After years of debate, it appears as if a historic compromise at Jerusalem’s Western Wall may actually become a reality. Israel’s Cabinet voted on Sunday to approve a plan to designate a section of the Kotel, as it is known in Hebrew, for egalitarian prayer. The decision is being hailed by the leaders of Reform and Conservative Judaism as well as by Natan Sharansky, the head of the Jewish Agency for Israel, who was the driving form behind it. Others are praising Prime Minister Netanyahu for being able to maneuver the scheme through the government despite the opposition of the Orthodox religious parties that are an essential part of his coalition. But those who hope that this will smooth over the rifts between Israel and the Diaspora are probably exaggerating the impact of the deal. This is a step forward toward more acceptance of Jewish religious pluralism in Israel. Yet it probably won’t satisfy those Jews that are estranged from Israel for reasons that go beyond opposition to the Orthodox establishment’s stranglehold on power over religion.
When Sharansky first announced his plan for creating a space for pluralistic Jewish worship at the Wall in 2013, I was skeptical that it would happen since opposition to it from the Orthodox and the Muslim Wakf that runs the Temple Mount above the Western Wall Plaza seemed likely to derail his excellent plan. I’m pleasantly surprised that the plan has gotten this close to fruition. But while some of those obstacles remain, it’s important to be clear about what this does and does not do for both the cause of pluralism and support for Israel.
The plan itself doesn’t actually alter the current space for worship at the Kotel. The plaza in front of the last remnant of the biblical Temple remains, for all intents and purposes, an Orthodox synagogue with separate areas for male and female worshippers. Women who wished to pray in an egalitarian service and read the Torah or wear prayer shawls will no longer be subject to assault from Orthodox worshippers or, as was sometimes the case before the courts intervened, harassment from the police who acted on the premise that such prayers were disturbing the peace of the holy site.
Women who wish to pray in that manner or those wishing to pray together with members of the opposite sex will be able to use a section of the Wall that is not part of the current plaza but is, instead, part of the area designated as an archeological park to the south of the iconic site. That is not quite the grand scheme Sharansky first announced, which featured three areas with equal access. Entry to the relatively small egalitarian portion of the Kotel is not as easy. And, as some critics, have pointed out, it concedes all of the current plaza to the Orthodox while ensuring that they will be spared the sight of non-Orthodox Jews praying together.
Moreover, there are still plenty of chances for Orthodox members of the government to stop the plan via funding cutoffs. Netanyahu will have to be very creative in getting the money to facilitate the change and maintain the new area without the help of the Finance Ministry or the Religious Affairs Ministry, which is controlled by one of the Haredi parties.
There’s also the possibility, as I originally noted early on in this discussion, that the Palestinians would seize upon any change in the Kotel area as a pretext for more violence. The Muslim Wakf that controls the Temple Mount announced their opposition to the plan because they consider all the Jewish holy places to be the property of the Palestinians. If any construction is involved in easing access to the egalitarian area (which currently requires visitors to descend a long staircase), then we can expect that, as they did when access to some of the underground passageways that lead to the Wall were opened in the 1990s, there will be riots and false charges about the Jews trying to harm the Temple Mount mosques. Since the Palestinian Authority is already heavily invested in promoting such canards and fomenting bloodshed, there’s no reason to believe, the Kotel compromise won’t lead to even more horror from the Arabs.
But even if we assume that eventually the plan will be funded and that the Israeli government will not let Arab intimidation derail it, basic problems about both pluralism and the rift between Israel and the Diaspora remain.
Orthodox control the Kotel Plaza is, after all, merely a highly visible symbol of their monopoly over religion and life-cycle events in Israel. While Israeli governments have always recognized the legitimacy of the non-Orthodox streams because of their dealings with American Jewry, the basic situation remains. Like many other democracies, Israel is a country where there is no separation between religion and state. That means rabbis are paid by the state and necessarily the question of who is a rabbi (as opposed to the separate question of who is a Jew) is inherently political. Since the Orthodox vote in large numbers for sectarian parties that purport to represent their interests and which often can play the kingmaker in Israel’s proportional election system, they have power. The tiny minority of Israelis that identify with Reform and Conservative Judaism have none.
It is true that the majority of Israelis that are secular would love to be rid of the official rabbinate. But in a country in which war and peace issues, and to a lesser extent, those involving economics, dominate the political discussion, support for disestablishment, let alone the less popular question of pluralism, has never been a priority.
That means American Jews will continue to resent the fact that Reform and Conservative rabbis are not recognized by Israel. The willingness of so many Orthodox Israelis as well as others to regard streams of Judaism that are rooted in the Diaspora as illegitimate will also continue to plague relations between American Jews and Israelis. Many Israelis also perceive the Women of the Wall, the group whose efforts led to this solution, as troublemakers and the debate about their conduct and motives will continue to divide those who care about the issue.
Even more to the point is the fact that liberal Jews in America are probably more motivated by their opposition to the Israeli consensus on the peace process, which now extends from the Likud to the Labor party, than they are pleased by any progress towards religious pluralism in the Jewish state. The disconnect between the reality of Palestinian intransigence and violence and American illusions about Israel having the power to make peace by itself is the factor that is causing the most division between the two countries. And that schism will continue to grow as American non-Orthodox Jews continue to assimilate (as the Pew Survey showed they are doing) in a manner that causes them to lose a sense of Jewish peoplehood. Nothing that happens at the Wall will be enough to disabuse liberal Americans of the folly of trying to save Israel from itself. Nor will address the serious problems that threaten the demographic collapse of non-Orthodox Jewry in North America.
Yet even if we take all these factors into account, the Kotel compromise was still the right thing for Netanyahu to do. He deserves praise from American Jewry, including those liberal denominations that are inclined to be critical of him, for persisting in his support of Sharansky. The Western Wall is a national shrine that should be thought of as belonging to all of the Jewish people and not just the Orthodox. Giving the non-Orthodox their own space at the Wall is a matter of justice. But by itself, it won’t mend the growing rift between Israel and the Diaspora.
