E/CN.4/2000/65 page 16 Israel 56. Ultra-orthodox Jews are said to be creating a climate of intolerance in Israel. In November 1998, in Kiryat Malachi, an American couple engaged in humanitarian work with Ethiopian immigrants was allegedly attacked by young ultra-orthodox Jews who suspected them of proselytizing. In the town of Beersheba, 1,000 ultra-orthodox Jews (haredim), acting on a rumour spread in the synagogues alleging that the Messianic Jews intended to baptize Jewish children, are reported to have laid siege to the place of worship rented by the Messianic Jews. The police apparently guarded the building in order to maintain order, but subsequently told the leaders of the congregation that they must protect the area themselves. A chief rabbi from Beersheba spoke on television and in the newspapers of his opposition to the Messianic group and its activities. It would seem that this person is in fact the brother of a member of the Knesset who supported a draft law banning religious conversion (E/CN.4/1998/6). In Mea Shearim, ultra-orthodox Jews allegedly attacked the residence of three Swiss Christians, whom they accused of proselytizing. Despite the absence of any reply by Israel, the Special Rapporteur wishes to recall the responsibility of the State in the fight against intolerance and discrimination, in this instance, in respect of freedom of religion. 57. The Israeli Government and the military administrations are said to be pursuing a policy aimed at forcing the Christian communities out of Jerusalem. The Palestinian Christians of East Jerusalem are allegedly being stripped of their right of residence by having their identity cards confiscated and very few drivers’ licences issued to them, the purpose being to raise the prices of housing and encourage the building of illegal housing which could then be demolished. All the Christian communities of Jerusalem are reportedly losing members as a result of the policies and practices described above. Women sometimes suffer discrimination in matters of divorce. Rabbinical courts deliberately give preference to men, for example, by allowing a husband to remarry notwithstanding his wife’s dissent or by not penalizing a husband who refuses to consent to a divorce despite the sound and well-founded reasons given by the wife. Similarly, some Islamic courts reportedly deny any request for divorce from a wife, but grant it to any man notwithstanding his wife’s dissent. 58. Israel replied as follows to the communication on women: “Israel recognizes the jurisdiction of the rabbinical courts over all Jewish citizens and residents in matters of personal status. In this context, the rabbinical courts are given exclusive jurisdiction in cases of marriage and divorce. The same applies, mutatis mutandis, to the other recognized religious communities in Israel, in which the respective religious courts apply their own religious laws to members of their communities in matters of ‘personal status’. In principle, therefore, civil courts do not interfere in these cases. However, Israeli legislators are seeking creative ways to adjust the implementation of religious law to the dynamic reality in Israel, where democratic human rights and religious values are basic tenets of the State. As a preliminary comment, it must be noted that preserving religious law in Israel, particularly in matters of family and divorce, is considered to be an important component of Israeli law. Consequently upon acceding to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, Israel entered a reservation explaining that in Israel, matters of personal status are governed by the applicable religious law of the parties concerned, and to the extent that such law is incompatible with its obligations under these conventions, Israel reserves the right to apply that law. In principle, Israeli law applies equally to men and