When the Conservative movement in Israel could clearly not
meet the general criteria established by the Religious
Affairs Ministry for its support, the High Court simply
ordered the Ministry to change its criteria. Last Thursday,
27 Tishrei, the High Court determined that the criteria for
the allocation of support to the nationwide Torah
institutions are illegal, and therefore null and void. This
decision was made in the wake of a petition filed by the
Conservative movement. The justices of the Supreme Court
ordered the Religious Affairs Ministry to transfer to the
Conservative movement support at the rate in which it was
allotted them in '96 for the years of '97 and '98, taking the
funds out of the budget of '99 or 2000.
In '97, the Finance Committee decided to change the support
criteria of the Religious Affairs Ministry for Torah-culture
institutions. Until that year, the support had been divided
among categories of nationwide, regional and municipal
organizations, in addition to women's, children's and youth
organizations. The Conservative movement had been receiving
support as a regional organization.
As a result of the change, support was limited to large,
nationwide organizations. The reason given for the change was
the inability to properly supervise the thousands of small
and often short-lived organizations which seek support. The
change was made across the board, and many organizations lost
their funding.
As a result, the Conservative movement did not receive
funding, since it did not meet the criteria of a nationwide
organization. These include being active in at least 30
settlements, or conducting activities attended by at least
10,000 people, and offering 2000 classes a month. The
Conservative movement, it was claimed in the petition,
functions in only 15 settlements, and gives 500 classes a
month in which 2892 people participate.
The Conservatives appealed to the Supreme Court to cancel the
support criteria, claiming that they prevent it from
receiving support, even though it functions on a nationwide
basis. They claimed that the criteria are inequitable, and
that canceling the support of regional organizations should
have been accompanied by a broadening of the quantitative
definition of a nationwide organization.
They claimed, too, that the groups which meet the criteria of
a nationwide organizations achieved this size because they
received support from the State treasury, and that it is
unfair that the expansion of these organizations should serve
as the cause for denial of support to other organizations,
which did not benefit from State support, and as a result did
not manage to become large organizations. By the same token,
the movement claimed that the criteria limit the support to
the institutions which have a broad base, which are those of
Orthodox Jewry, and prevent smaller institutions from
expressing a different religious conception.
The reason given for the change in the criteria was the many
small and often short-lived organizations which applied for
support, and the difficulty in supervising them. At the
deliberation in the Supreme Court it became clear that only
171 organizations applied for support as Torah institutions
in 1995-1996 and not 2000, as had been claimed before the
change. The justices of the Supreme Court decided to accept
the appeal, and to revoke the criteria which had been
determined for the support to Torah institutions.
Chareidi observers said that by this ruling, one of many in
favor of the heretical movements, the justices of the Supreme
Court have proved again that their partiality to the
heretical movements, which receive legitimization from the
Supreme Court, even though they are, in terms of real
numbers, very irrelevant. "The Supreme Court has proven over
and over again, that the its judicial autocracy influences
all of its decisions, and that its purpose is to undermine
the accomplishments made by chareidi Jewry over recent
years." The appearance is that Court allowed itself to
intervene in what should be a purely bureaucratic decision,
in order to benefit a movement which it favors.
