Observant Jews in Israel recently had the feeling of waking up on third base. In late June the Supreme Court ruled that the Tel Aviv municipality would have to do more than go through the motions in enforcing its 1980 bylaw prohibiting businesses from opening on the Jewish Sabbath. Religiously observant Jews were pleasantly surprised since they have generally not received much joy from the judicial system or from the Attorney General’s Office.But before this morphs into a test case of religious freedom on the order of the Women of the Wall kerfuffle, it should be noted that the Orthodox were not the plaintiffs. The suit was filed by mom-and-pop grocery store owners whom the supermarket scofflaws were driving out of business. Supermarkets in Tel Aviv would open for business on the Sabbath, knowing that when an inspector called they would receive a slap on the wrist in the form of a $200 fine. The daily sales volume made the payment of such a niggardly amount a veritable bargain.Some marketing chains fear that the next targets for closure will be shopping malls on kibbutz property. Agricultural cooperatives were awarded valuable real estate when agriculture was the mainstay of the economy in the expectation that they would assiduously till the soil. As agriculture became less profitable, tillers of the soil used the land for shopping mall tills. They also took advantage of their exterritoriality from municipal boundaries to evade Sabbath closing laws.While the court praised the importance of a universal day of rest, its main argument was respect for the existing law. If the fine was a joke and created a mutually profitable situation for both the violators and the municipal treasury, Tel Aviv, the court ruled, had to employ stronger deterrents such as voiding business licenses.The court also noted that Tel Aviv, the uncrowned capital of Israeli secularism, could pass a new law that allowed businesses to open on Shabbat. As Tel Aviv prides itself as the city that never stops, it may be tempted to go that route. And that would be a pity.This is the moment to revisit the Gavison-Medan Covenant formulated in 2003 by two incisive thinkers: Rabbi Yaakov Medan, one of the co-heads of the Har Etzion Yeshiva, and Hebrew University Law professor Ruth Gavison, a former head of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, representing the secular camp. They effectively produced a grand bargain between the observant and the secular.For example, in return for the religiously observant acquiescing to full cultural and recreational services operating on the Sabbath, the secular would refrain from efforts to turn the Sabbath into a normal day of business, and only a small number of groceries and gas stations would be open on a rotating basis. Gavison observed that limiting shopping to six days a week could hardly be considered a deprivation of liberty. The agreement, however, fell by the wayside because the secular simply went ahead and opened businesses on Shabbat. And they regarded their successful encroachment on the status quo with the same smug satisfaction that European federalists regard their acquis body of law.Following the court’s ruling we can take a step back. Shopaholics can still satisfy their cravings by patronizing Muslim and Christianowned shops that are unaffected – or simply purchase over the web.One of the current coalition’s strengths is its openness on both sides of the religious-secular divide to creative thinking along the lines of the Gavison-Medan model. Many of its members, recognizing that peace with our neighbors appears remote, would like to be remembered for laying the basis for peace within Israel and arresting the slide into polarized sectoralism. Contributor Amiel Ungar is also a columnist for the Hebrew weekly Besheva
