editorials
Israel’s Recurring Stalemate
I srael’s Knesset is expected to dissolve itself this
week. Under the governing coalition’s rotation
agreement, Foreign Minister Yair Lapid will become
the acting prime minister, and current Prime Minister
Naftali Bennett will become the alternate prime
minister. New elections — the country’s fifth round
in three years — will be scheduled for the fall. Based
upon current projections, the fifth vote is likely to
lead to the same stalemate as the prior four.

The soon-to-be-outgoing Bennett-Lapid coa-
lition — which brought together an improbably
wide-ranging coalition of members — was driven
by the goal of keeping Benjamin Netanyahu from
achieving another term as prime minister. But
notwithstanding the impressive achievements of
the coalition during its one year of operation, polls
predict that neither pro-Netanyahu parties nor
anti-Netanyahu parties will achieve a majority in
the upcoming elections.

The Bennett-Lapid government succeeded in
steering Israel through the last year of COVID,
passed a budget and opened the economy, and
helped the country navigate an outbreak of fight-
ing with Hamas in Gaza. In the process, the fragile,
improbable coalition restored a sense of normalcy
to political life in Israel, while it made strides in
restoring Israel’s global standing — including solidi-
fying Israel’s relationship with the United States. All
of this while breaking precedent and bringing an
Arab party into government for the first time.

It is surprising that none of the successes of the
Bennett-Lapid government seem to have moved
the political needle. Indeed, if the polls are to be
believed, the deadlock that has divided Israel for
the past four elections has only deepened – but
the electoral numbers have not changed much.

In order for Israel to move beyond the expected
electoral impasse and enable the formation of a
functional government, some grand gesture will be
required. The only person in a position to make such
a consequential grand gesture is Netanyahu. But
to do so, he will have to place party objectives and
national aspirations ahead of his personal ambition.

Netanyahu unquestionably wants to return to
the prime minister’s office. He makes no secret of
that goal. But he also must recognize that he is a
singularly divisive leader, with many of his former
political allies resolute in their refusal to join a gov-
ernment that he will head. Moreover, if Netanyahu
continues to insist on top billing he will likely pro-
long the reign of Lapid as the country struggles
through more wasteful elections.

If there is a deal to be made, it is up to Netanyahu
to do so. He is in a position to negotiate a fairly
wide-ranging political package of authority and
responsibility – as long as someone else gets the
title of prime minister. While we recognize that the
chances of that happening are slim, the alternative
leaves Netanyahu and friends in opposition, with
no real power and very limited ability to serve the
interests of the voters who form their base. No one
knows what will happen if those voters continue to
feel disenfranchised and disillusioned. JE
T here was an important decision by
the U.S. Supreme Court last week
that has not attracted a lot of attention.

The case is Carson v. Makin. It involved
a challenge to how the state of Maine
made public education available to high
school students in sparsely populated
school districts. Previously, the state
provided public funds to such students
to attend a distant public school or an
independent school of their choice —
but refused funding for those wanting
to attend sectarian schools. A group
of parents who wanted to send their
children to sectarian schools sued,
claiming that Maine’s law violated
the Free Exercise Clause of the First
Amendment by treating religious
persons and groups differently than
their secular counterparts.

In a 6-3 decision, the court agreed. According
to Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote for the
majority, the issue is straightforward: “The State
pays for tuition for certain students at private
schools — so long as the schools are not religious.

That is discrimination against religion.” And he
noted that “Regardless of how the benefit and
restriction are described, the program operates to
identify and exclude otherwise eligible schools on
the basis of their religious exercise.”
In recent cases, the court distinguished
between religious institutions that receive public
10 JUNE 30, 2022 | JEWISHEXPONENT.COM
funds for secular projects — like a playground
— and schools that use public funding for reli-
gious purposes. Now, that distinction — known
as the “status/use distinction” — has been aban-
doned. Instead, the court made clear that the Free
Exercise Clause requires the government to treat
religious persons and groups equally with their
secular counterparts.

The decision is significant for several reasons,
not the least of which is that it opens up funding
possibilities for sectarian schools, including Jewish
day schools, and sweeps away distinctions in how
sectarian schools can use funds that
are made available to other educa-
tional institutions. Such permissible
use of government funding may lead
to the rebirth of the Catholic school
system. And it should open opportuni-
ties for Jewish schools to get funding
for some of their programs — although
the scope of such funding will likely be
tested on a case-by-case basis.

That court’s liberal justices were
troubled by the majority position and
worry that the conservatives on the
court are moving to dismantle the
wall of separation between church
and state that the Framers of the
Constitution sought to create. While
we respect the minority view, we do
not understand the Carson decision
to “direct the State of Maine (and,
by extension, its taxpaying citizens) to subsidize
institutions that undisputedly engage in religious
instruction,” as Justice Sonia Sotomayor claimed
in dissent. Rather, as the majority notes, neither
Maine nor any other state government must offer
benefits to private persons or groups. It is only
when a program is offered by the state — as was
the high school education funding by the state of
Maine — that entitlement to the funding must be
religion-neutral, since discrimination against reli-
gion is as unconstitutional as promoting religion
itself. JE
Douglas Rissing / iStock / Getty Images Plus
A Supreme Win for School Choice