Kahana sets out reforms to abolish kashrut monopoly
Chief Rabbinate condemns ‘dangerous’ plan for independent supervision
Religious Services Minister Matan Kahana announced on Tuesday a far-reaching set of reforms to the kashrut market that will establish the Chief Rabbinate as a regulator over independent kashrut organizations that will serve as the kashrut service provider.
The measures, if enacted, will in effect end the Chief Rabbinate’s long-held monopoly over the kashrut supervision industry and enable independent kashrut authorities to issue kashrut licenses to restaurants and other food businesses.
Kahana said the move is designed to create competition for kashrut supervision services and thereby increase the standard of service provided, while at the same time solving some of the worst problems in the current system which have led to corruption and poor standards.
The minister said at a press conference on Tuesday where he unveiled the reforms that it would also give businesses freedom of choice to whichever supervision authority they wish, and would also lead to cheaper prices for consumers.
And he argued that the measures he seeks to institute, which need to be carried out through legislation, would strengthen the Chief Rabbinate since it will be in charge of determining nationwide standards and overseeing the different independent kashrut authorities.
At the same time, Kahana
admitted that the chief rabbis are not “overly excited” by the reforms, especially a track allowing for a kashrut provider to determine its own standards if approved by three municipal chief rabbis.
The reforms would be enacted through legislation with a six-to-12 month interim period in which any local rabbinate could provide kashrut supervision in any municipal jurisdiction around the country, until the primary reforms are ready to be implemented.
Immediately following the minister’s announcement, the Chief Rabbinate denounced the reforms, describing them as “dangerous” and said they would “destroy kashrut in Israel.”
Ultra-Orthodox MKs and those of the hard-line Religious Zionist Party also condemned the proposed measures, with United Torah Judaism chairman Moshe Gafni denouncing Kahana as “seeking to eradicate any spark of Judaism” in the country.
But moderate religious-Zionist lobbying group Ne’emanei Torah Va’Avodah, which helped draft the measures, welcomed the reforms, saying they would allow for real competition in the kashrut market and increase standards.
Currently, only local rabbinates headed by a municipal chief rabbi can issue kashrut licenses to food businesses, and these rabbinates are also in charge of allocating kashrut supervisors to supervise those businesses, as well as appointing inspectors to oversee the supervisors.
No food business can declare itself in writing to be kosher unless it has supervision from a local rabbinate, although a 2017 High Court of Justice ruling allowed independent kashrut authorities to stipulate that they provide
various supervisory services to a business, although use of the word “kosher” was still reserved only for those with rabbinate supervision.
Under the reforms proposed by Kahana, the Chief Rabbinate would essentially become a regulator for independent kashrut supervision authorities.
It would set unified kashrut standards across the country, likely with at least two different levels of kashrut observance, and would also be in charge of an oversight body which checks the compliance of the various independent kashrut providers.
The kashrut providers would have to be headed by a rabbi with qualifications from the rabbinate to serve as a municipal chief rabbi; and the provider itself would need to commit to upholding the standards set by the rabbinate at whichever level they chose.
Any existing kashrut provider could become a Chief Rabbinate approved provider, including, for example, the most stringent ultra-Orthodox kashrut supervision authorities, the kashrut authority of the moderate religious-Zionist rabbinical association Tzohar, or any local religious council currently providing kashrut supervision services.
At the same time, there will be an alternative route for any kashrut provider that wishes to provide more basic kashrut standards from those determined by the Chief Rabbinate.
Such a provider would need to seek the approval for its operations from three rabbis with qualifications from the Chief Rabbinate to serve as municipal chief rabbis, and then declare which kashrut standards it plans to follow.
The Chief Rabbinate’s oversight body would also perform oversight for such a provider and ensure that it complies with the standards it declares itself to uphold.
Food businesses which would avail themselves of the services of such a provider would be able to declare themselves kosher, but not under the auspices of the rabbinate.
The reforms will be carried out through legislation in the Arrangements Law which accompanies the state budget, giving it a greater chance of approval through the legislative process.
“Israel’s kashrut system must become more efficient, the current system suffers from quality problems, divergent standards, poor employment conditions for supervisors, problematic oversight and a multitude of kashrut authorities,” Kahana said.
He added that State Comptroller reports have lambasted the kashrut system for systemic failures, and that his reforms would solve many of these problems.
“The revolution I am leading will strengthen the Chief Rabbinate, establish professional kashrut authorities, improve kashrut standards, create competition, reduce prices and allow businesses to choose between different authorities and improve working conditions for supervisors.”
The Chief Rabbinate denounced the reforms.
“The Chief Rabbinate totally rejects the dangerous initiative of the Religious Services Ministry to destroy kashrut in Israel,” saying that the plan meant “the abolition of kashrut in the State of Israel, and the opening of a bazaar for organizations with businesses’ interests which will grant kashrut and allow any wheeler-dealer to give kashrut when the result will be the destruction of kashrut.”
“The government of Israel cannot afford for this [the boycott] to happen,” Zinger said. “When you mix politics with ice cream, you do not know where it will stop.”
Unilever Israel has also clarified that it has no connection to the boycott call issued by the global company. Both the Israeli franchises of Unilever and Ben & Jerry’s have stressed that boycotting their products within Israel only harms pro-Israeli companies and does not target those who support the boycott.
PRIME MINISTER Naftali Bennett spoke with Unilever CEO Alan Jope on Tuesday and explained that he viewed such an “anti-Israel step” with the “utmost gravity.”
Bennett “emphasized that from the perspective of the State of Israel, this is an action that has severe consequences, including legal ones, and it will take strong action against any boycott directed against its citizens,” according to a statement issued by his office.
But in an interview with NBC, Mittal said that Unilever had overstepped its authority by pledging to remain in Israel.
“It is stunning that they can say that when the statement was put out without the approval of the board,” she said.
She explained that under the terms of Unilever’s purchase agreement, an independent Board of Directors retains control over decisions relating to the company’s social mission and branding. Ben & Jerry’s is famous for tackling social issues.
In contesting the Unilever decision, the Ben & Jerry’s board posted the original text of its boycott message.
“We believe it is inconsistent with our values for Ben & Jerry’s ice cream to be sold in the Occupied Palestine Territory,” read the board’s original statement.
“We have a longstanding agreement with our licensee, who manufactures Ben & Jerry’s ice cream in Israel and distributes it in the region.
“The Company will not renew the license agreement when it expires next year,” the board said. “We have always been led by our values and remain committed to being a social justice company.”
There was no mention in that original statement of an intent to remain in Israel. But the press release about the boycott that appeared on both of the global companies’ web pages spoke of a commitment to doing business with Israel, outside of the “occupied Palestinian Territory.”
The one on the Ben & Jerry’s site stated that although the ice cream would “no longer be sold in the OPT, we will stay in Israel through a different arrangement. We will share an update on this as soon as we’re ready.”
The Unilever statement clarified, “We also welcome the fact that Ben & Jerry’s will stay in Israel.”
The Ben & Jerry’s board, however, said that it had the sole authority to make the decision to remain in Israel and that it had not done so.
“The Acquisition Agreement [with Unilever] grants the Independent Board [authority] on an issue directly related to Ben & Jerry’s social mission and brand integrity,” the board said. “Unilever and its CEO at Ben & Jerry’s are in violation of the spirit and the letter of the Acquisition Agreement.”
THE BEN & Jerry’s decision continued to set off a storm of diplomatic, political, business and consumer reactions on Tuesday.
Foreign Minister Yair Lapid plans to turn to the United States to ask that it enforce its anti-BDS legislation.
Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations and the United States Gilad Erdan, who is currently in Israel, sent a letter to the governors of 35 American states reminding them that the boycott “violates the anti-BDS laws of many states, including the law of your own great state.”
“Rapid and determined action must be taken to counter such discriminatory and antisemitic actions,” Erdan wrote. “We must stand united and send an unequivocal message that this will not be tolerated.”
The Ben & Jerry’s boycott, he said, is contrary to the spirit of the 2020 Abraham Accords under which Israel normalized ties with four Arab nations, he wrote.
“As Arab nations cancel their decades-long boycott of the Jewish state and sign peace agreements with Israel, and cultural and economic cooperation in our region is growing, American companies with radical ideological agendas cannot be allowed to go against the policy of the United States and act against normalization and peace,” the ambassador wrote.
“Moreover, the past has proven that the citizens of Israel are never the only ones who suffer from such boycotts as these significantly harm Palestinians as well. For example, in the supermarkets in Judea and Samaria where Ben & Jerry’s products are sold, both Israelis and Palestinians work and shop,” Erdan wrote.
In New York, the Morton Williams Supermarket chain decided to reduce its sales of Ben & Jerry’s by 70%, while in New Jersey, Glatt Express Supermarket and Cedar Market halted sales all together.
“Our supermarkets have taken action against Ben & Jerry’s, which is boycotting Jewish communities that are at the center of a territorial dispute in Israel, including the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem – inhabited by Jews for over 3,000 years,” tweeted supermarket co-owner Avi Kaner.
ON THE Israeli political front, parliamentarians and ministers turned to satire to dig in their points – although confusion reigned over whether boycotting Ben & Jerry’s as a protest vote is something that should be done abroad but not in Israel where the local franchise owner supports sales to Judea and Samaria.
Joint List Party head Ayman Odeh posted a photo of himself eating Ben & Jerry’s, noting “his diet had been going great until now.”
Finance Minister Avigdor Liberman warned that a boycott starts with a West Bank settlement such as his home community of Nokdim and ends with cities in Israel such as Tel Aviv. Liberman adapted the famous adage of former prime minister Ariel Sharon, noting that the “fate of Nokdim is the fate of Tel Aviv.”
He posted a photograph of himself eating a vanilla ice cream cone with a spoon, stating, “I have already ordered another ice cream – one that is not boycotting and is much tastier.”
Pundits and satirical and social media sites also used the ice cream container and Ben & Jerry’s tradition of unusual ice cream flavors to bash the boycott.
The Babylon Bee issued a satire tweeted to highlight the antisemitic element of the boycott stating “Ben And Jerry’s Introduces Fun New Flavor ‘Push The Jews Into The Sea Salt And Caramel.”
In a satirical article, in the same dark comedy vein by writing that: “All proceeds will go to Iranian rocket manufacturers to arm noble Hamas mujahideen warriors in their fight to destroy the Jews.”