The Religion and Law Wars endanger us

Key Findings:

It is argued in this op-d that a long line of cases have left it to the court to decide matters that are essentially social-ideological, which is harmful to the State of Israel. The recent ruling by the Jerusalem District Court allowing the new public swimming pool in Har Homa to remain open on Shabbat has highlighted the ongoing religion-and-judiciary conflicts in Israeli society. Despite objections from a majority on the local community council, who are concerned about compromising the neighborhood's distinct Shabbat atmosphere, the court upheld the decision to keep the pool open on weekends for use by secular residents.

This incident is just one of many cases where social-ideological issues have been brought before the courts in Israel. Movie theater screenings, street closings, business operations on Shabbat, and other conflicts related to religious observance have also been subject to judicial rulings. The inconsistent nature of these rulings stems from the two underlying struggles at play: the struggle over identity and values in Israel and the struggle over the role of the courts in deciding such matters.

On one side, there is a secular-traditional majority that desires a Jewish character in the state without strict governance by Jewish law (halakha). On the other side, the Haredi-Religious population, which holds significant representation in the current coalition, seeks greater imposition of halakha in the public realm. This dichotomy intensifies as Israeli society undergoes changes, and both sides vie for a clear victory.

The second struggle revolves around the authority of the courts. Some view the courts as the proper forum for resolving social conflicts, especially when minority rights need protection. Others, particularly those in power, seek to limit the courts' involvement in such matters, preferring that decisions be made solely through the political process.

To create a more cohesive society, a shift towards compromise and consensus rather than absolute victory is crucial. If the community, municipal, and state levels adopt this approach, the frequency of conflicts requiring court intervention could decrease significantly. Ultimately, reducing the need for court rulings on social-ideological matters may alleviate the ongoing controversy over the role of the courts in Israeli society.