Like this:

My project on separation has taken an interesting turn in the past few months. First, heightened attention was drawn to the absence of women in street ads in Jerusalem. Then, further attention was directed to gender-segregated buses. Some clashes between secular and ultra-orthodox crowds led Israeli Prime-Minister Netanyahu to consider (or at least, declare he is considering) a partition of Beit-Shemesh to two municipalities: a secular one and an ultra-orthodox one. To top it off, Yad La-banim – an organization dedicated to the commemoration of fallen soldiers – was reported to request the Israel Land Administration for land in order to establish a settlement whose residence would all be bereaved families.

The first issue is hardly new. Even my own marginal blog has mention of it from three years ago. The folly of gender-segregated buses is nearing a decade. The idea of segregated settlements based on common interests of the residents is probably the oldest news in this series (I mentioned it in relation to a piece by Shmuel Rosner in the JRB).

Before proceeding, I should recall that I entitled my project “Separation as Condition and as Solution”. I agree that separation can be and should be a solution at times. When formulating our opinions on separation, it is essential that every analysis will include not only notice, but also reflections on when one accepts / condones / encourages separation. My ready example is formulated in the following question: why is it clear to us that gender-segregated public toilets are a necessity, and gender-segregated buses are an abomination? To make it more interesting, ask yourselves where should one place orthodox synagogues in this array.

Furthermore, I note the seeming tension between my strong advocacy of separation of church and state, and my stark objection to the separation of secular and religious communities and individuals. This is only a seeming tension, because in fact they are one and the same.

Yearning for similarities and heterophobic attempts to conceal the presence or avoid contact with one’s Others, is most likely not peculiar to Israel. Yet, the growing acceptance of separation as the best course of solution, should be of great concern. Further homogenous towns of Ultra-Orthodox communities will not alleviate the secular-religious tensions of Israeli society, but will distance them to a further extreme. Similarly, the psychological effects of an entire settlement fraught by bereavement are surely the worst course of coping with one’s loss. The idea is far from realization, and one can hope it will be stopped at early stages, but the fact that it arose is the significant part: more and more Israelis wish to live with their peers, and as they succeed in doing so, the definition of “peers” becomes increasingly narrow. Not only of the same ethnic group (separate settlements and towns for Jews and Arabs), not only similar ideologies (the ultra-orthodox towns and neighborhoods serve as a good example, as do the West Bank settlements, but also many Kibbutzim who are no longer communal, and preserve a community comprised mainly of left-wing voters), now also for similar life experiences.

A living, healthy community needs to promote accessibility and coexistence. Learning to live with Arabs, Religious Jews, non-Jewish immigrants and refugees, disabled people and the elderly (to mention the main excluded groups of Gush Dan) would enhance tolerance. Segregation and exclusion generate a reality in which people truly believe that they can only live among their peers, that anything else would be hazardous. To repeat myself once more, the difference between ultra-orthodox communities in the diaspora and in Israel demonstrates that well, although even on them Israeli ultra-orthodox reality has had a negative effect.

The social tensions in Israel can (and should) be alleviated through platforms of dialogue, and opportunities to practice tangible coexistence. I don’t see this government, or any other feasible constellation, promoting such platforms nor furnishing such opportunities. Hence, a vicious circle: Israelis will grow more and more isolated from those different from them, and in turn will elect representatives who carry such a message.

The excitement over the possibility of another midstream party led by Yair Lapid is interesting to contemplate in this connection. Lapid, supposedly, appeals to Israelis of various groups. Thus, one could argue against me that his immediate success in the polls (which still needs to be measured at the ballot), shows that Israelis are not caved in small groups, but actually long for a wide consensus. To understand how Lapid’s vision complies with my previous comments, one must realize that this search for a consensus is in itself, ironically, an exclusionary practice. The consensus-cravers do not like extremists on any side. They are wary of ideologists who hold strong convictions, as they are wary of anyone who is different. The search for a consensus takes for granted that Palestinians and Ultra-Orthodox are outside of the consensus, although they are willing to embrace those who go to extreme efforts to belong, despite their “inherent otherness”.

Coexistence, on the other hand, is cosmopolitan by nature. It does not impose demands of compatibility, but seeks to create a joint public space for everyone, the centerfield consensus, and the marginal others. This public space, that is suited for most, is not something easy to achieve, of course. However, the summer protest movement inspired several forms of dialogue, and activities and demonstrations continue. Lapid is definitely trying to employ the protest to his own advantage, and he is expected to be successful to some degree, just as no-one could have expected the half-million demonstrators to fully comprehend what is at stake, and what are the correct paths to improve their conditions.

Lapid is a symbol and a symptom, he might be pleased to know. Had he not decided to become a politician, someone else would have tried to appeal to Israeli consensus. If he gets 5 or 15 seats, his party will still vanish within two or three election runs, as do all midstream parties. Israelis who fear to be different, and fear those who are, will continue to vote to such parties, rather than take a firm, brave stand.

However, artificial separation is always temporary. Eventually, reality imposes itself, for better or for worse.

Advertisement