Amid the charges and counter-charges flying among Judaism's movements over the apparent breakdown in the effort to find a consensus over how non-Jews living in Israel can be converted to Judaism, there may be confusion over what was proposed by the Ne'eman Commission and what exactly the response has been.

The committee headed by Israel's Finance Minister Ya'acov Ne'eman was impaneled on June 27 to seek a compromise on the issue of conversion, especially as it affects many thousands of immigrants from the former Soviet Union who are not Jews according to strict halacha (Jewish law) and therefore are ineligible to marry other Jews in Israel.

Rabbis representing Orthodox Judaism, Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism served on the panel, which held 50 meetings and took testimony from numerous witnesses.

Eventually the panel proposed a two-part solution for the problem of conversions. 

One suggestion was that an Institute for Jewish Studies be formed to conduct classes throughout Israel at which non-Jews could learn about Judaism and be prepared for conversion. This institute would include representatives of the various streams of Judaism.

The second suggestion was that the actual ceremony of conversion be performed by special rabbinic courts that would be set up throughout the country under the auspices of Israel's Orthodox Chief Rabbinic Council.

In short: Reform, Conservative or Orthodox could teach people about Judaism in the proposed Institute for Jewish Studies, but only Orthodox would be permitted to officiate at an actual conversion ceremony.

Once the compromise was proposed, Ne'eman brought it to the Chief Rabbinic Council for review. But instead of asking the Chief Rabbis to respond to both recommendations, Ne'eman only asked whether the rabbinate would be willing to set up rabbinical courts throughout Israel to officiate at conversions.

Yes, the Chief Rabbinic Council replied. They would be willing to do that.

Thus, one part of the compromise was accepted. And on that basis, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke favorably about the decision of the Chief Rabbinic Council as a step in the direction towards a compromise.

However, the Chief Rabbinical Council was not asked by Ne'eman for its opinion on the proposal concerning establishment of an Institute for Jewish Religion -- according to one source, because Ne'eman believed the Chief Rabbinical Council would feel obliged to reject such an institute out of hand.

As HERITAGE went to press this week, the Chief Rabbinical Council had taken no position on the proposed Institute for Religion, but it did issue a statement which tended to cast doubt on its ever being willing to sanction such an institute.

The Chief Rabbinical Council said it opposes those "who are trying to shake the foundations of the Jewish religion, causing rifts among the people and causing them to stray from the generations-old heritage."

Further, it said, such tendencies "have already had a disastrous effect and caused confusion among Diaspora Jewry..." 

"The sages of Israel have barred any cooperation with them and their methods, and no one should consider establishing joint institutions with them," the Chief Rabbinical Council declared.

Orthodox and non-Orthodox representatives disagreed over the import of the Chief Rabbinical Council's statement, which was widely assumed to be an attack on the Conservative and Reform movements for their attempt to change Israel's status quo regarding religious conversions.

The Orthodox Union, based in New York, commented that the Chief Rabbinical Council's statement was "an editorial attack on the Reform and Conservative movements to transfer the assimilation and Jewish ignorance of the Diaspora to Israel." 

However, the OU said, "These remarks were not an answer to the question of the ulpanim (schools) , which Minister Ne'eman never asked them to rule on. This reflects the council's opinion on the religious climate. This in no way detracts from its acceptance of that which Minister Ne'eman had requested."

Israel's Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi, Yisrael Meir Lau, was asked whether the Chief Rabbinical Council would agree to convert people who had been trained at the proposed Institute for Jewish Religion.

He responded "Each person will be judged as an individual, according to personality, thoughts and knowledge."

"We will not ask 'where did you learn?'" Lau added in an interview. "If this milestone is handled according to halacha , we will embrace it, and say, 'Welcome Brother.'"

Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie, president of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, described the Chief Rabbinical Council's statement as
"a slap in the face to world Jewry," and added:

"The Chief Rabbinate prefers to exploit and expand its monopoly over religious life in Israel, rather than choose the course of dialogue and cooperation with the non-Orthodox streams of Judaism.

Similarly, Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch, executive director of the Association of Reform Zionists of America (ARZA), said: "We were willing to make great sacrifices on this issue for the sake of Jewish unity. It now seems as if we have no negotiating partner. The Rabbinate's inflexible and antiquated attitude is yet another attempt to reinforce its stranglehold on the shaping of Israeli society."

Rabbis Uri Regev and Rabbi Ehud Bandel, respectively the leaders of the Reform and the Conservative (Masorti) movements in Israel, issued a joint statement that in their opinion the Chief Rabbinate had "declared war on the Reform and Conservative movements" and that further, "the Chief Rabbinate endangers splitting the Jewish people."

In the anger and the heat, there was intense speculation in Israel as to what would happen next. 

When the Ne'eman Commission was appointed by Prime Minister Netanyahu, an agreement was forged among the movements to "stand still" on two fronts.

On the one hand, the Orthodox parties had agreed not to push through the Knesset a proposed law which would have changed from a matter of tradition to a matter of law that all conversions to Judaism in Israel must be performed "according to halacha" as interpreted by the chief rabbinate.

On the other hand, the non-Orthodox movements had agreed not to press their quest in Israel's Supreme Court for full legal recognition of conversion ceremonies performed by their rabbis.

Amid all the statements, there were predictions that the Orthodox would once again press political action in the Knesset, while the non-Orthodox would press legal action in the courts. 

But whereas the Orthodox parties once thought they might have a majority of the Knesset lined up in favor of the proposed legislation, recently 72 of the 120 members of the Knesset signed a resolution in support of the Ne'eman Committee's recommendations. Among the signers was Netanyahu himself.

Along with comments by Absorption Minister Yuri Edelstein--whose party represents many immigrants from the former Soviet Union-- that he would not support the Orthodox conversion bill, the 72 signatures on the resolution bolstered the belief that if the Orthodox parties make a push in the Knesset, they will lose.

Speculation also focused on a proposal recently brought to the fore by Avraham Burg, head of the Jewish Agency for Israel -- a proposal which some have described as a "technical compromise." 

The proposal would extend the State of Israel's recognition for the purpose of citizenship to people converted by any of the movements. But there would be a notation on the person's Israeli identity card, giving the date of the conversion. This would enable Orthodox authorities to question the person about the circumstances attending the conversion. 

While a notation on an identity card would solve the issue so far as citizenship, it is controversial because traditional Jewish teaching says it is wrong to make any distinction between a convert and a non-convert.