When the ultra-Orthodox leaders jockey for control, the whole country loses

The public confrontation between Moshe Gafni and Shas over the appointment of the chair of the Jerusalem Religious Council may at first glance look like just another chapter in the endless struggle of ego and power struggles in ultra-Orthodox politics. In reality, however, it exposes a far deeper and more troubling truth. This is what a system of governance looks like when public positions become bargaining chips, and the public — religious and secular alike — is pushed to the margins. It is no coincidence that this dispute has already led to political paralysis and a coalition crisis. When struggles for control replace public administration, the entire country pays the price.

At ITIM, we have been working for years to stop the distribution of patronage jobs in the religious establishment. Not out of opposition to religion — quite the opposite — but out of a deep commitment to ensuring that religious institutions serve the public rather than serving political operatives. Recently, we succeeded in bringing about the postponement of the sham elections for the Tel Aviv Chief Rabbinate, in which the outcome was known in advance even before the ballot box was opened. At the same time, we are working to halt a similar process in Ramle, where again there is an attempt to bypass the rules of proper governance in the name of “tradition.”

There is an ironic, and perhaps tragic, dimension to the fact that Shas — having repeatedly used its power to arrange jobs — now attacks Gafni for trying to claim a share of the pie. Battles over “purity of conduct” that are waged through threats, extortion, and the paralysis of public systems are not struggles over values, but over control.

We have seen this clearly in Jerusalem as well. Years ago, ITIM petitioned the court to secure the removal of the chair of the Religious Council, Yehoshua Yishai, due to years of what can only be described as tyrannical  conduct. It was not an easy struggle, and it certainly did not earn applause in the corridors of power. But it proved that, even in a system that appears sealed off, it is possible — and sometimes necessary — to say enough is enough.

And here is the broader lesson, which is just as important for the general public as it is for the religious community: when the state abdicates its responsibility and allows political parties to run religious institutions as political extensions, it ends up with a system that is divided, unprofessional, and devoid of public trust. Anyone who believes in democracy, the rule of law, and fair public service must understand that the struggle over religious councils and rabbinates is not a “sectoral” issue, but a struggle over the very character of the state.

In the end, the question is not who will win the battle between Gafni and Shas. The question is whether we the people will continue to accept a reality in which public work is carried out by those who serve themselves — or whether we will demand that those appointed to serve the public actually do so.