Doc Savage

I suspect that if the gentlemen who refused to sit in their assigned seats were escorted off and lost the cost of their tickets, a large percentage would reconsider.

Transpacificflyer

I vehemently disagree with you. The imposition of the haredi interpretation of Judaism, was an affront to civilised society and a probable violation of both Israeli law, and US law. The behaviour occurred at JFK. Would you be so tolerant if someone refused to sit near a man wearing a yarmulke or an Israeli of Ethiopian ethnicity (i.e. a black)? As pointed out on this thread, it's chronic behaviour pattern of a group that thinks that it need not contribute to, nor participate in general society, but expects the benefits of that society such as generous social benefits and their civil liberties..
http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/anglo...ights-1.420298

You ask the question;
Did the Israeli government have a hand in this action? Absolutely not. Just because private citizens behave a certain way does not mean that the government approves and sanctions such behavior.
If the Israeli government does not enforce the provisions of the Women's Equal Rights Law of 1951, nor the Sexual Harassment Law of 1998, then the Israeli government is negligent. El Al's refusal to tell these ignorant primitives to leave the plane if they were unhappy speaks volumes.

You want El Al to accommodate one group's interpretation of religion. That's nice. However, it cannot come at the expense of others losing their rights. If the zealots are so scared of women, then they should book blocks of seats so that they can recreate their ghetto on the airplane. However, they won't because the zealots will not pay for the seats because of their sense of entitlement created by people repeatedly giving in to them. Both El Al and Israel have a duty to the women who put their lives on the line every day in the IDF and reserves, and who pay the taxes, to say no to what is an imposition of one groups' views on others.

As for your comment, To my knowledge there has never been an incident of a woman in the State of Israel being stoned for wearing something religious people do not like you are living in denial. Women have been berated and assaulted in some areas because they were wearing perceived provocative clothing. (You can find the stories in the Israeli media.) These are also the same religious zealots that had conniptions blocking gay pride celebrations in Jerusalem and who throw rocks at motor vehicles on the Sabbath. No one was asking them to put on a speedo and dance on a float, and no one was asking them to ride in a motor vehicle, but they sought to impose their views on others. It has to stop and it's a good thing the story made the news. It would also be nice if US DOJ investigated this alleged violation of civil rights in the USA.

ELY001

How were these Haredi passengers attempting to impose anything on anyone? They were simply trying to segregate themselves from women due to their religious beliefs, that's all.

That would be racist behavior and no civilized person should tolerate it. What happened on this flight was neither racism nor even sexism. They have a bonafied good faith millenia old religious belief and hence decided to segregate themselves from women in accordance to that belief. There was nothing racist about it.

You're getting off tangent here and are injecting what seem to be your own negative stereotypes on an entire population of people.

What rights were lost by anyone on that flight? Are you trying to make the case that just because religious Jewish men, in accordance to Jewish Religious Law, refuse to sit next to women on a relatively long flight from New York to Tel Aviv that somehow the human and civil rights of the women on board were infringed upon? That is simply not the case. As a matter of fact, one can argue that you are advocating against the human rights of these religious men because you do not wish for EL AL to make reasonable accomodation for them on religious grounds.

Your baseless hatred for the Orthodox community is clouding your judgment. They are not scared of women, they simply do not wish to sit next to them on a relatively long flight out of millenia old religious practice; which is their right to do so.

How would EL AL be violating a duty to women in this instance? Are you basically saying that by not forcing ultra orthodox men to sit next to women, somehow a duty to women on the EL AL flight was violated?

My point was when these incidents occur, they are few and far in between and are contrary to Israeli law, unlike in Saudi Arabia where these sort of things are the norm.

clubman

The very reason I decided not to start a thread about this when I read about it last week...

ELY001

I second that. I am rather disappointed that this incident has been used by some to as psedo evidence to put forth the dishonest and defamatory notion that women are treated as badly in Israel as they are in Saudi Arabia. It's also unsettling to read some of the intolerant and offensive generalizations written about the Hardei community.

The fact remains that EL AL specifically targets the patronage of this community. It is why the airline does not fly on Shabbat. Consequently, over the decades, EL AL should have developed a system where such incidents do not occur and Orthodox Jewish men who do not wish to be seated next to a woman for religious reasons are accomodated expeditiously and without the sort of disturbances witnessed during this incident.

yosithezet

Actually, the poster put forth factual information about incidents that actually happen and then implied that with the growing influence of these sectors and their demands on the government they are starting to bring Israel in the direction that women would be treated more poorly in the future. Another example of this is the attempt to close convenience stores in Tel Aviv on Saturday.

However, none of this has direct bearing on this specific flight.

Agree. And this may be what happened considering that we cannot find evidence of hours of delay to the flight.

joshwex90

This thread is a very disappointing read. There are few (though some) Haredi people on this board, and not many condone the actions of this.

But the posts here are quite sad and uninformed and simply knee-jerk.

Which flight was delayed hours? Looking at FlightAware, I see 2 LY flights that landed on Wednesday. Neither was scheduled to land at 05:00 and neither did.

LY2 landed at 12:09PM (51 minutes behind schedule) and LY4 landed at 03:23AM, 18 minutes behind schedule.

And does anyone know the author, this woman who suffered so much, personally? Does anyone know her track record of finding fault with all religious men in virtually every sphere? Does anyone know who discredited academic track record?

I do - I've dealt with her personally.

Loathe am I to ever condone the behavior by those who make a fuss over sitting next to women on the plane. They are wrong from a moral and Jewish law perspective, and they waste everyone's time which violates Jewish law and they cause a desecration of God's name. So I'm not saying, "it's OK here." It's not. And I'm well aware of these stories. They're not fake, I get it.
BUT, I feel little sympathy for a woman who has cried wolf one too many times. And then exaggerates too much here (her story isn't supported by publicly available facts).

duniawala

All this talk of religious reasoning are nonsense. Perhaps, one should question their sexuality issues. I mean, not sitting next to women is either a fear of them or their preference for men.

ysolde

Thank you. All of this is useful information, form an unbiased POV.

In any event, this thread has given me food for thought. If LY is "courting the business" (for lack of a better phrase) of the Haredi community, then it must be aware that these situations do come up from time to time, and it should come up with a better policy (or some policy, any policy) to deal with them. Expecting CC and passengers to try to figure it out as it is happening is not an optimal solution.

Transpacificflyer

You make several statements worded as questions which you answer in a manner that ignores the fundamental legal and moral issues involved. Let's look at the implications of your statement(s).
Think about it. Is this any different from a group that would refuse to sit next to someone on the sole basis of their ethnicity. In this case, the discriminatory behaviour is based upon gender. I again point out to you that discrimination based solely on gender is illegal in both the USA and Israel. How would you feel if someone undertook this behaviour in respect to a jew because her/his belief system was such that sitting next to a jew was contrary to his/her religious belief? You would be up in arms. However, in this case, because it was a woman, you deem it acceptable. Thankfully, such behaviour is contrary to the legal and social norms in the USA, which is where the act occurred.
No one is claiming racism. However, discrimination based upon gender is illegal in both the USA and Israel. I won't get into a religious discussion as to whether or not this was "bonafide good faith millennia old religious belief" or not, however, I direct you to such bonafide religious good faith religious belief that held that jews made matzoh with the blood of gentile children. A disgusting falsehood, yet one that was genuinely believed in good faith. If you wish to fall back on the use of religion as a justification, you are on a slippery slope and you will fall into the hole you have dug for yourself.
Rubbish. The fundamental issue is one of correct behaviour in public. In the USA, where this act occurred, no religious group has the right to impose its religious practices on anyone. These haredi have their interpretation of Judaism.Tthere are plenty of jews who have a different interpretation.
Your argument is cringe worthy.. It doesn't matter if they were "religious Jewish males. They could have been members of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and the behaviour would still be unacceptable. They have their own interpretation of religious law. That does not make it a law that others must abide by. Fortunately, in the USA, such religious laws do not hold. The US Constitution applies and the associated laws in respect to civil rights apply. They have every right to not sit next to a woman. However, the manner in which they behaved was such that it cased a scene, and may have hurt, or otherwise personally injured the women who were the target. Such an overt display can give rise to a wrongful act. What would your response have been if someone had done the same thing on a flight and started asking other pax, "hey does anyone want to change seats with me because I refuse to sit next to a jew? I'll give you money to change. hello, anyone? I can't sit next to the jew because the jew will contaminate me or perhaps tempt me to have sinful thoughts."

I'll make this very simple for you, these haredim were in the USA and as such were subject to US law which does not allow for the discrimination based upon gender. They were flying on an airline that still receives subsidies from the Israeli government. (In case you didn't know, almost all of El Al's security costs are paid for by the Government of Israel). As such, I would expect that the Israeli government would insist upon compliance with some basic Israeli laws that do not allow discrimination based upon gender. More importantly, I expect El Al to honour its ethical code which requires social responsibility.
The haredim are not orthodox. They are a sect, a collection of social cults with their own practices much of it with zero linkage to Israel. Several of the sects do not even accept the existence of the state of Israel. They have the right to live their lives as they wish. They do not have the right to impose their practices and views on those who do not share their views.
This isn't about Saudi Arabia. It is about a group of religious zealots who forced their religious views on others. And again, I point out to you that the hostile activities of haredim are well documented in the Israeli media. Remember what your mother taught you? Two wrongs do not make a right. If these people feel so strongly, then they should charter an airplane and operate it as they wish. In the meantime they have no legal and no moral right to impose their practices on others.

yosithezet

This isn't the place for an explanation of the issues involved. They have nothing to do with fear of women or preference of men. If you'd like to discuss this further, please do so in OMNI.

Dovster

What these men did is not illegal in either the USA or Israel (nor any other country that I can think of).

They (and you and I) have a perfect legal right not to sit next to someone based solely on race, religion, gender, or any other reason. El Al, as a business, might not have the right to refuse to seat women next to men, but customers are not bound by these laws.

I stated earlier in this thread that if men feel strongly enough that they do not want to sit next to women, they have ways to avoid it (buying multiple seats, booking together on the same PNC, etc). That would have been the correct way to proceed in this case.

Transpacificflyer

You have identified the key issue, that of whether or not there was a violation of the law. The act of refusal to sit next to someone is in itself not illegal. However, the manner in which it is done can give rise to a wrongful act. There is also the issue of personal injury if the manner in which the process was done was such that it caused distress or psychological injury to the targets of the activity. Because the act occurred in New York state which is in the USA, I shall quote from the relevant state agency ( I will bold the relevant descriptive elements);
Discrimination means to act based on a preference or prejudice.
Under Federal & New York State laws, discrimination occurs when you are treated differently in a way that causes an adverse impact to you, based on your: race, gender, age, disability, religion, national origin, political, affiliation or belief, genetics, arrest and conviction record, marital status, genetic, predisposition and carrier status, veteran status, sexual orientation, or retaliation.
You may file a discrimination complaint if you think you were denied or delayed services, due to one of the factors listed above

As an aside, because the services provided originate in the USA, and are regulated by the US federal government, Title 42 of the U.S. code can come in to play.

I'll leave it to the jurists to argue the merits of the case should a complaint be brought. However, this does cause a problem for El Al and even for Israel. The visuals are negative.

Another serious issue that arises are the multiple reports of the haredim blocking the aisles and refusing to take their seats during the flight. This is an air safety risk and worthy of an investigation as it puts the safety of other pax at risk. No one wants to be on the receiving end of a passenger tossed around because of turbulence. The blocked aisles and gathering of people also impacts security. The El Al security personnel would have been unable to respond to a disturbance if the aisles were blocked as reported. Israel has previously had its security status downgraded by the FAA and if these types of incidents become a repeated event, I would expect that such a security review would again occur.

Yes, you are quite correct in your statement that the men had the option of making arrangements to address their concerns, and El Al should have made that very clear. That's where El Al dropped the ball. It's public statements subsequent to the event have been weak to date, and my hunch is that they are hoping this goes away. El Al needs to make very clear to its pax, that this type of behaviour will not be allowed on its planes and that the pax do have the option of addressing their concerns/fears before they get on the plane. If they cannot be accommodated prior to boarding, then they should be told that they should not take the flight. The failure to deal with the situation will lead to additional embarrassment at some point. I don't think that a female pax who had purchased a specific seat would appreciate being moved elsewhere at the last minute to accommodate a male who objected.

Dovster

This applies to a business, not to a customer.

I can go into a restaurant in the United States and refuse to sit at the counter because there is a black person there. I can even announce my reason for doing so.

The restaurant cannot legally order the black person to leave but I certainly have the right to walk out of the door.

jewels421

This is an interesting point -- food for thought for some folks on here. Would your thoughts on this incident be different if it was an Evangelical Christian family who did not want their daughter sitting next to a black man? It hasn't been so long ago that some conservative Christian denominations were opposed to interracial relationships. If your reaction would be different, why (why is it acceptable in the modern age to not want to sit next to a woman but unacceptable to not want to sit next to a black man?)?

I may personally find the belief in gender segregation to be disturbing, but I respect that it is their right to hold that religious belief. But that right ends when other, non-Haredi people, are involved in a public setting. In other words, if they want to arrange themselves so as to not sit next to women (pre-selection of seats, charter flights, etc.), then there's no problem. The problem comes when they affected other people by standing up in the aisles and refusing to sit down.