The decision concerning marriage arrangements in Israel was made when the country was still young. The Ottomans instituted the Millet system, which binds marriages and divorces to religious communities, each according to its tradition. The British kept this system. The State of Israel had a short debate, then also decided to keep it intact. “Halacha in matters of marriage and divorce is binding, and any deviation from it [would risk] the unity of the nation,” Deputy Minister of Religions, Zerach Warhaftig warned his fellow Knesset members. The fear of “the splitting of the Jewish people into two (or more) peoples” was a central reason for the adoption of the Millet method, which gave the Chief Rabbinate the authority to marry and divorce Jewish couples. Another concern was mixed marriages. The enactment of a law “authorizing mixed marriages between Jews and gentiles in the State of Israel will be … an attack on the very essence of the state as a Jewish state.”
In the first years of the state, as researchers Avishalom Westreich and Pinchas Fishman wrote, “social reality largely reflected this decision… the extent of defiance towards the decision … was small.” Since then, things changed for two main reasons. One is the entry of many Law of Return Olim who are not recognized as Jews by the rabbinate. The second — the secularization of many Israelis has produced a demand to regulate civil marriages in Israel. Generally, most of the public agrees with such demand. In a recent survey 53% of Israeli Jews said that they “strongly support” an official recognition of “all types of marriages, including Conservative, Reform or civil marriages.” Thirteen peercent said they “somewhat support” such recognition. The share of opponents was 31%, which is similar to the share of Orthodox Israelis.
Last week we presented here a graph on this subject, taken from a survey examining 25 decisions from the 75 years of the state. We asked Israelis about many past decisions, among which was one about marriage. What do they think today about “the decision to give the Chief Rabbinate exclusive status in matters of marriage and divorce.” The results were interesting. Among those who define themselves as “secular,” about nine out of ten believe that the decision was “bad” or “terrible.” A share close to that among the orthodox (84%) and the ultra-Orthodox (86%) say that the decision was “excellent” or “good.” In Israel there are more secular and non-religious traditionalists than Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox. This means that the average view is more negative than positive. That is, most Jews in Israel believe that this was not a good decision.
So, the majority position is that the decision was bad. How difficult is it to change it? Procedurally it’s very easy: All that is required is 61 votes in the Knesset. So why hasn’t it happened?
There are also two reasons for this. One — a certain hesitancy on the part of the leaders, even those who in principle support civil marriage. The move is dramatic, and once it is settled there is no real way back away from it (because couples will begin to marry in civil marriages, and the expected process of “dividing the nation” will begin). The second — because politics gets in the way. It is very important for the Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox parties to maintain the current framework, and they prioritize it over other matters.
It is the kind of situation that Israelis call “Isra-bluff,” a word which connotes both deception and illusion. Google it – it’s a handy expression.
Of course, the fact that the arrangement remains intact does not obligate the public to use it. The share of Jewish Israelis who do not marry through the rabbinate is constantly increasing. Israelis marry abroad, or via Zoom, or they cohabit, or sign contracts, or marry through the progressive movements. Since the courts, in an unfolding process, compared the rights of those who live together without marriage to the rights of those who are married (in almost every aspect), the state has no real ability to make or encourage Israelis to marry through the rabbinate. And it is safe to assume that if the state tries to do such a thing, that is, use pressure or coercion, it will encounter strong resistance.
So, this is where we are: the state made a decision. The public thinks it was a bad decision. The decision can be changed, but the conditions for change are not yet ripe. So, the public just ignores the decision when necessary. It is the kind of situation that Israelis call “Isra-bluff,” a word which connotes both deception and illusion. Google it – it’s a handy expression.
Something I wrote in Hebrew
Israel’s Minister of Homeland Security would like more citizens to have guns. Here’s what I wrote: Will Israel gain or lose if its citizens have more weapons available for use? This is a very difficult question to answer. Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir is a controversial figure, to put it mildly, but that is not a reason to automatically oppose every idea he puts forward. Even controversial figures can come up with good ideas. But how do we know if they are good? Here lies a difficulty. We will know only after we hand out quite a few weapons, and only after we sum up costs (ie: needless injuries and deaths) versus benefits (ie: prevention of needless injuries and deaths). If we find that the cost is greater than the benefit there will be a problem. Because weapons are easier to distribute than to collect.
A week’s numbers
For now, there is one winner and many losers because of Israel’s political turmoil. Benny Gantz, the most conciliatory voice in the public sphere is gaining, while the combative parties are losing.
A reader’s response:
Judy Schwartz asked: “Is changing the Law of Return off the table (you wrote about it a while ago)”.
My answer: Not off the table – there is still pressure to do it, but due to other, more urgent priorities, I don’t think this is going to happen anytime soon.
Shmuel Rosner is senior political editor. For more analysis of Israeli and international politics, visit Rosner’s Domain at jewishjournal.com/rosnersdomain.
