Original work titled “Kotel”, Acrylic and ink on canvas, 2021, by Yoram Gal. yoramgal.com

Note From the Editor, Vivian Bercovici (Click to Read)

Few issues capture the essence of the deep conflict between Diaspora and Israeli Jews like the issue of appropriate worship at the Kotel, often called the Western Wall.

In 2014, then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tapped Natan Sharansky, Executive Chair of the Jewish Agency, to untie this Gordian knot.

Sharansky’s journey to the role of "eminence grise," trusted by all, is epic: a former Prisoner of Zion in the USSR, international celebrity upon his release in 1986, and, since then, ever-ascendant politically and professionally in his new home. Jerusalem, Israel.

I remember well the grey day in February, 1986, when Sharansky was told by his Soviet captors to walk across the Glienicke Bridge “in a straight line.” Awaiting him at the other end – after nine years being held in the harshest conditions as a Prisoner of Conscience in the Soviet gulag – was freedom, West Berlin and the American Ambassador to Germany.

And so, Sharansky zigzagged, defiantly. Until his final moments in their custody, Sharansky signaled to the Soviets, and the world, that they may control his physical freedom of movement but they did not own a speck of his mind. Nor had they chipped away even a splinter of his personal will.

I watched him on TV then and marveled; and perhaps more so shortly after when he published his first book, “Fear No Evil,” a riveting memoir of personal integrity and strength, even when in the maws of the KGB.

In the 1980s I was deeply engaged in the movement to free Soviet Jewry and travelled to the USSR to meet with refuseniks. Their lives were full of purpose but, honestly, so much despair as well; and understandably so.

And yet, after his ordeal, Sharansky wrote the most eloquent, rousing defense of principle, Jewish pride, tenacity and Zionism. His fortitude empowered us all.

In the ensuing years Sharansky established himself as a skilled political and community leader, both in the Knesset and as the head of the Jewish Agency. He was an excellent choice to lead the negotiations for a Kotel compromise.

Sharansky’s “tell-all” story – published below – of what happened behind closed doors during the years of delicate negotiations is fascinating.

Equally important is the historical context and the “up to the moment” analysis provided by co-author Gil Troy, an exceptionally accomplished academic and historian who has authored many acclaimed books. I admit I have not read the entire Troy canon but absolutely love his biography, “Moynihan’s Moment: America’s Fight Against Zionism as Racism,” a seminal analysis of the great American diplomat, Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Of Irish descent, Moynihan was as much scrapper as polished intellectual; a blend of talent that served him well as he took on the world in support of Israel in the 1970s when it was being attacked relentlessly, militarily and diplomatically, at the United Nations and elsewhere.

Troy is a public speaker par excellence. He “owns” any room with ease; being relatable and highly personable while imparting reams of knowledge and insight; with the gift of making the most complex issues seem almost simple, or, at a minimum, understandable. And he’s also just a great, fun guy, and honorary Canadian, eh? Yes. That makes him extra special.

The pairing of these two powerhouses on this issue is an editor’s – and reader’s – dream.

State of Tel Aviv is so grateful for their contribution of this brilliant and eye-opening essay.

Enjoy.

On May 2, 2022, a thousand young, ultra-Orthodox women confronted 150 egalitarian “Women of the Wall.” The latter group was welcoming the new Jewish month of Iyar by praying at the Western Wall, known also as the “Kotel” in Hebrew; the holiest Jewish site that can be accessed freely by worshippers.

Although such clashes occur monthly, this one attracted more attention than usual. The ultra-Orthodox women were waving World Zionist Organization banners, ostensibly to celebrate the 125th anniversary of Theodor Herzl’s First Zionist Congress. The protesters so misunderstood Herzl’s message of Jewish peoplehood and Jewish unity that the WZO itself soon after the incident “strongly” condemned the protests for violating the organization’s “founding values.”[1]

With the collapse last week of Prime Minister Naftali Bennett’s coalition government, these ongoing Kotel clashes may not have been his government’s greatest failure – but they were its most surprising disappointment.

Back in 2014, it was none other than then-Diaspora Affairs Minister and now former Prime Minister, Naftali Bennett, who supervised the construction of a pluralistic prayer pavilion (consistent with the Kotel compromise understanding) facing the historic Robinson’s Arch, a little nook at the end of the sprawling Kotel Plaza. The Arch overlooks the spot where massive stones are believed to have fallen on the day the Romans destroyed the Temple. And the stones remain, appearing suspended in mid-tumble, thousands of years later.

Most people know better than to predict anything in Israeli politics, but many observers were certain that the Bennett government – which lasted for a year after it was formed in June 2021 and whose very existence screamed “pragmatic” – would implement the carefully crafted “Kotel compromise.” This agreement, embraced by an impressively wide range of Jewish leaders, sought to ensure equal and dignified access to the Western Wall for all Jews, despite the well-known denominational differences over how to pray and whether women should have a central role in leading prayers.

Such an accomplishment would have been a powerful symbol of the government’s much-touted “70-30” approach; according to which it focused on the 70 percent – the practical concerns and consensus values that unite Israelis – rather than the 30 percent – those issues which divide them.

Back in 2014, it was none other than then-Diaspora Affairs Minister and now former Prime Minister, Naftali Bennett, who supervised the construction of a pluralistic prayer pavilion (consistent with the Kotel compromise understanding) facing the historic Robinson’s Arch, a little nook at the end of the sprawling Kotel Plaza. The Arch overlooks the spot where massive stones are believed to have fallen on the day the Romans destroyed the Temple. And the stones remain, appearing suspended in mid-tumble, thousands of years later.

During the 2021 election campaign in Israel (the fourth one in two years), five of the eight parties that eventually joined the government’s “change” coalition championed the 2016 Kotel compromise. By failing to implement the compromise, the parties effectively acknowledged how supremely complex is this issue.

Following years of delicate negotiations initiated and often shepherded directly by former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – the Kotel compromise was endorsed by all but the ultra-Orthodox parties. For various political reasons, Netanyahu then sabotaged this agreement in 2017. Caving into the ultra-Orthodox Haredi fury on this issue helped him hang on to power just a little bit longer.

But no Haredi parties joined the change coalition, making it difficult to understand exactly why the Kotel compromise was not implemented as a priority by the current government. The change government neither needed nor had Haredi support.

Many of us – including the authors of this article – who fought so hard for so long to realize this compromise are deeply disappointed. Some problems are insoluble. The Kotel solution, however, is solvable, just not sellable… so far.

I. The Kotel as a Core Religious and National Symbol

The Western Wall (Kotel means “wall” in Hebrew) is the only surviving structure from the Jews’ Holy Temple, first built by King Solomon in the tenth century BCE. Today’s Kotel is just what remains of the retaining wall from the Second Temple (which was rebuilt 2,500 years ago) and represents the two core aspects of Jewish identity: the religious and the national.

It is also the holiest site that is accessible to worshippers. What Jews refer to as the “Temple Mount” – a large compound overlooking the Kotel Plaza – is also where the Al-Aqsa Mosque is situated. It was built directly on the site of the Jewish Temple and is considered to be the third holiest site in Islam.

The Al-Aqsa area is currently managed by the Waqf, a Jordanian government authority, pursuant to an arrangement made shortly after the 1967 Six Day War. The agreement was formalized in Israel’s 1994 peace treaty with Jordan, which was signed in the early, heady days of the Oslo Accord negotiations.

Relations have been fraught from the start. The Waqf considers any Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount to be a defilement of their holy site. Technically, Jews are allowed to visit the Temple Mount but not to pray. And, so, while some succeed in mumbling surreptitiously and even bowing “suspiciously,” for now, most Jews make do with the Kotel.

Although Jews believe God is everywhere, praying at that holy, historic site provides a boost; a feeling of extra closeness to God. Here is where the Jews laid the Mishkan, the Tabernacle, after wandering in the desert for so long. Here is where the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies, in a ceremony so significant that Jews reenact it every year on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar. Here was the pilgrims’ destination, where Jews had the mitzva, or commandment, to “walk up” to the Temple three times a year; on Passover, Shavuot, and Sukkot.

This site is also a potent national Jewish symbol. The Kotel represents King David’s power, King Solomon’s wisdom, the Maccabees’ heroism, the exile’s anguish, and the redemptive joy of the Jewish return to Zion, including the 1967 Six-Day War, which quickly transformed a looming disaster into a nation-building miracle.

This religious-national duality makes the Kotel the most well-attended synagogue in the Jewish world and Israel’s most visited national monument. The Kotel unites religious and secular Jews in shared memories and dreams. Some of Israel’s best soldiers swear their oath to defend our state at the Kotel. New immigrants often receive their identity papers there.

II. Kotel Controversy Between Israel and the Diaspora

Alas, the two sides of this one wall are often underappreciated. A prominent American Jewish leader once complained about all the “uncivilized” skirmishing surrounding the Kotel. “Why do you Israelis make such a fuss about that darned wall?” he asked. “In America, there’s no controversy around the Lincoln Memorial.”

True. But no one inserts written requests to God into the Lincoln Memorial’s cracks, either.

Similarly, ultra-Orthodox politicians often grumble: “What chutzpah! No one would mob the Vatican demanding a Protestant prayer space there.”

But Saint Peter’s Basilica is a religious Catholic space. Garibaldi did not anchor Italian national identity there.

At the Kotel, Jews feel united as a nation, or at least we should. After reunifying Jerusalem in 1967, the Israeli government instinctively gave the Chief Rabbinate control over the Kotel. The rabbinate managed other holy sites, so adding the holiest seemed logical. The move also adhered to the approach and thinking of founding prime minister David Ben-Gurion; that since only Orthodox Jews prayed at the Kotel, so management of the site was not an issue of concern to most Israelis.

Liberal Jews, many with Diaspora roots, saw things a touch differently. Their inability to pray according to their progressive practice at this most sacred national Jewish site was perceived as an affront.

In response, since 1988, the Women of the Wall have regularly protested the Kotel’s emergence and entrenchment as “an ultra-Orthodox synagogue.” As every Jewish month begins, this coalition of Orthodox and liberal Jewish feminists convenes at 7a.m. at the Kotel. Some women pray wearing kippot and tallitot, skullcaps and prayer shawls, which most Orthodox Jews preserve for men’s use exclusively. The women also demand the right to read from the Torah on “their” side of the gender-segregated Kotel plaza, which, they note, is only one-fifth the size of the men’s side.

Some ultra-Orthodox respond to the presence of the Women of the Wall with violence. Sometimes, the police protect the women. Other times, they arrest the women for violating “minhag hamakom,” the local custom.

This unceasing controversy, sadly, has come to symbolize the Jewish world’s religious schisms.

III. One Wall for One People: Natan Sharansky on His Negotiation Efforts

When I, Natan, chaired the Jewish Agency for Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called me after yet another violent morning at the Kotel. “I can’t stand looking at these pictures anymore,” Bibi said, noting how much foreign newspapers enjoyed printing photos of Jews fighting at our holiest site.

“You have ties to the various factions.” He appealed to me. “Can you find out if they would be willing to negotiate?” Then he coined the phrase that became our guiding light throughout years of negotiations: “It should be one wall for one people.”

After three months, I told Bibi, “I believe I can bring everyone to the table, provided we all agree in advance that any compromise would be based on two principles. First, the Chief Rabbinate will continue controlling the central prayer space. Second, the non-Orthodox will have an equally comfortable place for prayer at the Kotel, which they will run independently, with the government’s assistance.” Bibi accepted both conditions.

To involve the ultra-Orthodox, negotiations had to begin abroad, away from Israel’s crazy political dynamics. Jerry Silverman of the Jewish Federations of North America hosted an informal cabinet of religious leaders in New York, including representatives from the ultra-Orthodox communities and leaders of the liberal denominations.

I flew to New York to convince both sides that a compromise was in their best interest. “You don’t want your prayer disrupted,” I told the ultra-Orthodox leaders. “And you’re in the minority here. If we don’t solve this, public opinion in Israel and abroad will turn against you sooner or later, or the Supreme Court will force you to share the central prayer space with others. Why don’t you try calming passions now, while you still have control with the government’s guarantee? Otherwise, you risk losing it all.”

“Let’s be honest,” I told the Reform leaders, “you don’t have any political power in the Knesset. Your power in the New York Times means little in Jerusalem. If you can get a proper, respectable place for prayer at the Kotel, which will be yours to run in cooperation with the government, this could be a breakthrough. You will have a toehold of legitimacy in the Jewish state.”

After three months, I told Bibi, “I believe I can bring everyone to the table, provided we all agree in advance that any compromise would be based on two principles. First, the Chief Rabbinate will continue controlling the central prayer space. Second, the non-Orthodox will have an equally comfortable place for prayer at the Kotel, which they will run independently, with the government’s assistance.” Bibi accepted both conditions.

Nevertheless, finding a compromise took three-and-a-half excruciating years. Voices were raised. Tables were pounded. Walkouts were threatened.

When we started promoting Robinson’s Arch as an alternative, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan issued a special statement condemning these supposed attempts to establish a new “illegal” settlement at the base of the Muslims’ holy Al-Aqsa Mosque.

With ultra-Orthodox control of the Kotel’s main prayer space accepted, we debated what kind of alternative space we could make for non-Orthodox prayer. What would it look like? Who would control it? Would there be a common entrance?

Previous Supreme Court decisions had forced the government to designate the area further south along the Western Wall, to the right when facing it, for egalitarian prayer. This section is called Robinson’s Arch, because in 1838 the biblical scholar Edward Robinson identified the stones jutting out of the retaining wall as part of a grand staircase Jewish pilgrims used to climb up to the Holy Temple.

The area set aside for prayer was small. Access to such a delicate archaeological site had to be restricted. Archaeologists dug down, layer after layer, until they found some huge sacred stones, knocked off the walls by soldiers, that lay undisturbed since the Romans had destroyed the Second Temple 1,900 years earlier.

The stones of the continued wall were just as holy as the stones of the traditional Western Wall, but this area had no amenities. It lacked the basics an outdoor synagogue needed, from a place to store Torah scrolls and prayer books, to bathrooms and easy access for disabled visitors. Some liberal Jews occasionally prayed there, but it was not open 24-7 like the Kotel. Only limited numbers of people could worship there during limited time periods.

This being the Middle East, any development of the site faced great resistance. The archaeologists worried about the antiquities, while the Jordanians were still trying to convince the Arab world that they were still fulfilling their responsibilities to protect the Temple Mount. When we started promoting Robinson’s Arch as an alternative, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan issued a special statement condemning these supposed attempts to establish a new “illegal” settlement at the base of the Muslims’ holy Al-Aqsa Mosque.

No matter how much we upgraded the prayer space, it would never be equal in size or height to the traditional prayer space. It was sunk far too low, and the antiquities, while romantic in their own way, were not movable. The only way for the non-Orthodox to feel that they were getting the equal treatment they sought was to have one main, united entrance.

That, too, triggered a power struggle. Perhaps one gate should flow to the main plaza, with liberal Jews then searching for their space on the side? Or should there be separate entrance gates?

This visibility question proved to be explosive. The liberal leaders insisted that everyone arriving had to encounter two equally “legitimate,” accessible choices. They did not want the “real Kotel” overshadowing some seemingly second choice location. Visibility was a mark of respect. Refusing to “sit in the back of the bus,” liberal Jews could not feel equal if it did not look equal.

At the same time, some ultra-Orthodox leaders demanded new barriers, to “save” religious Jews from witnessing any egalitarian prayer. If liberal Jews entered furtively through a tunnel, that might work. As one rabbi proclaimed, if such an “abomination” wasn’t hidden from the public eye, it could “harm the Jewish soul.”

Finally, intense clashes broke out over governance: Who would run the egalitarian prayer space? The ultra-Orthodox worried that the Reform Jews might start playing music on the Sabbath, ruining the day’s quiet atmosphere. Liberal Jews feared being dependent on the whims of ever-changing Israeli governments.

All this debate took place in an inflamed atmosphere. Ultra-Orthodox rabbis, and even some government ministers, kept making public statements during the negotiations, insulting the “Reformim” as assimilators, heretics, hijackers of real Judaism, and threats to the Jewish future, never mind soul. Some questioned whether they truly were Jews. One influential rabbi even said he would rather see every stone in the Wall destroyed than see one desecrated by “witnessing” Reform prayer there.

Some liberal leaders wanted the Chief Rabbinate eliminated, accusing these rabbis of keeping Judaism in the Middle Ages. Liberals’ “separate but equal” and “back of the bus” rhetoric unfairly compared their legitimate grievances in free, democratic Israel with the fear, humiliation, powerlessness, and oppression African Americans suffered at the hands of white southern racists.

Prime Minister Netanyahu faced his usual democratic dilemma. While Israel’s silent majority likely favored an egalitarian space at the Wall, few secular Israelis felt the question was important enough to justify risking the government’s stability. Only the ultra-Orthodox prioritized this fight. They cleverly and legitimately exerted their democratic leverage as a passionate minority of absolutely unyielding – and highly committed and motivated – voters on this issue. Threatening to topple the coalition, they wanted their government partners to sweat.

Bibi took these negotiations very seriously. Whenever we risked hitting some dead end, Bibi proved remarkably creative, even one day helping us burst through yet another impasse by pulling out a pencil, putting on his MIT architecture hat, and starting to draft plans.

This tedious negotiating process generated something that could have been revolutionary: newfound mutual trust between Prime Minister Netanyahu and liberal American Jewish leaders. They appreciated how much he invested in the process. He appreciated how willing they were to stretch and to pressure their communities to give the negotiations a chance. And using the platform of the Jewish Agency made all the discussions less politicized.

Off-camera, with everyone coordinating positions, periodically sending similar media messages to their constituencies to be patient, relationships flourished and common ground emerged. When the process began, few people would have expected the reasonableness and compromise that developed on the part of all interests in the discussions.

Eventually, we reached a four-part compromise. The agreement, which the ultra-Orthodox accepted silently, but agreed not to veto, stated:

1. The Chief Rabbinate would maintain its monopoly in the main, “official” area, running the wall as an Orthodox synagogue with no protests and no interference;

2. The liberal movements would be granted their Robinson’s Arch upgrade, with a major renovation establishing a comfortable, legitimate but alternative prayer space for as many as 1,200 people, where men and women could pray together as they chose;

3. Although other demands to broadcast equality proved impossible to meet, a shared entrance to the site would emphasize the notion that all enter the area as equals, regardless of where they might pray; and

4. A special administrative committee would guarantee the liberal movements’ autonomy at Robinson’s Arch, even as governments changed. The committee, chaired by the Chairman of the Jewish Agency, would include representatives of the liberal movements in an unprecedented partnership with government representatives.

Netanyahu seemed ready to resist the pressure – until he wasn’t.

IV. The Great Unravelling

As 2016 dragged into 2017, Bibi kept asking for more time to implement the decision, while avoiding a coalition crisis. He promised me. He promised American Jews at their biggest, most public forums, among them the General Assembly of the Jewish Federations and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) policy conference. He kept promising that he was “just about” to move ahead.

And then, on June 25, 2017, he shocked us all by caving to ultra-Orthodox pressure and scotching the deal.

Five tension-filled years later, the political dynamics are equally charged, if not more so. The Supreme Court remains poised to seize the decision-making power from the ultra-Orthodox, while liberal Jews still lack the political muscle to impose their will. Both groups are frustrated with the many ultra-Orthodox leaders who could ensure the uninterrupted traditional prayer they seek by accepting this agreement but continue to promote confrontation.

Also frustrating is the fact that so few liberal Jews even use the egalitarian prayer space. Where real estate is at such a premium, to leave a large section disused reflects poorly on the credibility and commitment of the liberal denominations.

Yet both “sides” seem entrenched and resistant to improving the situation on the ground.

Meanwhile, no one has proposed a better solution. No one has really explained why this solution will not work. And no one with enough will and skill has had the courage to take the necessary leap of action either. Naftali Bennett’s government has proven to be too weak to implement the plan we devised. Apparently, several religious members of the coalition refused to accept the Kotel compromise and when the Knesset is so fractious, every coalition member effectively holds veto power. No one in the coalition wants the government to fall, particularly on an issue that is not critical to the day-to-day operations of the state.

Today, the prayer platform that Bibi and Bennett built continues to function. Birthright Israel participants and other tourists continue to single out their visit to the Kotel as the spiritual highlight of their Israel trip – and often their lives.

But the monthly violence also continues. The tension festers. And a needless wedge between the leadership of liberal American Jewry and the State of Israel hangs there, looming, like those stones seemingly suspended in mid-air, awaiting the right Zionist spirit – and leader – to break the impasse, proving that this problem is soluble, and this solution actually is sellable too.

This essay has been adapted from a book co-authored by Mr. Sharansky and Prof. Troy, Never Alone: Prison, Politics and My People, published by PublicAffairs of Hachette. State of Tel Aviv gratefully acknowledges the permission granted by PublicAffairs to re-publish certain material from the book in this updated article.

Editor's Note

1) Held in 1897 in Basel, Switzerland, the First Zionist Congress was organized and chaired by Theodor Herzl, an assimilated Hungarian Jew (by nationality, but he spent much of his adult life in Vienna) who believed that only by establishing a sovereign nation-state in its ancestral territory would the Jewish people have any hope of being free and “normal.” His vision was for a state that was decidedly Jewish in character and identity as well as democratic, politically.

Biographical Notes

Born in Donetsk, Ukraine, Natan Sharansky is perhaps the most well-known Jewish activist and former Prisoner of Zion from the Soviet Union. Upon his release in 1986, he reunited in Israel with his wife, Avital, where he has since resided. Mr. Sharansky has served as a Member of Knesset, Deputy Minister and Minister in several portfolios, as well as Chairman of the Jewish Agency, among many other significant roles. He is a recipient of the prestigious Israel Prize (2018),  Congressional Medal of Honor (1986) and the Presidential Medal of Freedom (2006). A prolific writer, Mr. Sharansky is also the author of four books.

A Distinguished Scholar in North American History at McGill University, Prof. Gil Troy is an award-winning American presidential historian and leading Zionist intellectual and activist.  The author of nine books on the presidency and three books on Zionism including the updated classic The Zionist Ideas, Prof. Troy has been recognized repeatedly for his significant contributions to scholarship regarding Zionism and Jewish life in addition to his work on American presidents.