Rosner’s Domain— Tolerate and Separate?

The weekly storm of the coalition negotiations, which will surely be soon replaced by another storm, concerns “gender separation” in public places. Two prospective members of the coalition, the Religious Zionism Party and United Torah Judaism, are demanding legislation that will ensure the ability of separating men and women at certain public events, without this being considered discriminatory. Outgoing PM Yair Lapid hastened to respond by tweeting “Iran is not here.” And he is right. Israel is not Iran, not even close. The rest of the tweet was a little less precise in its accuracy. Lapid wrote that the purpose of the demand is to “send women behind barriers and put into law the separation between women and men.”

Why not accurate? Because the demand, regardless of whether you support it or oppose it, is not to put a separation into law, that is, to demand separation. It is to allow separation. That’s a big difference. In the first case, the starting assumption is that each event is separated. Mixing is prohibited. In the second case, the starting point is that separation is an option in certain specific cases. Is separation today not possible? That’s a good question. And since it’s a question, the parties demand a law that will give a clear answer. 

The question of whether it is appropriate to allow separation is an ideological one. There are those who believe that any separation is wrong because it means discrimination. There are those who believe that the possibility of separation is a pluralistic act of consideration. Some sectors would not have mixed events. Why not let them have a concert, or a rally, or a ceremony, of even a supermarket, as they desire? 

Two values collide here: the value of the equality of men and women, for those who believe that maintaining it requires a prohibition on any separation. And the value of tolerance towards religious minorities who want separation, for those who advocate tolerance.

Surveys that examined public attitudes on this issue convey conflicting messages, because they depend on how separation is presented. There is a difference between surveys in which the question presented is worded as “prohibiting the exclusion of women in the public sphere” (to which Israelis object), and surveys that ask about separation at events for the ultra-Orthodox community (to which many do not object). There is a difference between questions about separation on buses, or in academia, and questions about separation in the Haredi city of Bnei Brak, and questions about the Western Wall, and questions about separation at the beach.

About half of the Jewish population in Israel opposes any separation, except in synagogues. This is the view of a large majority of secular Jews, about eight out of 10. But this finding should come with a caveat: the question of separation is not high on the secular agenda compared to other matters of religion and state. So we could assume that many secularists would agree to compromise a little on the issue of separation in return for concessions on other issues (say, public transportation on Shabbat).

On the other side of the spectrum are the religious and ultra-religious. Among them, almost everyone supports an option of separation. And we should be precise: this is not about complete separation in all events, but rather the possibility of such thing at certain times and in certain places to allow the participation of a religious audience in certain events. 

The secularists are all against it – the religious are all for it – but what about the middle-of-the-road traditionalists? On this issue the traditionalists go with the religious. And this merits explanation: On some issues the traditionalists lean more towards the seculars. Civil marriage for those who are interested in it is one such matter. There are also issues where the traditionalists support the religious stance. That is the case with gender separation. 

Why? Because of moderation. The traditional public is looking for less ideological war, and more consideration for others. Six out of 10 traditionalists say that it is possible to separate certain events to allow for religious and ultra-Orthodox participation. Therefore, in the final calculation, even though the seculars are the largest group in Israel, about half of Israel’s Jews are in favor of the option of some gender separation.

This means that for voters of the coalition, a law would seem reasonable, if properly crafted. In fact, that is the actual fight that is likely to shape over this issue. Not if separation is allowed, but rather where and when it is allowed.

Something I wrote in Hebrew

Netanyahu’s election victory was not that great. Only a few tens of thousands of votes stood between him and a failure. And yet, Yesh Atid’s leader Yair Lapid will have a hard time as opposition leader. His ability to dismantle Netanyahu’s political coalition is limited, his ability to build his own coalition is limited. First, because it is true that Netanyahu only won by a small margin, but he won decisively among the Jewish majority. This is his stronghold: a clear Jewish majority. And even if it is not quite an agreeable reality – this is Israel’s reality: the Jewish majority rules. That is because from the Jewish majority a winning colation can be built, while it is impossible for now to establish such a coalition with parties whose voters are Arab.

A week’s numbers

This number belongs to the column above.

A reader’s response:

Jonah K. Asks: “When will the new Israeli government finally form?” Answer: quite likely, at the last possible minute or very close to it. That’s how they negotiate these things. 

.

Shmuel Rosner is senior political editor. For more analysis of Israeli and international politics, visit Rosner’s Domain at jewishjournal.com/rosnersdomain.