Case Study: Israel V. Israel

On Thursday, leaders of ultra-Orthodox political parties panned Supreme Court Justice Miriam Naor's decision to uphold a ruling that allowed Tel Aviv supermarkets to remain open on Shabbat and other Jewish days of the rest. Naor's has been slammed by the leaders of the religious right-wing parties during her time as a justice, which she vacated after this final ruling. Shas leader and Interior Minister Aryeh Deri called the decision " a coup" and Health Minister and leader of the United Torah Judaism party Yaakov Litzman declared it an "anti-religious ruling" that intended to "harm the Jewish character of the state." Meanwhile, Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman praised the decision, as he believes Tel Aviv's urban and majority secular fabric should not be harmed by the will of a religious state. Zionist Union Leader Avi Gabbay also hailed Naor's ruling, saying, "we respect religion, we don't respect forcing religion."
While Israel is a Jewish state, it should not be a theocracy. Forcing private enterprises to be closed on religious holidays is not in accordance with a truly democratic state. While it is okay for religious people to not use these shops and for religious stores to be closed on Yom Tov's, this should not mean secular people need to compromise their own lifestyle. Especially in a city like Tel Aviv, that is as secular as it gets in Israel and has a very urbanized feeling to it, bringing in religious law as the law of the state should not be tolerated. Doing so would disenfranchise a large portion of people in Tel Aviv without giving them the opportunity to voice their opinion on the matter and dictate their own affairs. A decision like this should be based on what the majority of people in the area want, not a select few Orthodox men who live in Jerusalem and represent communities that are often secluded from life in Tel