The Israeli Social Movement : A chance for peace?

Israel Studies Review, 2016

Over the last two decades, the liberal democratic form of governance has been facing a major challenge. This challenge is manifested in varying ways around the globe, with crises erupting in diverse geopolitical contexts, including democratization in Eastern Europe, objections to the human rights discourse in East Asia, disillusionment following the Arab Spring, and the decline of the liberal left in Israel. The modernist secular utopia is far from sight. The porous borders of Western liberal democracies, open to global migration in post-Cold War Western Europe, have allowed the challenge to internal social and political order to become pressing and even acute, in some cases. The question of how to accommodate new ethnic and religious groups that hold profoundly different views about social justice and the 'common good' yet share the same political space has become critical. In this special issue, we delve into the Israeli case in order to take a glimpse into the crisis of liberalism in a particular setting, without losing sight of the global context and its deep historiosophical roots. The 2015 Israeli election results left little doubt as to the place of the liberal left in Israel's political arena: it has failed politically to win over the electorate. Meretz, the Jewish leftist-liberal party, obtained votes barely sufficient to allow it to remain in the Knesset. The votes won by the Labor Party failed to lift it out of its middling size or to spread it beyond the middle class. These results came as no surprise to those following the gradual decline of the liberal camp in politics, civil society, culture, the press, the media, and academia. Since the elections, Israel's Jewish population appears to be torn more than ever between two poles: those who wish to fight for democracy and civil rights, on the one side, and those who prefer communitarian, traditionalist, and religious values, on the other-a division that highly

Introduction Raphael Cohen-Almagor General From Socialism to Free Market – The Israeli Economy: 1948 – 2003 Ben-Zion Zilberfarb Between Enlightened Authoritarianism and Social Responsibility – On Media and Politics Dan Caspi Rights and Schisms Human Rights David Kretzmer Health Rights Carmel Shalev Women's Human Rights: Dichotomy between Religion and Secularism in Israel Frances Raday Israel as a Multicultural Democracy: Challenges and Obstacles Yossi Yonah The Absorption of Immigrants from the Former Soviet Union Tamar Horowitz Is A Halachic State Possible? The Paradox of Jewish Theocracy Aviezer Ravitzky “A Jewish and Democratic State”: Present Navigation in the Map of Interpretations Asa Kasher Whither the Green Line? Trends in the Orientation of the Palestinians in Israel and the Territories Majid Al-Haj Israel and Its Arab Citizens Hillel Frisch Israel Facing Terrorism Ariel Merari Final Words Revisiting the Zionist Dream Claude Klein Israeli Democracy at the Crossroads Raphael Cohen-Almagor Notes on Contributors Index

Journal of Societal & Social Policy, 2004

Government and Opposition, 1991

2004

1 n January 18, 2013 Israel held its legislative elections. Following the elections, the secular right-wing parties (such as Likud) but also parties of the center right (Kadima) and especially the parties on the left (such as Meretz and the Adova labor party) suffered a serious setback when the centrist party (Yesh Atid) championing the middle class emerged victorious from the elections. It is not impossible to correlate this with the popular movement of revolt and indignation that shocked the country and rendered the Israeli left speechless in the summer of 2011. For six months, from the summer of 2011 to the winter of 2012, a large Israeli popular protest movement took shape in the cities, reinforced by public opinion and the media. Demonstrators occupied public space, creating a genuine people's assembly that drew a great diversity of participants. The movement for social justice, also called the Tents Protest, had arisen in the context of the wave of global revolts or "Spring of Nations." Protesters denounced corruption and financial oligarchies (the 1% against the 99%), moral resignation with regard to the determinism of the marketplace, and real estate and financial speculation. Didn't this spontaneous mobilization reveal, in a certain way, a deep crisis of confidence in the state on the part of its citizens? A year later, didn't they express the same rejection of a governmental policy that marginalized the welfare state in favor of a more liberal economic policy? O

Israel Studies Review, 2023

This Special Issue is dedicated to the study of public policies in Israel. The issue illustrates the dynamics, specific character, and complexity of policy approaches to diverse issues in Israel. Our aim is to analyze challenges and offer practical remedies. By focusing on public policies, we highlight concepts and strategies of policy management. We also offer recommendations for improving the understanding of some intricate issues and, ipso facto, social conditions in a number of spheres.

Social Policy & Administration, 2012

A common argument in the social policy literature is that ethnic and identity-based heterogeneity undermines the welfare state. In part, this happens because of difficulties in the generation of broad social solidarity in diverse societies: solidarity which is allegedly necessary for sustaining public support for the welfare state. This study explores this argument's logic in the context of welfare state politics in Israel. Israel would appear to be a near-perfect example of how heterogeneity strains social solidarity and, in turn, undermines the welfare state. Quite differently from most studies, however, this work's emphasis is not on public attitudes or voting, but on the political interaction between economically disadvantaged identity-based minorities-specifically Arabs on the one hand and religious Jews on the other-in the welfare field. It is argued that shared interests enable extensive cooperation among political elites in the welfare field despite religiously-and nationallybased antagonism.

This paper analyses the attempts of the current Israeli government to undo the liberal principles of the so-called constitutional revolution, which are specified in the Basic Laws " Human Dignity and Freedom " and " Freedom of Occupation ". The background to this endeavor is at least twofold: On the one hand, the coalition parties are trying to strengthen Jewish nationalist and religious rights at the cost of individual and minority rights; on the other hand, it is combined with an attack on the Supreme Court´s perceived role as a defender of those rights. Therefore, the paper argues that we can see the attempt to revoke the in any case limited constitutional anchorage of liberal democracy in favor of a majoritarian democracy, which gives collective values precedence over individual rights. 1 In its outlook, the paper refers to the repercussions of these developments for the European-Israel relations. This takes into account that the European Union traditionally frames itself as the defender of a liberal democracy, but sees at the same time developments similar to Israel in central and eastern European states. The current Israeli government coalition, which was formed after the election in 2015, is often considered " the most right-winged government " in the history of Israel. 2 This notion is not unfounded: While the government is not monolithic, all parties of the coalition Likud, Jewish Home, Yisrael Beitenu (which joined the government only several months after) Shas, Torah Judaism and Kulanu can be considered to be right of the center. This *Peter Lintl is a researcher at the German Institute for International and Security Policy (SWP) and head of the project " Israel and its regional and global conflicts: Domestic developments, security issues and foreign affairs " All internet sources have last accessed on 08.06.2018. 1 Note: The distinction here made does not refer to the more common distinction made originally by Arend Lijphart between majoritarian and consensus political systems (in which Great Britain would adhere to the former and Israel to the latter), but to the distinction between liberal and majoritarian ideas of democracy: Liberal democracies see constitutions and checks and balances as safeguarding minorities from majorities, whereas majoritarian politicians will portray these liberal stances as an infringement of democracy.