How far can and should a country go in order to preserve its culture and character? This is the basic question in the dispute over the burkini ban in France. This is the basic question in the debate over Donald Trump’s suggestion to interrogate immigrants to the US about their beliefs and positions – for instance, to see if they have anti-Semitic sentiments – in order to determine if they are worthy of entering America’s gates. This is also the basic question at the heart of many of Israel’s public debates. In a fast changing world, which, on the one hand, is subjected to quick globalization that blurs countries’ national and religious character and, on the other hand, is threatened by extreme ideologies that want to impose on it a strict new cultural regime, there is no country that isn’t dealing with this important question.
Banning the burkini is not essentially different from banning the shtreimel from the public sphere, but it is very different on the practical level: it’s hard to find any French Jews who wish to impose Jewish law on French society; it’s much easier to find Muslims who wish to impose Sharia law on the general population. It’s difficult to find Jews secretly planning acts of terror, but it has been proved that there are such Muslims. Here we already have another question to consider: do we go by principle – asserting that there is no reason to ban the burkini while the shtreimel is allowed – or are practical considerations to be taken into account, suggesting that these are two different policy decisions?
The principle vs. practical question is very relevant to Israeli society too. For instance, in the debate about letting haredi students study in gender-segregated campuses, which also don’t let female lecturers lecture in front of men. Or in the debate about whether Knesset members should only appear at events in which the national flag is raised. Or in the debate about an egalitarian platform at the kotel. Or in the debate about letting soldiers grow a beard.
All these debates have to do with the question of what Israeli culture is, how flexible it is to change, and how open it is to diversity. In the case of Haredi campuses, if Haredis can study according to their own beliefs we would see more diversity – but it would also entail empowering a worldview that believes in gender segregation, a worldview with expansionist intentions. If legislation makes mandatory to raise a flag in every public event in which an MK appears, this means enforcing a strict norm of collective stateliness on many people who don’t feel at ease with it. In the Kotel case, we would once again have more diversity (a platform for non-Orthodox Jews) – at the price of a stately standard, which has an element of coercion to it. In the case of banning most soldiers from growing beards, this means updating a norm, which is the result of societal changes, but which doesn’t sit well with the ideal of those who are in the position to enforce the old norms.
This is really a kind of tug of war that is necessary for Israeli society as it is anywhere else. It’s a kind of tug of war which gets worse if the pullers on one side feel that the pullers on the other side will never stop pulling, even after bringing their opponents past the line.
If the French were certain that the burkini is just a burkini, and that it isn’t another stop on the way to additional Islamic norms being accepted in the French public sphere, they wouldn’t be so insistent. If Trump were certain that the new immigrants to America would integrate into American society as he understands it, rather than continue speaking Spanish, or continue living in immigrant communities that are susceptible to outside foreign influences, he wouldn’t want them to pass an ideology test. If the Haredi parties were sure that the egalitarian platform at the kotel wouldn’t lead to additional moves which are intended to put the state’s stately orthodoxy in peril, perhaps they would be less insistent about this particular point. If the Israeli right were certain that the Israeli left would never try to question Israel’s status as a Jewish-Zioinst state, it would obviously not try to force redundant flag waves.
But the French – rightly – are not convinced. And Trump – rightly – is not convinced. And the Haredis – rightly – are not convinced. And the Israeli right – rightly – is not convinced. That’s why everyone is pulling the rope and not letting go. That’s why they’ll continue pulling. In the best case, until a point of equilibrium is reached. In the worst case, until the rope tears apart.
