The moral peril of Israel's 'Elkin law' - analysis

“No one likes to see how the sausage is made,” goes the expression, a turn of phrase used to describe the lawmaking process.

Because although sausages can be very tasty, and can even have some quality and nutritional lean meat in them, oftentimes there are some less savory cuts in the sausage, too, along with some filler, and maybe some preservatives as well.

 

We know these things are in our sausages, we’re not too happy about it, but often we’ll eat the sausage anyway because, well, it’s tasty.

But the government on Tuesday night cooked up a law that, if compared to a sausage, would do a disservice to the reputation of stuffed meat products of every kind, everywhere.

Because the amendment to the law for rabbinical court judges, which has been labeled the “Elkin law,” has only one purpose and serves only one man: Construction and Housing Minister Ze’ev Elkin.

Its sole objective was to get Elkin onto the Selection Committee for Rabbinical Judges, and to this end the coalition agreement between Elkin’s New Hope Party and Yesh Atid stated explicitly that the agreement bound both parties to get the housing minister – that is, Elkin – on the panel.

At the same time, an appendix to the coalition agreements detailing what legislation must be passed by the government stipulated specifically that a law be passed to enable Elkin to get on the committee.

The upshot of this situation is that the law has no benefit to the State of Israel and its citizens. It is devoid of nutritional content of any kind and provides no sustenance to the country.

And that is problematic for a government whose heads have spoken loftily of the need for moral leadership at a political level.

The Elkin law was passed under the guise of expanding representation for women on the committee, which it does not do.

Elkin’s problem was that the previous law allowed for only two ministers on the panel, and stipulated that one be a woman.

Since the religious services minister, who has to be on the committee as its chairman, is currently Matan Kahana, a man, Elkin was blocked from getting on the panel.

So the Elkin law adds two extra slots on the committee, including one minister of any gender, allowing the housing minister to get on the panel, as well as an additional female rabbinical courts advocate to be chosen by the justice minister, currently Elkin’s party leader and ally, Gideon Sa’ar.

Why, it might be asked, is Elkin so anxious to get on this esteemed, if not especially prestigious, committee, to the extent that the State of Israel has changed its statute book for him?

This is a question The Jerusalem Post has posed to Elkin and his spokesman on numerous occasions since the law was first advanced, but which the minister has repeatedly declined to answer.

What are Elkin’s criteria for a good rabbinical court judge? Does he favor conservative judges or liberal ones? What does he think about halachic prenuptial agreements, which some divorce rights groups promote as a silver bullet for divorce recalcitrance, but which some rabbinical judges, including the chief rabbis, oppose?

Organizations involved in working with and in the rabbinical courts say they have never before noticed his involvement in matters pertaining to those courts.

Why was it so critical for Elkin specifically to sit on the committee and not any other member of his party, the coalition, or the government?

We don’t know because he hasn’t answered these questions.

Politics is certainly a dirty business, and compromises are always made between the different elements of any government for the sake of advancing the primary interests of that government.

This particular coalition is in an especially difficult political position, given the contradictory ideologies of its component parties, and its razor-thin majority.

Any one MK has an extraordinary amount of power with which to leverage the government, and so more compromises than usual will be made.

Elkin himself is a critical part of the coalition. He was crucial in formulating the coalition agreements that established the government, and he is the most experienced member of the coalition’s legislative leadership, with in-depth knowledge of Knesset regulations and its inner workings.

But passing so-called personal laws is an example of behavior the new government’s leadership railed against when in opposition, an illustration of how politics can be twisted not to serve the people but to serve politicians.

Indeed, the current opposition has taken note of the problematic nature of the Elkin law.

“For years, the current coalition accused us of seeking to dole out jobs.... Now, in the height of impudence and hypocrisy, you are not only passing a special jobs law increasing the committee and changing its makeup, but you are also doing it to create personal jobs,” said Likud MK and former Elkin ally Yariv Levin of the law.

“This hypocrisy is disgraceful, and this law is shameful, and this is a precedent that, unfortunately, the State of Israel and Israeli citizens will pay for.”

The authority of the right-wing, religious government of 2015 to 2018 led by former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu eroded away slowly due to the numerous scandals its leaders were caught up in, as well as the nature of some laws it passed which served narrow, not national, interests.

The Elkin law is but a minor incident in the larger work of the current government, and will soon be forgotten.

But if the law is used to advance not professional but, rather, political goals, it will stain the moral authority of the government.

Perhaps just a small stain, one that over the next months and years might fade somewhat, and become less obvious and prominent.

But if the Elkin law becomes just one of a series of political compromises, however necessary to preserve the coalition, more stains will accumulate alongside it, and the path to a rather blemished future will be set.