Constitutional Law, Free Speech, International, Politics, Religion, Society

Israelis Confront Demands Of Orthodox Jews For Segregation of Buses and Public Spaces

We have previously discussed attacks by orthodox Jews on women and others in Israel. The demand for segregation of the sexes however has triggered a national debate after accounts of women being asked to sit in the back of buses. There is also an outcry over Orthodox Jews ripping down any advertisements showing women in public areas.


Orthodox Jews represent only 10 percent of the Israeli population but, due to the country’s dysfunctional constitutional system, small political parties exercise exaggerated power over the political system which produces coalition governments. Orthodox rabbis also retain considerable power over defining who is Jewish as well as other aspects of Israeli life (as also here and here). We have also had such conflicts in the United States over the degree to which religious Orthodox communities are accommodated by the government (here and and here and here).

The ultra-orthodox block has been increasingly vocal in its demands for segregation, including a recent incident where religious soldiers walked out of a military event because women were allowed to sing — which is contrary to Jewish law. Even Hilary Clinton found herself erased to satisfy Orthodox readers recently.

Tanya Rosenblit, 28, recounted how one Orthodox Jewish man not only demanded that she move to the back of a bus but stood in front of the bus to prevent it from moving. Notably, the police officer called to the scene asked Rosenbilt “to respect” others and move to the back. She refused and the man declined to ride on the bus. Now, Orthodox leaders are telling supporters that they cannot insist on segregation but they are demanding that the government supply segregated buses for Orthodox riders.

This is the problem of a constitutional system that does not require a separation of Temple and State. It is part of the inherent conflict in Israel which has a large civil liberties and secularist population (here). Such a sectarian line of buses should be a non-starter, but the government routinely enforces religious values, as we have discussed earlier. To its credit the government has come down solidly against such forced segregation, though it has not answered the new demand for separate segregated bus lines.

Part of the problem would be rectified if someone standing in front of a bus like this man was arrested instead of accommodated by a police officer who asks the woman to respect Orthodox beliefs.

Source: Haaretz as first seen on Reddit.

FLOG THE BLOG: Have you voted yet for the top legal opinion blog? WE NEED YOUR VOTE! You can vote at HERE by clicking on the “opinion” category. Voting ends December 31, 2011.

49 thoughts on “Israelis Confront Demands Of Orthodox Jews For Segregation of Buses and Public Spaces”

  2. Pingback: Orthodox Jews Clashes With Police Over Segregation of Women « JONATHAN TURLEY

  3. Diogenes,
    One of the common mistakes people make at their peril is to trust religious leaders, simply by their position. The assumption follows that their religiosity makes them ethical and moral. Many, many times this is a misapprehension.

  4. Mike Spindell – The point is that Israel REFUSES to institute a working Constitution.
    One orthodox minister is on record stating that “..even if the Constitution will include only the Ten Commandments-we still will oppose it.”

    Since than he spent few years in Israel’s VIP prison for kickbacks and briberies and other niceties which the Orthodox Law condone, but the secular State, the enemy, does not.

  5. The haredi want their own segregated buses? Fine, they can go buy themselves some buses and pay the drivers themselves, and then they get to decide who rides them and where. The haredi spend enough time leeching off the government (and therefore those in Israel who actually work and pay taxes rather than attending state-funded yeshivot for half their lives), they don’t need to cost the state even more money.
    That said, I’d be more than happy to have haredi men off the buses, I don’t like being told to get to the back of the bus and I don’t like having to sit anywhere near people who think it’s a good idea to wear fur hats and heavy wool coats in the summer, and who seem to be convinced that deodorants are satan.

  8. “I am not sure to what extent Jon feels that the existence of multiple parties which require a coalition government is part of the the constitutional dysfunction”

    Martin,

    I think you are being obtuse and I don’t think of you as an obtuse person. Peculiar to Israel is the existence of Ultra-Religious parties, which benefit from the fact that their adherents vote as a completely unified block. From a mathematical standpoint regimented block voting can accomplish wonders in an electoral context. These parties can then round out a coalition government, by making demands upon those wishing to form one.
    In Israel these demands are often in the form of cabinet seats. This is a potential weakness of all parliamentary systems. However, I agree the two party system hasn’t worked out particularly well here either.

  13. It’s even simpler.
    Separation of state from church means that the government will not be involved in theological matters. The state still is going to be involved in sorting out, or in trying to sort out, situations where one group of people cannot get along with another group of people, for whatever reason.

  15. I see that Jon has another assertion in there: “small political parties exercise exaggerated power over the political system which produces coalition governments”.

    I am not sure to what extent Jon feels that the existence of multiple parties which require a coalition government is part of the the constitutional dysfunction, but our “two party” system is not looking that great at the moment, as others have noted.

  16. Well Jon’s words were “This is the problem of a constitutional system that does not require a separation of Temple and State”, and you echoed the idea of separation.

    The word “separation” is an over-statement of what the Constitution requires. The image of separating two fighters, say, comes to mind – putting a distance between them. That is not what the Constitution calls for. The first amendment is all one sided. The government has to keep away from religion. Religion does not have to keep away from government, or from trying to influence government.

    It seemed to me that Jon felt that the influence of the extreme religious groups was a sign of a constitutional dysfunction in Israel. And he feels, I am reading into it, that that is a problem that we don’t have here in the USA, because of the “separation of church and state”.

    I feel that that is more a wish than an accurate thought. My guess is that in both the US and in Israel, religious groups have the same tools available to advocate for their views, that any difference is not a Constitutional one, and that if there is a Constitutional difference, that that difference is not the cause for the dysfunction that he notices.

    My opinion at the moment.

  17. martin,

    No, you were addressing the U.S. Constitution when you erroneously said, “The US Constitution does not require a separation of Temple and State, or Church and State for that matter.” That is what I was addressing so there is no need for you to act as if you’re re-parsing something.

    “Does the Temple, in Israel, have constitutional powers that other organizations in Israel don’t have?”

    No idea. I’ve never read the Israeli founding documents other than the U.N. charter creating it. It is my understanding that they don’t have a unified constitution but rather a collection of documents based on local polities and laws created by the Knesset that their Supreme Court interprets in place of a formal constitution. As a matter of theory, I think such a system would invite greater influence by various religious bodies by 1) not being formalized and thus manipulable from multiple levels of government and 2) lacking a specific legal equivalent of the Establishment Clause to fall back on. Given the apparent influence of orthodoxy, I’m going to assume that second criteria is not found anywhere in Israeli law or it would be operating as a brake on said influence, but would gladly accept clarification from an Israeli attorney.

    In re AIPAC in the U.S., that’s a different issue than the separation of church and state. Equally as damaging as bypassing the separation of church and state, ultimately their influence isn’t rooted in religion, but in political money. A reflection that our campaign finance laws are little more than formalized graft. AIPAC is an evil upon our system – they’ve twice harbored spies used against us and yet are still allowed to operate – but they are no more an evil influence on our system than Exxon or any other group encouraging and participating in the corrupting practice of influence peddling.

  19. Gene, isn’t Jon’s point that the “country’s dysfunctional constitutional system” is because there isn’t “a wall of separation” in Israel. The Temple has influence in government there, as here. My point, or really question, is what is the nature of that influence? Does the Temple, in Israel, have constitutional powers that other organizations in Israel don’t have? The Temple has social influence no doubt, but is their influence rooted in a dysfunction in their Constitution? I can’t say it more clearly.

    The Temple (ie AIPAC) has influence in the USA, and Obama famously said to them “Everything” in June 2008. Is the Temple more entrenched, and here I mean Constitutionally, in Israel?

Comments are closed.