The Israeli Supreme Court handed down an important ruling this week — striking down benefits for older yeshiva students. Married yeshiva students are given support payments that supply them with a state subsidized income.
In 2000, these grants were abolished for secular high education but retained for religious students. Arnon Yekutieli, an advocate for secular rights and separation of temple and state, challenged the obvious discriminatory rule. A former deputy mayor of Jerusalem, Yekutieli died in 2001 before he could learn of the important victory brought about by his petition.
Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch ruled that “there is no place for distinction between yeshiva students in any other institutions.”
One justice, however, fought to continue the facially discriminatory rule and the entanglement of temple and state. Justice Edmond Levy dissented, insisting “Torah study is a commandment and both the Knesset and the government have asserted that it should be funded by placing on the public the burden of providing an income for Torah students.”
Undeterred, Interior MInister Eli Yishai MK pledged to guarantee that yeshiva students would continue to be supported by the state and that the Knesset would resist what he called “a hard strike against at the spiritual status quo of the nation of Israel.”
For the full story, click here.
Gyges said:
I never said Prof. Turley was a bigot, so your request misses the mark. And I stand by my assertion – this is not an “important” case. It does, however, cast the historical record of Israel in an unfavorable light, regardless of the court’s recent decision.
Look, I call ’em as I see ’em. I have only been reading this blog for a few months. But in all that time, I see a disproportionate number of posts on Israel and all of them have been negative. Prof. Turley recently brought up the matter of U.S. expenditures in support of Israel twice. One of these references was completely gratuitous.
He jumped on the supply ship raid very early on and in the most inflammatory fashion. I could go on.
Now maybe my sample size of Prof. Turley’s posting record is too small. Maybe he doesn’t tend to present Israel in unflattering light overall. But…
I have seen this tendency with American liberals before (and I am a progressive, to the left of the Democratic party, btw) and I recognize the phrasing. Consider me on watch.
I don’t see any prejudice here. All Prof. Turley is commenting on is the growing attempts by Israelis to separate the temple from the state in Israel.
I have a bunch of Sabra (i.e., Israeli born) friends, who, like the vast number of Israelis, are barely religious and eat pork (calling it “white meat”). These sceularists are getting tired of subsidizing the religious.
In addition to the subsidy mentioned in this story, a very high percentage of Ultra-orthodox men are on the Isreali dole so that they can study the Torah. Israeli secularists are sick of supporting these people, who are viewed as non productive and a drag on the Israeli economy. If private foundations want to support these people, fine. Israel receives millions and perhaps billions of dollars from overseas Jewish donations. The point my friends make is that these donations should support Ultra-orthodox schuls, not Israeli tax payers.
I cannot understand the Israeli High Court’s decision in the context of Israeli law. Israel has no Constitution — no law exists banning government funding of religious institutions that has any greater authority than the appropriations and authorization statutes passed into law by the Israeli Knesset. In fact, since Ben Gurion was Prime Minister in his first term, the Israeli government has financed synagogue, church and mosque construction, religious schools of all denominations, and religious courts for the three major religions (the latter deal mostly with family law issues). It seems that the court is acting sua sponte and with an agenda that may be supported by the U.S. Constitution, and basic laws in Europe, but not in Israel. I haven’t yet seen a full translation of their decision, however.
Ginger,
As a civil libertarian the Prof. has a long standing history of commenting on the laws and rulings in other countries, especially if they concern one of the fundamental
http://jonathanturley.org/?s=England
http://jonathanturley.org/?s=Danish
If you’re going to imply bigotry, you need prove that the treatment of members of one group is markedly different from that of other groups. Also, you’re going to want to consider the context of your comments. JT clearly supports the recent decision, meaning this post casts Israel in a POSITIVE light.
Why is this an “important” ruling? It has no relevance to any country other than Israel and even there only affects a very few people. It has no relevance to the issue of the separation of church and state in the U.S. and only parochial interest to Israeli citizens.
Or is this issue “important” because it highlights Israeli sentiment which is anathema to us liberal secularists here in the U.S., and therefore serves as yet another in a seemingly unending series of posts at this blog which present Israel in an unflattering light?
Lets not confuse Israel’s Yeshiva as it applies to “Married students at yeshivas, or Jewish seminaries,[who] are entitled to support payments from the state to guarantee them a minimum income. But similar grants for secular higher education students were abolished in 2000”
with (the) Yeshiva University’s in the US which are a private university(s) in New York City, with six campuses in New York and one in Israel (the story here). They were founded in 1886. They are basically research universities.
Yeshiva University’s undergraduate schools—Yeshiva College, Stern College for Women, and Sy Syms School of Business “offer a unique dual curriculum inspired by the Modern Orthodox Judaism philosophy of Torah Umadda (“Torah and secular knowledge”)” — self-claimedly “combining the finest, contemporary academic education with the timeless teachings of Torah.”
Yeshiva University’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, and other graduate and professional schools promote a “dual emphasis on professional excellence and personal ethics.
Part of the above is from Wiki.