Mosaic Magazine

Response to: "Religion and State in Israel"July 2013

Where Israel Differs

Separating religion and state sends the wrong signal in principle, and could wreak havoc in practice.

  

The provocative “Modest Proposal of my good friend Moshe Koppel is well thought out, lucidly presented, and buttressed by history, logic, facts on the ground, and clear thinking; altogether, it makes fascinating reading, like everything he writes. Had I not been requested explicitly and urgently to do so, I would not have presumed to comment on it; but I was, so I will. I won’t disagree—rather, I will present an alternative view for the readers’ consideration.

Koppel makes two key points: (i) On general philosophical grounds, there is no reason for the state of Israel to refrain from being in the business of religion: regulating marriage and divorce, involving itself in matters of kashrut and the sabbatical year and Shabbat and family purity, financing the building of synagogues, appointing rabbis, supporting religious schools and other cultural institutions, and so on. (ii) Pragmatically, such involvement of the state in religious affairs weakens the impact of traditional religion, so Koppel is against it.

And, at the very beginning of his essay, he writes that “Although my specific concern is Israel, the issues at stake . . . are applicable to every democratic society grappling with the crossroads between religion and state.”

There, precisely, lies the rub. Israel is not like “every democratic society grappling with,” etc. Indeed, other than Israel there are very few such societies, if any. But even if there were, Israel would be different, unique. Israel is a Jewish state. It is also democratic; but first and foremost, it is, or should be, Jewish. Koppel’s reasoning is based on general considerations, on “every democratic society”; it fails to take account of Israel’s unique situation.

For thousands of years, we have been begging G-d, three times a day, to “return in mercy to Your city of Jerusalem.” He has now returned, or so we hope; it is up to us to make Him feel at home, to make Him stay. I myself came from the United States to Israel, some sixty years ago, only because of that: I wanted to come home.

Koppel repeatedly stresses that the “community” is the proper instrument for transmitting Jewish traditions and values. Jewish communities, he writes, “have successfully transmitted. . . Jewish moral traditions for millennia.”¹ But these communities operated in the diaspora, where Jews constituted a numerically negligent minority. Affluent, influential Jews, who derived much of their wealth and power from outside the community, supported it. In Israel, the “community” is the whole state; the “Jewish community” is not, and should not be, a separate entity.

The “community” model sends the wrong signal. It intimates that the state of Israel has no religious identity; its citizens may, or may not, organize themselves into religious communities—Jewish, Muslim, Christian, or Druze—but the state itself is unaffiliated, “disengaged.” As in the diaspora, the communities are divorced from the state.

Looking both outward and inward, the model has disastrous implications. To the world at large, it says that Israel is a state like any other, that we have no special rights in this part of the world. But then we are colonialists, and colonialism has long since breathed its last; as Helen Thomas suggested, we should then go back to the countries that welcomed us and our “communities” before, like Morocco, Yemen, Poland, Germany, Russia, England, the U.S., and many others.

The message to ourselves is, if anything, even worse. As of now, Jewish awareness in Israel is nothing to write home about; already, there are Jewish Israelis who think of themselves primarily as Israelis—citizens of a state, like France or Switzerland—and only secondarily as Jews. Some, unfortunately, do not think of themselves as Jews at all; they have disengaged. But for most Jewish Israelis, the consciousness of being Jewish—as well as some familiarity with Jewish history and culture—is there, is palpable. An official divorce of the state from Judaism would greatly accelerate the process of disengagement from Judaism.

Koppel may protest that he is advocating that the state disengage not from Judaism, but only from Jewish religious practice. Unfortunately—perhaps fortunately—that does not work. Jewish religious practice lies at the core of Judaism, at the core of Jewish culture. In the diaspora, there are not many self-professed Jews whose grandparents or great-grandparents were not observant. I have heard of a Reform rabbi in Florida who boasted that 99 percent of his congregants had no Jewish grandchildren. Though this is no doubt exaggerated, it rings true. “If G-d does not build a house, in vain do its builders labor” (Psalms 127:1). Non-observant Judaism can live and thrive—but only in the shadow of religious observance.

Pragmatically, Koppel’s proposal would create great problems. One of the big advantages of life in Israel is that at almost all—perhaps all—public functions, only kosher food is served. That is true in the government, at the universities, at large corporations, at conferences in hotels, you name it. Though it may sound trivial, it is an important factor in holding the people together.

When you have the kosher certification of the chief rabbinate, that’s easy to do. But if you would not—if there were a dozen different kosher certifications, as in the U.S.—the organizers would not know to whom to turn, and the practice would fizzle out. A single recognized standard of observance is vital, even for those who do not adhere to it.

And what about the army? With a disengaged state, it would not take long before somebody goes to court asking for non-kosher food, non-observance of Shabbat, and so on. We would get separate dining rooms; perhaps, eventually, separate fighting units. Is that what we want?

Far more important, of course, is the matter of marriage and divorce. Right now, you can get married in Cyprus, and the marriage is recognized in Israel. I don’t know how the authorities deal with the very serious halakhic problems this raises, but they deal with them somehow. Though the phenomenon is significant, its magnitude is marginal; mostly, we are talking about couples whose halakhic status poses problems. By and large, even totally non-observant couples want their families and friends at the wedding, they want to be married “at home” and not alone in a strange, foreign place.

Allowing civil marriage and divorce would change all that drastically; it would make the non-halakhic option much more accessible, and so would greatly enlarge the number of couples using it. And so it would force the authorities to face up to the halakhic problems mentioned above, quite possibly creating two communities within Israel; communities that will not—indeed cannot—intermarry, now and for generations to come. That would be absolutely disastrous.

Perhaps most important is the matter of schools. In the non-religious state schools, there is precious little Judaism now; disengaging the state from religion might well lead to its disappearance altogether. And who would pay for the religious schools? The “communities”? Come, that’s laughable. In the United States, tuition at Jewish schools can run to $35,000 per year per child; many families come on aliya for that reason alone. The Jewish community in Israel does shoulder that cost, but it cannot possibly do so on a voluntary basis.

The above are only three examples of involvement of the state in religious matters which it would be difficult to forgo; there are many more.

To summarize: on the surface, Moshe Koppel’s proposal sounds interesting—even tenable—for a “democratic society grappling with the crossroads between religion and state.” But when one takes a closer look at Israel’s particular situation, it becomes less attractive. In principle, it sends the wrong signal, both to the world at large and to ourselves; and in practice, it could wreak havoc with the delicate fabric of Israeli society.

Yisrael Aumann, a 2005 Nobel laureate in economic sciences, is a founder and professor in the Center for Rationality at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is the author of six books and many papers in the area of game theory.

_____________________________________

¹One wonders what the adjective “moral” is meant to exclude. Are there amoral traditions that were not transmitted? Does Koppel mean to exclude traditions like kashrut or Shabbat that have no clear moral component?

Comments

  • Philip

    I agree with Prof. Aumann! Israel is unique in many ways and this is one of them.

  • Amir

    Professor Aumann won the Nobel Prize and has lived in Israel for sixty years, but unfortunately he knows very little about Israeli society. This article is so cut off from the reality of Israel in 2013 that while reading it I did not know whether to laugh or to cry.

    Aumann is afraid of a situation in which there will be many different kosher certifications. Well, guess what? Today, without the separation of religion and state, there are many kosher certifications, and even the chief rabbis do not eat food with the certification of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel!

  • Daniel Porter

    Perhaps, one should consider the difference between ‘distinct’ and ‘separate’? Is this not the foundational principle of the divine majesty and his creation: they are distinct, not separate? This creational principle applies to all sorts of relations including that of the political state and so-called ‘religion’. And, by the way, wasn’t the ecumene the model of hellenism? What’s it got to do with Israel?

  • Alex Schindler

    “In the United States, tuition at Jewish schools can run to $35,000 per year per child; many families come on aliya for that reason alone. The Jewish community in Israel does shoulder that cost, but it cannot possibly do so on a voluntary basis.”

    Does this bother no one? Open admission that the principle underlying tax-supported Jewish education in Israel is an explicitly anti-democratic one? That were it not for government compulsion, this is not a service individuals would *choose* to take part in and support accordingly?

    I do not agree—coming from the country where $35,000 is still a bit of an exaggeration, though we’re getting to that mark. Those who care to provide day school education to their children will devote their working lives and budgets, and sometimes even their family planning, to provide it. They would in Israel too, and those who would not *SHOULD NOT HAVE TO*.

    For the record, the growth of day school costs beyond reason promises to spur new innovation and strategies to minimize such costs over the next decades, or even to replace the day school model where possible. But that is a very different discussion.

  • Yehoshua Kahan

    Mr. Schindler,

    In general, I agree to the principle that someone who does not wish to pay for a given service should not have to. However, as a believing Jew, I cannot agree to the application of that principle to the particular case of Torah education.

    The first reason that I do not regard that principle as having application to this case is that, according to the Torah, all Jews are obligated to support and enable Torah study, and specifically the Torah study of children. This is not a service that I purchase for my children; this is an act of worship in which we, individually and collectively, are obliged. That obligation has both a direct form and an indirect form. The direct form is personal Torah study. The indirect form is assistance in the Torah study of others. Both are obligatory.

    The second reason is that the Torah teaches us that mitzvah observance generally, and Torah study in particular, are the very basis of the Divine protection which we (again, both individually and collectively) need for survival. As such, mitzvah observance generally and Torah study particularly are a classic “public good” no less than maintenance of military and police forces, and it is right and proper that the public be required to support them financially.

    Is this undemocratic? Well, yes. Democracy, to me, is simply a pragmatic tool, not a transcendent principle; it is a means, not an end.

    Of course, it may be the case that Torah schools could be run more efficiently. Like anything else in the imperfect world of humanity, improvement should always be desired and sought. But let us not confuse the Torah education of our children with a can of tuna fish.

Hadari Song of Songs

Love Songs

The Love of Their Youth
The Song of Songs and the old men, filled with longing, who sing it.
by Atar Hadari

Benjamin

The Intellectual Scene

The Walter Benjamin Brigade
How an obscure and maddeningly opaque German Jewish intellectual became a thriving academic industry.
by Walter Laqueur

Doran Russia

Russia

It's Not Just Ukraine
What his actions in Eastern Europe tell us about how Vladimir Putin sees the Middle East.
by Michael Doran

Facebook Like Box

Nicholson Essay

The October Essay

Evangelicals and Israel
What do evangelicals really think about the Jewish people, what are the roots of their Christian Zionism—and what is now driving a growing number away from wholehearted support of Israel.
by Robert W. Nicholson

Horn Surnames

What's In A Name

Jewish Surnames [Supposedly] Explained
“Dara, you’ll love this!” Actually, I don’t.
by Dara Horn

Degenerate Art

The Art World

Degenerate Art and the Jewish Grandmother
The story of the family behind the Nazi-era art trove.
By Walter Laqueur

Golinkin

Conservative and Orthodox

The Crisis in Jewish Law Today
Orthodox rabbis need to stop worrying about 200-year-old battles with “Reformers” and allow Jewish law to develop organically, as it did in the past.
By David Golinkin

Gurfinkiel

The Situation in Europe

You Only Live Twice
Vibrant Jewish communities were reborn in Europe after the Holocaust. Is there a future for them in the 21st century?
by Michel Gurfinkiel