Burkas and Binationalism

In accordance with the findings of a French parliamentary committee, President Nikolas Sarkozy plans to ban the use of burkas and any other clothing that covers people's faces when in public. I strongly oppose this idea. Some women choose to wear burkas, and the ones who don't will not be helped by such a ban. If they will be forced to dress in a way they see as immodest when in public, they won't be in public at all. They will be trapped inside their homes by their husbands and families.

Women should be required to show their faces when taking pictures for IDs and passports, and other instances where they need to prove their identity, such as when they go to vote. But when just walking in the street, attending university or sitting in a library there is no reason not to allow them to cover their faces.

Avirama Golan writes in today's Haaretz (Hebrew and English) that French-Muslim women are being abused by two opposing political factions. She also makes a very good point about what French national values can teach us about the idea of a one-state solution in Israel:

The case of France, a secular republic whose president, based upon its constitution, can make such statements as "the burka is contrary to our values," is conspicuous, but it has implications for other countries as well, especially Israel.

Forget about the burka and the veil and the hat and the sheitel worn by Jewish religious women, and all the other bright ideas that men have invented and that women have had to suffer or have tried to transform from a sign of weakness into a sign of strength. Take note of the official statement by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, opposing isolationism and promoting nationalism in the name of the state.

This is in contrast to Israel, where nationalism has, for increasing numbers of groups, become a dirty word. Both the right and the left are coming up with a new invention: a binational or multinational state.

The right wants to erase the border and annex the territories, while elements on the left seek to give up Israeli nationalism which is offensive in their view and which they say is an abomination in the eyes of the progressive international community. Both are convinced that there is no prospect and no need for "two states for two peoples." From now on, the settler shall dwell with the Palestinian and the ultra-Orthodox with the atheist. They will all show respect for each other and their kind and the hijab and the tefillin will be jumbled all together.

But maybe just wait a minute. Maybe first we should see if Europe fulfills the post-nationalist dream and if leaders such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Sarkozy and others, together with all of the citizens who weep while singing the national anthem and on national days of remembrance, give up nationalism in favor of the multi-communal dream. According to all indications, including the French parliamentary report on the burka, we can ensure that for the time being that it absolutely does not happen.

Obama's Cairo Speech

I was very impressed by President Barack Obama's speech to the Muslim world. I disagreed with almost nothing he said. Cooperation with Muslims is a positive thing. The belligerence of the Bush years only created hostility and hindered progress for both the United States and Muslim countries.

I agreed with Obama's words about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as the general Israeli-Arab situation. The two-state solution is crucial. Israel has to stop settlement activity while Israelis, Palestinians and Arab countries work toward building the infrastructure of the future Palestinian state. I also agree with his demand that Hamas must renounce violence and recognize Israel in order to be part of the peace process.

The only part of his speech I disagree with is his vision of a nuclear-free world. I'd love nothing more than to see all nukes destroyed, never to be seen again. However, I don't believe that is how things will play out. A "nuclear-free world" would, in reality, mean a situation where rogue countries would have nukes and international law-abiding nations wouldn't. What deterrent would the rogues have against nuking their enemies? Just imagine a world where nobody has WMD except for North Korea.

A Light Unto the Nations?

Avraham (Avrum) Burg, the former chairman of the Knesset and the Jewish Agency, has a new idea. The Jews need to be a bridge between the Christians and Muslims of Europe. As the former "other" of Christian Europe, we can work to bridge the gaps between Christians and Europe's new "other", the Muslim population.

Huh? Who the hell wants us to be a bridge? Muslims generally aren't crazy about us Jews, many Christians aren't either. Besides, we can't claim neutrality. Despite all that Christianity has done to the Jewish people since the 4th century, most Jews would probably side with Christians in disputes between them and the Muslims. That's doubly true about Israeli Jews, who would rather see themselves as a European country rather than a Middle Eastern one.

Burg has become quite a theorist, as in theories that have nothing to do with reality. The problems of integrating Europe's Muslims is none of our business as the Jewish people. It's only the business of European Jews - not as Jews, but as Europeans. We need to take care of our own problems before we start meddling in others, and before lecturing Europe about how it treats its Muslims we should take a good look at how we treat our own.