The Role of Orthodox Hegemony in a Democracy

June 24, 2009

Two recent issues involving the Orthodox community demonstrate some of the challenges to what it means to be a Jewish state. For several weeks there have been protests with increasing violence by the Haredi community over Jerusalem’s decision to open a parking lot on Shabbat to relieve traffic congestion near the Old City. The lot in question would be administered by a non-Jewish person, a strategy which seems acceptable in other instances where work is required on Shabbat, but the Haredi leaders decided not only that this lot was unacceptable, but that protests on Shabbat were warranted to close it down. At least two questions seem relevant. Isn’t the issue driving, not parking? If there are going to be protests, why are they seemingly mis-placed on the target of parking? Second, many residents of Jerusalem, both secular and those not as traditional in their beliefs are fine with the parking. Why should a minority have control over the wishes of the majority city residents? A third troubling question is why violence? Why stone throwing leading to injury? The state clearly allows, indeed provides ample support, for the Haredi to practice as they wish in their cloistered communities, so why should they impose their beliefs on others more so than they already do in their influence over marriage, divorce, burial and other rituals?

The second issue is humorous on the surface, but demonstrates why fundamentalism should have little place in the actual governance of a state. The lead sentence in the Jerusalem Post story is, “What blessing should a pious Jew make on the popular snack Bamba and its many surrogates?” While this question seems relevant for debate among halachic scholars in order to guide followers of religious law, the dark underside has political implications for Jerusalem and beyond. How is this possible? The debate over the appropriate blessing is between the two sons of Sephardi Jewry’s most influential halachic rabbi, Ovadia Yosef, who also happens to be the spiritual leader of Shas the political party of the Orthodox Sephardi Jews. The two sons are vying to become the next chief Sephardi rabbi of Jerusalem, positioning themselves to replace their father as the leader of the Sephardi movement. One son had fallen into disfavor because of his association with a former Shas chair who is seeking a political comeback after serving a 22-month prison sentence for taking a bribe of $150,000 in 1999. If I understand this, the next spiritual leader of Shas--a party that serves as kingmaker, due to the fragmented Israeli political party system—may be decided by whether the elderly father agrees with one or the other son over the proper blessing. What isn’t clear is whether the elderly father thinks that the son who is in bed with the bribe-taker is in a better position or a worse position to serve as the spiritual leader of Shas. If the Sephardi community wants to debate the blessing over a snack food, that’s fine, but the fact that there is dispute at all means that there should be little justification for a dogmatic policy. Basically, on the one hand it could be this and on the other hand it could be that, so why should either hand have a hand in dictating government policies based on their fundamentalist religious beliefs, if those beliefs are so varied?