Question

Hello Rabbi,
There is a claim made by opponents of the reform that I’d be glad to know what the Rabbi thinks about. 
They argue that, without getting into the ideological discussion about the proper level of balance between the branches of government, Israel has built-in problems that do not exist in other countries, and therefore there is no justification for touching the High Court of Justice before dealing with those problems first. They mention the occupation, the Chief Rabbinate, and religious coercion. Let’s set aside the question of the occupation (although there is room for discussion there too, not necessarily on the moral level but more regarding the role of the High Court of Justice in such a situation from an international standpoint), and focus on the control of the Chief Rabbinate and religious coercion, which I assume we agree is an improper situation.
Isn’t the claim correct that if you are going to touch the High Court of Justice, it would be appropriate to shut down the Chief Rabbinate first? Once you argue that there is no balance in the current situation, then first deal with the other distortions that exist in the system, and only then rebalance the High Court of Justice in a reasonable way. After all, in Israel there is a built-in structural deficit to begin with, and therefore maintaining a balance between the branches of government when the situation is not balanced from the outset, with corrupt bodies that wield control like the Chief Rabbinate, is problematic.
Does the Rabbi agree with this claim? Does the Rabbi see a connection between these things? (For example, to rebalance the High Court of Justice only on condition that the Chief Rabbinate is shut down.)
 
Thank you