|
|
| |||||
|
IN-DEPTH FEATURES
Part II
The chareidi community quite frequently finds itself
trapped between the hammer of the judges of law and the anvil
of the dismal reality. The Israeli courts are well known for
their "objectivity," and the community of Torah- faithful
Jews has found itself to be on the raw end of the legal
rulings. As a consequence, Betzedek was founded, which aimed
to utilize "their" tools and, while triggering the mechanisms
of law and justice, take care of the interests of the
vulnerable sector—the Torah Jews..
Just as the gedolei hador dispatch rabbinical
delegates deep inside the legislative system—the
Knesset— to rescue a drop from the ocean, so Rabbi
Mordechai Green, as a rabbinical delegate in the judicial
system, acts with his legal expertise to save what he
can—and from the power of those who sent him come the
legal successes of the organization.
In the Betzedek offices, we got together attorneys
Mordechai Green and Uri Steinmetz. We wished to understand
the way in which the Betzedek organization functions today
under the encouragement and direction of Israeli
gedolim from all circles and communities, and why the
Council for Legal Protection of Jewish Values has pulled out
of the fray. Attorney Green is now the director of Betzedek,
while Attorney Steinmetz is primarily in private
practice.
In the first part, Attorney Steinmetz noted that the
prospects of achieving anything in the Israeli court system
are very daunting. He quoted Rabbi Simcha Meron who wrote two
articles, thirty years apart, in which he brought clear
evidence: there were cases on the very same legal
issues— and on the very same particular
points—where the left and the secular were found by the
courts to be in the right, while the chareidi and religious
community were found wrong! He said that it was good that a
new, younger generation was there to take up the
challenge.
Attorney Green said that the situation now is different
from twenty and thirty years ago. The High Court, especially
under Chief Justice Barak who holds that everything is
justiciable, is involved in many aspects of life. This is a
complaint not only of the chareidi community, but of many
secular people as well. This makes it much harder to ignore
the Court. However, Betzedek can point to a long list of
successes, despite all the difficulties and obstacles.
The final question asked was: Why not try to overwhelm the
High Court with dozens of petitions? Attorney Green admitted
that there are many issues in which they decide not to file
with the Court. The perspective of the decision whether or
not to go to court is often much broader than the case at
hand. It relates to legal consequences of the decision in the
case, of course, but also to the consequences for other parts
of the population. Even in cases where, from a short-term
perspective, it might well have been in the interests of
chareidi Judaism, out of concern for the general population
they decide not to act.
*
Attorney Steinmetz listens. He does not argue that one should
not attempt to fight in the courts, but he does stress that
other channels should not be ignored. For example, he relates
the following:
The chareidi community was certain that the heter isko
of the banks for ribis could be relied on for
everything. Recently, there was a court hearing in regard to
a certain claim against one of the banks. In its defense, the
bank recruited an opinion of the inspector of the banks, in
which it was written that the heter isko was a mere
ceremony, just a religious formality that carried no legal
weight. This was backed up with the opinion of a most senior
judge, one of the judicial leadership in the country. They
claimed that the heter isko which depends on banks in
a prominent location is a laughing stock.
How was the problem solved? The chareidi community stayed
away from the bank. They made clear to the bank in no
uncertain terms that "if the heter isko had no legal
footing nor any meaning for them, they would go to a bank
where the heter isko was effective, and where any
charge of it being a laughing stock would not be acceptable.
Those other banks were happy to receive thousands of new
customers, while the other banks had no idea how to stop up
the pit they had dug for themselves.
A few days later, the inspector of the banks hurried to write
a completely different opinion, in which he left the whole
matter to "market forces" . . . He himself became a laughing
stock. This example is a fine illustration of how sometimes
it is better to make a decision outside the courtroom, and it
is preferable to let the "market force" of the chareidi
community take effect. It is definitely a substantial power.
According to professional estimations, observant Jews (though
not all of them are chareidi) make up 40 percent of the
population!
Attorney Green: "In my opinion, this episode is not
necessarily a legal-religious issue. I do not agree that this
is definitely an anti-religious ruling. The term heter
isko was simply foreign and alien to them. They related
to it from the perspective of the laws of contracts, to what
extent would they stick to their decision, and how much of a
transaction was there between the individual and the bank. It
does not have to be connected to religion."
Attorney Steinmetz: "Who are we talking about here? The
inspector of the banks, no less! It is a basic term that he
has to know!"
Attorney Green: But on a certain level, the outcome of
that incident was positive: In the end, the heter isko
was secured, and obtained validity from a legal standpoint. I
think that this is actually a classic example of how a legal
problem ended up with a positive outcome.
My colleague, Attorney Steinmetz, argues that we must not
stop lobbying, and I am also convinced of that! We work in
full collaboration with the public activists and politicians.
We do not follow a separate road, disconnected from them, but
we serve as a second arm with pincer movements, as a parallel
and coordinated arm. The politicians apply to us, they keep
us up to date and bring up problematic issues—and
wherever there is a legal ground, we go into action.
Besides that, our operation entails lobbying. First, you
appeal in writing to the relevant body and point to a certain
discrimination. In your letter you present the legal claims,
check the relevant materials and present it all to them.
After additional correspondence, when the legal disagreements
remain as a block, you state in no uncertain terms: "Please
see this as a preliminary to an application to the High Court
for relief—if we do not get an answer we will be forced
to apply to the courts."
Just having recourse to the High Court — does that
not involve a certain recognition?
Attorney Green: We heard an abundantly clear message
from the rabbonim with regard to the relationship
between us and the courts. After we had presented a certain
ruling to HaRav Eliashiv, he told us: "What do you expect
from the judges? Would you have expected anything different
from them?" And he added, ironically, "Actually, the judges
should disqualify themselves every time they have to judge a
religious issue — since they are biased. Just as a
person will disqualify himself from judging a case that
involves his own relative, they ought to disqualify
themselves from judging any case related to religion."
HaRav A.Y.L. Shteinman told us: "They are the law! We cannot
have anything to do with them! They are on a different path!
They do not think as we do! And whenever we apply to them it
is not because we recognize their authority, choliloh,
but we do so out of compulsion. We are attempting to save
ourselves and that is the route of our hishtadlus, but
absolutely and in no way do we place any reliance on them [as
having any intrinsic value].
"We do not recognize the High Court. We do not recognize the
laws of the country [as being eternally valid]. We do not
identify with any of the scale of values that the State
represents. When we come before the High Court, it is not
because we recognize the authority of the law nor what they
do—we are merely coming to speak to the courts in their
legal language."
Today, I appeared in the High Court on the issue of the right
to demonstrate against missionaries in Arad. And this is how
I expressed myself in front of the judges: "I am a believing
Jew who completely and totally negates the activities of the
missionaries which damage the foundations of Judaism. But I
come to you according to the rules of your game: Let us
corroborate what you define as a basic law—the right to
demonstrate."
We use their language, since the courts do not understand us
nor do they understand our language. We are foreign to them.
They have no understanding whatsoever of where we come from
nor what our values are.
Is it that they do not understand, or they do not want to
understand?
You see, they really do not understand. The extent of their
knowledge of the Torah is scant. It is almost equivalent to
what one of our children knows. They simply do not know much.
Like any other person in the country, they are fed with a
little media, a few reports from the Knesset, and so on. They
do not understand our overall values at all.
From their perspective, everything about us is political. It
is hard for them to understand that there exists a clear and
solid system of values that we represent, and from which we
cannot budge.
On this issue, there is no place for ambiguity. Things have
to be very clear. In no way do we recognize their authority!
All we are doing is saying here: "According to the rules of
your game, even though we do not recognize you, it is
appropriate and correct to rule in such and such a way. Even
though we do not recognize their values, as citizens we have
the full right to demand equal rights."
Is the High Court intimidated by Betzedek?
Attorney Green: That is a very important point. In
many cases we apply to the powers that be — such as the
municipality, the Ministry of Education or Treasury, or
others — and the problems are solved before we get to
the High Court. For the most part, it is better that way. It
seems to me that the powers that be have already taken in and
internalized the fact that there is an organization that
represents chareidi interests, and that it might, in cases
involving discrimination or perversion of justice, appeal to
the High Court.
We are certain that, in more than a few cases, the ruling
parties have given in without a fight out of an awareness
that an organization exists that could take action on the
legal plane.
The classic example of this is the issue of teachers'
continuing education courses. The Ministry of Education
contributes funding for these courses. They suddenly stopped
funding the chareidi courses. The reason given was that only
those who belonged to the national Histadrut Hamorim
(Teachers' Union) could get funding.
We pleaded discrimination, threatening to appeal to the High
Court. The result was that, after urgent consultations with
their legal department, they were forced to retract their
decision and we got our equality without recourse to the High
Court.
We serve as a deterrent. As long as they know that they will
be criticized, and that they might have to face a legal
critique later on, they know that they must be careful and
give the matter more thought, before things go too far. In
such circumstances, they have to restrain themselves ahead of
time. And if we can achieve those results without going to
the High Court, all the better. It is usually preferable,
too.
The mass demonstration that was held here below, on the
steps of the building — did that affect the conduct of
the High Court?
Attorney Green: First and foremost, that enormous
rally was not geared to that purpose. That rally was the cry
of a Jew who was touched in the place where his tefillin
are. Did that collective cry from the heart have an
effect? In Judaism, actions are examined according to how
much you invest and not according to the outcome: "Man
darf to'en—nisht oyfto'en."
Aside from this, we do not have the tools to measure the
extent of the impact. However, it is obvious that such an
event could not pass by without leaving a scar. It is etched
in the heart of the people. I would say that it caused them a
shock, or at least a shake up. They realized that the
chareidi community had lost all shred of faith in the legal
system. It is hard for me to assess whether or not it brought
about any specific results in the field. As far as the
current situation is concerned, the rulings still do not
reflect an appropriate sensitivity to the chareidi
community.
Attorney Steinmetz: Barak's method, while he was still
the attorney general for the government, was not to get
worked up. He related to the outbursts and the criticism as a
kind of muddy wave which sends up a foam and eventually
passes. Even faced with fire from the secular people who did
not favor his legal proceedings, he never got upset. As I
said earlier, the way everyone sees it, the game is
predetermined. I must say that I am a little `biased.' My
late father studied under HaRav Yoel, the Satmar Rebbe. The
way I see it, in fifty years time, even the Mizrachi circles
will be walking around with the label, `We're all Satmar' . .
. "
Attorney Green: The Satmar approach to the whole
subject is legitimate, but what will happen in another fifty
years is only a matter of conjecture. You have to understand,
that from a value perspective, there is no argument
whatsoever between us and Satmar. A Jew is a Jew, and the law
is the law!
The value-based rejection of the law as it is based on non-
Jewish law is a complete rejection. There is no room for
compromise, no breaks, no concessions involved. The question
does not even come up for discussion, since we are talking
about a full wagon set against an empty one. Truth to tell,
it is barely even a wagon and the tires are already flat. If
the wagon is actually loaded, it is full of muddy values that
are reflected in the generation . . .
Therefore, there is no value consideration here at all. The
question is only one of tactics.
The Chazon Ish once explained that every generation has its
battlefront. Our generation has a battle that never was
before. It is the battle against the High Court, which
establishes people's overall values and permeates all of
society. We act from lack of choice, out of a sense of
persecution, out of a feeling that if we do not protect
ourselves we will remain trodden on. Should we fight for our
rights according to their rules? It is not a question of
principle. It is rather a question of tactics, of weapons.
Do they relate to a chareidi attorney who appears in court
in a different way than they relate to a secular
attorney?
Attorney Green: Not too much, I think. In general,
there is a kind of psychological barrier in relation to a
chareidi person. The judges know very little about the Torah,
and the way of life of a chareidi Jew. There is definitely a
feeling of strangeness and alienation. But it is different
when it comes to an attorney who uses their legal
language.
If a legal question is brought up in a hearing, such as
removing a balcony on a house, then the fact that the
litigant is a chareidi does not necessarily have an
influence. But in any case where there is someone who
embraces or is connected to our lifestyle, overall values or
way of conducting ourselves, there is a definite
alienation.
If tools are lacking to present the subject in a way that
they can understand the world-perspective of the person in
the case, then the psychological barrier could affect the
outcome. And that is the abysmal difference between a system
of legislation that is manmade and given to interpretation by
succeeding generations, and zos HaTorah lo tehei
muchlefes, a Divine system of Law.
And how is an Arab who appears in court treated?
There is a marked favoritism. There is a distinct attempt by
the courts in general—and the High Court in
particular—to get to know the Arabs, and to increase
their status. More and more, the court rulings are creating a
situation in which the country is being stripped of its
Jewish identity and is becoming a State for all citizens.
They are looking for opportunities to raise Arab rights.
Could it be that the time will come when they will do
reverse discrimination against the chareidim?
That is the aim. But we will be quite happy just to get a
relationship of equality, even without the reverse
discrimination.
Do you also deal with the legal problems of
individuals?
An individual who is being persecuted for his religion, such
as a worker who was fired because of his refusal to work on
Shabbos, will obviously be taken care of. But we will not
intervene in a private quarrel between two parties, where one
of them happens to be a chareidi.
The establishment of Betzedek, an institution of Agudas
Yisroel of America, can be credited to Rabbi Shmuel Bloom,
executive vice president of Agudas Yisroel of America. Rabbi
Bloom knows the judicial front very well from the activities
of the legal division of the American Agudas Yisroel. After
consulting with the gedolim in Eretz Yisroel, a
group of activists was formed to serve as members of the
association. Additionally, a core group of baalei
batim and community figures was set up overseas who, side
by side with the Israeli group, would support the activities
of the organization.
Members of the association in Israel are Rabbi Yaakov
Warjavinsky, Rabbi Avrohom Rubinstein, Rabbi Ron Sharon,
Rabbi Sholom Katzover, and Rabbi Shmuel Narkiss and Rabbi
Mordechai Bruner, who are Gerrer Chassidim, Rabbi Moshe
Baryash, a Belzer Chassid, Rabbi Nisan Zwibel, a Sanzer
Chassid, Rabbi Berish Daskel, a prominent Vishnitz activist.
The organization's activities center on legal protection for
institutions and individuals who have been harmed, or
discriminated against, because of their observance of Torah
and mitzvos. These operations are carried out under the
professional and dedicated administration of attorney Rabbi
Mordechai Green. The organization plans to get involved in
other activities in the future. The next branch, soon to be
established, is called Tomach, and it will focus on issues of
employment.
In 1985 (5745), The Council for the Legal Protection of
Jewish Values was founded. The goal of the Council was to
fight for Jewish values using legal tools. This initiative
was not the first of its kind, and definitely will not be the
last, but it was a determined enterprise, with the backing of
senior lawyers.
The council was set up by the Klausenberger Rebbe and its
activities were guided by the gedolei hador. Two
retired judges, who had served in the High Court, joined:
Rabbi Y. Kister and Rabbi Ben Zion Sharshevsky.
At that time, the chareidi community was up in arms over the
Shabbos-laws. The courts in Rechovot, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv
ruled that municipal bylaws lack the power to force
businesses to close on Shabbos. The City Council in several
cases pressured the municipalities to appeal the rulings, as
it too entered a legal battle itself, which achieved pointed
results. In Tel Aviv, the appeal against the court ruling was
accepted. In Petach Tikva, the judge ruled that opening the
Heichal Cinema, which had become a symbol of the battle for
Shabbos, constituted an outright transgression against the
municipal bylaw, and he fined the manager of the cinema
personally.
And the list goes on. However, despite all this, the
disregard for the bylaws began spreading like wildfire, as a
result of the disrespect for the laws exhibited by the legal
system. In the end, the Law of Arrangements was passed, which
specifically empowered the municipal bylaws.
The Council also fought the legal system over the dispersion
of shameful and disgusting pictures, as well as other public
battles. "We have," says attorney Steinmetz, "packed files of
articles—but it is all history."
As a result of transparent maneuvers on the part of the legal
system, the Council has ceased functioning. Even during the
period when it was active, the Council put in only very few
petitions to the High Court, focusing mainly on legal action
against government and municipal institutions, in which they
had much success.
"The chareidi community must exploit its power in the
marketplace," claims Attorney Steinmetz. "I learned this from
the activists' campaigns for Shabbos. They saw how difficult
it was to rely on the Shabbos laws that were put out against
businesses that opened on Shabbos, and they decided to go for
a legal boycott. That was much more effective than a
trial."
What embargo can you put on the High Court?
"Well certainly, according to the law, the High Court can do
just about anything. But let us look at a different example:
The synagogues in Gush Katif stood at the center of a legal
dispute. The matter was decided during a moment of successful
lobbying. In this case, the High Court defeated itself.
"I am not rejecting legal action, but I think that most of
the effort should be invested in lobbying. Obviously, the
decision is in the hands of the gedolei hador. One
always needs to ask them and those who consult with their
rabbis can not fail. The Betzedek organization consults with
the Israeli gedolim and, obviously, I do not deny the
work they do. But for me, personally, I have given up . . .
"
Attorney Green: "The message we heard from our rabbis
as to how we should relate to the courts was abundantly
clear. After we presented HaRav Eliashiv with a certain
ruling, he told us: "What could you expect from the judges?
Could we have expected anything different?" And then he
added, ironically: "Actually, the judges ought to disqualify
themselves every time they have to handle a religious
issue— since they are `biased.' And just as a relative
will disqualify himself when it comes to ruling a case
pertaining to his relative, they should disqualify themselves
from any case that relates to religion!"
Attorney Steinmetz: "It is clear that sometimes there
is simply no choice and you have to apply to the High Court.
That is what happened in 1985 (5745), when we put in a
petition against the opening of the stadium in Ramat Gan. I
went to see HaRav Chaim Kanievsky, and I heard him say a most
pungent sentence in Yiddish that I am not at liberty to
repeat. HaRav Shach was in favor of placing a petition that
relied on the municipal bylaws that banned the opening of the
stadium on Shabbos."
| ||||
| All material
on this site is copyrighted and its use is restricted. |
|||||