"He hath disgrac'd me . . . laugh'd at my losses, mock'd at
my gains, . . . And what's his reason? I am a chareidi. Hath
not a chareidi eyes? Hath not a chareidi hands, organs, . .
., fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons . . ."
(William Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice, Act III,
Scene I, with "chareidi" replacing "Jew")
As Israeli schools move towards studying a whole day, the
government has moved towards feeding the children one hot
meal a day. Three years ago, the school nutrition program was
implemented on an experimental basis and all the schools of
Beitar Illit were included in that program. In January 2005,
the Knesset passed a law that said that every student will
get "one hot meal a day according to a balanced and varied
menu set by the Minister of Health, taking account of the
needs of the children and their ages."
Most of the 32 schools of Beitar Illit were dropped from the
program, with the exception of nine that are considered State
schools. Beitar Illit sued to force the State to feed all the
children who study a full day.
Two days before Succos, the High Court, in a long opinion
written by Deputy Chief Justice Mishael Cheshin, rejected
Beitar Illit's petition. If they want a hot lunch paid for by
the government, "let them attend State schools." But if they
choose not to avail themselves of the State school system,
"let them not complain that they do not get a hot lunch as
provided in the law of a daily meal."
MK Yuli Tamir of the Labor party was one of those responsible
for the law providing for hot lunches. She was not happy with
the High Court ruling, to put it mildly.
"A hot lunch, in the opinion of Justice Mishael Cheshin, is a
benefit given by the State to those who choose the State
education system. What would Justice Cheshin say . . . if it
were an ideological refusal on the part of a few Arab schools
. . . Does Justice Cheshin think that a child who is not part
of the State system should also be denied other services such
as vaccinations? . . .
"From their ruling it is clear that the Justices view a daily
hot meal as a conditional service, or a prize given to a
child whose parents chose the correct path. The intention
behind the government's nutrition program was entirely
different. The legislator saw a hot meal as a primary, basic
right of every child, without discrimination as to religion,
race, culture, or educational stream. The school was just the
place in which the meal is given to the child; an instrument
that serves the nutrition program, and not the reason for its
operation. The need for the nutrition project arose not from
a desire to find another way to strengthen the State
education system, but from a reading of the sad social
conditions that leave more than 600,000 under the poverty
line and leaves a significant percentage of these in a state
of nutritional stress. Many of these children live in Beitar
Illit . . . They deserve food because they are hungry; all
other considerations have no significance. Food cannot serve
as a punishment or an incentive. Food is a basic, vital need,
that a proper State should ensure for every child. . . . It
is doubtful if in all of Beitar Illit and similar places
there are more than a handful of children whose parents will
send them to a State school just for a hot meal. The children
will simply remain hungry and be more alienated from the
State."
Chief Justice Barak has said that the chareidi public should
be grateful to the High Court because it protects its rights
as a minority. That is the way it is supposed to be in
theory: the majority can use its political power to get what
it wants, but the judicial branch of government will watch to
make sure that it does not go too far at the expense of the
minorities.
When he was asked about filing the court case, MK Rabbi
Ravitz said that he thought that it stood a good chance since
the discrimination is so blatant. When the decision was
announced, he was proven wrong: "The Court has once again
shown itself to be a leader in racism in the State of
Israel." MK Rabbi Gafni said, "The chareidi child, as far as
the High Court is concerned, can just remain hungry."
The ruling of the High Court was really a gratuitous
expression of its true feelings for the chareidi community.
With support from all across the political spectrum for food
for all Israeli children, the Knesset may well take action to
explicitly mandate its original intention. The Court did not
require discrimination; it only allowed it. But that opinion
will stand even after any action, and it will belie all the
declarations of sympathy for the chareidi minority.
