Knesset Backs Ne’eman Plan, but Action is Largely Symbolic

Conservative and Reform leaders in Israel are welcoming what they called the “good intentions” of a Knesset resolution backing the proposals of a committee that had tried to resolve the conversion crisis.

But they said it was up to Israel’s Orthodox Chief Rabbinate to make the compromise proposal work. And they pledged to renew the battle against the Orthodox monopoly over conversions in court as early as this week.

Monday’s vote in the Knesset, while reflecting widespread support for the efforts of the Ne’eman Committee, was largely symbolic.

Both the way the resolution played out in the Knesset and the reaction to it indicated that the long-sought compromise proposal is no closer to solving the conversion crisis in Israel than it was when it was first announced last month.

The committee, headed by Finance Minister Ya’acov Ne’eman recommended establishing an interdenominational conversion institute, while leaving the actual conversion process under the rabbinate’s control.

But the Chief Rabbinate has yet to endorse the formula.

Thus, despite Knesset endorsement, said Rabbi Ehud Bandel, president of the Masorti (Conservative) movement in Israel, the fact remains “that the Chief Rabbinate rejected the committee’s recommendations.”

“Since the Chief Rabbinate has legal responsibility for conversions in Israel, the recommendations of the committee cannot be implemented without the Chief Rabbinate’s full participation.”

The Knesset took up the issue Monday with a four-hour debate. In the end, 26 Knesset members voted in favor of the resolution backing the Ne’eman Committee, five voted against and 24 abstained.

Abstaining lawmakers from the opposition actually supported the resolution. But they did not vote in favor because minutes before the vote, the Netanyahu government declared that a vote for the resolution would be a vote of confidence in the government.

The government made that move as the only way to fend off a move by United Torah Judaism, a fervently Orthodox party that had tried to turn the vote into a no-confidence vote in an effort to torpedo parliamentary support of the Ne’eman compromise.

The numbers reflected the power of the fervently Orthodox to transform what would have been a clear victory for those who supported the compromise effort to a milder show of support.

Although fewer than half of the Knesset’s 120 members participated, turnout was relatively high for this type of vote.

Dozens took the podium, reflecting the growing Knesset awareness of the issue’s importance. Except for the fervently Orthodox members, lawmakers from all sides of the house praised the compromise.

For his part, Ne’eman, who still believes his initiative is alive, said during the debate that he was pleased to see such widespread support in the Knesset.

Earlier this month, some 80 Knesset members had signed a petition backing the Ne’eman Committee.

The motion approved Monday was proposed by Alex Lubotzky of the centrist Third Way Party. Lubotzky has been a driving force in compromise efforts on the conversion issue.

According to the resolution, the Knesset adopted the Ne’eman Committee’s conclusions “as a single unit, and considers these to be a contribution to the unity of the Jewish people.”

The reference to a “single unit” was intended to keep the rabbinate from breaking up the compromise proposal and preventing the joint conversion institute from being formed.

Rabbi Uri Regev, director of the Reform movement’s Israel Religious Action Center, said a Jerusalem Magistrates Court was scheduled to revive a discussion Tuesday on 23 cases of Reform conversions that have not been recognized by the Interior Ministry.

The Reform and Conservative movements had frozen the legal battle during the seven months that the Ne’eman Committee had worked on a compromise.

The government wants to defer discussion on these cases for another two months. But Regev said the Reform movement will object, since the fate of the Ne’eman Committee’s compromise was uncertain.

He said about half the cases under discussion in the court involved Israel’s failure to recognize conversions performed abroad, and not just conversions in Israel.