Aa
  • Read, Watch, Listen
  • TJI Series
  • Community Action
  • Events
  • Zedi
Follow us and continue the conversation
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • FaceBook
  • X
  • YouTube
Test yourself with the TJI Quiz!

Adjust size of text

Aa

Follow us and continue the conversation

  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • FaceBook
  • X
  • YouTube

Your saved articles

You haven't saved any articles

What are you looking for?

Original reporting, insightful analysis and diverse views, delivered straight to your inbox

  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • FaceBook
  • X
  • YouTube
Your support fuels our mission to inform, entertain and inspire.

The Jewish Independent is bound by the Standards of Practice of the Australian Press Council. If you believe the Standards may have been breached, you may approach The Jewish Independent or make a complaint to the Australian Press Council in writing at www.presscouncil.org.au. The Council may also be contacted on 1800 025 712.

  • Our Story
  • Contact us
  • Our Team
  • Support us
  • Guidelines
  • Pitch your idea
  • Republishing us
  • Community Action
  • Our Awards
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • FaceBook
  • X
  • YouTube
Aboriginal FlagTorres Strait Islanders Flag

The Jewish Independent acknowledges Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the Traditional Owners and Custodians of Country throughout Australia. We pay our respects to Elders past and present, and strive to honour their rich history of storytelling in our work and mission.

© The Jewish Independent 2026All Rights Reserved
Website design and development by Your Creative, MelbourneTerms & ConditionsPrivacy Policy
HomeRead, Watch, ListenIsrael
AnalysisIsrael

Women disadvantaged by new powers for Israel’s religious courts

A new law gives religious courts jurisdiction over range of civil matters, including custody and neighbour disputes.
Eetta Prince-Gibson
Print this
Gett film 2

scene from the film The Gett

Published: 13 April 2026

Last updated: 13 April 2026

Late at night on March 26, without prior notification and as most Israelis were running to their safe rooms and shelters, the Knesset passed a law expanding the authority of Israel’s rabbinical and Islamic courts into areas previously only in civil courts – a  move which, according to legal experts, endangers basic fundamental rights, including the right to equality, freedom of and from religion, and the right to a fair trial and undermines basic principles of Israeli democracy.

According to the millet system, which was inherited from the Ottoman rule and preserved through the British Mandate, personal matters such as marriage, divorce, and certain aspects of family law are decided in religious courts - rabbinical courts for Jews, Sharia courts for Muslims, and Ecclesiastical courts for Christians (although Ecclesiastical courts are not very active in Israel today.) These courts subordinate individual rights to religious authority and its interpretation of religious law and communal concerns.

With passage of the new legislation, these religious courts are now empowered to also have authority over matters of labour law and employment disputes, rental contracts, disputes between neighbours, property law, and so forth. 

And unlike civil courts, which must rule according to the laws of the state and abide by values such as equality before the law, this newly passed law specifically states that these issues will be adjudicated in the religious courts according to religious law.

As part of political coalition agreements, Jewish religious institutions become increasingly controlled by the ultra-Orthodox, whose interpretations of Jewish is increasingly narrow and strict.  And according to both Druze and Islamic religious law, men have more rights, including custody rights over children, than women. In these courts, women are not allowed to serve as judges or to give testimony, even when it relates directly to them.

In fact, in a committee hearing before passage of the law, a representative of the Rabbinical Courts Administration declared "no one can compel religious law to change its restrictions on women".

Women's rights eroded

The law thus subordinates the fundamental civil and democratic rights of women and other weaker groups in society (such as members of the LGBTQ+ community and children) to religious interpretations by the ultra-Orthodox.

Furthermore, at the very last minute, the Knesset added a clause to the law that equates the status of religious arbitration to that of civil courts – which means that even though the judges who make up these courts have no training for, or presumably interest in, the civil laws that apply to the issues which they are now empowered to rule on, their verdict will be final, without any recourse to appeal. 

The law thus creates two parallel systems, each based on a different judicial understandings, which weakens the rule of law that is so necessary for a stable democracy and brings Israel closer to becoming a theocracy.

Some supporters of the law argue it is merely an administrative adjustment, intended to ease the burden on the overcrowded civil system. But as the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI), an independent Jerusalem-based think-tank, notes, “administrative efficiency is a poor justification for the erosion of democratic principles”. 

And to those who contend that the law respects cultural and religious diversity in justice, the IDI retorts, “access to justice is only meaningful if the justice accessed is just… and does not come at the expense of individual rights.”

Ostensibly, the strongest argument in favour of the law is that it requires the consent of all involved. According to the wording,  if an arbitration request has not been signed by all parties, the religious court secretariat will issue a notification of the request to those parties that have not yet agreed, inviting them to sign the arbitration form and to agree to the case being heard by the religious court.  Otherwise, it will be held in a civil court.

But experience has shown that genuine consent cannot be obtained if there are power discrepancies, and this law enshrines unequal power – both in the court and between the parties.  Nor are these merely theoretical issues or issues that relate solely to the religious community.  They pertain to situations that every Israeli could face at any time.

Take the example of a financial dispute between a man and a woman who are in the process of divorce. According to Jewish law, a man must give a divorce and a woman must accept it, and this process is already the sole province of the religious court.  How free is a woman, religious or not, to refuse to have money issues discussed in the religious court, when she knows that refusal is likely to impact on the judges who will be unilaterally deciding on the terms of her divorce?

Custody battles loaded

What about a Jewish woman who has ceased to become ultra-Orthodox?  Is she truly free to have a child custody dispute heard in the religious courts even though she knows that according to these religious courts, the “best interest of the child” is to attend an ultra-Orthodox religious school and they will likely award custody to the father? 

Or a Muslim woman, who knows that the Islamic courts almost always automatically award custody to the father, in accordance with Islamic law, yet also knows she will face severe social sanctions if she turns to the civil courts?

What about a gay man whose landlord says he will be thrown out of his apartment if he does not agree to the religious court – even though the religious court rejects all forms of non-heteronormative behaviour?

In the commercial world, what of companies that declare certain days or certain areas will become gender segregated for reasons of “modesty”?  Women will not be able to full participate in the work force, which will affect their entire career. In a civil court, such a case would likely be classified as prohibited discrimination, but in the all-male rabbinical court, the judges could determine - as they have in the past – that gender segregation does not constitute discrimination.

The passage of this law must be viewed in several contexts.  First, it is part of the judicial overhaul, pushed by Israel’s far Right, which is promoting a non-liberal “majoritarian democracy” that  weakens checks and balances and concentrates power in the hands of the coalition that claims to “represent the majority of the people” (even if the vote was taken in the middle of the night, when almost none of “the people” were aware of it).

As an openly secular Jew, it is unlikely that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in support of the substance of this law. Rather, it is yet another example of his transactional politics that are rapidly undermining Israeli democracy as Netanyahu agrees to almost anything that his coalition partners demand in order to guarantee their loyalty and keep him in power.

Israel is a complex, highly diverse and increasingly polarised society that has struggled since its inception to maintain a balance between its Jewish and democratic character. The religious courts were instituted as part of the compromises needed to maintain that delicate balance, while at all times recognising that some rights are universal and must be protected.

However, this law shows that Netanyahu has weaponised religion, using it as little more than a tool to assert control. Lacking any ideological consistency, transactional politics have no moral authority and no capacity to inspire or guide Israeli society, at a time when Israeli society, after nearly three years of war, is desperate for leadership.

You might also like
  • I’m a Jewess and I’m owning the term 
    Leila Segal
  • US and Israel are more ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ than ‘The Testaments’
    Leslie Cannold
  • Women who give me hope 
    Melinda Jones
logomark.67a07ee3
We believe in the free flow of information

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, by using our Creative Commons licence

You might also like

    Segalovitz Abbas
    Israel Votes 2026AnalysisIsrael

    Segalovitz decision to join Arab party is a paradigm change for Israel

    Eetta Prince-Gibson
    Btselem
    NewsIsrael

    ‘Israel is systemically eliminating Palestinian collective life’:  B’Tselem

    Deborah Stone
    Woman with land and houses behind her
    NewsAustralia

    Australia to increase sanctions against West Bank settlements

    Deborah Stone 2

About the author

Eetta Prince-Gibson

Eetta Prince-Gibson, who lives in Jerusalem, was previously Editor-in-Chief of The Jerusalem Report, is the Israel Editor for Moment Magazine and a regular contributor to Haaretz, The Forward, PRI, and other Israeli and international publications.

More from the author

AnalysisIsrael

Segalovitz decision to join Arab party is a paradigm change for Israel

AnalysisIsrael

Netanyahu pre-election juggling act

AnalysisArts & Culture

The Sea: deserving award-winning film or one-sided disgrace?

Comments1

  • Avatar of Simon

    Simon16 April at 09:26 pm

    Sad for Israel. Grateful to be living in Australia.