BICOM

Israel’s Supreme Court held its first hearing yesterday to consider a petition filed by the Reform and Conservative movements, along with the feminist prayer group “Women of the Wall,” against the Government for reneging on its commitment to provide an egalitarian prayer space at the Western Wall.

In January last year Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Government agreed to create a larger, state-recognised egalitarian section in the southern part of the Western Wall, in an area that is currently an informal place for non-Orthodox prayer. In June the plan was suspended by the Government because of opposition from the ultra-Orthodox parties in the governing coalition.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Miriam Naor said in the hearing yesterday that the 2016 agreement was “accepted, agreed upon, respectful and appropriate,” and that she expressed confusion as to why the Government suddenly froze it. Naor asked the attorney representing the state: “What happened here? There was a deal, people worked on it, and then the Government comes and says it doesn’t exist. This raises some questions.” An agreement that is “frozen,” she added, “can also be thawed”.

The Government argues that it has not reneged on the Western Wall agreement since it recently drafted plans for a multimillion-dollar overhaul of the Robinsons Arch southern section of the Western Wall to accommodate egalitarian prayer services. The Israel Antiquities Authority will pay the 19.2 million shekels to upgrade the space.

The Government has until September 14 to respond to the Court’s questions and decide whether it is willing to revisit its decision to suspend the Western Wall agreement. The petitioners will then have until September 28 to comment on the Government’s response.

If the Government decides it is not willing to revise the suspension, the state’s attorneys will have to decide whether they believe the Supreme Court has the authority to impose the agreement on the Government. The three justices gave a clear indication that the Western wall agreement was the optimal solution, but they appeared to differ over the authority of the Court to force the Government to implement it.