Issue link: https://viewer.e-digitaledition.com/i/708282
8 July 28 • 2016 Y air Sheleg's op-ed, "Israel's Battle For Peace Between Religion And State," is troublesome in several ways. While he portrays himself as a dispassionate analyst, it is clear that Sheleg's essay intends, on the contrary, to inflame passions — and he is not above inverting the record in order to do so. In lieu of "haredi," the writer used the pejorative term "ultra-Orthodox." In an era when we express sensitiv- ity and consideration toward minority populations, we allow them to choose the terms of their own identity and avoid negative bias. The writer affords the haredi community no such consid- eration, using a modifier, "ultra-," that is universally negative when used to describe a movement or community. The Israel Democracy Institute claims to be nonpartisan; the director of its Religion and State program belies that, at least with regards to Jewish religious affairs. Second, the prem- ise of the op-ed directly contradicts Sheleg's statement to the media, made in his professional capacity. His opinion piece claims that "the ultra-Orthodox have launched a new offen- sive;" speaking to the New York Jewish Week, however, he noted that "the ultra- Orthodox are in a defensive position" (our emphasis added), merely wishing to preserve the status quo that has gov- erned Israeli practice since its founding. In this case, the pejorative term "ultra-" is both offensive and inaccu- rate. Consider our own example. One of us holds a doctorate in not-for-profit organization systems and served as executive vice president of the national Young Israel movement for more than 25 years. The other earned a BSE in computer sci- ence from Princeton University, architects a family of prominent Jewish websites and, not incidentally, identified with the Conservative movement into adult- hood. Both of us live in the United States, where we frequently interact with Reform and Conservative leaders and members both personally and professionally. Neither of us exemplifies the stereotypical image evoked by the term "ultra-Orthodox." Groups like Women For the Wall, the women's group acting to preserve tradi- tional practice at the Western Wall, are certainly not led by "ultra-Orthodox." The vast majority of religious nation- alist leaders and members all strongly oppose the changes advocated by Sheleg — and, given his position, he is surely well aware of this. Thus the "ultra-" label is not merely pejorative, but a fac- ile attempt to reframe the conversation to avoid the real issues. Why are the American liberal move- ments pushing for major changes at the Western Wall at this time? The question gains potency given a demonstrated lack of need. More than a decade ago, these movements were allocated space at the Robinson's Arch section of the Kotel; three years ago, then-Religious Affairs Minister Naftali Bennett unveiled a new, greatly expanded "Ezrat Yisrael" plat- form in response to demands from these same movements. Since that time, this space has never been filled. Not once. Most of the time it sits completely empty; only when the Sephardic chief rabbi of Jerusalem, for- mer Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel Rav Shlomo Amar, conducted a private ser- vice there did the leaders of these move- ments respond with possessive outrage. To anyone with even minimal knowledge of the differences in belief and practice of traditional and non- traditional Jews, the reasons for the disuse of Ezrat Yisrael are not difficult to discern. Neither movement prays for viewpoints » S e n d l e t t e r s t o : l e t t e r s @ t h e j e w i s h n e w s . c o m T he relationship between religion and state in Israel is stormy. Lately, it seems the ultra-Orthodox have launched a new offensive on sev- eral fronts. First, representatives of the ultra-Orthodox community went back on their Western Wall compromise agreement, a compromise that would give anyone interested in alternative prayer the option of holding services at the Wall's southern section. Now, they are demanding that the Reform and Conservative movements be denied any official recognition in the new plaza at all. Further, judges from the Petach Tikvah rabbinical court recently took a bold step when they attempted to revoke conversions conducted by Rabbi Haskel Lookstein, a prominent Orthodox American rabbi. Lookstein converted, among others, Ivanka Trump, daughter of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. The judges who made this deci- sion were unaware of who Lookstein is. Rather, they based their decision on the fact that he does not appear on the list of diaspora rabbis whose conver- sions are approved by the Israeli Chief Rabbinate. And earlier this summer, ultra-Orthodox legislators pre- sented the Mikvah Bill, which has passed in its preliminary Knesset readings and is still being debated by the parliament. The bill stipulates that any immersion in a public mikvah (ritual bath) must be handled according to the Chief Rabbinate's rules. This new ultra-Orthodox offensive must be fought. For starters, we must be unyielding in our opposition to reneging on the Kotel compromise. The agreement in its essence gave equally as much to the ultra- Orthodox (recognition of their monopoly over the majority of the Western Wall) as to those in search of a more egalitarian environment (the ability to pray freely in the separate and almost-equal southern section of the Wall). The fear of the ultra-Orthodox is that creating this southern section recognizes and legitimizes pluralistic streams of Judaism. The reality is that these streams received such legitimacy more than 20 years ago when a decision was made to establish official conversion institutes whose leadership would include represen- tatives of the Conservative and Reform movements. The State of Israel is the nation-state of the whole Jewish people. As such, our government must ensure all Jews can prayer at this most holy Jewish landmark. Regarding the Rabbi Lookstein affair — it will work itself out. Chief Rabbi David Lau announced that he did not agree with the Petach Tikvah court's decision, so the particular situation will be rectified. Nonetheless, the Lookstein affair is indicative of a greater problem. While the State of Israel needs a reliable list of diaspora rabbis who perform con- versions, that list cannot be comprised of solely Orthodox rabbis. Israel's High Court of Justice long ago recognized non- Orthodox conversions that were carried out in the diaspora when it comes to the Law of Return. What the rabbinical court did in the Lookstein affair was to use its monopoly over marriage to take back its de facto monopoly over conversions as well. This is not OK. Lastly, mikvahs are taxpayer-funded public buildings. The Rabbinate has no right to dictate how those who wish to immerse do so. Further, the law not only affects those who wish to use the mikveh to complete their non-Orthodox conver- sions, but also thousands of women who use the mikveh monthly and do not want to be subject to the supervision of ultra- Orthodox mikveh attendants who are employed by the Chief Rabbinate. Ultra- Orthodox political representatives have point Yair Sheleg JNS.org Israel's Battle For Peace Between Religion And State counterpoint Pursuing Peace And Straightening The Record counterpoint continued on page 10 Rabbi Pesach Lerner JNS.org Rabbi Yaakov Menken JNS.org Should alternative prayer be allowed at the Kotel's southern sec tion? POINT/ COUNTERPOINT point continued on page 10 Western Wall