300,000 is a dizzying number. It was thrilling to see so many citizens on the streets suffused with hope. But I still grapple with uncertainty amid all the excitement, unsure of what connects me to them to make an ‘us.’ Beyond some increasingly specific policy demands, in the big scheme, are we hoping for the same things?
Pressed between a quarter-million bodies in Tel Aviv on Saturday night, awash in euphoria and humidity, I searched hard for points of convergence, and confronted my fears about future divisions. Here are the ones I identified:
Convergence
The protests are pan-Israeli, and this is consensus, period. It is by now totally absurd to paint the organizers as fringe radicals. Still, delusional isolated voices try: Dr. Haim Misgav, a lecturer of law at a college, wrote in Ynet that the demonstrators are left-wing anarchists bordering on Stalinists (huh?). “They came straight from demonstrating against the separation fence,” he writes. I’m sure dozens of regulars from Anarchists Against the Wall will be thrilled to learn that 300,000 are suddenly part of their ranks. The leadership too, continues desperately trying to delegitimize the protests, for example, by accusing the media of inflating the numbers. With apologies to Bosie, what a funny little leadership this is.
In fact, Saturday night proved that the protests have gone totally mainstream, evidenced by the large band of tan-uniformed Scouts, and blue-shirted “Working and Studying Youth,” a longtime youth movement affiliated with Labor Zionism and the Nahal stream of army service. Yes, they are left-leaning, but you can’t get any more “mamlahti’ – nostalgic symbols of devotion to the state – than that. As one speaker thundered, this is “salt of the earth.”
Consensus issues: The demonstration kicked off by conjuring one of most emotional, unifying symbols among Israelis – the Jews, at least: Gilad Shalit. The very first speaker, Student Union leader Itzik Shmuli, pleaded for his release; the crowd roared, waving huge signs for Gilad. It occurred to me that Gilad Shalit is becoming Netanyahu’s Vietnam. It didn’t start on his watch, but public pressure to free the hostage soldier will haunt Netanyahu no matter what issues he faces. About two years ago, my surveys have showed people divided over what to do, with a plurality who preferred to free Shalit even at a high cost. If I had to guess now, the vast majority just want him home.
What else unites Israelis? There is a stark and fascinating contrast to America’s tremendous economic drama. Last week American society was rent asunder by fundamentally different worldviews that permanently underlie the American political landscape: champions of a minimal government, free, private market and a balanced budget versus passionate supporters of basic social services and safety nets for citizens guaranteed by the state – inevitably bolstered by its richest citizens. No one could claim victory; the discourse was so acrimonious, that commentators compared the ideological divisions to those surrounding the Civil War.
Yet in fractious Israel, the signs and chants unrelentingly and uniformly demanded a return of the welfare state (and a New Deal too); the J14 movement accurately reflects a sweeping (perhaps too sweeping) romanticizing and embrace of the state-support-for-all approach.
Building-size "working class" poster covering an ad during demonstration for social justice (photo: Oren Ziv/activestills)
Tel Aviv University professor Michal Shamir, an expert on public opinion, wrote in Haaretz last week:
In the 2009 Israeli election survey, we repeated a question…”When it comes to economic life in Israel, do you favor the socialist approach or the capitalist approach?”… 32 percent chose capitalism and 68 percent supported the socialist approach…
The 2009 survey also found that 74 percent of respondents thought “the government should be responsible for ensuring that everyone has a job and a reasonable standard of living”; only 9 percent thought that “the government shouldn’t intervene and everyone should look out for himself.”
I’d venture that there are dangers to this full-out embrace of the notion that the state owes us everything. Greater personal responsibility of citizens would also be a vital contribution to Israel’s future. I see too many Israelis forsaking personal responsibility already – in daily life, in consumer services (“sorry ma’am, can’t help you – it’s not my responsibility” is a refrain we hear roughly every few seconds), through to moral and political responsibility. Responsibility doesn’t just mean joining the wave of a mass movement, it means being genuinely self-critical and changing ourselves if needed, if we expect the state to change for us.
Divisions
I am still troubled by the uncertainty of whether there is any deeper, new found solidarity beyond the communal demand for government support, and high-flying rhetoric of kumbaya. I was cheered by many speeches of brotherhood at the demonstration, including one by Rabbi Benny Lau. But when Arab writer Uda Basharat spoke on the same themes, the crowd was notably more muted, and I saw at least one demonstrator scuffling with security in anger.
I still fear that the roars and thrills of 300,000 people will become a distraction from tackling tougher issues that truly divide us. Shai Golden expressed this same concern eloquently in Maariv on Sunday, asking how many of the protesters would sign up for the critical passages in Israel’s Declaration of Independence guaranteeing the development of all parts of the country for all citizens on the basis of freedom, justice and peace, complete social and political rights for all citizens, and inviting the Arabs to enjoy full participation and representation in the state. I can answer: in a survey I conducted just over one year ago, only 54% of 16-29 year-old Israeli-born Jews approved of these very passages; and 45% of Russian speaking immigrants; 80% of Arabs of the same ages agree. Golden writes:
How many [of the protesters] are prepared to stop and define more precisely what kind of justice we need in Israel? Can one demand social just without calling for full equality of rights for one million Arab-Israelis, for example? Can our throats utter the cry ‘the people demand social justice,’ when the middle class itself is divided and fragmented on core issues of Israeli society – such as the status of minorities, the status of women and the inter-ethnic tension? When it’s clear that this collective is stuck together with pins for the last few weeks and is not unified over any fundamental issue except for the economic burden…?
The protest could be an opportunity for many Israelis to look inside themselves and define Israeli identity afresh; to understand what values are important to them as individuals, and from there, to seek the common ground and the binding glue for new Israeli men and women.
Golden writes that until Israelis agree what defines them as a people, they won’t be able to articulate real demands from the government. I would qualify this: not all Israelis have to agree – but the protestors need to articulate a worldview that defines them – and everyone who agrees will join.
Here is my concern: as an isolated demand, the cry for “social justice,” isn’t very meaningful. It is a post-modern vessel, empty and open for any individual to fill it up with different content.
But if “social justice,” is a true symbol, one that stands for a whole set of values and even a minimally coherent worldview – let’s say, modern social-democracy with a liberal/progressive agenda grounded in human rights and equality – then it stands a chance of overthrowing the current free-market individualism (mixed with passive victimization) – the coherent and powerful worldview the protestors despise.
Now that would be a revolution.
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.
Noam Sheizaf
I have a feeling you are wrong on Shalit – my guess is that support for his release is stable, if not even fading; and I don’t think it hurts Netanyahu too much. Would love to see numbers on this one.
Dahlia Scheindlin
Maybe you’re right Noam, but the fact that his cause is used as a symbol of national unity can create its own momentum. And yes, it would be interesting to repeat my question from Dec 2009, which described both the benefits and the dangers of agreeing to a deal, in a balanced way, and asked people to choose. The response was 46% who preferred to release him at a high price, and 31% who thought the precedent was too dangerous (Jewish population). If I had a client interested in this topic, I’d happily run the survey again!
Ben Israel
It was Olmert who defined the terms for the release of Shalit, and who refused to release the hard-core terrorists/killers. After all, it was on his watch that Shalit was captured. Thus, you have no grounds for accusing Netanyahu for coming up with “unreasonable” (as you see it) demands.
Dahlia Scheindlin
Ben Israel, please read the text more carefully. I wrote: “It didn’t happen on his watch…” nor did I accuse Netanyahu of anything (for once
. Rather, I outlined my assessment of where the public stands on the issue.
David Harris-Gershon
@Dahlia – I share your concern that the cry for צדק חברתי remains a “post-modern vessel” into which a worldview championing human rights for all has yet to be placed.
My hope is that, as this movement grows, protest organizers will engage in the type of self-reflection you call for and become confident that they can place these elements into the vessel without losing the support of Israel’s body politic.
Larry Derfner
Dahlia, despite my natural aversion to positive thinking, to seeing the glass half full (ugh), I think that’s sort of the way to go with these protests. They’re not addressing the Big Issue, but I do think that just by putting an issue other than security at the top of the national agenda, they are liberalizing Israeli society and politics. They’re putting social democracy back on the table against piggish capitalism, which has had the table to itself for over a decade, since PM Barak killed Labor as a social democratic party (which I think it is again now since his blessed departure). That’s huge, isn’t it? These protesters have fired the idealism of a generation that seemed to not know what idealism was. This is historic. And indirectly, it’s going to move at least some people left on the Big Issue, I’m convinced. Politically, it’s almost guaranteed to be good for the left and bad for the right, or at least for Likud and its shy sister, Kadima. The kids are alright, I say. Best thing to happen to Israel since the pull-out from Gaza. Look at the glass, Dahlia – it isn’t half- empty, it’s half-full! (Ugh.)
Dahlia Scheindlin
Larry, I’ve gotten numerous responses along the lines that I am overly pessimistic and I feel a bit misunderstood, so I’ll try to articulate why. I do not feel that I started off pessimistic, nor am I now. Rather, i am observing, and reflecting on the ideas that occur to me in response to what I see. I am not pessimistic by nature (critical and analytic, yes), but what I’m seeing has not convinced me that those deeper things are being addressed, and I don’t just mean the Elephant. I am somewhat prepared to accept that this is a first vital – even historic – step towards unity. but it must be a stage, if things stop here, we won’t have made a real change. Finally, this has indeed touched a nerve with me re: not just the Big Issues, but millions of more mundane frustrations that plague daily life and contribute to social malaise here. It seems very out of fashion to say that some of this may be the citizens’ responsibility but I’ll say it anyway because I believe it. I’d like for this to be an opportunity to look at ourselves more critically too, starting with our own revolutionary behavior/thinking – and I consider that optimistic. Sorry if this has been a rambling response!
Greg Pollock
I think street protests in themselves will gain little, simply because the core economic plight sending people out of their homes, into the streets, cannot be altered in the near future. I think Scheindln is right that there must be a form of self inquiry to keep the feeling of action going–you need an institutional bridge derived from the protests but potentially articulating beyond them.
—————
I am a sideliner, interested in Israel for far too long (yes, so an American, but not Jewish). I have, focusing on your High Court, its sometimes ignored rulings, and the danger of a Knesset nullification of Court power, felt that Israel needs to create a Constitution. The Declaration calls for such, and you cannot get more patriotic than that; and, uniquely for such a document, it specifies rights which must be articulated in a Constitution. A call for a Constitution, perhaps grounded as the plateform of a new party arising from the protests, is open-ended. You may support such a call, even recognize that you, personally, may not like all that is drafted; but this very risk is the foundation of pluralism. A platform actively calling for drafting a Constituion as promised by the ’48 founders defers some debate until a Constitutional Convention; but, again, this allows a wider coalition to form around a party, running for the Knesset, on this platform.
———–
Economic redress is short term impossible. Such redress itself will suffer attempted co-optation by Bibi et al. The only way to potentally lock in social justice (whatever it means) is in a Constitution. One may point out that the document will also bind the High Court (but the deck is stacked, for the document must contain the rights listed in the Declaration–again, a unqiue limitation as far as I know). Social justice can be introduced into political discourse by arguing for a Constitution, saving some of the protest momentum.
—————-
The first Constituent Assembly was supposed to draft a Constitution. A Constitutional Convention convenes to limit State power, not assume soverignty as an unchecked legislature (which is what the Knesset is). Simply, the Constituent Assembly, by transforming itslef into the Knesset, usurped soverignty. One may try to restart the process (an uphill battle, but who thought you would be on the steets a month ago?), keeping protests alive, with hope of a different Knesset upon elections, where a call for an INDEPENDENT Consitutional Convention can be made.
—————
I am an outside of no importance. But I have come to firmly beleive that your polity must form a Constitution to escape the whims of various Knessets.
Dahlia Scheindlin
Greg, a very thoughtful response and I agree with almost all of what you write here. The one argument against writing a constitution now is that this Knesset has proven itself to be an enemy of human rights and universal values and some think it would either reject any meaningful constitution or demand such things that would annul the purpose. But the point is sound – I have written about this: http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/the-problem-is-constitutional-1.306401 One thing: in the spirit of fairness to other readers who are frequently asked to keep their comments at a manageable length, I will ask that you try to keep yours a bit shorter – please see our comments policy when you have a chance. But many thanks for your insights.
Greg Pollock
Length comes from wanting to make a difference (foolishly). I understand, and am sorry…The Knesset, as a sitting legislature, cannot draft a Constitution; they would have to call for the election of a separate body to that end, and, ideally, the produced document would be subject to a plebicite. That call for a convention would open the political specturm. So, in fantasy, a separate election for delegates would create an independent convention, with its product submitted to the electorate. A new or old party could advocate that such a call be made.
Dahlia Scheindlin
To be sure, that’s the ideal route. But I have no doubt that any such body – if elected by this Knesset – would suffer the same problem. To that end, it would be important to include civil society groups who have been working on constitution drafts for years (there have been at least 3-4 such initiatives) with panels of experts – legal scholars, former judges, etc, to be involved – or perhaps even a group appointed by the President. I am still hopeful that it can be done, but would have to make serious efforts to balance the influence of the Knesset. And no need to apologize on the length, with such helpful substance – just a thought for the future.
Larry Derfner
I guess the question is whether these protests will lead to deeper, lasting change or be a passing thing. I vote for the former because I think these protests are really a return to normalcy for Israel – it is again a vibrant democracy, which it’s stopped being for the last decade (broken up by the pull-out from Gaza). Prior to these demos, Israel became effectively a one-right-wing-party country, with only marginal voices objecting to either foreign/military or economic policy. That’s abnormal in Israeli history. The protests have returned us to our normal selves at least on the subject of economics, and so long as people are hurting economically, there will be a fight over the economic direction of the country – like there always was before. And that, I think, is the minimum – I expect the debate over foreign/military policy to return, too, in a process jump-started by these protests.
Greg Pollock
I meant not that the Knesset elect members to a commission, but that the Knesset call a general election for delegates. That is, the convention is derived directly from the people (a loaded word, but others will use it anyway). I could see giving your President power to appoint some delegates too. The point would be that soverignty is returning to the people in convention. I see no way to get to that general election of delegates save through an enabling act of the Knesset. I would hold that the Knesset cannot in itself FORM the convention by selecting delegates. But the first line of battle would be electing MK’s willing to make the call. This might create a wedge issue, expanding the participating political specturm.
Ben Israel
I am all for Israel having a constitution (for those who don’t know, I am an Orthodox/religious-pro-settler right-winger groups that have been viewed as opposing a constituion in the past) but it has to be based on as wide a consensus as possible, something like Greg has advocated here. We will NOT accept a constitution, drawn up by Left-wing groups such as that of Arik Carmon which would be rammed down the country’s throat by a possible narrow Left-wing gov’t in the future, the way Oslo and the destruction of Gush Katif were pushed through.
That would be a disaster. The “price tag” attacks against Arabs some right-wing extremists are carrying out are a direct result of Sharon’s spitting in the face of his supporters and betraying his promise NOT to destroy Gush Katif. Many on the religious Right feel that if the gov’t won’t listen to us, what is the point of using constitutional methods to get government action. I am totally opposed to these “price tag” actions, but the gov’t must not push ideological groups into the corner where they feel they have not choice but to break the law. Ramming through a Leftist constitution would be even more dangerous. I would say the same if someone like Avigdor Lieberman tried to push through a constitution that would take rights away from the Israel Arabs and the political Left.
Steve Forman
I have one simple idea that might “kick-start” the recognized need for Israelis to take responsibility for actions in the personal, societal and political spheres.
The political system is structurally dysfunctional due to lack of accountability. This lack of accountability seeps through society as you have pointed out.
I suggest to restructure the electoral system to one that creates responsibility by elected officials. Create an electoral system that is representational, officials must be elected from specific districts, not from a list. This way specific politicians can be held accountable by their constituents.
Have the knesset pass this legislation then dissolve. This will lead to real elections that promise accountability. Perhaps J14 Movement can adapt this idea… Bueno suerte.
Greg Pollock
Ben Israel, I think you are right that a call for a constitutional convention must be wide; when one calls for such a convention, one must be willing to risk defeat on some issues at that convention. I also think a district system as advocated by Steve Forman,above, might work well. But I am not an Israeli and have no real sense of Israeli social-political society. A convention would be a sampling, a measure, of this society; they should decide. A party call for a convention exposes that party to defeat on the issue of the call and also later, on issues at the convention itself. But if you do not risk yourself thusly, how will you ever breach even partially the divides noted, e.g., by Ben Israel?