Q&A: The High Court ruling and the basis of our existence here
The High Court ruling and the basis of our existence here
Question
Hello,
Is the High Court ruling, which states that within six months same-sex couples will be able to have a child through surrogacy in Israel, ethical in terms of encouraging trafficking in women for the purpose of surrogacy?
Another question concerns the essence of the ‘State of the Jews’:
Why do we live in a state defined as a Jewish state if in practice it operates differently (not necessarily as Jews)? What is the justification for living in a state of our own? And if the state operates differently from the laws of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), why should we rely on the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) as the basis for our existence here?
Have a wonderful week.
Answer
I am not familiar with the details of the ruling, nor with the conditions they set for surrogacy and how much oversight there is over the process (which could reduce the phenomenon of trafficking). But on the face of it, I support freedom of occupation, including trade.
The “state of the Jews” is an empty concept. There are many people who define Judaism in all sorts of different ways (and, in my view, absurd ones), but that is their definition. For them, Judaism is mainly ethnic and not value-based.
Still, even someone who is not committed to the values of the Hebrew Bible and Jewish law (and of course those are not the same thing) can rely on the Hebrew Bible as a historical source showing that the land was ours in the past and therefore we have rights to it. He presumably would not accept the divine promise as a valid basis.
Discussion on Answer
He is not picking what is convenient for him. Like most people in the world, he takes the Hebrew Bible as a history book but is not bound by its commandments. What does one thing have to do with the other?
According to the view accepted today, every people that defines itself as such is entitled to a state.
And as for the interpretation that this is the territory in question, that is accepted by all historians in the universe.
These are really trivial nitpicky questions that I see no point in discussing.
Why should he pick out of the Hebrew Bible only what is convenient for him?
By the same logic, one could recognize some of the commandments of the Hebrew Bible, but not the part that claims that the people of Israel lived in the Land of Israel and are entitled to the Land of Israel.
And if religion is not really connected to our existence here (in the view of the one who picks and chooses what suits him), why are we entitled to a state? You can keep commandments even in a state of all its citizens, not necessarily in the land’s territory (/in the land’s territory but under another government)
By the way, on what interpretation does he rely when he claims that specifically this territory (where we are) is identified with the ‘Land of Israel’? Does that interpretation bring additional things that tie us to this place?
Thanks!