In 1997, Israel’s public transportation companies (particularly Egged) began running bus lines designated for the Hareidi community. At first, only two such bus lines were operative, in Jerusalem and B’nei Brak. In addition, a public committee was formed to explore possible expansion of this service. On these bus lines, women would board the bus at the back door, while men would board at the front. Likewise, seating on the bus was segregated, with men seated at the front and women at the back.
In 1999, the Israel Women’s Network (IWN) appealed to the Supreme Court regarding the discrimination against women practiced on these bus lines. Although these bus lines were in contradiction of Israel’s Basic Law of Human Dignity and Liberty, enacted in 1992, the Supreme Court recommended that the IWN withdraw its appeal. The reasoning of the Supreme Court was that the segregated bus lines were a pilot project aimed at exploring the needs of the Hareidi community, and the court’s interference should not be sought in this matter. Accordingly, the IWN withdrew its appeal.
By 2007, there were about thirty bus lines with segregated seating for men and women. This situation had evolved without any discussion in the public committee created for this purpose, and without any fundamental decision being reached. Extremist members of the Hareidi community called these bus lines “Mehadrin [strict observance] bus lines”; the transportation companies adopted this name, although no observance of religious ritual was involved, nor, of course, any extra-scrupulous conduct, or hidur (from the same root as mehadrin).
In general, Mehadrin bus lines are faster than “regular” bus lines. In addition, the bus fares on Mehadrin bus lines are substantially cheaper than those on non-Mehadrin bus lines. Women who resist the segregation rules on these bus lines run the risk of being subjected to harassment and threats, and at times, even physical violence.
How did Israel’s publicly funded transportation system reach a situation in which it is violating the basic rights of women and acting in contradiction to Israeli law, in a short period of ten years? How could all this have been permitted with no fundamental deliberation by the government institutions that gave their consent? The philosophical underpinnings of the Supreme Court’s recommendation that the IWN withdraw its appeal seem to have been the status of Israel as a multicultural state, which must allow its minority groups to live according to their beliefs. Professor Susan Okin insisted that the multicultural approach is prejudicial toward women, as it allows traditional patriarchal societies to abuse the basic rights of women.
In this article I describe Kolech’s efforts to combat the segregation of men and women on Israeli buses. Gender-based segregated bus seating is one example of discrimination against women in the name of halakha, although it lacks any real halakhic basis. The role of Kolech in such cases is to represent the minority group within the minority group: Hareidi women, many of whom are unable to voice their discontent with the radical trends within their minority community, which the court allegedly wishes to honor.
In 2007, the Israel Religious Action Center (IRAC), along with several women who were mistreated while traveling on Mehadrin buses, filed an appeal against the Department of Transportation and Israel’s public transportation companies. Among the petitioners were Naomi Ragen, a religious author, and Hannah Pasternak, a member of the executive board of Kolech and its former CEO. Ragen and Pasternak appealed as private petitioners. The appeal sought to substantially reduce the number of Mehadrin bus lines, to initiate alternative bus lines, and to ensure the safety of female passengers. The appeal did not seek to cancel all Mehadrin bus lines.
The IRAC, which was one of the petitioners and represented them, arrived at the conclusion that, in the interest of pluralism, it must allow the Hareidi community to run segregated bus lines within Hareidi areas. The response of the Department of Transportation to the appeal was that the Mehadrin buses are a voluntary arrangement, and therefore the department did not intend to intervene. Egged’s response was that the Hareidi community is a religious minority whose values must be respected within the framework of a multicultural state.
The Supreme Court, which debated the appeal in January 2008, voiced criticism of how gender-based segregated bus seating is implemented on buses and recommended that the Department of Transportation appoint a committee to discuss the issue. The committee that was subsequently established received hundreds of letters from men, women, and organizations against the gender-based segregation, and thousands of letters from Hareidim supporting it.
Kolech submitted a position paper to the committee, citing Jewish sources and halakhic rulings indicating that segregated seating on buses is incompatible with halakhic sources. For example, Kolech presented a halakhic ruling by Rabbi Moshe Feinstein regarding travel on the New York City subway system. According to Rabbi Feinstein, there is no impediment to traveling on a crowded subway, where women and men might brush against each other unintentionally. In his opinion, as long as one has no sexual intentions, there is no reason for concern.
The committee submitted its conclusions in October 2009 and concluded that the Mehadrin bus lines were illegal according to Israeli law. The committee even determined that any arrangement involving public transportation and including segregation in general, and specifically the separation of men and women, contains coercive aspects of force by its mere existence.
The major suggestion of the committee was to create a temporary arrangement on previously segregated bus lines. Both doors would open, such that any passenger— male or female—could board the bus and sit wherever he or she chose. The committee reasoned that, in this way, Hareidi passengers would be able to sit where they wished, but there would be no involuntary gender segregated seating, and that no such arrangement would be imposed coercively, either explicitly or implicitly.
The conclusions of the committee were unequivocal, even exceeding the aims of the original appeal. The appeal sought only a reduction in the number of Mehadrin buses and the introduction of alternative bus lines with no segregated seating, whereas the committee determined in its conclusions that Mehadrin bus lines in their current state were illegal. Nevertheless, in spite of the unequivocal conclusions reached by the committee, its recommendations for a temporary implementation were quite mild: The back door would still be used. Thus a strong concern remained that the coercion would continue, and this eventually proved true. This was also the opinion of the petitioners. However, by exceeding the boundaries of the initial appeal, the committee reduced any further aid that could be sought by the petitioners.
“Friend of the Court” Appeal
At this stage, Kolech began to consider joining the appeal as a friend of the court. The “friend of the court” institution in Israeli law allows expert organizations to participate in a legal procedure and to express their position before the court by virtue of their expertise. In this instance, Kolech requested to join the appeal by virtue of its being an organization that acts on behalf of equal rights for women—in the religious community in particular and in Israeli society as a whole. The goal was to make a broader demand than that encompassed by the appeal—that is, to seek inclusive elimination of segregated bus lines and to bar boarding by the back door. In this course of action, Kolech acted on behalf of observant religious women fighting for equal rights for women.
Prior to reaching a final decision on whether to join the appeal, Kolech waited to hear the decision of the Minister of Transportation, following the conclusions and recommendations of the committee. Remarkably, the Minister of Transportation decided not to adopt the conclusions and recommendations of the committee at face value, but instead notified the Court that it intended to place signs on the buses recommending that women sit at the back and men at the front. The Minister of Transportation stressed that the information contained in the signs was only a recommendation and did not constitute coercion. The Court expressed its surprise at the decision of the Minister of Transportation: Obviously, most people see information on a publicly displayed sign as an instruction, not as a recommendation. It was not clear how this recommendation would prevent the enforcement of gender-based segregated seating, which had been forbidden by the decision of the committee. At this point, the Court issued a conditional order to the Minister of Transportation, ordering him to justify his decision and to explain how it was compatible with the recommendations of the committee.
Kolech submitted a request to join the appeal on behalf of four Orthodox organizations: Kolech, Ne’emanei Torah Va’Avodah, the Yaakov Herzog Center, and Yerushalmim. These are all social organizations that endeavor to advance values of social justice, equality, and human dignity from a Jewish perspective, guided by halakha. The organizations represent a Modern Orthodox, Zionist community, concerned with signs of extremism emerging in the Hareidi community, as well as gaps between different groups within Israeli society. The Modern Orthodox sector seeks to serve as a bridge between different sections of Israeli society, and to preserve the features uniting the Jewish community of Israel, through respect for the basic values of halakha, Judaism, and democracy. The radicalization that we have been witnessing in recent years within the ultraOrthodox community is claimed to have a direct effect on the Religious Zionist community as well, as the norms of the Hareidi community have rapidly permeated non-Hareidi religious institutions: schools, social and professional gatherings, and, of course, shared public space. Thus, the decision of the Minister of Transportation had an immediate, direct effect on the sector represented by these organizations.
The decision of the Minister of Transportation endangers the very existence of a shared public space in Israel. There is also a risk of creating closed ghettos, within which women will be unable to walk about freely without suffering discrimination and repression.
Kolech joined the appeal as a friend of the court (amicus curiae) and was given the opportunity to present the claims of both religious Hareidi women and of the liberal Modern Orthodox community, which perceives the dangers inherent in religious radicalization. This position was of great significance in the appeal, in light of the fact that the court found itself deliberating between the need to consider the Hareidi population in the name of multiculturalism, and the need to safeguard liberal, egalitarian values in the public domain. By presenting the perspective of a community adjoining the Hareidi community and giving voice to Hareidi women, the court was able to enrich its scope of considerations, avoiding bias toward the multicultural argument.Kolech joined the appeal as a friend of the court (amicus curiae) and was given the opportunity to present the claims of both religious Hareidi women and of the liberal Modern Orthodox community, which perceives the dangers inherent in religious radicalization. This position was of great significance in the appeal, in light of the fact that the court found itself deliberating between the need to consider the Hareidi population in the name of multiculturalism, and the need to safeguard liberal, egalitarian values in the public domain. By presenting the perspective of a community adjoining the Hareidi community and giving voice to Hareidi women, the court was able to enrich its scope of considerations, avoiding bias toward the multicultural argument.
Creation of a Hotline
To better establish its claims, Kolech opened a hotline for women on the topic of segregation, called Hashmi’ini (Let Me Hear). The hotline was advertised on buses that pass through Hareidi neighborhoods. Calls to the hotline were made by men and women from the Hareidi sector who objected to gender-based segregated seating on buses. For example, one Hareidi woman explained that the option of boarding by the back door facilitates compliance with Mehadrin bus lines. Once a woman boards a bus from the back, she will not dare sit at the front of the bus. Once both doors of the bus are opened and women are instructed to board from a certain door, no woman can object to the segregated seating arrangements. However, if only one door is opened, and a woman boards the bus, she can decide where she will sit.
Kolech brought these and other testimonies before the court, and maintained its position on the risks associated with further back-door use. Finally, the court determined that Mehadrin bus lines were illegal and in violation of Israeli law. The court accepted the suggestions of the committee and allowed boarding by the back door as a temporary arrangement, but transportation companies were ordered to display signs on Mehadrin buses clarifying that any man or woman is entitled to sit anywhere on the bus. Any harassment related to this issue would be considered a criminal offense. The court further stated that, for any case of involuntary segregation on a bus, a claim of damages may be submitted, as well as criminal charges. These options were offered to combat the expectation that permitting back door boarding would result in further involuntary segregated seating.
As a result of the court’s decision, Kolech has continued to operate its hotline. Women reporting segregation enforced by bus drivers are told that they can submit a minor charge of illegal discrimination and receive compensation. Several such cases, resulting in compensation totaling thousands of shekels, have already been submitted to the court. These charges are intended to intimidate the transportation companies and to emphasize that violation of the Court’s ruling and of the law is not worthwhile.
The appeal of the matter of Israeli Mehadrin bus lines constitutes an important precedent in light of its outcome: the Court’s unequivocal statement forbidding the operation of these bus lines. The course of action taken by Kolech is important in and of itself: Kolech, as an organization of Orthodox women, gave voice to Hareidi women who have no voice within the Hareidi community, where decisions are made by the rabbis and by extremist interest groups. In Israel’s emerging multicultural dialogue, Kolech, in its role as a religious women’s organization, has a major responsibility to stop society from reflecting the values of extremist religious sectors, denying women the right to be heard, and turning a blind eye to the price they pay.