Burkini Ban, Burkina Faso & Israel

Mao Zedong decreed that everybody should dress the same in China. 

I don’t like burqas; just as I did not like the choke-collar suits of Maoist China, the black garb of Charedi Jews or the tophats City bankers wore until not that long ago.

I don’t like them, mostly because I feel that people should not be regimented.  Wearing a uniform is loss of freedom, just like being in the army or in prison.  Plus, people wearing that kind of garb seem to be yearning to go backwards – to 7^thcentury Arabia or to 17^th century Poland – rather than forwards.

In recent weeks, several municipalities in France have decreed a ‘burkini ban’ – meaning that women using public beaches are fined if they wear that ‘Islamised’ type of costume.  Even more recently, a French ‘administrative court’ – whatever that is – has banned the ban.  Yet, apparently, the story is not over yet: some of the mayors involved (and quite a few national politicians who jumped on the bandwagon) have vowed to overturn the suspension that suspended the ban that banned the burkini… you know how it goes!

Even some burqa-inspired garb looks
trendy when Italians design it! 

Well, I may not like burqas (or indeed burkinis); but the idea of a ban is wrong, stupid and – perhaps worst of all – a populist distraction from the real issues.

It’s wrong because, just as people should not be told what clothes to wear, they shouldn’t be told what not to wear.  It is even more wrong because one particular distinctive garb was singled out and banned.  Yes, I know there are ‘reasons’ – there always are; but no: there are no excuses for double standards.  Or, rather, there are only dishonest excuses.

The burkini ban is stupid, because it completely lacks purpose.  What exactly is it supposed to achieve?  Will it prevent the radicalisation of young Muslims?  How exactly?  Which of France’s recent terrorist attacks would have been prevented, had the burkini bans been in place?

Finally – and worst of all – the burkini ban is a populist distraction.  This trifle of an ‘issue’ deflects attention from the very real and grave concerns: the radicalisation of young Muslims, the religious extremism which begets intolerance and terrorism.

The ban is not just a golden opening for political demagogues – of every tinge – to burnish their credentials; it’s also a cop out for everybody: an excellent excuse to duck the real challenges, while furiously debating a marginal issue.  What a superb opportunity for doing nothing – with great determination!

Even worse – the motivations are, let’s face it, obviously racist.  Granted, there was no obligation for the French state to open its borders and its population registry to a wide variety of people – including some who have not exactly been raised up in the spirit of  ‘liberté, egalité, fraternité’.  But once they did let them in, once they recognised them as French citizens, they can’t tell them what they are allowed to wear, now can they?

‘Special laws’ for one category of people?  Haven’t we seen that before, somewhere?  A bylaw is still a law.  And singling out one particular category of French citizens deserves just one name: no, it’s not ‘love of nudity’ – it’s ‘naked racism’!

Nor am I particularly surprised: in the latest elections for the European Parliament, the far-right Front National won a third of the votes.  And those European Elections took place in 2014, before the latest bout of jihadist terrorism that hit France.  (Contrary to popular belief, the fully proportional European Parliament elections are the best indicator of people’s real political opinions, which are masked by plurality election systems based on geographic constituencies.)

So much for the far-right.  There is, of course, quite a bit of far-left racism in France (and elsewhere in Europe).  In the process of crowning them as ‘oppressed’ and hence in perpetual need of their rights being ‘defended’ by Good (Marxist) Samaritans, the far-left denies Muslims their God-given agency; it infantilises them.  When it comes to Muslims, far-rightists demand a higher standard than for anyone else; far-leftists set the standards lower than for anyone else.  Both positions are racist because both deny Muslims their status as equal members of the human race – with the same rights and obligations everyone else has.

Prefers not to wear hijab (but wouldn’t be fined if she did):
Noura Abu-Shanab, an Arab Israeli and captain
of the women football team Hapoel Petah Tikva. 

Sure, France has seen quite a bit of Islamist terrorism; but Israel has seen more.  Circa 7.5% of French citizens are Muslims; the proportion is roughly 3 times larger in Israel.  And yet, in Israel not even the far-right tries to control how Muslims dress.

If you are a Muslim in Israel, you are entitled to have your personal status matters (such as marriage and divorce) adjudicated according to Shari’a – the Islamic law.  The qadis (traditional Islamic judges) receive their salaries from the state budget, as do the dayanim – their Judaic counterparts; and the Jewish State will apply the decision of the Shari’a court just as it does with that of a Beth Din – the traditional Rabbinical court.  French Muslims can only dream of that level of freedom and consideration.

An Israeli beach: the way to heaven is a matter of opinion...

And yet, it is the French government that, every year, is paying a lot of money to far-left Israeli organisations dedicated to inspecting ‘human rights’ in Israel.  That money, it turns out, would be put to much better use, were it invested in France.  There is, it seems obvious, a lot to be done to root out extremism and racism from the French society – both Muslims and non-Muslims.  Perhaps Israel – a good friend of that troubled country – should weigh in to prop up the increasingly shaky French democracy?  Lest it becomes more like – say – Burkina Faso?

Nazism, Communism, Islamism: how to kill your way to the 'Perfect World’

The 20th century saw the rise and fall of two murderous ideologies: Hitler’s Nazism and the ‘Communism’ practiced by the likes of Stalin and Mao.  The former was (hopefully) eradicated by mass re-education, after a world war that cost the lives of 70 million human beings; the latter eventually collapsed from within, under the burden of its own profound immorality – but not before claiming the lives of around 100 million people.

These days, we see the rise of yet another vicious ideology – Islamism.  Why do I place it in the same category?  Quite simply: because it fits there.

True, despite being already guilty of horrendous crimes, Islamism has not – yet – caused tens of millions of victims; but neither had Nazism or Communism by the 1930s.

On the other hand, all three extreme ideologies share the same fundamental characteristics.

Firstly, all three are predicated on supremacist propositions – namely that a group of people is inherently superior to all the others.  What exactly that Master Group is depends on the specific differentiator that the particular ideology is centred upon.  Since Nazism saw the world through a ‘racial’ perspective, its fundamental proposition was the superiority of the ‘Aryan race’ (the Master Race or Herrenvolk); centred on ‘social’ differences, the Communists decreed that the ‘proletariat’ was inherently loftier than every other class; for the Islamists, whose particular angle is ‘religious’, it is the adherents of Islam that are ‘entitled’ to unquestioned, divinely-ordained supremacy.

Take for instance the following statement:

It is the duty of members of other races to stop disputing the sovereignty of the Aryan Race in this region, because the day these other races should take over there will be nothing but carnage, displacement and terror. 

Such statement sounds is surely reminiscent of early Nazi ideology, or of that espoused currently by neo-Nazi movements.  Yet it originates from neither; it simply paraphrases (by merely replacing ‘religious’ with ‘racial’ terminology) a paragraph from The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas).  The exact quote is:

It is the duty of the followers of other religions to stop disputing the sovereignty of Islam in this region, because the day these followers should take over there will be nothing but carnage, displacement and terror.

Initially, the Nazi ideology did not advocate the physical extermination of ‘other races’ – that came later.  For early Nazi ideologues, these races could be allowed to live, provided they accepted Aryan supremacy and did not attempt to ‘pollute’ the Master Race.  The Racial Tenet (Rassegrundsatz) printed on every Nazi-issued ‘Aryan Certificate’ declared:

In line with national socialist thinking which does full justice to all other peoples, there is never the expression of superior or inferior, but alien racial admixtures.

Hamas’s version is somewhat wordier, but fundamentally similar:

The Islamic Resistance Movement is a humanistic movement.  It takes care of human rights and is guided by Islamic tolerance when dealing with the followers of other religions.  It does not antagonize anyone of them except if it is antagonized by it or stands in its way to hamper its moves and waste its efforts.  Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace and quiet with each other. Peace and quiet would not be possible except under the wing of Islam.

When groups like ISIS issue ultimata to Christians to ‘convert to Islam, accept its supremacy or die’, they express, in a more practical way, the same ideological tenet.

The Communist variety of supremacism is obvious, for instance, in the words of Trotsky:

When we speak of a labour government we mean that the hegemony belongs to the working class.  […]  Political supremacy of the proletariat is incompatible with its [current] economic slavery.  […] A Socialist revolution in the West would allow us to turn the temporary supremacy of the working class directly into a Socialist dictatorship.

Secondly, all three extreme ideologies promote a world view in which there is an inherent, perpetual and inevitable conflict between the superior or ‘Master Group’ (race, class or religion) and ‘the others’.  ‘The others’, needless to say, despite being fundamentally inferior, are intent on subjugating the Master Group.   The conflict (call it ‘Kampf um Lebensraum’, ‘class struggle’ or ‘jihad’) is fundamental not just to the ideology, but also to its practical implementation.  Conflicts (especially when portrayed as global and quasi-existential) represent ‘exceptional circumstances’ or ‘force majeure’; as such, they justify employing ‘exceptional means’.

Just like today’s Islamists, both Nazis and Communists made extensive use of torture and executions.  (Interestingly, Nazis practiced beheading as a form of execution, as do today’s Islamists; at times, Nazis also used the more expedient pistol bullet to the back of the neck, as did Stalin’s executioners and Palestinian Islamists against ‘collaborators’.)  All three movements sought to use terror in order to discourage dissent and weaken resistance.

Thirdly, all three ideologies have a similar ultimate goal: to do away with the extant ‘injustice’ and replace it with a ‘new global order’.  The end is thus, invariably, the ‘Perfect World’; so perfect, in fact, that that end justifies and even sanctifies the murderous means.  That ‘Perfect World’ – call it Millenarian Reich, Global Commune or Islamic Caliphate – will be achieved as a result of the Master Group’s final victory over ‘the others’.

Islamism belongs in the same category as Nazism and Communism; but what does that mean, in practical terms?  Does it mean that we will have to fight another world war?  Or wait for decades, in a horrendous equilibrium of terror, until this new murderous ideology will find its own way to history’s rubbish bin?

Well, not necessarily; not if we recognise the similarity and apply the lessons learned from dealing with the previous two forms of supremacism.

Given their ultimate goal (‘the Perfect World’), extreme ideologies are inherently expansionist.  They both desire and need territorial gain.  ‘Desire’, because expansion demonstrates success (‘the proof of the pudding…’); ‘need’ in order to supply the human and material resources for both survival and further expansion.  It follows that they need to be contained geographically – and not allowed territorial gains.  As explained in another article, resisting Hitler’s invasion of Austria and Czechoslovakia would not have led to a World War; tolerating those aggressions did.

But while geographical containment is a tactical imperative, it is not a strategy.  On its own, containment simply turns an acute ailment into a chronic disease.  Which may eventually disappear – but only after decades of suffering, and only if none of its acute outbursts succeeds in killing the patient.

Let us remember, however, that what eventually did away with Nazism was not the Allied victory in the Second World War; millions of brainwashed Germans, Austrians, etc. did not change their minds overnight, just because the Nazis lost the war.  The real solution was the process of mass re-education that followed the war and continued for years or even decades.   Similarly, while the Communist bloc collapsed from within, that did not happen while the West sat idle; nor was it the result of the containment policy alone.  There was intense Western propaganda activity; for instance, two radio stations – Free Europe and Radio Liberty – were transmitting uncensored news, education to democracy and other programmes.  The programmes were put together by dissidents and anti-Communist activists originating from the Communist bloc and were transmitted in Russian, Polish, Czech, Hungarian, Romanian, etc.   Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty had an important role in informing and educating people beyond the Iron Curtain and contributed to the weakening and eventual collapse of the Communist regimes.  In fact, those regimes perceived the radio programmes as so dangerous, that huge efforts were made to jam the transmissions.  And when jamming proved ineffective…  In 1981, Ilich Ramírez Sánchez (a Palestinian terrorist of Venezuelan extraction, nicknamed Carlos the Jackal) bombed the Munich headquarters of the two radio stations, causing heavy damage and injuring several of the stations’ employees.  Secret service documents found after the fall of the Communist regimes showed that it was Romania’s dictator Nicolae Ceaușescu who paid The Jackal to perpetrate the bombing.

One wonders why there are no similar propaganda efforts being made today?  Why are there no ‘Radio Liberty’-style stations transmitting unabashed pro-democracy and anti-Islamist programmes in Arabic, Farsi, Dari, Pashto and Urdu?  Better still, why not television stations, to counter the ‘official line’ decreed by Middle Eastern dictators and the more subtle propaganda conveyed by the likes of Al Jazeera?  A much stronger, much more assertive Internet-based propaganda is also a must.

To many in the West, the word ‘propaganda’ sounds pejorative; but what’s wrong with promoting the message of liberal democracy, human rights and progress, as an alternative to the hate, obscurantism and primitiveness pushed by the Islamists?  How exactly are the Middle East masses (who have never actually experienced liberal democracy) supposed to reject the Islamist brainwashing, when the only alternative they know is the brutal, incompetent and corrupt regime of ‘secular’ dictators?

Contrary perhaps to popular belief, there are Arabs, Iranians, Afghans and Pakistanis who believe in liberal democracy and oppose Islamism.  Let’s give them the tools needed, so they can make a difference.  It’s not weapons that they need – they need a voice.  Let’s give it to them NOW and in 10 years we’ll view this as the best investment we've ever made.

The rat and the mongoose: a modern fable

No, this did not happen ‘a long time ago, in a galaxy far-far away’.  It happened in the Hawaiian archipelago; and it all started towards the end of the 19th century.

Brought as natural rat exterminators, the mongooses soon proved to be just another pest...

At the time, Caribbean plantation owners were tired of their relentless war against field rats – the rodents were eating into their precious sugar cane crops.  Come 1872, a chap called W.B. Espaut had an original idea: why not bring over a few Indian mongooses – those unpretentious mammals known as enthusiastic rat hunters?  Espaut travelled to India, had some mongooses captured and brought them to Jamaica.  Proud of his achievement, the fellow even wrote a journal article, praising the mongoose as the best thing since sliced bread.  The carnivorous mammals had, it seems, multiplied and prospered.  They ate lots of rats, but also, explained Espaut with satisfaction,

"snakes, lizards, crabs, toads and the grubs of many beetles and caterpillars have been destroyed."

This unreserved praise grabbed the attention of Hawaiian sugar cane planters, who also suffered from the rats.  Bringing mongooses to Hawaii as natural pest exterminators seemed such an elegant idea.  True, around 1883 some wise Hawaiian farmer wrote a letter to the ‘Planters Monthly’, urging caution:

"Whether it would be wise to introduce the animal to these Islands may be a question. It would be important to first learn more of the nature of the creature, for they may prove an evil."

But who listens to such prophecies of doom?  Why work hard to hunt or trap the rats, when one could simply let the mongooses do away with them?  ‘The enemy of my enemy is my friend’.  Long live the alliance between man and mongoose!

...while the rats continued to multiply and prosper.

The problem – it soon turned out – was that the mongooses did not just kill rats; they killed birds, ate eggs, insects, useful reptiles, even small deer fawns.  True, the mongooses also hunted and killed lots of rats; but they did not kill them all.  In fact, the rodents continued to multiply – and so did the mongooses.  Worse, both rats and mongooses carry a disease called leptospirosis, which can be lethal to humans.  To cut a long story short, rather than getting rid of one pest, the hapless Hawaiians ended up with two.  To this day, they still have to use poison and traps – only now they fight both rats and mongooses.

Given his childhood spent in Hawaii, one would expect US President Barack Obama to be familiar with that historic blunder.  Which would be useful, because there’s an important lesson to be learned from it.

These days, a gang of religious fanatics has taken control of large swathes of what used to be called Syria and Iraq.  They see themselves as God’s deputies on earth, and are intent on bringing the joys of medieval-style Sunni Islam to everybody – or else.  In short – they’re a pest.  And a dangerous one, too: they have already killed untold thousands of people – mostly Shi’a Muslims and Alawites.

So what’s to be done?  USA, UK or NATO could, of course, intervene militarily.  But getting involved in yet another war in the House of Islam is unpopular with the Western public; and fighting ISIS would mightily displease the Sunni oil sheikhs who pass for ‘allies’ of the West in the Middle East.

Which is why the idea of subcontracting the ISIS problem to Iran got floated.  After all, the Shi’a Islamic Republic is the only thing Sunni fanatics hate even more than liberal democracy.  ‘The enemy of my enemy is my friend’.  Or ‘fight fire with fire’.  Or any of the other similarly shallow clichés politicians use to justify morally repugnant acts.

US Secretary of State John Kerry lost no time before discussing the matter with the mullahs’ regime.  Asked whether military cooperation was in the cards, Kerry answered:

"I wouldn't rule out anything that would be constructive to providing real stability."

Stability??  What about morality?  What about common sense?  Isn’t this the same regime that held American diplomats hostage – in violation of age-old rules of human behaviour?  Isn’t this the same regime guilty of mass murdering innocent people, both in Iran and abroad?

But the idea of fighting the ISIS pest by supporting the equally malignant mullahs is not just nauseatingly immoral – it is also incredibly stupid.  Yes, ‘stupid’ is the only way to characterise those who endlessly repeat the same mistakes, never seeming to learn from them.  Did we not commit precisely this type of mistakes – several times already??  Did the West not back with money, weaponry and 'moral' support (both directly and via Saudi Arabia) the Afghan jihadis against the Soviet pest – only to ‘reap’ Taliban and their Al-Qaida ‘guests’?  Did the West not aid Iraq’s ruthless dictator Saddam Hussein against the Iranian ‘common foe’ and did not that Middle Eastern version of Frankenstein later haunt us, his people and the entire region?  In fact, even the mullahs’ nuclear programme – which the West is now struggling in extremis to contain – was born out of Islamic Iran’s fear of an Iraq backed by the West and armed with weapons of mass destruction.  So what do Messrs. Obama and Kerry suppose it’ll happen this time, if the West is now seen to back a potentially nuclear Iran in its clash with Sunni extremists?  Where do they reckon, for instance, that the Sunni, nuclear Pakistan will stand, vis-à-vis of such conflict??

This is not ‘realpolitik’; it’s just a really, really bad idea.  As ill-conceived as bringing the mongoose to fight rats – but infinitely more damaging.  Like the hapless Hawaiian farmers, we are sure to end up with two pests.  Nuclear-armed ones, to boot!

Whoa! European Union is 'engaging in relations'

The European Union styles itself as a champion of human rights.  And it is – in the realm of lofty words.  For instance, the organisation’s Special Representative for Human Rights, Mr Stavros Lambrinidis, grandiloquently states:

“The European Union sees human rights as universal and indivisible. It actively promotes and defends them both within its borders and when engaging in relations with non-EU countries.”

“Actively”??  Really?

Let’s perform a small experiment: how many of you, dear readers, have heard the name ‘Stavros Lambrinidis’ before?  What – you never heard about the European Union Special Representative for Human Rights???  Well, it would seem, then, that the organisation hasn’t been promoting human rights quite so “actively”!

Public execution in Saudi Arabia

Let us now navigate to the official website of the EU Delegation to Saudi Arabia.  Saudi Arabia – an absolute monarchy in which what passes for ‘law’ is… well, whatever the ‘royal family’ deems fit; based on its interpretation of a 7^th century religious code.  Saudi Arabia, in which not just homosexuality and adultery, but also ‘witchcraft’ is a capital crime.  Saudi Arabia, where – yes, in the 21^st century – people are beheaded in public squares; where amputation of limbs is a ‘legal punishment’, as is public whipping.  Saudi Arabia, a society which can only be honestly described as ‘gender apartheid’: one in which women are inferior BY LAW; denied even the paltry liberties granted to men, from which they are strictly segregated.  THAT Saudi Arabia.

Each Saudi women is appointed a 'legal guardian'
(usually the father or husband), who is the only
person entitled to make decisions for her.

But a visitor from Mars reading the web page of the ‘human rights-active’ EU Delegation to Saudi Arabia would never guess that’s the situation.  There is no hint of outrage on that website, no ‘strong condemnation’, no serious censure of all those appalling human rights violations.

Among other important ‘news’ displayed on the Delegation’s website, one finds an announcement that the Delegation wishes to sell one of its used cars.  Well, I don’t know what that used car is worth in Saudi Arabia; but I know one thing: it certainly won’t be driven by a woman!

An additional important document – displayed among ‘news’ such as European Commissioner statements, etc. – is a tender for the procurement of cleaning services for the Delegation.  Saudi companies are invited to participate in the tender process, provided they satisfy a series of financial and legal criteria; but one would search in vain for any requirements related to human rights – such as equal opportunities and equal pay for female employees.  Companies can practice gender apartheid – and still become valued suppliers to this Delegation of the 'human rights-conscious' European Union.

And it’s not just the Delegation.  European consumers and companies buy freely from Saudi corporations – even state companies and those owned privately by the same ‘royals’ who impose the gender apartheid.  European companies doing business in Saudi Arabia are, of course, subject to Saudi laws; which means that they enforce gender apartheid themselves.  But that does not seem to run contrary to EU ‘human rights' agenda.

Saudi Arabia is just an example, of course – albeit one of the most strident ones.  Basic human rights – such as freedom of speech, expression and protest, freedom of press, freedom from arbitrary arrest and torture, the right to a fair trial, etc. etc. etc. – are severely violated throughout most of the Middle East; but that’s of no consequence to the EU, which – to use Mr. Lambrinidis' inspired phrase – "engages in relations" with the violators.

A 'delighted' Catherine Ashton at a meeting with
an Arab League ministerial committee. She praised them for
progress in the 'empowerment of women'.

At a recent meeting designed to advance such cooperation, EU High Representative Catherine Ashton addressed an all-men Arab League ministerial delegation:

“I'm delighted to be here. I'm always pleased to be in this room, meeting with colleagues from the Arab League. I think everyone knows how much the European Union values the collaboration between us...”

Nor is this attitude confined to the Middle East.  In fact, the list of human rights infringements blissfully ignored by the European Union is much too long to include in this article.  From one-party China to homophobic Zambia; from top-executioner Iran to repressive Venezuela, they all get a pass, a shrug or – if they are rich and powerful – even a warm expression of ‘delight’ from the EU High Representative.

And it’s not just about remote places, either.  Even when obvious human rights abuses occur right under its sanctimonious nose – see the recent protests in Ukraine – the EU barely moves a finger.  And why would it?  Ukrainians might be hungry for freedom (and for bred!); but leaning too much in their favour would upset mighty Russia, EU’s top energy supplier…  ‘Human rights’ or the relationship with Russia?  Why, Russia of course…

So, coming back to the EU Special Representative for Human Rights and his lofty words, it seems that Mr. Lambrinidis has got one thing right: the European Union has certainly been “engaging in relations”.  For the sake of material gain, with no concern for human rights.  Now, it seems to me that there’s a name for such activity – and it’s not ‘human rights activism’!

Extreme tolerance

Egypt’s “body politic” continues to suffer terrible convulsions.  Protests and counter-protests have degenerated into violent confrontations and those have sunk into horrific blood-baths.

With his characteristic (if slightly unnerving) detachment, UK Foreign Secretary William Hague recently opined that

“there may be years of turbulence in Egypt and other countries going through this profound debate about the nature of democracy and the role of religion in their society”.

Of course, calling what’s happening in Egypt a “debate” may be Mr. Hague’s biggest understatement yet; but it is true that it’s about “the nature of democracy and the role of religion in their society”.  Most importantly, however, could that “debate” be resolved a bit quicker than “years of turbulence”?  Because the latter alternative means that many Egyptians would not live to see the end of that “debate” – and that’s an option too painful to contemplate; after all, not all of us are blessed with Mr. Hague’s unflappable sang-froid!
If it’s about the nature of democracy and the role of religion in society – then I’d suggest that there is a good model that Egyptians might consider adopting – or at least using as a source of inspiration.  Hint: it’s situated just to the north of Egypt – and I don’t mean the Mediterranean Sea.

You've got it; call me naïve and unrealistic; but hasn't Israel, ever since her modern re-establishment, been confronting the same issues?  And yet, the “debate” hasn't been quite as dramatic…  Perhaps there's a lesson to be learned here?

Modern Israel has been established as a Jewish state; while for many Israelis (including yours truly) the ethnic/national aspect of that definition is the important one, for others “Jewish” has also a strong religious connotation.  Yet Israel is also home to a large minority (circa 20%) of Muslims, as well as other, smaller minorities.  Similarly, many in Egypt wish to define the state as “Islamic”; yet Egypt is also home to a large minority (10-15%) of Christians.  Ultra-pious, “Haredi” Israelis want a state in which the Halacha – Judaic legal tradition – inspires (or even dictates) the law of the land; secular, “Hiloni” Israelis fear and oppose such outcome – they want to see a Jewish state, but one governed by modern, liberal legislation.  Similarly, pious Egyptian Muslims wish to see the Islamic law (Sharia) informing (if not dictating) the laws of Egypt; secular Egyptians fear and oppose such plans.

Many (including many Israelis like myself) are critical of certain aspects of the role of religion in Israel; yet Israel’s convulsions remain in the realm of real debate, while Egypt sinks into mass fratricide.  Israeli Arabs may feel disadvantaged (just as Egyptian Christians do) – and sometimes they may have a point; but – thank God – Jewish mobs don’t ransack mosques in Israel!

Israel may be criticised; indeed, for some this has become a favourite sport; but wouldn't it be nice if Egypt’s “debate” could be made to resemble the Israeli one?  How does one achieve that?  What’s the “magic ingredient” that, added to Egypt’s overheated cauldron, would turn it into something resembling more my granny’s bubbling pot of gefilte fisch?

Allow me to call that ingredient “extreme tolerance” – and do excuse the oxymoron.  I know, I know: it’s hard to view Israelis as “extremely tolerant”.  If anything, we are extremely argumentative and confrontational; we seem to endlessly argue with each other (and with everybody else); tempers flare easily, voices rise to shouting and offensive terms pierce their way through the veneer of civility.  But, you know what?  That’s just cultural idiosyncrasy; it’s not serious.  Because at the end of the day, we don’t shoot and don’t take clubs to each other’s skulls.  We argue and argue and argue – and then argue some more.  And then find a way around the issue, one that leaves us all quite a bit dissatisfied – but which allows us to continue not to shoot or break each other’s skulls.  And to go on arguing, of course.

Did you know that Islamic Sharia is part of Israeli law?  Yes, it is!  If you are a Muslim in Israel, you will be married and divorced in accordance with the Sharia; disputes regarding marriage, divorce and other aspects of personal status will be resolved by an Islamic Court.  The Court’s decisions are recognised by the authorities and the salaries of the qadis (the Islamic judges) are paid by the (Jewish!) state.  Matters pertaining to the personal status of Jews are resolved by a rabbinic Beit-Din; Druze and Christians have similar arrangements.

Not just Israeli Muslims and Christians have their own education systems, funded by the state; so do Jewish Haredim, who teach a curriculum different from that of mainstream Jewish Israeli schools.

As a secular Jewish Israeli, I am often irked by such arrangements.  Why do I need a rabbi to get divorced?  And, since according to the law of the land a person only needs one Jewish grandparent in order to acquire Israeli citizenship, why is the state-funded Rabbinate allowed to refuse that same person the sacrament of marriage – just because his/her mother isn't Jewish?  But then, I know that there are other Israelis who insist on precisely those kinds of antiquated rules; and for whom anything else would be even harder to endure.  So I swallow my righteous indignation and find a way around it – one that manages to accommodate (just about!) my crucial interests and theirs – in an elegantly imperfect way.  Is your sweetheart not Jewish enough for Israel’s Orthodox Rabbinate?  Here’s what you've got to do: the two of you will buy flight tickets to Cyprus; or perhaps you wish to make it a honeymoon, in which case you might book a cabin on one of the cruise ships plying the waters between Haifa and Limassol.  Once on the non-kosher Island of Aphrodite (how appropriate!), the two of you can get married according to Cypriote law; back in Israel, the authorities will recognize your foreign marriage, just as if it had been performed by the most pious rabbi in Bnei Braq.  There, problem solved!

Of course, all this is far from ideal: you will rant and rave that you can’t marry whoever you bloody want in your own bloody country; the rabbis will wave their beards in indignation at your un-kosherness.  But then you’ll both get on with your lives. And don’t you think that “extreme tolerance” exists only in matters of religion.  Around 10% of the members of my country’s parliament – the Knesset – are Arabs.  And some of them (most of them? all of them?) – speaking from the lectern of Israel’s Parliament – openly call for the country to be dismantled.  My blood boils when I hear them; but I'm willing to pay that heavy price for democracy.  I will defend them with my own body and will fight for their right to speak against mine.

“Extreme tolerance” happens when you accept from the start that you simply have to find an accommodation – there’s no alternative.  To the point where, in order to satisfy “the other”, one has to accept imperfect, even uncomfortable solutions.  And one has to strip down one’s comfort to the “bare essentials”.  “Extreme tolerance” requires you to accept that “justice” may look entirely different when you stand in somebody else’s shoes.

Of course, “accept” does not imply acquiescence – God no!  I’ll throw my hands in the air in desperation – a lot!  I’ll argue loudly, until I'm red in the face; I’ll yell and scream, I’ll rave and rant – and hope to one day convert my Haredi compatriots to my oh-so-modern form of Judaism-light; one day, my Arab compatriots will understand my point of view and become proud Zionists.  But, until that day, I’ll refrain from shooting them.  I’ll grind my teeth and tolerate them; extremely so.