FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Women For the Wall Decries Proposal for �National Monument� at Western Wall
�It is a Place of Prayer, not a Museum�
JERUSALEM, ISRAEL, April 25, 2013 — Women for the Wall, a new grassroots organization concerned with the sanctity of the Western Wall, calls upon Israeli Reform leader and activist Anat Hoffman, Chair of Women of the Wall, to withdraw her proposal to dismantle the place of worship at Jerusalem’s Western Wall and transform it into a �national monument.� Ronit Peskin, Director of Women for the Wall, stated �the Western Wall is a place of daily prayer and worship, not merely a relic of our past. It is not our Lincoln Memorial, but a sacred space for all Jews.�
In a speech in Florida last week, Hoffman unveiled a radical proposal to �allow� prayers only prior to 9 AM and after 3 PM, replacing the place of worship with �an open national monument� for the bulk of each day. Peskin asked, �what about the hundreds of thousands who come at all hours of the day and night to pray at the Wall � are they to be told that during these hours that they cannot have a sanctuary in which to pray?�
Under Hoffman’s direction, the Women of the Wall have spearheaded a campaign to impose changes in Jewish tradition at the ancient Holy Site. They have flouted rulings of the Israeli Supreme Court and accepted local practice, creating tensions at the Wall. In response, former refusenik and Chairman of the Jewish Agency Natan Sharansky laid out a compromise scenario, involving creation of a larger space at the Wall for non-traditional prayer. Hoffman first announced that she would accept the compromise, which has also been endorsed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but then outlined her much more radical vision during her Florida appearance. Peskin noted, �for years they have been saying they just want to pray, but now it seems their true intention is to transform the Wall and remove its religious significance. This calls their previous statements into serious question.�
Peskin requested of leaders of the Reform and Conservative movements, who have historically backed the Women of the Wall and their efforts to force change upon those who stream to the Wall daily for prayer, that they repudiate Hoffman�s latest proposal. She asked, �Could any religious leader tolerate the conversion of a vibrant place of prayer into a stagnant museum?�
Women for the Wall is a grassroots organization of women concerned for the sanctity of the Western Wall Holy Site, and objecting to the imposition of political struggles in a place of prayer. The Women for the Wall believe that while every spiritual quest should be respected, there must also be a recognition of shared traditions that date back thousands of years, to when the Holy Temple stood at that site � and that changes must happen via consensus through the Israeli legislative process, and not through loud protests designed to attract unwanted media attention upon those trying to pray in peace.
“They have flouted rulings of the Israeli Supreme Court and accepted local practice, creating tensions at the Wall.”
Sometimes, the law is unjust. Most Western democracies do not arrest citizens for practicing their religious openly, whether it is wearing tallit, tefillin or saying kaddish. All of these would be tolerated in most American Modern Orthodox shuls.
There are laws in all countries similar to this, about what is permitted where. For example, there is freedom of religion in the US, but religious things are forbidden in public school. Just because something is not permitted someplace doesn’t mean it is forbidden. The Western Wall has a part set aside for prayer as Hoffman wants- the area under Robinson’s Arch.
The Judge declared that the Supreme Court decision of 2003 never intended to serve as an injunction which would apply criminal violations to women. Likewise this decision did not ban Women of the Wall from praying at the Kotel. He added that there is no reasonable suspicion in which the women are violating the Supreme Court decisions. In reference to the Supreme Court recommendation that the women pray in Robinson��s Arch, Sobell declared that this does not prohibit the women from praying at the Western Wall in the women�s section, and certainly it does not imply a criminal violation for this act.
Regarding the restriction within the Law of Holy Places in which visitors at the Western Wall are to pray and hold religious celebrations according to the �local custom�, the judge declared that the women are not violating this law. He stated that the legal proceedings of Women of the Wall establish that the �local custom� is to be interpreted with National and pluralistic implications, not necessarily Orthodox Jewish customs. Thus, the accused women did not violate this law.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/jerusalem-court-women-not-violating-law-by-wearing-prayer-shawls-at-western-wall.premium-1.517577
Sobel – an Orthodox Jew himself – wrote in his decision that, contrary to police interpretations, Women of the Wall were not in violation of the law requiring worshippers to abide by �local custom� when praying at the wall.
So what does the clause of “local custom” refer to then? Not to pray in the nude?
Her new plan is irrelevant. Sharansky offered Hoffman, and the Rabbinite said they could ‘live with’ her having an equal sized plaza as the current one with mechitzah. I thought she wanted to pray how she wanted to pray? Shouldn’t that have satisfied her?
It’s like when Lisa Simpson wanted to join the football team and they said, “okay, we already have 3 girls on the team, we’d love to have you.” She responded, “well, football is not really my thing…” Here we are, Hoffman is offered a large place to pray and she says, “well, prayer really isn’t my thing… how about we call the whole thing off and stare at an ancient wall?”
It seems like there is some confusion here.
I do think she meant “open national monument” as a “museum” here (I will send word to WoW to try and clarify).
Indeed the Kotel is a national monument; she was adding the modifier “open” as in no mechitza.
Jon
This is why the Haredi are so ideologically against the state. The Zionist enterprise has turned this once Jewish religious site into a “national” site, leaving it vulnerable to non-orthodox, pluralistic attack. Just as Jews may not pray on the Temple Mount so not to offend Muslims, and Copts may not carry out Coptic ritual in the inner sanctum on the Churn of the Sepulchre, so too, Jewish feminists who act contrary to Halacha, should be banned from the wall.