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



opinions & letters
The Fight Isn’t Over
BY ELEANOR LEVIE
W e knew this day would come — even
as friends and relatives on both sides
of the abortion issue said, “Oh, Roe v. Wade
will never be overturned: Most Americans
support it.”
But as an active member of the National
Council of Jewish Women for more than three
decades, I have long recognized the fragility
of our hard-won abortion rights. Volunteer
advocates like me have fully expected that
the Supreme Court would decimate Roe the
first chance it got. With the recent majority
installed on the Supreme Court, we recog-
nized that Roe would soon fall.

I was 21 when Roe was passed in 1973.

Before that time, I knew of college students,
looking to finish their studies and embark on
careers and lives of economic self-sufficiency,
finding the means to travel to New York City
for a costly but legal abortion. I knew of
mothers who had all the children they could
handle and afford who subjected themselves
to questioning by judges and psychiatrists so
they could get a legal abortion.

Meanwhile, anyone struggling to make
ends meet but desperate to secretly end a
pregnancy risked life, health and infertility
by taking matters into their own hands or
undergoing an unsafe, illegal abortion. Many
of them died.

Now the high court has opened the flood-
gates to state legislatures to ban abortion
outright. This will not end abortion. Pregnant
people will always strive to maintain control
over their own bodies and lives, in consulta-
tion with their doctors, their loved ones, their
clergy. Judges and lawmakers have no busi-
ness intruding on individuals’ private lives and
making personal health decisions for them.

Jews like me are profoundly aware that
reproductive rights are inextricably bound
with religious freedom. As protected by the
First Amendment of the Constitution, no one
should be able to impose their religious views
on others. Included in that principle: beliefs
about when life begins or the rights of the
so-called “unborn” that some folks see as
equivalent to the rights of the pregnant per-
son. The Jewish view is that the life of the
mother supersedes the risk to a fetus.

I recall when Samuel Alito, the author of
the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson
Women’s Health, was nominated in 2005.

We felt great alarm that he was to replace
retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who
had been the crucial deciding vote to save
Roe in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern
Pennsylvania v. Casey.

Alito’s track record was clear. As a judge on
the Third Circuit Court of Appeals — which
serves Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware
and the U.S. Virgin Islands — he was the one
voice to argue that women should have to
notify their husbands before having an abor-
tion. Our fears about his views were realized
as soon as he got on the high court.

As part of NCJW’s BenchMark campaign
to save Roe, I worked to mobilize a protest to
reject Alito’s elevation to the Supreme Court.

Since moving to Pennsylvania in 1996, I have
also led local NCJW campaigns to oppose Neil
Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney
Barrett, whose votes were pivotal in the Dobbs
decision. With these additions to the court, con-
servatives have succeeded in their long game to
roll back the clock to a time when women and all
marginalized individuals had few rights.

There is no satisfaction in saying “I told you
so.” NCJW will continue the fight with our
allies to ensure that one’s zip code, citizen-
ship status, social and economic level, race,
religion or personal circumstances will not
prevent individuals from accessing reproduc-
tive rights.

Educated and strengthened by the leader-
ship, advocacy tools and support of NCJW,
we have long been speaking out to defend
all our rights and freedoms. Time and again,
we have stressed the importance of electing
a president who would nominate only fair and
independent individuals for lifetime positions
on the Supreme Court — and the lower fed-
eral courts as well.

We have sounded the call to action, galvaniz-
ing the Jewish community and those who share
our values to contact our senators and urge
them to confirm only those judges and justices
who will defend our constitutional rights.

We of NCJW continue to loudly declare that
courts matter. We live by our mission to improve
the lives of women, children and families and
to safeguard individual rights and freedom. To
that end, and in partnership with the National
Abortion Federation, NCJW has established
the Jewish Fund for Abortion Access, which will
help provide support and resources to any indi-
vidual unable to access abortion care.

It may take decades to reverse this rep-
rehensible decision in the courts. But we
pledge to do all we can to ensure that all peo-
ple can still exercise their own reproductive
choices. JE
Eleanor Levie is a longtime NCJW volunteer
and chair of federal judiciary nominations for
NCJW in Pennsylvania.

Rabbis Should Stick to Torah
The focus of Parshat B’midbar is the census of the 12
of Israel, but the published D’var Torah (“Escaping the
Wilderness,” June 2) quickly pivoted to Uvalde and yielded a
coda that inter alia advocated gun control. In contrast, online
commentaries branch into discussion of flags and ritual,
absent polemics.

Your rabbinic authors should discuss the religious
messages without obscuring their universal relevance by
adding contemporary progressivism.

Robert B. Sklaroff
Rydal Gratz a Trailblazer
As an alumnus of Gratz College, I was pleased to read the
feature article about the college in the Exponent (“Gratz
Refocuses, Ahead of the Curve with Online Classes,” May
25). Gratz has another distinction. It is the first Jewish institution
of higher learning in world history to have admitted women
as equal students. When it opened in 1895, this was
unprecedented. In fact, many of the most famed colleges and universities
did not admit women until much later. Yale, for example, first
admitted women in the 1960s. The first graduating class of
Gratz included both men and women. This reflects well on
Gratz and on the Jewish community of Philadelphia.

Saul P. Wachs
Rosaline B. Feinstein Professor Emeritus, Gratz College
Ethiopian Jews Story Warranted the Cover
Your report on Ethiopian Jews (“Ethiopian Jews Make
Aliyah as Part of Operation Zur Israel,” June 16) should have
been on your front cover. I am very concerned with Israel’s
portrayal in the media. Exponent pages often report on
increasing antisemitism and decreasing support for Israel.

This is especially true of “pro-Palestinian” younger Jews.

Why this is happening is not such a mystery. Anti-Israel
propaganda is nonstop. Pro-Israel information is rarely
reported. There is so much that is positive and good about Israel,
but it stays “in the tent.” Every opportunity to open the tent’s
door should be taken. JE
Roberta E. Dzubow
Plymouth Meeting
Letters should be related to articles that have run in the
print or online editions of the JE, and may be edited for
space and clarity prior to publication. Please include your
first and last name, as well your town/neighborhood of
residence. Send letters to letters@jewishexponent.com.

JEWISHEXPONENT.COM 11