Recently, Anat Hoffman, leader of Women of the Wall, told The CJN she is propelling her organization forward by “compromising” with state authorities in Israel on their application to allow women to pray at the Kotel, the Western Wall.
I call her plan a sell-out.
A compromise must include certain features. We begin with a conflict: two sides, or more, claiming rights to a certain element. But in order to proceed with settling the dispute, all sides must have evidentiary claims to that element. If strangers suddenly walked into your house one day and claimed it as theirs, would a compromise be appropriate? I think not. If there is no evidence supporting their claim of ownership, they would be potential thieves. We cannot compromise when there is no substantive title involved.
Some might proclaim that Israel “walked” into the West Bank and claimed territory not rightfully its own. Others will claim both historical and existing property rights to the land. Perhaps in this case we can consider talk of a compromise, even though the issues are so complex and long term that no easy compromise or split is available. And yet, we should acknowledge that there are claims on both sides that demand response. How to affect a compromise is unclear, but something must be worked out. It cannot be all or nothing.
In a proper compromise, both sides must receive some benefit and both must also eventually accept conditions that are less than their original goals. Striking a responsible balance does not mean getting matching halves. It does not mean that both sides are equally correct.
It takes a wise leader to guide the parties through to a deal that enables both sides to make concessions while accepting the final outcome. The longer the dispute lasts, the harder it is to find a solution. The more complex the issue, the more difficult it will be to find a happy medium.
The give and take of compromising requires a great deal of patience, understanding and fairness.
Israel and her leaders are in need of those qualities. All of us need them.
As I have written before, when it comes to Women of the Wall, the proposal to allow women’s prayer at Robinson’s Arch, at the southern end of the Wall, does not qualify as a compromise in any way. In accepting Robinson’s Arch as the place to pray, Hoffman is relinquishing Jewish women’s rights to pray as a group at the Kotel.
Women of the Wall originally engaged the Israeli government in court in order to pray at the Kotel as a group of women, with Torah and tallit. The Kotel, that remnant of the retaining wall surrounding our ancient Temple, is sacred territory, made so by its history and by the thousands of Jews – women and men – who have prayed there over centuries. The issue was never about allowing women to pray as a group somewhere.
When seeking compromises, we need to be sure what the primary issues are. Women praying at the Kotel is the issue. Court cases were won on this issue. From 1989 until 2003, Women of the Wall argued in the Supreme Court of Israel for that right. In 2003, we were vindicated, as the justices pronounced in our favour. The state was ordered to find a way to allow us to pray as is our custom at the Kotel. That decision was again confirmed in a major decision at the district court level in 2013, which stated that everything we seek is legal and in the “custom of the place.” How can anyone give that away?
A compromise may involve negotiating access to that place – by all parties. But a compromise cannot remove Women of the Wall from the women’s section. That is not a balanced deal in which both sides get some recognizable benefit.
Robinson’s Arch is a sell-out. Praying at the Kotel is our legacy and no one has the right to compromise that away.