Rabbinical courts transferred to 'secular' Justice Ministry

Oct. 8, 2003
Rabbinical courts transferred to 'secular' Justice Ministry
By HERB KEINON

The cabinet voted to dismantle the Religious Affairs Ministry Wednesday and transfer authority over the rabbinical courts to the Justice Ministry headed by Shinui leader Yosef Lapid, a move that infuriated the National Religious Party and triggered a coalition crisis.

The NRP, which threatened to leave the government over the issue, wants the Chief Rabbinate and the rabbinical courts to remain united and come under the purview of the Prime Minister's Office, in order to keep them out of Lapid's administrative orbit.

The NRP faction decided Wednesday evening to recommend to the party`s central committee that it quit the ruling coalition unless it's demands are met.

The government approved the dismantlement of the Religious Affairs Ministry at the end of an emotional meeting by a vote of 18- 3. The two NRP ministers, Housing Ministry Effi Eitam and Social Affairs Minister Zevulun Orlev, walked out before the vote. The three ministers who voted against were National Union ministers Benny Elon and Avigdor Lieberman, and the Likud's Uzi Landau.

Eitam warned after his meeting with the chief Rabbis Wednesday that if the Cabinet's decision to transfer control of the country's rabbinical courts to the Justice Ministry were to pass in the Knesset, the National Religious Party would quit the coalition government. "We will not cooperate with Shinui's secular humanism. This is not a question of jobs; this is a critical debate on the Jewish character of Israel. A government without the NRP may be legal, but it won't be legitimate," Eitam said Wednesday evening.

NRP party chairman Shaul Yahalom said Shinui's threats of yesterday to leave the government over delays in the reorganization plan created a false coalition crisis over the future of the Religious Affairs Ministry.

"Its real goal is to harm Israel's Jewish character and eliminate all religious services," he said.

Orlev reportedly said in the cabinet that having Lapid in charge of the rabbinical courts is like having Hadash MK Ahmed Tibi serve as the minister for internal security. Eitan said Shinui is not a party that wants a dialogue between religious and secular Jews, but rather "wants to destroy everything that is Jewish in the State of Israel."

According to cabinet sources, Lapid said he has no intention of dealing with halachic matters or interfering in the work of the rabbinical courts, and that he will preserve the honor of the chief rabbis. He said the rabbis have no reason to fear him but also criticized NRP officials for their characterizations of him.

One cabinet source said tears welled up in Lapid's eyes when he rebuffed NRP attacks against him, saying the ministers are speaking about him in terms that non-Jews used to speak about Jews. Referring to his background as a Holocaust survivor, Lapid said no one can preach to him what it is to be a Jew, and that one week in a ghetto taught him more than anything else what it means to be a Jew.

The National Union's Benny Elon said it is patently absurd to put the person who is the champion of the separation of church and state in control over the country's religious courts.

Undecided at this time is where the Chief Rabbinate will go under the reorganization of the government's religious agencies. A committee has been formed to decide which ministry will assume authority over the Chief Rabbinate.

The matter has been brewing for months. In a rare midnight meeting, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon rejected a call by religious officials to transfer the courts and the chief rabbinate's office to the Prime Minister's Office itself.

Sharon and Lapid said they would do nothing to harm the rabbinate or the courts, and had no plans to install sweeping changes in their operations. Their deal apparently states the Chief Rabbinate will maintain a certain degree of control - to be determined by a special committee - over the rabbinical courts.

Officials of the Chief Rabbinate said Sharon broke two promises he had made to the rabbis: to keep the rabbinical courts and the Chief Rabbinate together, and to refrain from transferring control of the courts to the Justice Ministry under Lapid.

Both chief rabbis expressed vehement opposition to the proposed separation between the rabbinical courts and the chief rabbinate, and bringing the former under the jurisdiction of the Justice Ministry.

Sephardi Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar left the door open to compromise under Lapid's jurisdiction, so long as the courts and rabbinates stayed linked.

In a radio interview, Amar termed the Cabinet's action as "a declaration of war on all religious institutions and on religion."

Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger said all haredi Jews would unite to fight the decision.

He told the Jerusalem Post that leaving religious judges and the rabbis under any jurisdiction other than that of the Prime Minister is unacceptable.

"As we told Sharon at our meeting late Tuesday night, the perspective of a minister is narrowly political, while that of a prime minister is broadly national," Metzger said.

Neither chief rabbi threatened to resign, but Amar said no rabbi could serve as chief rabbi should the religious court system and the rabbinate be split.

The head of the Masoriti (Conservative) Movement in Israel, Rabbi Ehud Bandel, said that Amar's tough language proved that "not the need to protect halacha motivated the chief rabbinate but rather the need to protect their monopoly and power."

I think you need to reseach Zionism because it is clear you don't understand it. Most of the early Zionists, and indeed most people who would call themselves Zionist today, are secular. Zionism is no more than Jewish nationalism. Prior to 1948 the term Jew referred not only to a religion but to an exiled nationality or ethnicity as well. In reality it still does.

Native peoples? You are aware the Arabs are not native to Israel, right? They were invaders, right? You are aware that there has also been a continuous Jewish presence in the land since biblical times, right? I'm sure you knew that Jerusalem had a Jewish majority in 1854 under Ottoman rule before the first aliyah and before the Zionist movement even started. Jews lived in what you call Palestine before any Arabs arrived.

Oh, and why are you calling Israel by the British name of Palestine? Find Palestine on a map dated 1910. You can't. The Ottoman Empire had no such territory. Palestine was an artificial creation of the European powers after World War I. There has never in history been a country called Palestine.

Israel is theocratic? I assume that view is based on having never even visited Israel. 70% of Israeli Jews are secular. While there is a strong Orthodox influence on government I would hardly call it a theocracy. What do you base your idea that Israel is undemocratic on?

Finally, I think you completely misunderstand my purpose in posting this. I am Masorti (a Conservative Jew in American terms) and I want all expressions of Judaism respected in a Jewish state, including my own. I therefore support this cabinet decision. I, by no means, want Israel to be anything other than a Jewish state.

I think you need to learn a little history.

I am curious as to your definition of "Jewish?" If Israel is a Jewish state...and being Jewish has much to do with a particular genealogy & religion...how can you say there is no theocratic component to the state of Israel?

Israel would be theocratic if the rulers imposed Jewish law. this has not happened since the Hasmoneans (who were true theocrats uniting the position of High Priest and King within the same person or family.)

Wrong. Been there. In fact, that's how I came to that conclusion. You don't see the theocracy for what it is for the same reason white-southerners in the United States didn't see racism as a problem. Obviously, Israel isn't a full theocracy and is certainly better than anyplace else in the Middle East, but it isn't a full Democracy either.
1. I don't see white southerners being more racist than white northerners.
2. Your definition of "theocracry" is not the normal political defintion. You are essentially saying that any country that is not completely secular is theocratic.
In that case, most European countries are theocratic. Taken far enough, this idea would dictate taht the US is theocratic.

To Americans who are reading this...imagine if the Pope had to approve decisions passed down from the Supreme Court. Does that sound like Democracy to you?
How is this analogous to anything in Israel?
There is no Sanhedrin, much less a High Priest.
The Rabbinical Courts essentially deal with religious matters such as granting religious (not secular) divorces, setting rules for conversion, and certifying food as Kosher.

Arabs sure as hell are native to Israel! You are ALL semantic peoples!!! The word "Arab" is descended from the word "Son of Abraham." The situation in Palestine is a massive case of fratricide!
1. That is like saying the French and Germans are the same people.
2. Where do you the idea that the word "Arab" comes from "Abraham".
3. Actually, the fighting is on 1/4 of "Palestine". 3/4 of the 1921 province exists as the sovereign Arab monarchy of Jordan.

What does matter is that the Diaspora displaced hundreds of thousands of non-Jews who considered Palestine (Israel) their home. And if it was not for a series of events in the 1940s it would still be
1. I disagree witht he figure. Between 1890 and 1946 more Arabs than Jews migrated to Palestine. There is nothing native about these Syrians, Lebanese, Egyptians, and Iraqis who were landless tenants in 1947.
2. You seem to have forgotten the 800,000 Jews expelled from Arab countries, most of whom now live in Israel. (I would note that many of these lived in these countries for up to a thousand years before the Mohammedan Arabs invaded.)

You support a Jewish state in Israel? Fine! But unless you can prove that being Jewish has nothing to do with religion, then how can you get away with claiming that a Jewish state isn't going to have a religious streak. I will go a step further...if you indeed claim that a Jewish state has more to do with lineage than religion, then it is a modified form of another governmental system that I will not mention here.
A yes. here we have it. All states with any element of religion are somewhat theologic and all nation states are Nazi. You may as well be reading a press release from the Communist Third International.
Whether or not you recognize it, you have internalized the Marxist, Gramsciite, and Tranzi attack on the nation state.

We have made HUGE strides toward racial equality here. For example: My former employer (Old guy) used to be a member of the Klan back in the 60's. He is deeply ashamed of his activites back then. Today he plays poker once a week with two black friends, and his grand-daughter married a black man!
That is a quantum leap that hopefully will happen in Israel.
Jews come from all races. There are European Jews, North African Jews, Yemeni Jews, Ethiopian Jews, Arabian Jews, Persian Jews, Mountain Jews, Oriental Jews, Turkic Jews, Indian Jews, Chinese Jews... to say nothing of recent converts like the Black Israelites, some members of the South African Lemba clan (who actually are decended from Jews, but that is another story), and some from Myanmar.
one out of every two Israeli Jews are from Arab countries and are virtually indistinguishable from Arabs.
There are racial tensions, but all the Jews are equal under the law.
Non Jewish Israeli citizens, 20% of the population, are full citizens. In fact they benefit from affirmative action (or rather did under Barak).

If these Rabbinical Courts had so little to do with the machinery of secular government, then why should they care if the cabinet voted to dismantle the Religious Affairs Ministry Wednesday and transfer authority over the rabbinical courts to the Justice Ministry?
Because the secular Israeli courts are on a jihad to deJudaize Israel.

They have allot of power. You know it. I know it. The whole world knows it.
Cite 2 examples.

You are right on! The term Arab is like saying Caucasian. Germans and French are both types of Caucasians.
Yes and no. Until the 7th century, Arabs were just one group of Semites. It is only through conquest, cultural genocide, and rape that they were able to assimilate the vast majority of Mesopatamean Chaldeans, Assyrians, Levantie Christians, Egyptian Copts, and North African Berbers. Of course, the disposesed minorities in these countries are fighting back to some degree.

In fact, this is precicely why the Palestinains are unable to move into another country...would you force Belgians into France just becase they are both decended from Franks and Saxons?
No. However, the divide between Jordanians and Palestinians is artificial. 90%+ of Jordanians are Palestinian (the rest are members of the Hashemite clan and allies from Arabia and Circassian exiles.) Until 1967, the West Bank was part of Jordan and its inhabitants were Jordanian citizens.
Sudeten Germans would make a better parallel.

As for your definitions, you are a bit confused. All arabs are semites, not all semites are Arabs.

So basically, if you don't like Palestians...you?re an anti-Semite! LOL
Actually, the term "Anti-Semite" was coined by pseudoscientific Austrian Jew-haters who wished to differentiate themselves from Christians who theologically opposed Judaism. These early Aryanists (and direct precursors to the Austrian Nazi Party) coined the term when they labelled themselves the Anti-Semetic party. I do not know their position on Arabs, but Nazis and Neo-Nazis get allong well with Arabs, especially Palestinians.

As to the derivation of the term Arab, it is likely that it comes from the Semetic root "A/E R V/B", which means travel. Of course an a Oriental linguist would give a more definite anser. I don't know any Freeper who speaks Hebrew, Aramaic, Chaldean, Arabic, ancient Yemeni, Ethiopian, ancient Egyptian, and Phoenecian or Cartheginian. (Actually, I don't think that anyone actually speaks all of those, and I am probably mising a semetic language or two.)

I fail to understand what #3 has to do with this conversation. I have seen at least a dozen different maps on each side of this argument. Yet, it is interesting that now you want to point to Palestinian maps that existed in 1921, a full 27 years before the existence of Israel.

The Palestinians have a country on 3/4 of the land!?

So let me get this straight: If you?re an Arab and you migrated to Palestine between 1890 and 1946 (Israel, whatever.) you are a "landless tenant". But if your Jewish and you move to the same area you are simply claiming what is yours after a 1000 year hiatus?
Considering that these did not own land, we are essentially dealing with the equivalent of the illegal Mexicans in the American Southwest.

But like I wrote before: How long to people have to live on the land before they are considered native? 25 years? 100 years? While it is true that many of these people came before 1946...the vast magority arrived before 700 AD. I think over 1000 years is long enough. Nes Pais?
1. I disagree here. The Israeli Arabs are the ones who lived their before 1890. The Transients left on the orders of the Arab armies.
2. The correct French term is "N'est pas" or "is it not?"
To wit: "Je croix que les situations ne soient pas la meme chose. "

Yes, it was wrong for them to expel those people who had been living there for centuries. And it is also wrong for Israel to expel its local population as well. The difference is that the Jews had someplace to go, while the Palestinians didn't. Why? Because the state of Israel took all the land!
Sure they did. They could have gone back to the countries they or their parents grew up in. The few actual Arabs whose decendants were their before 1890 and were told to leave by the Arabs or Israelis, could have gone to Jordan. In fact, they did.

"Brachot al kol yeladim shel avraham!!!"
Bless the Ishmaelites. They countrol 99% of the Middle East. Now if only that could act civilized.

With all due respect, I think trying to build a state around an "ethnos" rather than geography, history or common political ideals smacks of another form of government that I won't mention here.
I suppose taht you oppose all nation states and cultural states.

So were blacks in the 60s...it didn't mean that Jim Crow wasn't around. In Israel, the racism & hatred on both sides is intense.
While there is racism, there are no racist laws like Jim Crow.

If you insist on that skewed logic remember: The ancient Hebrews took the land from the Philistines. So technically the Israelites weren't native either.
No. The Philistines were a Hellenistic sea faring people who ivaded in the 12th centure BCE, after the Israelite conquest of Canaan. They ceased to exist by the 8th century BCE.

Exactly how long do people have to live on the land before they are considered native? Will you find it acceptable for the Indians to come into New York 1500 years from now and force the local European-descendants from the land?
No. The Dutch purchased it fair and square.

Should the modern Celts organize and remove the Saxons from England?
Not feasable to remove teh Saxons, Angles, Jutes, Danes, and Norman decendants.. However, I do support autonomy for Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales within the British Empire.

Do you see my point here?
Yes I do. However, Israel exists alread.

Well I suppose you have me there. Jim Crow laws were based on the doctrine of "Separate but equal". In Israel, if you aren't Jewish...you're certainly not equal. If your not Jewish you can be tortured, jailed without a charge, not allowed to marry an Israeli citizen who is Jewish, deported from your country and blocked from most civil-service jobs.
You are confusing Israeli Arabs with Palestinians.
As for the intermarriage, there are civil marriages.
Certain civil-service jobs and benefits are only available to those who served int he IDF. This applies equally to all citizens.

I suggest you look into it. Run a Google-search and see what comes up. There is a reason Human-rights watch, Amnesty International & most other human-rights groups have their eye on that state
Amnesty International refuses to pay attention to terrorism. They fail to see any link between protective measures and terrorism that increases when they are relaxed.

Oh sheesh! There were at least a dozen different groups fighting for control over what is today considered Palestine/Israel back then. They all were attacking each other. Invasion vs counter-inavsion. Or perhaps you think all those Canaanites in Jericho were on vacation?
Depending on which interpretation of history you support, the Canaanites either were wiped out or became Israelites.
According to the Bible, virtually all the Canaanites were wiped out. Modern revisionist believe that the Canaanites converted. I believe in an incomplete conquest with a gradual assimilation of the remaining Canaanites.
Either way, the Canaanites are a non-issue. Only the Jews and Samaritans remain.

Fine. How about California or perhaps Ohio? Why are we conservatives so freaking LITERAL!!!! You know what I'm talking about. 1000 years from now it would be immoral for the decendants of Native Americans to kick all the peeps in Idaho into Mexico.
No.

And now Palestine exists. It existed before Israel existed. For all practical purposes, there was NO state of Israel before 1948. The Palenstians were promised independance from England, and the English fucked them. That is the ONLY reason there is no modern Palestine.
There is a Palestine today. It sits on 3/4 of the land. There are no Jewish citizens or residents. It was created in 1922 as Transjordan. Tranjordan was granted independence in 1946.
Britian only fucked them, by promoting Arab immigration after 1925. Instead of a few thousand Arabs in cis-Jordan/Palestine/Israel+Yesha, there were a million.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.