Status Quo Agreement Israel

The status quo regime in Israel officially recognizes the authority of the Orthodox rabbinate only in all matters of personal status. However, each of the major Jewish denominations has a different view of “Who is a Jew?” This definition has a potential impact on nationality and other purposes in a number of areas, including the Law on Return. The Orthodox rabbinate has a very strict interpretation of Jewish status and standards of conversion and has only requested recognition of Orthodox conversion to Judaism. The Orthodox monopoly in Israel has been under attack for many years as a “political stumbling block” in relations between the more conservative religious community and the state and secular Jews in Israel. The status quo agreement was accepted on the condition that Ben-Gurion`s assurances could be changed with the adoption of a Constitution, but this Constitution never came into being, as described in another chapter of this anthology. [20] Without a Constitution, the gap between “the Church” and the State remained vague and the various political powers, social and religious, were constantly trying to change the balance. In 2009, Israel`s Central Bureau of Statistics published that there were 1,286,500 Muslim citizens of Israel. [35] Like Jews, Muslims have the right to support religious needs through the state, and Islamic law regulates the personal issues of Muslim citizens. Almost all Muslims in Israel are Sunni and their legal traditions and customs are established in the Shara courts, which are sanctioned by the state. These state courts, which are part of the Israeli government, are fully funded and judges are chosen by a committee composed of ministers, parliamentarians, kadis (Muslim judges) and lawyers, and their salaries are paid by the state. [36] The Sharia justice system in Israel was the first source of leadership for Muslims after 1948, not only from a religious point of view, but also from a political point of view. [37] The courts serve as the centre of Islamic identity in Israel, and since they conduct their affairs and publish their decisions in Arabic, their actions are generally unknown to the Israeli public.

In a 2005 case, the Supreme Court recognized, through an expanded bank of nine judges, the right of gay women who lived together and assembled their children to legally adopt their children. The Court made its decision on the basis of an adoption provision of Act 5741-1981 that allows a court to authorize adoption in circumstances that are not based on the death of the adoptive child`s parents or family relationship with the adoptive parent, when it finds that the adoption is “in the best interests of the adoptive child.” [42] The Court found that the fact that the parties to the appeal lived together in a homosexual relationship does not, in itself, require that their adoption would not be in the best interests of the children.