As Israel’s Jewish unity further unravels, its future is at stake

Much has been said on the Israeli seizure of the Free Gaza flotilla on 31 May 2010, which resulted in increased international pressure to end the Gaza blockade. The fall-out of this incident would almost allow another worrisome development in Israeli society to escape public attention: the unraveling of the unity of its Jewish population group, as Jewish inter-communal quarrels reached new heights last week. In the small West Bank settlement of Immanuel, a conflict on the right to segregated education and religious freedom turned ugly, as ultra-orthodox parents refused the desegregation of a local girls’ school. In the Beit Yaakov school, girls of Ashkenazi, European, descent were physically segregated from their Sephardi school mates, who have a North African, Middle Eastern or Asian background.

The Ashkenazi girls were enrolled in a separate Hasidic study track, and kept apart from the other female students through a system of separate entrances, class rooms, and even playgrounds. Although Sephardi girls were allowed to follow the Hasidic study track in principle as well, entry criteria encompassing the adoption of the Ashkenazi style of prayer both in the class room and at home prevented their participation in practice. Ashkenazi parents fiercely denied the ethnic basis of the segregation, emphasizing the less strict religious upbringing of the Sephardi girls as the main reason, claiming they watched television at home and maintained a less strict dress code. However, the High Court of Justice ruled the segregation to be based on ethnicity, and therefore discriminatory. As the parents continued to refuse desegregation, it sentenced the parents of 43 girls to two weeks of jail time. The situation was shushed by a compromise brokered by rabbis representing the two groups, which allowed the temporary desegregation of the school. However, it remains to be seen whether Ashkenazi parents will continue to send their children to school after the summer break.

The Immanuel controversy led to escalation of the public debate, once again exposing the fragility of Israel’s Jewish unity. On Thursday 17 June 2010, Jerusalem witnessed the largest ultra-orthodox demonstration in recent years, when over 100.000 Haredi (ultra-orthodox) men took to the streets to defend the parents’ right to segregated education in name of religious freedom. Meanwhile, the government remained relatively numb on the subject, as any confirmation of the claims of one of the parties is bound to cost them political support among the others. Despite the compromise that was reached, public debate has yet to die down. At stake is the very ethnic, religious and political make-up of Israel and ultimately the chances for success of the Israeli state.

As the international community mainly focuses on Israel’s complicated relations with its neighboring states, the Palestinian people and the Israeli Arabs, the rising tensions and differences within the Israeli Jewish community itself are often overlooked. Despite Israel’s status as a Jewish state, Israeli society has suffered from Jewish inter-communal tensions among Ashkenazim and Sephardim from the very beginning. The mostly Ashkenazi early immigration waves succeeded in securing their dominance in the political, economic, military, legal, academic and cultural realms of the new state. As the Israeli-Arab conflict escalated, Sephardi communities arrived in Israel with different looks and religious traditions, often encountering discrimination. So far, Ashkenazim continue to be overrepresented in the higher income-level, top echelons of politics and military, and in the cultural realm. Despite the fact that Ashkenazim and Sephardim represent roughly equal-sized communities, there was never a Sephardi installed as prime minister, and the prestigious Israel Prize rarely gathers dust on a Sephardi mantle piece. Although there are signs of a narrowing of the ethnic gap, the Immanuel case has once again called attention to the Sephardic position within Israel’s Jewish society.

The Immanuel controversy is also the latest event in a series of confrontations between Israel’s ultra-orthodox community and its more secular Jewish community, threatening to disturb Israel’s shaky religious balance. The main topic of debate is the exact design of the Jewish state. Should it be a religious state, a secular, democratic Jewish state, or maintain its current uncomfortable in-between compromise? Sixty-two years after its establishment, the task of Israel’s self-identification has not become any less daunting. The Immanuel case has led to renewed criticism among many less religious Israelis, who resent the fact that the ultra-orthodox receive state-funding for their unofficial religious schools, exemptions from military service, and state benefits allowing them to maintain their lifestyle dedicated to religious study. They claim the Haredim are free riding on their hard earned tax money and efforts to keep Israel safe, whilst contributing hardly anything in return. They perceive the refusal of the Haredi community to respect court rulings it deems contrary to religious law as another example of Haredi rejection of Israels state institutions. The fact that the compromise reached by religious Jewish leaders over Immanuel has been hailed by some of the Haredi community as a victory over Israel’s secular institutions does not help either. The Haredim in turn accuse the Israeli state of infringing on their religious freedom, pointing at court rulings such as the abolishment of state grants for married students of yeshivas, Jewish learning centers. The Haredim form a powerful political force, as their political influence is multiplied by Israel’s splintered, coalition-based political system and they can count on considerable support among diaspora communities. Now their share of the Jewish population is increasing due to significantly higher birth rates, concerns about discord between the Haredim and the increasingly skeptic, more secular Israelis will only rise.

In a recent address to the Knesset Prime Minister Netanyahu re-emphasized Israel’s status as a nation-state of the Jewish people, stating that there ‘is no such thing as an Israeli people’. The struggle over Immanuel shows Israel’s Jewish people consists out of a multitude of Jewish communities fragmented along social, ethnic and religious lines, facing each other with increasing hostility. The unraveling of Israel’s Jewish unity raises important questions for Israel’s future. Due to its problematic security situation, Israeli has to request more of its citizens than other states, ranging from large tax contributions to sustain its military security apparatus, to the lives of its young sons and daughters as they enter the army. The sacrifices of its citizens are based on a deep sense of community and a joined effort to safeguard the Jewish state. Any breakdown of that solidarity poses risks to Israel’s future political, economic, and social well-being, hampering a breakthrough in the Middle East peace process. For now, Netanyahu continues to point at external forces as the biggest threats to Israel’s future. Maybe he should look closer to home at his own disunited community.