Israeli Basic Law on Torah Study Faces Criticism Over Political Motives, Not Content

Professor Ron Shapira critiques the recently proposed Basic Law on Torah Study in Israel, arguing that the law's content is not inherently problematic, but rather the intentions behind it are. He notes that declarations of national, ethnic, or religious values are common in modern democratic constitutions worldwide, citing examples such as the Canadian Charter, Germany's Basic Law, and the constitutions of Ireland, Greece, Denmark, and Norway, which include religious or cultural affirmations.

Shapira personally values Torah study and agrees with the law's rationale that its importance lies in its centrality to Jewish heritage rather than any metaphysical claims. He rejects the notion, sometimes promoted by the law's proponents, that Torah study provides physical protection or salvation. He also doubts that many ultra-Orthodox activists truly believe in such mystical claims, as their political activism often disrupts Torah study rather than promotes it.

The professor condemns the legislative process as misguided and shameful, accusing its supporters of using Torah study to justify a parasitic lifestyle and accepting the unusual Israeli political reality where the issue of military conscription for yeshiva students is decided through legal maneuvers rather than democratic debate. He argues that the real struggle should be to respect majority decisions and persuade the public to accept the significant exemptions granted to the ultra-Orthodox.

Shapira emphasizes that the principle of equality in democracy protects minorities from majority tyranny, not the other way around. The exemption from military service for yeshiva students has been consistently upheld by successive governments for nearly 80 years through democratic processes. He explains that political bargaining and coalition-building, including sectoral benefits for various groups, are legitimate democratic practices.

He criticizes ultra-Orthodox leaders for attempting to bypass democratic consensus by relying on legalistic tricks and court interventions to enforce exemptions, rather than engaging in political compromise. Shapira warns that this undermines democratic institutions and delays democratic solutions. He suggests that the ultra-Orthodox may also be hoping for a Supreme Court that will enforce exemptions regardless of majority opinion.

Professor Shapira is the rector of the Peres Academic Center.