// end of the world //
Spring 2014
Hitting the Wall:
The Self-Defeating Battle of Religious Feminists at the Western Wall
Nadav Ben Zur
A poll conducted several years ago by the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies found that an overwhelming 96% of Jewish Israelis would refuse to relinquish Israeli control over the Western Wall in any possible peace agreement between Israel and Palestine — a rare consensus among an otherwise fragmented Israeli society. The Western Wall, or “Kotel” as it is referred to by Israelis, was conquered by Israeli paratroopers during the Six Day War and has been an important national symbol ever since. Though most Israelis agree about the importance of the Wall, there is a growing tension over the religious practices prohibited by the site’s administration — “The Western Wall Heritage Foundation.” In 1988, the Israeli Government granted the Foundation, a body composed of eighteen orthodox men, full sovereignty over all matters relating to the holy site. With such authority, the Foundation determined that women are forbidden from reading from the Torah, praying out-loud, or wearing a tallit—all of which are acts of prayer forbidden to women under the Orthodox tradition.
Challenging their subordinate religious position is the organization “Women of the Wall,” a group of Jewish women attempting to change the status quo that prohibits them from praying freely at the Kotel. The women have been conducting monthly prayer services for more than twenty years, often enduring violence, criticism, and in recent times, police arrests for “disrupting public order.” In addition to acts of civil disobedience, which have brought global attention to their struggle, the group has appealed to the Israeli judicial system several times in recent years. In the latest court appeal filed in 2013, they demanded that the body controlling the site be expanded to include other religious Jewish sects, and, more importantly, to include women.
Though Women of the Wall strives to improve the rights of women in Judaism and Israel, they argue for equality within the confines of a discriminatory religious establishment. One might expect that a self-proclaimed “feminist group” would denounce religious institutions like the Foundation altogether, instead of striving to become an equal part of it. While they may appear to be defying chauvinistic ideas, they in fact preserve this discriminatory structure by leaving its legitimacy unchallenged.
When the Women of the Wall demand to read from the Torah, they make a paradoxical claim: they want equality of access to a largely misogynistic text that– explicitly and implicitly – denies central tenets of human equality. By reciting prayers and by subjecting themselves to a supernatural deity (as is the purpose of prayer at the Western Wall), Women of the Wall in fact teaches young women that God believes they are not as important as men. To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens, man’s impulse to control women exists whether or not man believes in God; but when it comes to little girls, teaching them that a paternal God is their creator establishes principles of inequality within them, instructing them that they were created for the purpose of serving men, and that they are important only for procreation. Women of the Wall has, intentionally or unintentionally, managed to eliminate any discussion of how discriminatory the religious texts are in their race to attain false equality.
Women of the Wall might reply that one should not interpret the Bible as the literal word of God; instead, one ought to focus on the sections that prescribe moral values and principles of peaceful human interaction. From this line of argument, it follows that prayer is important to people because it is their expression of faith, and it does not necessarily mean that people who pray believe in the inequality that their prayer ostensibly espouses. But this line of thinking is easily refuted. The group does not demand to read particular sections of the Torah; they yearn to recite the entire text – in its complete misogynistic glory. All of this, they argue, is in their pursuit of equality. One needs to look no further than the words of Anat Hoffman, the group’s leader, to understand the true goal of the movement.
Ovadia Yosef (1920-2013), a former Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel who recently passed away, was a renowned chauvinist. When asked about Women of the Wall in 2009, Yosef argued that women who wear tallit and pray are “stupid” and that they “foolishly seek equality instead of seeking the Lord.” He warned his followers that the group is dangerous and should be denounced. Responding to this statement, Anat Hoffman, claimed: “Yosef determines that the group has negative motives without knowing any of the women; and since the purpose of Women of the Wall is fear of God, I invite him to come and meet us.”
Hoffman accomplished a remarkable feat by making a claim that is even more backwards than Yosef’s. She asserts that it is fear of God, and not the pursuit of equality per se, that motivates the group; if only Yosef knew that, he would be accepting of their organization. This hypocrisy and inconsistency from the head of a self-proclaimed “feminist group” is at the core of Women of the Wall: a desire to include women in an institution that celebrates their inferiority. Yosef, who once famously argued that a “woman who cannot cook is maimed,” was not denounced by Hoffman, but rather was courted. By inviting him to meet with the group, to learn that the motives of the group are in keeping with his own, Hoffman revealed that her group holds the same problematic notions Yosef holds. The only difference between Yosef and Women of the Wall is that the later wants women to be included in this misogynistic institution.
When Shmuel Rabnowitz, the Rabbi of the Western Wall, was asked in a radio interview why he discriminates against women, he argued defensively that he has nothing against women, he simply would not allow any such group to perform their unique ritual at the site, regardless of gender. In effect, this means he has the backing of all three branches of Israeli government to discriminate against any group that does not obey his own prescription of conduct. Women of the Wall did not object to the existence of this unregulated, discriminatory authority; it instead argued in a 2013 briefing to the court that the group should be included within it.
Women of the Wall might invoke the popular argument that it is better to change the organization from within than to object to it entirely. This is completely misguided. The Chief Rabbinate is not a typical policymaking body. It is a fundamentally discriminatory organization that is established on the basis of a primitive text, and acts to preserve its discriminatory values. The demand therefore to become part of it is indicative of the hypocrisy of Women of the Wall: it does not call for equality for all; it simply wants to have a share in conducting bigotry.
Protest the power of religious institutions, lobby against them, but do not join them. This is more achievable than it may appear at first glance, given the unpopularity of ultra-Orthodox Judaism among Israel’s secular majority. If Women of the Wall direct their energy towards the abolishment of the Foundation and similar religious institutions, they may achieve real equality for women after all.
// NADAV BEN ZUR is a sophomore in the School of General Studies. He can be reached at db2116@columbia.edu. Photo courtesy of Flickr user Women of the Wall, by Miriam Alster.
Challenging their subordinate religious position is the organization “Women of the Wall,” a group of Jewish women attempting to change the status quo that prohibits them from praying freely at the Kotel. The women have been conducting monthly prayer services for more than twenty years, often enduring violence, criticism, and in recent times, police arrests for “disrupting public order.” In addition to acts of civil disobedience, which have brought global attention to their struggle, the group has appealed to the Israeli judicial system several times in recent years. In the latest court appeal filed in 2013, they demanded that the body controlling the site be expanded to include other religious Jewish sects, and, more importantly, to include women.
Though Women of the Wall strives to improve the rights of women in Judaism and Israel, they argue for equality within the confines of a discriminatory religious establishment. One might expect that a self-proclaimed “feminist group” would denounce religious institutions like the Foundation altogether, instead of striving to become an equal part of it. While they may appear to be defying chauvinistic ideas, they in fact preserve this discriminatory structure by leaving its legitimacy unchallenged.
When the Women of the Wall demand to read from the Torah, they make a paradoxical claim: they want equality of access to a largely misogynistic text that– explicitly and implicitly – denies central tenets of human equality. By reciting prayers and by subjecting themselves to a supernatural deity (as is the purpose of prayer at the Western Wall), Women of the Wall in fact teaches young women that God believes they are not as important as men. To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens, man’s impulse to control women exists whether or not man believes in God; but when it comes to little girls, teaching them that a paternal God is their creator establishes principles of inequality within them, instructing them that they were created for the purpose of serving men, and that they are important only for procreation. Women of the Wall has, intentionally or unintentionally, managed to eliminate any discussion of how discriminatory the religious texts are in their race to attain false equality.
Women of the Wall might reply that one should not interpret the Bible as the literal word of God; instead, one ought to focus on the sections that prescribe moral values and principles of peaceful human interaction. From this line of argument, it follows that prayer is important to people because it is their expression of faith, and it does not necessarily mean that people who pray believe in the inequality that their prayer ostensibly espouses. But this line of thinking is easily refuted. The group does not demand to read particular sections of the Torah; they yearn to recite the entire text – in its complete misogynistic glory. All of this, they argue, is in their pursuit of equality. One needs to look no further than the words of Anat Hoffman, the group’s leader, to understand the true goal of the movement.
Ovadia Yosef (1920-2013), a former Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel who recently passed away, was a renowned chauvinist. When asked about Women of the Wall in 2009, Yosef argued that women who wear tallit and pray are “stupid” and that they “foolishly seek equality instead of seeking the Lord.” He warned his followers that the group is dangerous and should be denounced. Responding to this statement, Anat Hoffman, claimed: “Yosef determines that the group has negative motives without knowing any of the women; and since the purpose of Women of the Wall is fear of God, I invite him to come and meet us.”
Hoffman accomplished a remarkable feat by making a claim that is even more backwards than Yosef’s. She asserts that it is fear of God, and not the pursuit of equality per se, that motivates the group; if only Yosef knew that, he would be accepting of their organization. This hypocrisy and inconsistency from the head of a self-proclaimed “feminist group” is at the core of Women of the Wall: a desire to include women in an institution that celebrates their inferiority. Yosef, who once famously argued that a “woman who cannot cook is maimed,” was not denounced by Hoffman, but rather was courted. By inviting him to meet with the group, to learn that the motives of the group are in keeping with his own, Hoffman revealed that her group holds the same problematic notions Yosef holds. The only difference between Yosef and Women of the Wall is that the later wants women to be included in this misogynistic institution.
When Shmuel Rabnowitz, the Rabbi of the Western Wall, was asked in a radio interview why he discriminates against women, he argued defensively that he has nothing against women, he simply would not allow any such group to perform their unique ritual at the site, regardless of gender. In effect, this means he has the backing of all three branches of Israeli government to discriminate against any group that does not obey his own prescription of conduct. Women of the Wall did not object to the existence of this unregulated, discriminatory authority; it instead argued in a 2013 briefing to the court that the group should be included within it.
Women of the Wall might invoke the popular argument that it is better to change the organization from within than to object to it entirely. This is completely misguided. The Chief Rabbinate is not a typical policymaking body. It is a fundamentally discriminatory organization that is established on the basis of a primitive text, and acts to preserve its discriminatory values. The demand therefore to become part of it is indicative of the hypocrisy of Women of the Wall: it does not call for equality for all; it simply wants to have a share in conducting bigotry.
Protest the power of religious institutions, lobby against them, but do not join them. This is more achievable than it may appear at first glance, given the unpopularity of ultra-Orthodox Judaism among Israel’s secular majority. If Women of the Wall direct their energy towards the abolishment of the Foundation and similar religious institutions, they may achieve real equality for women after all.
// NADAV BEN ZUR is a sophomore in the School of General Studies. He can be reached at db2116@columbia.edu. Photo courtesy of Flickr user Women of the Wall, by Miriam Alster.