ABSTRACT
During the years of parliamentary struggles over the issue of according family courts jurisdiction in personal status matters of Muslims and Christians, opponents of the legislation amendment voiced their grave concern regarding the consequences. They anticipated that the religious courts will be left with no litigants, and that the family courts will not be able to deal with Muslim and Christian litigants in a proper manner. Their main concern was that the civil judges (who are almost exclusively Jewish) will not be able—for lack of knowledge—to apply the material Islamic and Christian laws, 1 and that religious values and norms will therefore not be sustained. 2 Supporters of the amendment argued in response that the entrance of family courts to this field will only benefit the religious courts, which will have to become more efficient. State officials from the Ministry of Justice (that supported the legislation amendment) have also sought to appease the opponents by pledging that Muslim and Christian judges—versed in religious law—will be appointed to family courts, and that the presiding judges in these courts will be trained in religious law. 3
