This week, Gideon Allon reported that MK Anat Berko (Likud) intends to present a bill that would make it illegal to display flags of enemy countries or entities hostile to Israel at demonstrations. The idea is nothing new – last year, MK Robert Ilatov (Yisrael Beytenu) proposed a similar law that would apply to public buildings and academic and cultural institutions.
Although it's easy to understand the aversion to flags of hostile organizations, especially when they carry connotations of terrorism, it's not certain that laws and punishments are the answer. The authors of the law say that the idea arose following a recent demonstration in Tel Aviv against the nation-state law by the Supreme Arab Monitoring Committee, where protesters waved Palestinian flags. But that protest proves how unnecessary the idea is.
I ask Berko to take a good look at the public and its response to that demonstration: Aren't the widespread condemnation of the flags, the mass revulsion at the messages of incitement, enough? Why do we need a law?
Let's skip the essential question of whether and to what extent free speech at demonstrations should be limited. This is precisely where – especially when it comes to groups that have sensitive relations with the establishment, the authorities, and the majority of the citizens – we should exhibit more tolerance and refrain as much as possible from hampering freedom of expression, as long as it isn't a case of blatant incitement to violence.
Israeli Arabs' social, political, and national situation is complicated. No law will change the fact that they identify with Palestinian national symbols. The opposite – it will create a loyalty test and bolster the worship of those symbols. Enforcing the ban won't prevent the flags from being raised at protests, either – it will just prompt activists to raise the flags en masse, requiring a police response. That will create martyrs, figures who give their lives and their freedom for the freedom to protest, express themselves, and express their ethnic and national identities.
But aside from these clear issues, the law harms public discourse more than anything else. Outlawing enemy flags makes public criticism of their use superfluous, which is a shame, because at least when it comes to the Palestinian flag, the public sphere has a healthy response.
Many of the people who took part in the Tel Aviv demonstration think the media and the public went overboard in their response to the Palestinian flags that were on display, arguing that the reaction prevented anyone from listening to them and discussing the message of the event, and even demonized the protesters – Jewish and non-Jewish alike. MK Berko, you won't get anything better than that.
But the real defect in the bill lies in its essence. A protest is a moment in which a group makes a demand on mainstream society and the authorities. Particularly when it comes to Israeli Arabs, who until recently were accused of "rioting," this should be encouraged, even if it means that an unimportant flag is flown. The public knows how to handle this; there is no need to call the police.
