Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another

thescroll_header

‘Women of the Wall’ Ruling in Limbo (Updated)

The Attorney General calls on “local custom” to prevail

Print Email
(Women of the Wall)

Last week, a Jerusalem district court ruling seemingly granted the Women of the Wall and others equal protection for prayer at the Western Wall by deciding that the arrests of female worshipers last month wasn’t appropriate.

At the time, it seemed like a victory, but also a missed opportunity. The court ruling effectively defused all the buzz that a plan put forth by Jewish Agency head Natan Sharansky had garnered in recent weeks. The plan called for an egalitarian prayer section, which may not have been ideal for either Women of the Wall or the Western Wall rabbi Shmuel Rabinowitz, but both had seemingly been open to the conversation.

In short, the court ruling obviated the immediate need for compromise when public attention surrounding the issue was at its zenith. Representatives of the Western Wall Heritage Foundation, which had said it could live with a proposed change, hardened its stance as did the Women of the Wall chief Anat Hoffman, who said the Sharansky plan wasn’t relevant anymore because of the court ruling.

As I wrote last week, the problem was that the court ruling wasn’t a permanent fix:

But the issue isn’t settled now. One scenario is that a higher court could overturn the district ruling that offers female worshipers protection. Another complicating factor could be next month’s Rosh Hodesh service that plans to incorporate women reading from the Torah at the Western Wall for the first time in a decade. These are rights that should be protected, but history has not shown that all of Jewish Jerusalem agrees with that.

Just minutes ago, the Women of the Wall posted the following on its Facebook page:

It is a shameful day for the Israeli judicial system.

Attorney General Weinstein released a statement today in which he rejects the 24.4.13 District Court decision supporting Women of the Wall’s right to freedom of religion at the Western Wall. In a meeting with Rabbi Rabinowitz, Chair of the Western Wall Heritage Foundation, and Minister of Religious Services Naftali Bennet, his Vice Minister, Rabbi Ben Dahan and the states attorney, it was decided that the Attorney General will not appeal the District Court decision to the Supreme Court, though he also does not state that he accepts the ruling. His solution: to return to the 1981 addition to the law of holy places, which forbids citizens to pray in ways that are “contrary to the local custom”. The term “local custom” has failed to be defined in the 22 years since passing the addendum to the law, thus the need for legal clarity. Minister Bennet has proposed that he would like to reexamine this addendum, and introduce amendments to the law.

Women of the Wall urge the Attorney General to act and lead in accordance to legal proceedings of the State of Israel. The most recent legal ruling, if it is not challenged in the Supreme Court, should set precedent for women’s right to pray freely, according to their belief, on the women’s side of the Western Wall.

The statement continued, explaining that the next test will be in a few days’ time when the Women of the Wall gather for their Rosh Hodesh service on May 10. Taken at its word, the attorney general’s statement is quite literally a return to square one.

Update: JTA’s Ben Sales, who is following the issue closely from Israel and does great work, dropped me a line this morning to say he believes the Women of the Wall statement jumped the gun a little bit. He wrote (emphasis his):

This morning, I called the AG’s spokesperson to clear it up. He told me that I was right: the AG’s decision not to appeal means that the AG accepts the court ruling.

Of course, Bennett’s amendments could change the law and make the court ruling obsolete. But those amendments don’t exist yet, so the court ruling stands.

Court Ruling Makes Sharansky Kotel Plan Moot [Tablet]

Print Email
Oriyah says:

The reform movement, of which Anat Hoffman, leader of Women of the Wall is a part, maintains that the Western Wall holds no religious sanctity. Logically, then, it’s hard to believe that the Women of the Wall are looking for “religious freedom,” but rather seem to be making a big issue over a secular feminist cause. This is disrespectful to all the people for whom the Western Wall IS considered a sacred religious site.

If I insisted on holding traditional Jewish prayer services aloud in the Vatican under the guise of “religious freedom,” no one would be fooled. If a Protestant group tried to hold religious services aloud in the Vatican under the same guise, they would also be called on it. Why are so many people buying into this charade?

I disagree with Anat Hoffman and her tactics, and feel the same of the Women of the Wall, Still, if they showed up and did their thing without bothering anyone, I don’t think legal intervention would be appropriate. The problem is that the situation is becoming a media circus, and the Western Wall is not the appropriate place for such things.

    Cyril Al says:

    I hear your concern and I partially agree with you!

    I think your confusing a few issues tho… Jews stay Jews no matter their denomination so comparing Liberal Jews to Protestant is not the best analogy in my opinion… On the other hand I see why some Orthodox can be annoyed!

    However Hasidic Judaism did never hold a monopoly on the Jewish faith…

    Are karaite even allowed to pray at the Western Wall? what about Beta Israel?

    Surely the King of Israel will bring Justice to all denominations not just one..

    At least that’s my Hope!

    BJS says:

    Agree with this. The Women of the Wall are the minority of worshippers at the Kotel. They should be looking for a compromise which will allow them to do their thing without imposing on the predominantly orthodox worshippers around them.
    The original plans for compromise sounded good. But it seems that compromise is not what they’re after…

dantheman08822 says:

My reading of this is that the Jerusalem District Court ruled that what the Women of the Wall were doing was NOT violating “local custom.” This makes the reinstatement of the 1981 law, which banned practices which violate “local custom” (which is conveniently undefined), moot.
Had the Court found that yes, the Women of the Wall violated “local custom” but that it was legal to do so, then the reinstitution of the 1981 law would, in fact, bring the situation back to Square One and a new round of arrests and litigation.
I guess we’ll have to see what happens this coming Saturday. The whole world, and not just the Jewish world, will be watching.

2000

Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Be a Mensch. Support Tablet.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

‘Women of the Wall’ Ruling in Limbo (Updated)

The Attorney General calls on “local custom” to prevail

More on Tablet:

Matzoball Memories

By James Kirchick — My uncle, godfather of the Jewish singles business, created a Christmas Eve tradition