Q&A: Choosing a Zionist Chief Rabbi
Choosing a Zionist Chief Rabbi
Question
The coalition agreement says that the government will work to change the electoral body that chooses the Chief Rabbi in order to appoint a Zionist rabbi.
In the electoral body there is representation of eighty rabbis and seventy public representatives from all kinds of positions, including local and religious councils, the military rabbinate, and so on. Ten representatives are chosen by the Minister of Religious Affairs, so if he wants to change the composition, that means that even the ten he chooses will not be enough for him to get a Zionist rabbi.
How does it make sense that if something doesn’t go your way in an election, you simply change it? It’s like deciding that since Bibi always wins, from now on only academics can vote so that won’t happen.
Does it make sense to decide in advance what the result of the election should be, and then on that basis determine that the electoral body should be changed?
Answer
What you are saying applies to general elections, in which the right to vote is given to all citizens of the state. But an electoral body is an appointed body, and therefore its elections are biased by definition. Consequently, the struggles revolve around the composition of the electoral body, and anyone who wants to influence the outcome tries to do so through it. That is how everyone has acted and still acts.
Of course, that does not mean I agree. In my opinion, this body should be dismantled, along with the rabbinate in general, rather than changing its composition. In my view, it also really does not matter whether the composition is Zionist or not. What matters is whether it is open and liberal or conservative. And that is definitely not the same thing. a0
Discussion on Answer
Yaniv,
1. There is a contradiction in your argument. After all, the Knesset is supposed to represent the population as a whole, and it wants to appoint a Religious Zionist rabbi. That means that if the electoral body wants something else, it necessarily means that it does not represent the population. By the way, I’m not at all sure that this was the intention, and perhaps rightly so. After all, this body includes (to the best of my knowledge) more than 50% rabbis. It is hard to see how that can represent a state with a secular majority.
2. Even if we assume that the electoral body really does represent the public as a whole, who says that this is the right way to appoint a Chief Rabbi? It is completely legitimate for the Knesset to decide that the appointment should be made by government decision, or by a search committee, or by a tender, as with other senior officials (the Attorney General, the Civil Service Commissioner, etc.).
Avi
1. When choosing a rabbi, it really does make sense that the main say should be in the hands of people from the world of the rabbinate and those who deal with religious matters.
2. Let’s say that is not the right way to appoint one. But here they do want it to be done through elections, only first they want to determine what the results should be before the election. That’s strange. They should want the body to represent things as equally as possible, not for there to be only one possible outcome.
The electoral body is a body that was originally created in such a way that its composition represents the population as a whole (most of it is appointed automatically. That is, heads of the large councils and so on. The method of appointment is not supposed to be biased). What is biased is that the Minister of Religious Affairs has the authority to appoint ten representatives of his own. So fine, let him use that power. That still does not give him the authority to come and change the composition of the body so that it stops representing the population as a whole, in order to appoint a Chief Rabbi that he wants.