A week of anticipation and seven weeks of breathtaking national energy wrapped up – for this phase – with a massive rally in Tel Aviv’s Kikar Hamedina attended by roughly 300,000 people and over 100,000 in other parts of the country. An hour before, families streamed down the streets and people kneeled on the sidewalk with signs and magic markers, with cars picking their way through. There was a giddy feeling that the city belonged to the demonstrators.
The speakers were excited but brought no real surprises: the lineup was a combination of the by-now-usual suspects and lesser-known figures from other tent camps and social groups. The first speaker was Itzik Shmuli, head of the Student Union, who this week openly declared his intention to segue into a political career; the last was Daphni Leef, the 25-year old who pitched the first tent and sparked the movement, and has remained mostly about symbolism and rhetoric, rather than substance. In between were representatives of the tent camps and the movement, around the country, a figurehead of the protests following the Yom Kippur war, a young woman oncology resident who will resign this week along with many of her colleagues in protest against intolerable salaries and conditions, a fiery young leader of the Hit’orerot (Awakening) movement in Jerusalem and musical interludes (Dag Nehash easily beat out Ha’yehudim for quality).
After seven weeks of basically having one long argument, and many critical thoughts about what, where and how this movement is going, the following is a short list of my observations from the evening.
1. Itzik Shmuli, head of the Student Union used the term “the new Israelis” at least half a dozen times in his speech. Guess what name to expect for his party? Up to now, “B,” has come to represent the movement, and it too looks like a future party symbol. This is a reminder that the movement from the start involved diverse social circles, with different approaches to change. At present, my guess is that there will be two new parties to emerge from this movement, and the existing National Left movement has been very involved all along. That makes potentially three new parties in the next elections.
2. Comparing the people at the rally to the folks on Rothschild on the very first night of the protest, I noticed a markedly more articulate sense of what they’re asking for. A 64-year old woman named Miki, with four grown children, had come from the tony suburb of Ramat Hasharon to say that for her, a victory would mean “free education from at least two years old (or lower), making nanny costs tax deductible for working women, and affordable housing to be made available based on actual economic status and not the number of children [thought to favor religious communities],” and a large political social movement to replace the religious parties in government. Another 61-year old man, Haim, who lives on a moshav, hoped for change not for his children but for his grandchildren: education from age zero to after the army, accessible health care for all, and affordable housing. Only one – a 16-year old named Yam who came with her family – expressed victory in terms of “Bibi won’t be Prime Minister anymore.”
It does seem that after the summer of calling for a revolution, J14 is not at all clear that it wants a regime change now, and might be more focused on getting current and future governments to learn the meaning of accountability – as part of the “change of culture” that is a frequent demand.
In fact, I do not think elections ought to be held now. Like in Egypt, new parties will not be prepared, will have no infrastructure or platforms. Unlike Egypt, in Israel, that means we would most likely just get a new mandate for the old regime.
3. There is simply an abyss dividing the Israeli economic discourse from the American one. The most prominent new signs, chants, and messages in this rally were: “expand the budget!” A group of adorable youth movement teenagers got on the stage with a huge model of a chocolate cake to illustrate that “we are not fighting for crumbs of the budget, we are talking about expanding the cake.” Together with the unrelenting demand to bring back the welfare state, this is an unapologetic cry for a social – if not socialist – economic approach; hopefully someone will take care to update it for the 21st century.
4. There was almost no representation of the needs of specific sectors, other than perfunctory messages about the unity and solidarity of all different groups in all regions of the country. Arab speakers or issues were glaringly absent in this final demonstration.
5. There was particularly powerful applause for educator Amnon Rabinowitz who gave detailed demands to invest in public education, end the cultivation of private education at the expense of public schools, provide education for the youngest ages and place greater emphasis on values as part of the curriculum. Indeed, in every survey I have conducted over the last few years, education has come out as people’s top priority – higher than security, higher than the economy and higher than social gaps. Yet I am still waiting for the day when this finding determines voting behavior more than security.
Ultimately the demonstration ended on a gentle, not frantic note, which I hope will be a sign of morphing into a new phase of civic action, consumer protests, detailed policy demands, and very critical thinking that goes much deeper than a tent stake.
As for my personal goals – I’ll be happy if the conversations that started between unlikely interlocutors – religious and secular, Tel Aviv and Ofakim, Arabs and Jews, politicians and citizens – continue and people actually learn to listen. I’ll be happy if the new sense of empathy for those outside our immediate circles remains; I’ll be happy if it extends beyond the first concentric circle and keeps going – even beyond our borders.
For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.
Greg Pollock
As long as the Knesset remains soverign in itself (or so it thinks) I see no lasting change. A social justice segment divided into several parties will be tempted to allign with outside parties for power. I remain amazed how Labor alligned with Likud in a national unity government, leading to the effective demise of Labor.
———————————-
If you want ratcheted social justice you need the Courts. If you want the Courts you need a Constitution. As I’ve said before, a platform calling for a Constitution is open ended, as the calling party need not detail what the Constitution would be (an independent Constitutional Convention would do that). This allows the campaigning party to seek a greater, presently inactive, electorate.
———————
I see the Knesset as something of a war council of groups; certainly, that was its genesis. This has to be broken. Real change must be in law as applied. You need the Courts, and they need a Constitution to butress their decisions. I have no idea if, at present, your citizens could see such a call as compatible with the rather give me goals you report herein.
Y.
A. The Israeli government is a ‘democratically elected government with a mandate from the people’, not a ‘regime’. I’d think even far-Leftists would pick up on this.
.
B. The idea to expand the budget is not a surprise – it’s horrible economics, but the only way to try to bridge the conflicting demands. I expect Nethanyahu to hold firm on this one – and there’s an excellent chance he’ll win it, esp. given how so many other states have debt crises.
.
C. The term ‘new Israelis’ is interesting. And who are the ‘old Israelis’ or ‘non-Israelis’ being implied? This is in fact pretty divisive and unexpected. Perhaps Shmuli thinks it can’t expand anymore, so he seeks to define camps? hmm..
.
D. I’d be glad for a constitution for various reasons, but I must note that historically, the American courts were very conservative on economics (think anti-New Deal rulings). Their liberalism (using the American definition) usually extends only to letting Congress do stuff. In Israel, Bagatz rulings are (e.g.) very favourable towards private schools. Be careful what one wishes for.
Greg Pollock
Y: I would like to know your reasons for a constitution. You appear to be somewhat on the Israei right. Your reasons or thoughts would be very useful. (I live in America, so this is all just kibbitzing.)
——————
As to the American Courts, you did not see economic development among southern blacks (or, for that matter, whites) until the desegregation cases. I suspect you would see Israeli Knesset law overlain with whatever rights structure appears in a Constitution. And, while it is true that the USSC takes a hands off approach (but consider the coming Health Reform Law case), the US Constitution is bereft of positive social clauses, for good or bad.
—————
Your Knesset is soverign. Your democracy is at the will of the Knesset, abstractly (yes, there would be violence in the streets if you tried to do away with it, save in the nebulous margin of boycotts). A Constitution would change the electorate’s view of the Knesset. It would be less sacred than now.
Ben Israel
Did anyone aski Miki (the grandmother) how all this “free education” and housing giving on the basis of economic merit is going to be paid for? Does she want significantly higher taxes on the middle class? Or have they convinced themselves that they can place extortionate taxation on “the wealthy” (however you want to define that) in such a way as to prevent them from taking their assets out of the country?
I also want to know what the differences between “the new Israelis” and the old ones are.
Philos
Will someone ban Ben Israel. He’s such a wet blanket and Ami Kaufman already threatened to do as much…
Dahlia Scheindlin
Philos, we don’t ban people for being wet blankets, but for offensive content, please see our comments policy. Further, i prefer not to ban people if possible, only specific comments (although there are those who leave us no choice). Finally, Ben’s questions here are quite legitimate and many people are asking themselves similar things. So, to answer: Ben, the very prominent new signs at this demo called to expand the budget, which presumably means a combo of higher taxes, cutbacks on other areas, and the D word. difference btwn New Israelis and old ones – I got the sense that they were conjuring up a notion of Israelis with a civic consciousness, participation between elections, fighting against the sense of being helpless and powerless and maybe, just maybe, greater social equality – in a still vague, generalized way that leaves open who is included in that. Not for nothing does the american pledge of allegiance call for “liberty and justice for ALL” – apparently it’s not always obvious.
Daniel Seidemann
Thank you, Dahlia, for such a thoughtful piece.
Anthony
BI’s questions are reasonable. Electorates do not often grasp tradeoffs between higher taxes and higher public spending – look at the fiscal crisis in California where spending is decided by frequent referenda and people consistently vote to lower taxes and increase spending.
Maybe Israel could be different if it pushed for greater accountability in Defence expenditure or a renewed drive for peaceful relations with neighbours – either one could free up a lot of resource if successful.
Y.
Dahila,
.
I think you’re mistaken about what “expanding the budget” means. I do recall it’s a term of art indicating more deficit spending. It does not refer to spending cuts or expanding revenue – there’s simply not enough money in that**, and that’s why some were so angry at Prof. Trachtenberg when he said the limits won’t be breached.
.
** 10^10 NIS is the estimate (IMHO on the optimistic side, but not unreasonably so) I’ve heard – that’s nowhere near enough. 3*10^10 was the estimate of all the demands before some new ones were introduced…
Shoded Yam
“…Did anyone aski Miki (the grandmother) how all this “free education” and housing giving on the basis of economic merit is going to be paid for? Does she want significantly higher taxes on the middle class? Or have they convinced themselves that they can place extortionate taxation on “the wealthy””
. C’mon sweetheart, you know where the money’s comin from and its not comin’ from taxes on the middle class or defense. The wealthy? You can toss that meme around all you want but don’t kid yourself sparky. What? You think their gonna soak the Ofer Family, Shari Arison and the Wertheimers? Think again. Shari Arison will be back in Miami so fast, it’ll make your head spin. The Ofer’s will pick up their marbles and move to an off-shore island populated by white-cannibals before they shed one grush for Noa and Dan. 
And forget about defense. Barak has made it abundantly clear what you can do with that notion.
.
I’m laughing so hard
.
“…”…As for the settlers, Lara Friedman’s piece cited above talks about subsidies on the West Bank. It is not just cheap housing; it is cheap everything. One of the reasons why the Gush Katif evacuation was a mess was that there was no way the state could provided the settlers with the standard of living they had been used to – living cheaply on stolen land just has no substitute.”
.
http://www.jeremiahhaber.com/
.
Yes. Oh yes. Sparky and his buddies; Marzel & Co. are acutely aware of this and and know full well that this state affairs cannot be replicated in Tel Aviv or elsewhere without it coming at the expense of another sector of the citizenry. They’re waiting for you to come to the conclusion that they’ve already arrived at.
.
Ms. Sheindlin, please excuse the length of the post.
This post has been edited for offensive content. Shoded Yam please keep vulgarity out of your comments, next time they will be deleted.
Y.
Greg Pollock,
.
Well, the practical political position in Israel is not exactly ‘Knesset rules’ (I mean, this is how it was set up and the formal legal situation, but not the way in practice). Israel lacks the tradition of Great Britain.
.
It’s more of a free-for-all, even with ‘armoured laws’ (laws that require a special majority to be amended) and ‘Basic Laws’ (which are supposed to be the nucleus of a constitution). A new Knesset can annul just about everything, and Bagatz does almost whatever it feels like**.
.
Under these circumstances, not putting the democratic consensus*** in writing risks instability and serious breaches down the line.
One might consider the anxiety of some fearing they’d be excluded from the political process (+972 has some examples), the bickering between different branches, attempts to modify the system for the specific gain of one camp**** and so on.
.
A constitution could calm tensions between political camps and different branches of government by instituting reasonable ‘rules of play’. Mind you, there’s no way this time to avoid major involvement of ‘rightish’ elements, and they will insist on their perspective being represented.
.
*** Which is not the same as ‘everyone agrees’. Even the approval of the American constitution only required 9 of 13 states. In Israel’s case, a popular referendum would be by far the best method.
.
**** e.g. A certain non-regular contributer to +972 thinks the Law of Return should be abolished because it supposedly favours the Right.
Greg Pollock
Y,
I think your reasoning right, including your observation that the right would naturally be represented in a Constitutional Convention. I do not like the Israeli right, but I do not live in Israel. In any case, they do live there, and would naturally elect representitives to a Convention. I think you are also right in placing a draft Constitution before the electorate in referendum.
I do not think, however, that the Law of Return would be in peril. I view your Declaration of Independence as a Constitutional document, and it affirms the ingathering of the Jewish people. Arab Israelis will have to accept this as part of the Constitution. It biases Israel toward a Jewish State through ingathering; but social and political equality also are mandated by the Declaration, this the Democratic nature of Israel. I believe there is a cogent solution to “Jewish and democratic State.” The Jewish character beyond ingathering is a matter of social and political debate, but there is a floor below which insured home to Jews cannot fall.
Thank you for replying.