reinharz

Additional Important Background Information: The Chief Rabbinate of Israel is recognized by law as the supreme ruler on Jewish law and spiritual authority for the Jewish people in Israel. The Chief Rabbinate Council assists the two chief rabbis, who alternate in its presidency. It has legal and administrative authority to organize religious arrangements for Israel's Jews. It also responds to halakhic questions submitted by Jewish public bodies in the Diaspora.

The Council sets guides, and supervises agencies within its authority. The Chief Rabbinate of Israel consists of two Chief Rabbis: an Ashkenazi rabbi and a Sephardi rabbi, also known as the Rishon leZion. The Chief Rabbis are elected for 10 year terms. The present Sephardi Chief Rabbi is Yitzhak Yosef and the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi is David Lau, both of whom commenced their terms in 2013.

The Rabbinate has jurisdiction over many aspects of life of Jews in Israel. Its jurisdiction includes personal status issues, such as Jewish marriages and Jewish divorce, as well as Jewish burial, conversion to Judaism, Kashrut and kosher certification, aliyah (immigration to Israel), supervision of Jewish holy sites, working with various mikvaot (ritual baths) and yeshivot (Jewish school, focused on the study of traditional texts), and overseeing Israeli Rabbinical courts.

The Rabbinical courts are part of Israel's judicial system, and are managed by the Ministry of Religious Services. The courts have exclusive jurisdiction over marriage and divorce of Jews and have parallel competence with district courts in matters of personal status, alimony, child support, custody, and inheritance. Religious court verdicts are implemented and enforced—as for the civil court system—by the police, bailiff's office, and other agencies. For more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Rabbinate_of_Israel

haˈkneset]; lit. the gathering or assembly; is the] ַה ְּכנֶ ֶסת :The Knesset (Hebrew unicameral national legislature of Israel. As the legislative branch of the Israeli government, the 120 Knesset members pass all laws, elects the President and Prime Minister (although the latter is ceremonially appointed by the President), approves the cabinet, and supervises the work of the government. In addition, the Knesset elects the State Comptroller.

Israel has an electoral system based on nation-wide proportional representation, and the number of seats which every political party receives in the Knesset, is proportional to the number of voters who voted for it. However, a party must receive at least 2% of the votes in order to be elected. According to this system, the voters vote for a political party, and not for a particular person on the list. Since the institution of the primaries system in some of the parties, these parties directly elect their candidates for the Knesset. Some of the parties elect their candidates via the party's institutions, for example, in the ultra-religious parties their spiritual leaders appoint the candidates. The Knesset elections take place once every four years, but the Knesset or the Prime Minister can decide to hold early elections, and under certain circumstances can serve for more than four years. The Knesset is located in Givat Ram, Jerusalem. The Knesset has de jure parliamentary supremacy, and can pass any law by a simple majority, even one that might arguably conflict with the Basic Laws of Israel, unless the basic law includes specific conditions for its modification; in accordance with a plan adopted in 1950, the Basic Laws can be adopted and amended by the Knesset, acting in its capacity as a Constituent Assembly. Israel has no formal constitution. In addition to the absence of a formal constitution,

and with no Basic Law thus far being adopted which formally grants a power of judicial review to the judiciary, the Supreme Court of Israel has in recent years asserted its authority, when sitting as the High Court of Justice, to invalidate provisions of Knesset laws it has found to be inconsistent with a Basic Law. The Knesset is presided over by a Speaker and a Deputy Speaker. For more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knesset

Questions for consideration:  Did you understand what was meant by the phrase with regards marriage: “Lest the House of Israel be divided in two”?  What were your initial reactions to the items discussed in the Status Quo letter? Were you surprised that these were the items being negotiated?  What do you think about the role of the Rabbinate? Does it seem to support or contradict Israel’s desire to be both Jewish and Democratic?  How is the Israeli government similar to the American government? How is it different?

Make it Modular Ideally, the session is done in its entirety. However, if time is limited, you should feel free to be selective about which components of this session you cover. To ensure alignment to the session's goals do not eliminate: Group Sharing of Case Studies The “Brother Daniel” activity The video of Donniel Hartman Part 2: Status Quo Case Studies

Planning Tip: when planning the session it is important to not only think about timing but also about what activities and materials are going to resonate the most with your students. It’s important to have a variety of activities for the variety of learners in the group and we recommend being thoughtful about this as you decide how to set up the session.

Materials Needed 1. Computer with the Donniel Hartman video loaded 2. Extra copies of the case studies and charts in case students forget their handbooks 3. Cut outs of each of the applicants claims (from the Brother Daniel case), folded with the number written on the paper 4. Extra pens 5. Copies of the ‘verdicts’ from each case study, sealed in an envelope with the title of the case study on the envelope 6. If you decide to have them sign up for case studies, have sheets of paper set out on a table with the names of each case study as the title and an allotted number of spots in each category where students can sign up. Don’t forget to put out pens!

Session Outline

Suggested Segment Description Time Briefly review last session and introduce this Introduction 5 minutes session Facilitator will read a famous court case Opening Activity: 20 minutes regarding the Law of Return and students will Brother Daniel participate Part 1: Jewish Students will listen to Donniel Hartman’s Democracy: Donniel 15 minutes charge addressing how Israel can strive to be Hartman’s Charge both Jewish and Democratic Based on Ben Gurion’s Status Quo agreement Part 2: Status Quo 40 minutes letter, students will explore modern day case Case Studies studies within the four categories The group will come back together and hear Part 3: Group the different positions of each case study and Presentations of Case 20 minutes will hear about the current status of each case Studies study. Conclusion Close this session and look forward to next Wrap Up 10 minutes session Looking Ahead

Introduction Note: The introduction is important as it functions as a bridge between sessions – reminding students about the material that was covered in the prior session and framing the material for the current session. Below are some suggested points to help you create that bridge between sessions. Note that we do not recommend reading the points below word for word.

NO Israel Update Since we will be spending the majority of our time looking at current case studies, there is no Israel update for this session. Review Last Session –2 minutes Last session: In our last session, we looked at how the free blend of Jewish and Public leads to all sorts of confusions, conflicts, and complexities. In some areas, the State does not take a stand. But on key fundamental issues, the interface between individual freedom, religious observance, and the law – the democratically elected government must make decisions. Introduce Current Session – 3 minutes Today we are going to explore how Israel strives to be both freely Jewish and freely democratic in an extremely diverse population with a plethora of needs. Reference/read out loud the Big Question as a way of framing the whole session.

Opening Activity: Brother Daniel Background Information for Facilitator: Persistent religious controversies within Israel have given rise to legal and political problems for the state. In what became known as the Brother Daniel case, a convert to Christianity applied for Israeli citizenship under the provisions of the Law of Return, and the courts were forced to deal with the problem of defining “who is a Jew.” The Supreme Court ruling, excerpted here, was a landmark decision that still stands. It has not, however, ended the controversy. Factions of the religious parties have frequently demanded a Knesset law giving the religious courts sole jurisdiction over defining “who is a Jew” as a condition for their participation in a government coalition. To date, these factions have been unsuccessful. Moreover, non- Orthodox religious movements have attempted to pass resolutions in recent Zionist congresses calling on the Israeli government to recognize marriages and conversions performed by their rabbis, thus, in effect, giving them some authority over defining “who is a Jew.”

Instructions: 1) Before reading the following story to the group, pass out the small, folded strips of paper with the verdicts on them to a few students. Ask them to hold the sheets of paper without opening them until you ask them to read them at the end of the story. 2) Before you start the story, the students will need some background about the Law of Return. Use the following paragraph to explain this law, so they understand the context for the story. Ask a student to read this paragraph out loud, adding some drama:  Israel's Basic Laws: An Introduction to the Law of Return Zionist ideology was premised upon the reconstitution of the Jews as a free, self-determining nation in their own state. In recognition of this aspiration, Israel’s Declaration of Independence declared: “The State of Israel will be open to the immigration of Jews and for the ingathering of exiles from all countries of their dispersion.” In 1950, this principle was given shape as the Law of Return, enshrining this Zionist principle within Israeli law. The Law of Return did not stem from ideology alone; it was also a practical measure. In the wake of the Holocaust, the first act of the new Israeli government was to abolish all restrictions on Jewish immigration. Israel, the government declared, would provide Jews the world over with safe haven from anti- Semitism. For more on this topic: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Politics/return.html

3) Then, tell the group you want to read them a story, and you will be asking them to respond to a question throughout the story, by raising their hands. At the suggested points, stop and ask the group if, by a show of hands, they think Daniel is Jewish.

The Brother Daniel Case The applicant was born in Poland, in 1922, to Jewish parents and received a Jewish upbringing. In his youth he was active in a Zionist youth movement, spending two years, approximately, in a pioneer training farm in preparation for his immigration to Palestine.

 Is he Jewish? (ask for a show of hands yes or no, then continue reading)

With the outbreak of war between Germany and Russia, in June 1941, he was imprisoned by the Gestapo, but fled. After managing to acquire a certificate stating that he was a German Christian, he became secretary and translator for the German police station in Mir, the district capital.

 Is he Jewish?

While in Mir, he used to notify the Jews of German plans for anti-Jewish actions. When he discovered the German intention of destroying the Mir ghetto, he informed the Jews of the city and the surrounding area and provided them with weapons. On the basis of this information, many fled from the ghetto and joined the partisans; most of the survivors now live in Israel. He was denounced, interrogated by the police and jailed, but once again he fled. For a long time he hid in a convent, and at the first opportunity, joined the ranks of the Russian partisans. The Russians suspected him of being a German spy and sentenced him to death, but he was saved thanks to evidence given in his favor by a Jewish survivor of Mir; in the end he received a Russian medal of honor for his partisan activity.

 Is he Jewish?

In 1942, during his stay in the convent, he converted to Christianity; in 1945 he became a priest, entering the Carmelite order because it would give him the opportunity to join the Carmelite monastery in Israel.

 Is he Jewish?

During the War of Independence in 1948, and many times after, he requested permission from his superiors to immigrate to Israel; his request was granted only in 1958. In all his appeals to the Polish authorities he emphasized that, despite his conversion to Christianity, he had never stopped thinking of himself as a nationalist Jew, tied heart and soul to the Jewish people.

 Is he Jewish?

Note to Facilitator: Before continuing, and sharing with the group what happened, take a few comments from the group by asking them, when they stopped raising their hand, why? For those who raised their hands until the end of the story, why did they continue raising their hands? Take 3-4 comments. Then read what happened:

What happened: The travel certificate issued to him by the Polish authorities was of the kind issued only to Jews immigrating to Israel and leaving Poland forever; as far as his native country was concerned, he left for Israel as a Jew. His request for an immigrant’s certificate and to be registered as a Jew on his identity card was refused by the Israeli minister of the interior on the basis of a government decision from July 20, 1958, which determines that only a person who declares in good faith that he is a Jew, and has no other religion, will be registered as a Jew.

Note to Facilitator: by this time the students will have been listening to your voice for a long time. In order to break up the reading, pass out slips of folded paper with the applicant’s claims. There should be numbers on the tops of the paper so it is easy for the students to read the claims in order, and so you can call on them easily.

The applicant’s claims were: 1) That the concept “nationality” is not identical with the concept “religion” and that a Jew by nationality need not be a Jew by religion; 2) That according to Jewish religious law (halacha) he is a Jew because he is the son of Jewish parents; 3) That the decision of the government from July 20, 1958, which served as the basis for the minister of the interior’s refusal, has no legal basis and is therefore not binding; 4) That the minister of the interior’s refusal to grant him rights is arbitrary, that it is based on considerations outside the legal framework, that it is an affront to the law and to the rights of the applicant, and that it constitutes an act of discrimination against him.

Facilitator reads: On the basis of the above claims, the minister of the interior was served with an order nisi2 to come and explain his reasons for not granting the applicant an immigrant’s certificate in accordance with paragraph 7 of the Registration of

2 The term given to the order to request a thing be done within a certain period of time. (Black’s Law Dictionary)

Inhabitants Ordinance (1949), in which it would be registered in the column “Nationality” that the applicant is Jewish. The court ruled that while the national term "Jew" did not necessarily imply the practice of religious Judaism, "in common parlance" it could not be applied to someone who practiced another faith. As a practicing Catholic, therefore, he could not be recognized by the State of Israel as a Jew and thus could not immigrate under the Law of Return.

Source: Supreme Court Decision 72/62, Osvald Rufeisen v. Minister of the Interior, In the Supreme Court Sitting as a Supreme Court of Justice (March 14, November 19, December 6, 1962). “Israel in the Middle East: Documents and Readings on Society, Politics and Foreign Relations, 1948-Present.

If you have time, take a few reactions about the results of this story from the group.

Transition: This famous and tough case study is one of many that Israel faces when striving to be both Jewish and Democratic. As you can see from this story, the lines aren’t always clear when trying to make decisions that affect the future of the Jewish State and its diverse population.

On the one hand, the Law of Return was put in place to ensure that the Jewish people would have a place of refuge – it would be dumb to set up a State for the Jews if Jews couldn’t gain swift entrance, yet on the other hand this put the State in a position to make decisions that to many would seem discriminatory or undemocratic.

Today as we delve into more of the modern-day issues that arise when Israel strives to be both Jewish and democratic, it would be useful to work with some framework in mind. In order to help us set up a framework for this discussion, we are now going to hear from a leading contemporary thinker, Donniel Hartman, about how Israel might strive to be both democratic and Jewish.

Rabbi Dr. Donniel Hartman is President of the Shalom Hartman Institute. Donniel is the founder of some of the most extensive education, training and enrichment programs for scholars, educators, rabbis, and religious and lay leaders in Israel and North America.

Part 2: The Charge for Jewish and Democratic – 15 minutes Instructions: Please watch the following video from the Shalom Hartman Institute:

Full talk: from 33:00-1:00:24: http://youtu.be/CItRaKcNpEM?t=32m46s If there is time, take a few comments/reactions: What is one comment or idea that particularly struck you?

Transition: Keeping Donniel Hartman’s charge in mind: can Israel be as Jewish as democracy allows, and not as democratic as Judaism allows?

We are now going to turn our attention to some contemporary case studies. In the homework that you read for today, Ben Gurion addressed four key areas in his Status Quo letter: Shabbat, Kashrut (Dietary Laws), Marital Law, and (Jewish) Education. By exploring the various case studies in these areas, we are going to check how Israel is doing in these areas, 66 years after these agreements were made.

Use the instructions below to explain the activity before breaking them into partners. Part 2: The Status Quo Today: Case Studies – 40 minutes Chevruta study Instructions: 1) Each Chevruta should pick one case study to explore. At the end of the session, the group will come back together and share their case study, so it is important that each topic is represented. Therefore, you should limit the amount of people for each case study and try to disperse the group equally among the topics. 2) Unpacking the case studies: “Constructive Controversy” is a technique that can be used to help the students more deeply understand both sides of an issue by literally “trying on” both sides of the issue in order to develop empathy for multiple positions. While in chevruta, they should read the material and make sure they clearly understand the issues in the case study. (The chart provided will help them) Only after they understand both sides should they start discussing their own opinion of the situation. 3) Discussion: Then, they should use the chevruta discussion questions to unpack the article(s) with their partner. 4) Presentation: During the last five minutes, they should decide which perspective they are going to present to the group. Each member of the pair should pick a different side, so they can present multiple sides of the issue to the larger group. Even if they don’t agree with the side they are presenting, the point is for them to understand it enough to present it. The goal of this exercise is to help them understand both sides of the issue, and hopefully develop empathy for both sides. 5) Verdict: After their chevruta study is completed, the group will come back together, students will share the details of their case study, and then the “answer” or “verdict” will be read for that issue. 6) Note: Make sure to let the group know that when the “Status Quo” is brought up in the article(s) they are referring about Ben Gurion’s letter.

Case Study 1. Should Public Buses be allowed on Shabbat in Tel Aviv?

Instructions: 1) Decide which person in your group will keep the time. You will be presenting your case study to the group at the end of the session, so it’s important you are ready by the end of this activity. 2) Read the background information as preparation for the case study. Then read one article and fill in the chart. Lastly, read the second article and complete the chart. (15 minutes) 3) Discuss this case with your chevruta, using the discussion questions as a guide. (15 minutes) 4) Each of you should pick two different issues from the case study, which you will be presenting to the group. The majority of the group has not read your case study, and you will be presenting this in a style that a lawyer would present to a jury, so make sure to make your presentation is clear and lively! (10 minutes)

Background Information: Observing the Sabbath, when no work is permitted, in public was an issue which greatly engaged decision makers in Israel in its early years. As a rule, the leaders of the country supported the state's obligation to avoid, as much as possible, desecration of the Sabbath in public, but rejected any interference in people's private behavior. A topic that came up repeatedly was work in essential industries on the Sabbath. As the country was struggling for economic survival and wanted to step up production as much as possible, the leaders believed that work on the Sabbath in essential factories should be allowed. They even expected the Chief Rabbinate to issue certificates of Kashrut (body of religious laws concerning the suitability of food) to food processing plants that worked on the Sabbath, which they considered to be essential. http://www.archives.gov.il

Article 1: Time for Israel to allow buses on the Sabbath Israel has to get over its obsession with its religious character and be a country for all its citizens – including the non- religious and non-Jewish By Seth Freedman 4/6/2012

Walk around Tel Aviv on any given Saturday, and religious fervor is the last thing you'll encounter. The people vote with their sandal-clad feet, which carry them from Tel Aviv: considering allowing public transport to operate on Shabbat.

grocer's shop to cafe to golden mile of sand without the slightest inclination to walk into a synagogue – and in a free country it should be their cast-iron right to do just that. Yet the vagaries of a country defiantly defining itself along religious lines are disrupting the lives of millions of Israel's citizens every weekend, and there seems precious little the state is prepared to do about it.

In February, the Tel Aviv municipality approved a resolution to petition the transport ministry to allow public transport to operate in the city on Shabbat (the Sabbath), but the idea was rejected outright by the transport minister Yisrael Katz. This week, members of the leftwing Meretz party took the case to the high court, arguing that Katz is obliged by Israeli law to consider the proposal. Given the secular character of the vast majority of Tel Aviv – whose roads heave with private cars round the clock, and whose beaches boast thousands of near-naked youths packed together like sardines every Shabbat – such a proposition seems hardly out of place. Yet the establishment is up in arms about the plans, and is mobilizing its “troops” to prevent any change to the status quo.

As is the case so often in internal Israeli politics, the religious factions are throwing a spanner in the works, with the likes of Tel Aviv chief rabbi Lau expressing his "deep disappointment and pain" at the idea that buses should run on the Sabbath. Forbidding public transport on Shabbat is a decidedly hypocritical stance when everything from state TV to state FA-run football leagues to state-run public facilities are allowed to operate on Shabbat in direct contravention to religious law. Were Israel to rigidly enforce the laws of the Sabbath on its entire populace, there would be a revolution before the Shabbat siren could sound its first notes, as the government knows only too well. Instead, the state clings desperately to ludicrous notions that by banning public transport on Shabbat, the Jewish nature of the country is somehow reinforced, despite the majority of the population neither adhering to, nor caring about, religious laws and statutes. And that's just the Jewish citizens – as for non-Jewish Israelis, their rights mean even less when it comes to state provision of services in this instance.

For those for whom Saturday is neither Sabbath nor sacred, why should they be denied the right to public transport on their one day off in the week, just to pander to the rights of one religious group? The answer is, of course, that the state is not interested in giving Christian and Muslim citizens any say in such matters – as rightwing politicians like to say: if you don't like the rules, no one is keeping you here, and don't forget to shut the door behind you when you leave.

But the worm is turning, and Meretz's case in the high court will be a major test of Israel's self-proclaimed definition as a democratic state for all its citizens. The country 18

being held hostage by religious parties is hardly news – the decades-old argument about national service for yeshiva students is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to secular-religious warfare. But in this case, the state is firmly on the side of the ultra- orthodox, albeit for different reasons. The moment that you argue that Israel should be entirely secular, and that there should be no religious trappings, you lose the case for Israel. Those who champion Israel as a Jewish state are compelled to require it to have a Jewish identity of some description, and in that context Shabbat is a major icon.

But banning buses operating on Shabbat is shutting the stable door long after the horse has bolted down to the beachside cafe for a seafood salad. The vast majority of Israelis want the freedom to eat what they want, dress how they want, and travel where and when they want by whatever mode of transport is most suitable. For those who can't afford a car or taxi fare, cutting off public transport means isolating them on the one day a week when they most want the liberty to roam.

Israel has to get over its obsession with its religious character, and fast. It must be a country for all its citizens, and if that means changing the status quo to suit the modern, secular demographic of cities such as Tel Aviv, then so be it. You can break Shabbat in a million ways in Tel Aviv, and making it a million and one by running buses to assist the poorer residents is hardly a game-changing proposition. And by doing so, non-Jewish citizens might just get a much-needed glimmer of hope that their needs are being catered for as well, rather than feeling perpetually second-class and sidelined.

For full article: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/apr/06/sabbath-buses-israel

 Understanding the Article: Using your chart (found on page __), make a list of the arguments in favor of allowing buses to run on Shabbat.

Article 2. Haredi politicians say Shabbat buses won’t happen Deputy Mayor Naftali Lubert (United Torah Judaism ) called the decision 'cheap, Meretz spin,' referring to the left-wing party. By Yair Ettinger | Feb. 22, 2012 |

Ultra-Orthodox politicians refused to be daunted Tuesday by the Tel Aviv city council’s resolution to sanction buses on Shabbat, saying the move would be defeated soon enough.

Deputy Mayor Naftali Lubert (United Torah Judaism ) called the decision “cheap, Meretz spin,” referring to the left-wing party. Similarly, Shas MKs completely ignored the decision on the assumption that it would be overridden in the city government or by Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz. A Shas official said the party refused to “be dragged into an argument that would portray Shas as primitive Haredim who prevent the secular community from having fun on Shabbat.”

But Tel Aviv Chief Rabbi Meir Lau slammed the resolution, saying that it “shamed the history of Tel Aviv-Jaffa, founded 103 years ago as the first Hebrew city. The former chief rabbi of Israel quoted historical Tel Aviv figures such as national poet Hayim Nahman Bialik, Zionist thinker Ahad Ha’am and the city’s first mayor, Meir Dizengoff all opposed desecration of Shabbat. Lau quoted a 1933 pamphlet by Dizengoff stating that “we called several times on the Tel Aviv public to refrain from public desecration of Shabbat, an act that hurts the feelings of the Haredi public and the good reputation of Tel Aviv as a pure Hebrew city.”

Lau said he felt “pain and deep disappointment due to the council’s recommendation to operate public transportation on Shabbat. It’s a wound to Shabbat’s holiness, which commemorates the Creation and the Exodus from Egypt. It’s a day of rest for every worker and a day for spiritual elation and family unity.” Lau appealed to Tel Aviv Mayor Ron Huldai not to “put out the Shabbat candle.” He also urged the interior and transportation ministries not to approve the resolution. They should preserve the sanctity “of Shabbat in the public sphere, as befitting the Jewish State.”

The organization of Tzohar Rabbis, a moderate religious-Zionist group, called on the city council “not to seriously harm Israel’s Jewish character without a serious public debate.” Tzohar’s chairman, David Stav, said in a statement: “despite the city’s image, most of its inhabitants are traditional Jews who care about Shabbat. Many secular residents “yearn for quiet” on Shabbat, he added. “The financial motive to help businesses and young people cannot be the municipality’s main consideration.”

Additional Thoughts to Consider: The rights of the drivers. The drivers themselves have the right to rest from their work. If the buses run on Shabbat, someone has to drive the buses and this would mean working on Shabbat. For the drivers who aren’t Sabbath observant, or not Jewish, it might not be such a big deal. But for the drivers who are Shabbat observant, this law could marginalize them.

 Understanding the Article: Using your chart (found on page __), make a list of the arguments against allowing buses to run on Shabbat.

Discussion Questions: After reading both of the articles and filling in the chart, discuss the following with your Chevruta: 1. Using the chart, pick one argument in favor and one argument against to discuss with your chevruta. Even if you prefer one perspective to another, make sure you at least understand both perspectives. 2. By allowing buses to run on Shabbat, do you think it will affect the “Jewish Character” of Tel Aviv? 3. One of the arguments for allowing the buses to run is to enable the poorer and non-Jewish residents to be able to travel on Shabbat. With only rich car-owning people able to move around in a city of residents who largely do not keep Shabbat, what does this say about the notion of freedom? 4. Is this a case of Israel being as Democratic as Judaism will allow, or as Jewish as Democracy will allow, or neither? 5. Can you imagine a similar debate happening in your hometown or city? Why or why not? How do you think the various voices would react in a public debate? 6. How do you think this issue would be seen by the original State Quo agreement? How do you imagine it would look to change the Status Quo? 7. Lastly, prepare your thoughts for the group presentation. (See item #4 above under “Instructions”)

Case Study 2. Marriage in Israel: Civilly in Cyprus or Religiously with the Rabbinate?

Background Information: Marriages in Israel can be performed under the auspices of the religious community to which couples belong, or for people who have proven to lack any religion, a "couplehood union" with rights and responsibilities akin to marriage, can be performed. Matrimonial law is based on the Millet or confessional community system employed in the Ottoman Empire, which was not modified during the British Mandate and remains in force in the State of Israel.

There are nine officially recognized Christian communities, and Jewish, Muslim and Druze communities. Marriages in each community are under the jurisdiction of their own religious authorities. The religious authority for Jewish marriages performed in Israel is the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and the Rabbinical courts. The Israeli Interior Ministry registers marriages on presentation of proper documentation. Registration does not in itself validate a marriage, and lack of registration does not invalidate one. However, civil, interfaith and same-sex marriages entered into abroad are recognized by the state.

Article 1: Israel Couples Say 'I Don't' to Orthodox Marriage — Opt for Civil Ceremonies Growing Numbers Shun Rabbinate Monopoly on Rites BY MAAYAN LUBELL Forward.com, Nov 20th, 2013

JERUSALEM — For most Israelis in the Jewish state, there is one legal way to get married - God’s way. Israeli law empowers only Orthodox rabbis to officiate at Jewish weddings, but popular opposition is growing to this restriction and to what some Israelis see as an Orthodox stranglehold on the most precious moments of their lives. Some of Israel’s most popular TV Newlyweds stroll down Tel Aviv's Rothschild Boulevard (photo credit: Mama Photography) stars and models have come out this week in an advertisement supporting a new bill allowing civil marriage. A political storm is likely when it eventually comes up for a vote in parliament.

The Rabbinate, the Orthodox religious authority that issues marriage licenses in Israel, says it is charged with a task vital for the survival of the Jewish people, and a recent poll showed more Israelis oppose civil unions than support them. Nevertheless, many Israelis want either a secular wedding or a religious marriage conducted by a non- Orthodox rabbi. Facebook pages have been popping up, with defiant couples calling on others to boycott the Rabbinate. In September, Stav Sharon, a 30-year-old Pilates instructor, married her husband in an alternative ceremony performed in Israel by a non-Orthodox rabbi. “We wanted a Jewish wedding despite being secular. We feel connected to our Judaism, even if we are not religious. It is our people, our tradition,” Sharon said.

Weddings such as Sharon’s fall into a legal no man’s land. They are not against the law, but neither are they recognized as valid by the Interior Ministry, which is responsible for registering marital status on the national identity card every Israeli is required to carry. In a twist in the law, the ministry will register as married any Israeli couple that weds abroad - even in a non-religious ceremony - outside the purview of the Israeli rabbinate. Some couples hop on the short flight to Cyprus to marry. The Czech Republic is another popular destination for Israelis wanting a civil wedding. Sharon and her husband 23

decided against that option. “Marrying abroad means giving in. We wanted to marry in our own country,” she said.

No formal records are kept on the officially invalid alternative ceremonies held in Israel. According to the Central Bureau of Statistics, nearly 39,000 Jewish couples married via the Rabbinate in 2011. About 9,000 couples registered that year as having married overseas.

Muslims, Druze and Christians in Israel are also required to marry through their own state-recognised religious authorities, making interfaith weddings possible only overseas.

The Rabbinate says it is charged with preventing intermarriage and assimilation with non-Jewish communities, which would endanger their people’s survival. Ziv Maor, the Rabbinate’s spokesman, said strict adherence to Orthodox ritual law and practices had bonded Jews across the globe and set common rules for all. “A Moroccan Jew knew he could marry a Jewish woman from Lithuania,” he said. “Rabbinical law guides us in a very clear way on who is Jewish and who is not, and we do not have permission from past or future generations to stray even a hair’s breadth from those criteria.

GAY MARRIAGE There are other groups to whom marriage is forbidden by rabbinical law. Same-sex marriage, as in other religions, is out of the question as far as the Rabbinate is concerned. Israel’s Interior Ministry recognises gay marriage - but only if it is conducted in a foreign country where it is legal.

At least two parties in the coalition government are promoting a bill to allow civil marriage in Israel, including for same-sex couples. One of them is Yesh Atid, which tapped into anti-religious sentiment in last January’s national election and finished in second place. “It cannot be that people who do not believe or whose lifestyle does not suit the Rabbinate will be forced to get married by people whose way is not their own,” Yesh Atid head Yair Lapid told Israel Radio this month.

But tradition could die hard in Israel. A poll published in November in the Israeli newspaper, Maariv, showed that while 41 percent of Jewish Israelis supported Yesh Atid’s Civil Union bill, 47 percent objected.

Such bills have been floated at Israel’s parliament before. But for the first time in years, ultra-Orthodox parties, which oppose civil marriage, are not in the government. Yesh Atid believes it has enough votes from lawmakers across the board to pass the law in 24

the next few months. The Rabbinate says it will oppose the measure strongly. “Matters of marriage, divorce and conversion are our most important fortress. It must not be touched and we will defend it fiercely,” said Maor.  Understanding the Article: Using your chart (found on page __), make a list of the arguments on both sides, found in this article.

Article 2: New bill would legalize civil marriage, extend right to gays Groundbreaking Yesh Atid proposal comes under fire from Jewish Home; sponsors insist it ‘is not an attack on halachic marriage’ Haviv Rettig Gur Times of Israel, October 29th, 2013

Fresh from the dramatic passage on Monday of the Tzohar bill allowing Israelis to choose their marriage registrar and rabbi, the Knesset is set to take up an even more sweeping reform in Israeli marriage law. The Yesh Atid faction presented a bill on Tuesday that seeks to legalize, for the first time, non-religious marriage in Israel. Currently, all Israeli marriages are legally valid only if they are conducted in formal state religious institutions, whether through the Jewish rabbinate, Muslim sharia institutions, Catholic canon courts or a handful of other recognized, state-funded religious denominations. This legal situation, inherited from the Ottoman era, has meant that some 300,000 non-Jewish immigrants who have Jewish relatives and are eligible to immigrate to Israel as Jews under Israeli law cannot marry at all, as the rabbinate does not consider them Jews under Jewish law and will not perform a wedding service for them with either Jews or non-Jews. Similarly, non-Orthodox (and, more recently, some Orthodox) converts to Judaism have been unable to marry under Israeli law. Until today, the only way for many of these Israelis to marry was to do so abroad. The new bill, written primarily by MKs Ruth Calderon and Aliza Lavie, both from Yesh Atid, would create a completely secular, egalitarian marriage track that would grant couples the legal protections of marriage without forcing them to go through the state religious systems.

“We have no interest in challenging the religious establishment or other [political] parties,” Yesh Atid chairman Yair Lapid said Tuesday. “Our own religious MKs, who include two rabbis [Education Minister Shai Piron and MK Dov Lipman], were intimately involved in writing the bill. Our only goal is to give every Israeli citizen – Jewish or non- Jewish, gay or straight – the opportunity to have their country recognize their right to love.” The bill creates “a civil agreement for a shared life between two people,” according to Calderon. Far from being “an attack on halachic marriage,” she said, the bill 25

“does not overstep into the rabbinate’s territory. Its goal is to enable any couple that can’t or doesn’t want to marry in the rabbinate to live meaningful lives without losing their civil rights.” The goal, Calderon concluded, “is to bring a bill that befits a Jewish, sane, welcoming state.”

Before the ink on the new bill had a chance to dry, criticism from more conservative MKs could be heard on Tuesday afternoon. MK Yoni Chetboun of the Jewish Home party, for one, slammed the bill for attempting to introduce “civil marriage and homosexual marriage.” His response? “It’s not right and it won’t happen.” The Jewish people “went through exile and pain, and established a state, because it has always accepted its past, its heritage, and maintained its uniqueness as a people. Initiatives like these are an attempt to divide the Jewish people into two nations. It simply won’t happen!” Chetboun’s concern, shared by many ultra-Orthodox MKs and others, is that allowing non-halachic marriage could lead to marriages proscribed under Jewish law, and thus, in the next generation, to different groups of Jews who cannot marry each other. The bill could face an uphill battle if the Jewish Home party decides to oppose it. The coalition agreement on which the current government was founded grants Jewish Home a veto for any changes to the status quo on religion and state.

But Yesh Atid officials are already insisting that the bill does not change the status quo, since it does not touch any power currently granted to religious authorities. It merely creates a parallel civil track that will be recognized for civil purposes. This argument is no mere rhetoric. The bill painstakingly divides the new civil marriage registrar from the religious system, including excluding from civil marriage those who are already married through religious registrars. Yesh Atid is strongly committed to the bill, say party officials. Instituting civil marriage was a key election promise made by the newly- founded party in January’s legislative elections. The final version submitted to the Knesset Presidency on Tuesday was signed by 13 MKs, all members of Yesh Atid.

Perhaps speaking for many Yesh Atid voters, MK Yoel Razbozov, a former Israeli judo champion, recalled his own overseas marriage on Tuesday. “To serve in the army and represent Israel – that they let me do, but to marry – that the state kept from me,” Razbozov said. “In the end, I took my family to Cyprus, and purchased at great expense the basic right to ratify my love,” he added, referring to his civil marriage in Cyprus to his wife Irena. “The Civil Marriage Bill we proposed today … will solve once and for all the problems encountered by those who want to ratify their relationship in this country without going through the rabbinate,” he said. Yesh Atid hopes to pass the bill into law in the current session, officials said.

Haviv Rettig Gur is The Times of Israel's political correspondent. Full article: 26

 Understanding the Article: Using your chart (found on page __), make a list of the arguments on both sides, found in this article.

After reading both of the articles and filling in the chart, discuss the following with your Chevruta:

1. Using the chart, pick one argument in favor and one argument against to discuss with your chevruta. Even if you prefer one perspective to another, make sure you at least understand both perspectives. 2. Why do Israel’s citizens want the ability to be married civilly and not through the Rabbinate? 3. For those who disagree with this new bill, why do they want to keep the decision-making power regarding marriage in the hands of the Rabbinate? 4. Is this a case of Israel being as Democratic as Judaism will allow, or as Jewish as Democracy will allow, or neither? 5. Can you imagine a similar debate happening in your hometown or city? Why or why not? How do you think the various voices would react in a public debate? 6. How do you think this issue would be seen by the original State Quo agreement? How do you imagine it would look to change the Status Quo? 7. Lastly, prepare your thoughts for the group presentation. (See item #4 above under “Instructions”)

Case Study 3. Pork: The Forbidden White Meat?

Instructions: 1) Decide which person in your group will keep the time. You will be presenting your case study to the group at the end of the session, so it’s important you are ready by the end of this activity. 2) Read the background information as preparation for the case study. Then read the article and fill in the chart. (15 minutes) 3) Have a discussion with your chevruta, using the discussion questions as a guide. (15 minutes) 4) Each of you should pick two different issues from the case study, which you will be presenting to the group. The majority of the group has not read your case study, and you will be presenting this in a style that a lawyer would present to a jury, so make sure to make your presentation is clear and lively! (10 minutes)

Background Information: Pork, and the refusal to eat it, possesses powerful cultural baggage for Jews. Israel has legislated two related laws: the Pork Law in 1962, that bans the rearing and slaughter of pigs across the country, and the Meat Law of 1994, prohibiting all imports of nonkosher meats into Israel. While not abounding, Israeli pork- eaters certainly exist, and a small number of pig-breeding farms operate in the country, mostly in Christian villages. The influx of Russian immigrants in the 1990s helped boost sales of pork, but the force of the taboo remains so powerful that many secular Israelis still eschew pork dishes, while willing to eat less charged non-kosher items such as shellfish. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21542211

Israel’s Pork Problem What a change to one of the most controversial laws in Israeli history could mean for the country’s Christian Arabs. By Jeffrey Yoskowitz, Aug, 8, 2012

On the eve of Israel’s independence in 1948, as the new nation faced the challenge of building a country in the midst of war, early leaders debated many hot-button issues: what to do with Arab refugees; how to settle hundreds of thousands of immigrants; and, perhaps most unexpectedly, should raising pigs be permitted.

Pork was so controversial not just because its tasty incarnations are

forbidden under Jewish law, but because the nature of Israel’s Jewish character was seen as an issue that would define the young state. Politicians and writers all weighed in on the subject. While Orthodox politicians made their case on religious grounds, even Natan Alterman, a secular poet, saw the symbolic importance of a nationwide pork ban. He wrote in a Mapai party newspaper column, “When a Jewish nation makes a pig a sine qua non, its history shudders.” Yet, many socialist Zionists philosophically rejected basing national dietary laws on traditional Judaism. Secular journalist Meir Bareli, who appreciated the gravity of the pork taboo, saw the cheap price of pork during a decade long meat shortage as a primary reason to keep its production unrestricted.

The story of Israel’s contemporary pork industry dates back 50 years, when the Knesset passed a law banning the production of pork in Israel. The law—considered to be one of the most controversial in Israeli history—was designed with a loophole that permitted raising hogs in majority Christian regions in the North as a concession to Israel’s religious minorities and the young democracy. As a result, Christian-Arab towns became hog country. Although ultra-Orthodox politicians over the years have attempted to fully ban pork production, the law has limited the growth of the industry while simultaneously protecting Christian pork interests.

When pigs are the topic of the day, they usually get caught in the middle of a political firestorm… moving Israel’s hogs would most likely disassociate pig farming from Israel’s Christians and could spell the beginning of the end for both Israeli-grown ham and the livelihood of Christian Arabs.

Pork is often considered more verboten than shrimp or crab (also not kosher) because over the course of millennia various peoples have persecuted Jews by singling out the pork taboo to humiliate and punish them. Greeks forced Jews to eat pork against their will during the Jerusalem conquests in 167 B.C.; the Spanish forced Jews to eat pork to prove their newfound allegiance to the Catholic Church during the Inquisition. Pork is therefore more than just a food restriction in Israel; it is symbolic of broader conflict within Israeli society, reflecting not just prosciutto preferences but, more importantly, the delicate balancing of secular and religious interests in a Jewish democracy. Over the years, religious Israelis and their secular counterparts have grown divided and tensions over religious restrictions on society have been a consistent source of political strife. Pork is a particularly thorny issue in this regard: Many secular Israelis enjoy openly, and many ultra-Orthodox Israelis try to fully ban—and have tried for decades—just as they have supported banning buses from riding on the Sabbath and shunning women who dress immodestly. Until the 1990s, the Israeli pork industry was somewhat clandestine, but with an influx of immigrants from the former Soviet Union and a progressive Supreme Court, pork became more common in Israel. As the political tide of the nation 29

has swung to the right under Benjamin Netanyahu, certain pork eaters have reason to fear that the religious interests in government will attempt—as they have done many times prior—to limit pork production in Israel.

The recent government panel’s report recommends that Israel move its pig farms to the South where the creatures can have more space, and that Israel adopt “the European [Union] directive on the matter of animal rights.” Israel could very well enforce stricter standards on its existing farms rather foot the bill to relocate 26 industrial operations, though when asked, the Ministry of Agriculture did not respond to my question on the matter. “There is a problem with ecology," Vered acknowledged, "but in a way, most of them [Christian Arab pig farmers] feel that people are using this issue just to attack them because they are pork raisers, not because of concrete ecological problems.” If the initiative passes, the implications for the fate of Christian Arab local economy would be grave, in a region that has seen its Christian numbers dwindling. Plus, Christian Arabs are unlikely to abandon the villages they’ve populated for generations to relocate to the harsh desert climate.

Ultimately there is a chance that all Israeli pork eaters could be the losers, not just Israel’s Christians. As it stands, the minister of interior must assess the panel’s recommendations and if he accepts them, begin the process of revisiting Israel’s pork laws. Eli Yishai, the minister in question, heads the ultra-Orthodox Shas party whose constituents regularly rally for pork to be banned and who criticize Russian Israelis for eating forbidden flesh. Once the law is revised to no longer stipulate that pig farming is legal within Christian zones, banning hog farms completely may be within reach. The recent report noted that Yishai “not hesitate to deal with the issue, given that pigs are considered the epitome of non-kosher animals,” an indication of the religious biases of the panel.

Jeffrey Yoskowitz is a writer based in New York. He edits the blog Pork Memoirs and is writing a book about the Israeli pork industry. Full article: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2012/08/israel_s_pork_problem_and_w hat_it_means_for_the_country_s_christian_arabs_.2.html

 Understanding the Article: Using your chart (found on page __), make a list of the arguments on both sides, found in this article.

After reading the article and filling in the chart, discuss the following with your Chevruta: 1. Using the chart, pick one argument in favor and one argument against to discuss with your chevruta. Even if you prefer one perspective to another, make sure you at least understand both perspectives. 2. If Israel’s secular citizens want to freely eat pork in public spaces, do you think they should be able to? 3. If your fellow students wished to eat horse steaks in public spaces, do you think they should be able to? 4. If Israel’s ultra-Orthodox leaders were ever successful in outlawing pork, do you think that would have a significant effect on the Jewish character of the State? 5. If the Arab Christian pig farmers farm is moved or even banned, it would likely hurt their livelihood. Do you think that would be an appropriate solution in a country that is striving to be both Jewish and democratic? 6. Is this a case of Israel being as Democratic as Judaism will allow, or as Jewish as Democracy will allow, or neither? 7. Can you imagine a similar debate happening in your hometown or city? Why or why not? What if someone wished to set up a dog farm, for the purposes of breeding dogs for food? How do you think the various voices would react in a public debate? 8. How do you think this issue would be seen by the original State Quo agreement? How do you imagine it would look to change the Status Quo? 9. Lastly, prepare your thoughts for the group presentation. (See item #4 above under “Instructions”)

Case Study 4. Education: What should be the “Core Curriculum?”

Instructions: 1) Decide which person in your group will keep time. You will be presenting your case study to the group at the end of the session, so it’s important that you are ready by the end of this activity. 2) Read the background information as preparation for the case study, then read one article and fill in the chart. Then do the same for the other article. (15 minutes) 3) Have a discussion with your chevruta, using the discussion questions as a guide. (15 minutes) 4) Each of you should pick two different issues from the case study, which you will be presenting to the group. The majority of the group has not read your case study, and you will be presenting this in a style that a lawyer would present to a jury, so make sure to make your presentation is clear and lively! (10 minutes)

Background Information: The state has taken on a "melting pot" mentality to education, meaning they back all religious schools and teachings of religions as long as they follow the mandated structure set by the Ministry of education. Religion plays a large role in the education of all students in Israel. Israeli state schools all share a ministry of education, however Arab and Jewish schools are largely segregated with most Arab students going to Arab schools and most Jewish students going to Jewish schools. Similarly, Arab schools have primarily Arab teachers who teach Hebrew only as a second language. The divide in Israeli schools based on ethnic identification leads to a divide on religious studies taught in schools, with the state backing both methods of teaching. In Israeli Jewish schools, Judaism is seen as a part of the heritage and culture of Israel and so the teaching of Jewish holidays and religious practices is seen as crucial to the understanding of the state. The Torah and other Jewish practices are studied in a critical manner to understand the identity of a majority of the Israeli population. In fact, bible education is so important in Israel that in 2007 the "Public Committee for Bible Education" was established to further encourage the teachings of the bible in order to close the growing gap between the secular and religious members of society. In this way, state non-religious schools are still being taught the general guiding principles of the majority of Israel's society.

Article 1: Haredi leaders fight Israeli core curriculum Haredi leaders to meet Monday to discuss threats by gov't that haredi schools teach the state core curriculum By Jeremy Sharon, 04/21/2013

Senior haredi leaders have called a conference for Monday night to discuss challenges facing the ultra-Orthodox education system, including what the community sees as threats by the government to insist that haredi schools teach the state core curriculum. The haredi leadership is increasingly concerned that the independence of its school network is coming under attack, especially in light of recent comments by the education minister, Rabbi Shai Piron, of the Yesh Atid party. Piron said earlier this month that under the reforms he was planning, any school that does not teach the state core curriculum subjects would receive no state funding whatsoever. Sources in the United Torah Judaism haredi party have described Piron as “the most dangerous man in Israel for the haredi community.” Rabbi Aharon Leib Shteinman, spiritual leader of the Ashkenazi haredi world, is set to speak at the conference, which will take place in Bnei Brak. Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky and other prominent haredi rabbis are expected to attend as well.

Under the current arrangement with the Education Ministry, Ashkenazi haredi elementary schools receive from the state between 55 and 75 percent of the budget allotted to non-haredi schools, and are expected to teach a corresponding proportion of the state core curriculum. In practice, however, this is extremely rare – haredi elementary schools teach far less of the state core curriculum than is expected; the overwhelming majority of haredi high schools teach no secular subjects whatsoever.

On Friday, the Council of Torah Sages of the Agudat Yisrael movement, which represents the hassidic strain of Israel’s haredi population, issued a declaration in two hassidic newspapers calling on the government not to interfere in the haredi education system by enforcing the teaching of core curriculum subjects.

“We are commanded to stand firm against the attempts of the authorities to force changes, God forbid, through the temptation of [state] funds or threats to cut off such funding,” the council declared. The notice forbids any changes in the content of studies at haredi elementary and high schools, prohibits the teaching of core curriculum subjects, and forbids students from working towards the state high-school diploma or towards academic degrees not approved by Agudat Yisrael’s Committee of Rabbis for

Education. The council further stated that school administrators should ensure that teachers at their schools do not participate in (secular) academic studies, and that haredi girls should not study in universities or colleges where the state high-school diploma or academic degrees are taught.

The religious-freedom lobbying group Hiddush denounced the council’s declaration, saying it amounted to a decision that the hassidic community would continue to live off the state and taxpayers. “The decision proves once again that the haredi parties are conducting a campaign of resistance and are not prepared to enter into dialogue, Hiddush deputy director Shahar Ilan said. Ilan, in a statement to the press, emphasized “how essential it is to cut off funding for any institution which does not teach core curriculum subjects. “This decision proves what a terrible crisis of leadership the haredi community is suffering from, and the fact that its leaders refuse to stop and consider of [their] failures,” he wrote.

The haredi spiritual leadership views education as the bedrock of its community, its lifestyle and the means through which haredi identity is defined. For this reason, haredim have throughout the history of the state fiercely guarded the independence of their education system.

Before the establishment of the state, David Ben-Gurion, as part of a deal designed to exemplify to the United Nations Jewish unity in Mandatory Palestine, promised Agudat Yisrael that “full autonomy” would be granted to all sectors of society to control their own educational frameworks, Ben-Gurion’s letter promised that “complete freedom will be given to each sector to manage [its] education [system],” but added that “minimum [levels] of Hebrew, history, sciences and similar” would be obligatory, and would be subject to state inspection.

Full article: http://www.jpost.com/National-News/Haredi-leadership-fights-core- curriculum-310609

 Understanding the Article: Using your chart (found on page __), make a list of the arguments on both sides, found in this article.

Article 2: Intellectuals sign petition for more Bible studies in schools ‘The status of the Book of Books in Israeli society has been steadily eroded’ states petition signed by hundreds of mainly secular teachers and Academics.

By Yarden Skop | Oct. 2, 2013

More than 900 Bible teachers and intellectuals, most of them secular, have signed a petition urging that Bible studies in state secular schools be expanded.

The petition, drafted by the Education Ministry’s advisory committee on Bible studies, charges that Bible has become a marginal subject in secular schools, taught for fewer hours than almost any other subject – only two a week. In contrast, students at state religious schools get five hours a week of Bible.

Ever since the 1970s, when the time allotted to Bible studies began shrinking, “the status of the Book of Books in Israeli society has been steadily eroded,” the petition said. “The Bible’s place as a foundational and formational text of human, Jewish and Zionist identity has been disappearing, and the text, which is rightly considered the cultural common denominator of all the monotheistic religions, as well as of the Jewish people throughout the generations, has become an indecipherable text for the country’s secular public and is being forced out of the revived Hebrew culture.”

The petition was published to coincide with the discussion now taking place in the ministry over far-reaching changes in the format of the bagrut (matriculation) exams, including canceling the bagrut in history and literature. The Bible bagrut was also originally slated for elimination, until Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu objected. The petition’s drafters fear that eliminating the bagrut would sound the death knell for Bible studies. Even in the state religious schools, which have more hours of Bible study, fourth- and fifth-graders earned an average grade of only 57 – barely passing – on nationwide Bible tests from 2006/7 to 2011/12. Moreover, the number of high-school students studying Bible at the highest level (five units) has fallen steadily, from 7,304 in 2005 to 6,505 in 2011. 35

“Teachers have trouble teaching such a complex subject in such a short amount of time,” explained Prof. Yairah Amit of Tel Aviv University’s Bible Department, who drafted the petition. “The Bible offers us a great many issues that can be tied in with current events. In the past, the Bible was used by many Hebrew authors and artists, but today, artists have trouble using it, so it enriches fewer works, and that’s a pity.” Moreover, she said, there’s a practical issue: Teachers don’t want to teach any subject only two hours a week, because that means they must teach numerous different classes to add up to a full-time job. Among the petition’s more noteworthy signatories, who also included many professors, was former Supreme Court Justice Mishael Cheshin. He objected vehemently to the fact that religious students get more hours of Bible study than secular students do. “The Bible belongs to all of us,” insisted Cheshin, who is secular. “The Bible is the history of the Jewish people, and it’s the book of ethics of the Jewish people. I want an explanation of why skullcap-wearers learn more Bible, while my children have to learn less Bible.”

Drora Halevy, who as the ministry’s former national supervisor of Bible studies tried unsuccessfully to get the subject expanded, added that without knowing Bible, it’s hard to understand the canonical texts of modern Hebrew literature.

Full Article: http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/1.550237

 Understanding the Article: Using your chart (found on page __), make a list of the arguments on both sides, found in this article.

After reading the articles and filling in the chart, discuss the following with your Chevruta: 1. Using the chart, pick one argument in favor and one argument against to discuss with your chevruta. Even if you prefer one perspective to another, make sure you at least understand both perspectives. 2. If Haredim don’t want to learn secular subjects, why is Israel trying to enforce secular learning? Why is it important to the government that they learn certain secular subjects? Shouldn’t the Haredim be free to study as many Jewish texts as they want in the Jewish State? 3. In contrast, secular intellectuals want more resources to be able to teach Bible in secular schools. Is it important for all Jewish citizens in Israel to have a core understanding of the Jewish canon? 4. Is this a case of Israel being as Democratic as Judaism will allow, or as Jewish as Democracy will allow, or neither? 5. Can you imagine a similar debate happening in your hometown or city? Why or why not? How do you think the various voices would react in a public debate? 6. How do you think this issue would be seen by the original State Quo agreement? How do you imagine it would look to change the Status Quo? 7. Lastly, prepare your thoughts for the group presentation. (See item #4 above under “Instructions”)

Constructive Controversy in Democracy:

Case Study Name:______

1. Put yourself in the shoes of someone you may not at all agree with. Imagining the world through their eyes, what would be some arguments in favor of this issue?

Arguments In Favor:

 ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

2. Put yourself in the shoes of someone you may not at all agree with. Imagining the world through their eyes, what would be some arguments against this issue?

Arguments Against:

 ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

3. Are there any other ways of looking at this whole issue?

 ______ ______ ______

3. If you had to summarize this conflict or tension in one sentence, what is it really about? ______

Transition Back to the Group: 5 minutes before the group needs to come back together, give the students a cue so they can finish up and be prepared to present. Find one person from each topic who will volunteer to objectively summarize the case study.

Part 3: Group Presentations of Case Studies – 20 minutes When the group is back together, go through the case studies in the order they are laid out in the document. In order to add some liveliness and fun to this section, have the students present to the group in a style as if a lawyer was presenting to a jury. Encourage them to have fun with it!

Here are the instructions: 1) Make sure you have the envelope with the “verdict” on hand. 2) Call on the students to objectively summarize the first case study. 3) After the group understands the problem, ask the first volunteer to present their side to the “jury.” Then ask the second volunteer to present the other or another side. After they’ve presented their sides, make sure the core issue in the case study is clear. If it is not clear, make it clear to the group before moving on to the verdict. 4) Ask for another volunteer to open and read the “verdict.” 5) Repeat for the rest of the case studies.

Verdicts/Results

1. Buses on Shabbat in Tel Aviv: Verdict: UNRESOLVED April 23, 2012: The Tel Aviv Municipality formally asked the Transportation Ministry for permission to operate seven new bus lines in the city on Shabbat, beyond the Shabbat lines already requested… Numerous service lines already connect Tel Aviv on Saturdays to Petah Tikva, Ramat Gan, Haifa, Tiberias, Jerusalem and other cities, Tiomkin noted. "We propose to expand the service to further lines and to more neighborhoods, and enable more people who don't own cars to be mobile on their day of rest, and reach the beach, hospital or their families. The present situation is that the rich are happy and the poor suffer." Tiomkin added that "in principle the ministry has recognized the need and approved the operation of public transportation" on Shabbat… For Full article: http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/tel-aviv-seeks-permission-to-operate-more- shabbat-buses-1.425906

July 25th, 2013: The Ministry of Transportation was against adding additional lines immediately. Yisrael Katz, head of transportation, said, since beginning his position in 2009 he will ensure the status quo. He refused to deal with the request of the city, so Meretz went to the Supreme Court. Mini vans (sheruts) already run on Shabbat, and additional lines were added as a compromise. Full Article: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4409589,00.html

2. Civil Marriage: Verdict: REJECTED June 11, 2014: Knesset Rejects Civil Marriage Bill: The Knesset rejected Labor MK Stav Shafir's Civil Marriage bill Wednesday, which lost to a landslide vote of 19 for and 52 against.

[Yair] Lapid has stated previously that he would work to counter "the dominance of orthodox rabbis" over marriage, specifically vowing to "anchor civil marriage into Israeli society." On the other hand, several MKs, including Housing Minister Uri Ariel, vowed several months ago to prevent the bill from passing its preliminary stages. The issue of civil marriage had threatened the critical alliance between Yesh Atid and Jewish Home as well, which analysts say may explain Lapid's sudden turnaround. Full article: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/181608#.U6LI0JSSxxt

3. Israel’s Pork Problem: Verdict: UNRESOLVED From the Ministry of Agriculture website: The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development is currently advancing a reform that will improve the living conditions of pigs in Israel and adapt them to the European Directive. According to the recommendations of the examination team, the buildings of pig farms must be enlarged to reduce the crowding that pigs are subjected to. This led to the primary recommendation of the team to relocate pig farm buildings from the currently defined raising areas to isolated areas in the south in which the odor and water source pollution hazards are lower. The intent is to find sources that are far from population concentrations, which allow for farms to be built without a limitation involving crowding of animals. http://www.moag.gov.il/agri/English/Ministrys+Units/Spokesmanship+and+Publicity+D epartment/publications/pig_reform.htm

4. Education: What should be the “Core Curriculum?” Verdict: IN PROCESS Nov. 3, 2013: Israel's Education Ministry, ultra-Orthodox schools near deal on core curriculum. The Education Ministry is in advanced negotiations with ultra-Orthodox institutions over a compromise that would have the latter introduce core subjects into their classrooms. Should the agreement be finalized, the Haredim will teach part of the core curriculum in exchange for having the state fund 75 percent of their education budget…Currently, “extreme” Haredi schools receive 55 to 75 percent of their funding from the state, and although they are obligated to teach 55 to 75 percent of the core curriculum, many do not. Education Minister Shay Piron recently signed a regulation blocking schools from receiving more than 35 percent funding should they fail to meet core curriculum requirements.

…The Haredi schools are likely to start teaching English, math and modern Hebrew in full. Negotiations are underway regarding the other core subjects – Bible, literature, history, civics and science. At this point, it is not clear whether the negotiations are over the extent to which these subjects will be taught or over whether they will be taught at all. In order to ensure that the Haredim meet the terms of the agreement, schools will be required to subject students to all standardized testing.

…Education Ministry sources admit that the compromise in the works is problematic, but argue that it is a reasonable price to pay in exchange for convincing the Haredi sector to teach core subjects, a matter that draws strong opposition from its community leaders. Full article: http://www.haaretz.com/business/.premium-1.555835

Transition: Once all four case studies have been addressed, move to closing the session…

Conclusion and Wrap Up By a show of hands, how many of you feel like your case study was resolved? How many of you feel like your case study was unresolved? These situations are not simple, and trying to hold multiple values together at once can be very challenging, and can sometimes lead to major issues to be dragged out for many years.

To close, ask participants to share one “question mark” (a lingering issue, challenge, or question) and one exclamation point (something new you learned today, something that surprised you) they are taking away from today’s session. (You can use the ? mark and ! document by putting it on the table or the floor to animate this part of the session.)

Looking Ahead  Next week: Session 6: Freedom III – Can I Pray here?  Pick Israel Update Volunteers  Homework (See Pre-Session Assignments in Session 6 for homework)

Continuing Education You can send these lists to the group for further reading in between sessions.

On the Web 1. A Zionist State, a Binational State and an In-Between Jewish and Democratic State, by Prof. Sammy Smooha http://en.idi.org.il/analysis/articles/a-zionist- state,-a-binational-state-and-an-in-between-jewish-and-democratic-state 2. Rein in Israel’s Rabbinate, by Rabbi Avi Weiss: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/opinion/rein-in-israels- rabbinate.html?_r=0 3. The Makings of History: Pork and the People, by Eli Ashkenazi: http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/the-makings-of-history-pork- and-the-people-1.409478 4. http://makomisrael.org/blog/haredialiyah/ 5. Shalom Hartman Institute: http://hartman.org.il/ 6. Religion and State Daily: http://religionandstateinisrael.blogspot.com

On the Shelf 1. Future Tense: Jews, Judaism, and Israel in the Twenty-first Century, by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks 2. The Gavison-Medan Covenant: Main Points and Principles, by Yoav Artsielli (The Israel Democracy Institute) 3. The Settlers and the Struggle over the Meaning of Zionism, by Gadi Taub 4. The Prime Ministers: An Intimate Narrative of Israeli Leadership, by Yehuda Avner

Get Involved (if relevant) 1. Shatil: The New Israel Fund for Social Change: http://english.shatil.org.il/ 2. Israeli Democracy Institute: http://en.idi.org.il/

Post-Session Reflection for Facilitator Success Checklist  Did participants get into discussing and analyzing current case studies that involve balancing Jewish and Democratic values?  Do you think participants developed a deeper understanding of the challenges that arise when trying to hold democratic and Jewish values together?

How did it go? Reflection on the session: In the "Success Checklist," if you aren't able to answer "yes," to the questions, why do you think these objectives weren't achieved? ______

What was one thing that surprised you during the session? ______

What was something that happened that you weren't prepared for? ______

Was there anything that happened in the group that needs to be addressed in the next session? ______

Is there anything you want to discuss with your mentor or supervisor? 43