The Israeli summer: Hundreds of thousands took to the streets in one demonstration after another. Hundreds erected tents in the middle of cities and other public places and lived in them. Protests were not about war and peace, but social concerns, a strong, angry and frustrated cry against the high cost of living and the quality of life. The demonstrators were particularly concerned about the price of housing (both for purchase and rent), low salaries, and the retreat of Israel from its previous social welfare commitments and the transformation of the state into what has become known as a “swine capitalism.” In July and August of this year, the unprecedented happened. Irit Dekel has already reported and appraised at Deliberately Considered earlier developments. Here, I consider a hopeful sign, and suggest how the concerns of the protestors might be addressed, even though I think this is unlikely, given the nature of the present government of the country.

A Hopeful Sign

As the massive civil protests were taking place, supporters were concerned that the sharp edge of this genuine social and political protest may be neutralized if a military threat suddenly erupts. Possible scenarios included President Assad of Syria or Hezbollah in Lebanon igniting Israel’s northern border in order to deflect international attention from Assad’s brutal suppression of the revolt against him. While this did not happen, in mid August, Israel’s southern border was ignited as Israel and the Palestinians in Gaza exchanged fire. This heightened military tension immediately set the agenda for the news. Coverage of the protest by the media all but disappeared. Yet, the protest did not abate.

Given this persistence, the political authorities are under great pressure to respond. Yet, Netanyahu and his government, at best, will try to placate the protestors, making minor changes, merely alleviating some of the despair, stress and misery that fueled the protests.  A significant response to the Israeli summer would require changed national priorities. Although I don’t think there is a political will for this by the ruling parties, important changes are possible, practical policy changes that could free resources, making major social change possible.

Possible Practical Remedies

A first candidate is the national settlement project in the occupied territories. Since 1967, the state has invested in building settlements, constructing roads, tax breaks for the settlers, and allocating military resources to defend the settlements, and probably some more expenses I am unaware of. In fact, the cost of the settlement project is hidden in so many items in the national budget that some researchers refer to this cost as one of the top secrets of the country. Many experts have pointed out that the “defense value” of these territories has become questionable, as was revealed during the second Lebanon War. Moreover, Israel’s public commitment to compromise with the Palestinians on the West Bank requires a serious decrease of the investments in the settlements.

Another expense that can be cut significantly is the financial support to religious institutions. Interestingly, Israel has a social welfare policy for some groups of its population. The religious agendas of many parties in past Israeli coalition governments managed to prioritize the allocation of resources to institutions such as Yeshivot, building Mikves (purification baths), as well as support a very large number of Haredi, ultra orthodox, males to devote their entire life to study sacred scriptures. The side effects of this policy are that large numbers of Haredi males are excluded from the job market, and that the relatively little amount of support has forced many traditionally large Haredi families into poverty. While Yeshivot and the study of the scriptures are important and fascinating parts of Jewish cultural tradition, the state can no longer completely subsidize this large a population. One way to save money is to change to a merit based system and only grant state benefits to the best scholars. A smaller number of scholars in Yeshivot could even benefit from the newly freed resources, as some of the money could be dedicated to a larger stipend to lift them out of poverty.

A third location to free up resources is the military budget. To give just one glaring, illustrative area: the retirement age of professional soldiers in the Israeli Defense Forces which was 45, has increased for some to 50. But why not increase it to 65? As an illustration, some of the best generals and salient military men during WWII were not teenagers. In 1943, at the height of the war, George Patton was 58, Bernard Montgomery 56 and Douglas MacArthur 63. They endured much harsher field conditions than today’s generals. General Norman Schwarzkopf, the military man behind the 1990-1 operation Desert Shield, was 56 years old at that time. Currently, Israel maintains two armies. One is the regular army, the other is an army of retired military personnel, of whom many are relatively young, have no desire to sit on the porch and bathe in the sun, and are actively engaged second careers. The military thus loses able soldiers with much valued accumulated experience while the civilian job market is dealing with an army of eager competitors for a variety of jobs that should indeed be filled by civilians. It has actually led to a situation where many civilian positions have been filled by ‘military’ people whose formative years and way of thinking were shaped and imprinted by military training that helped to shape their cognitive maps, their social networks, and their ways of conceptualizing issues. Another military saving lies in reducing the length of the compulsory service (three years for males now).

Political Implications and Prospects

Once resources are freed, money can be allocated to items that the protesters have asked for. First, resources need to be directed towards Israel’s Arab population, which constitutes about 20% of the Israeli population. Generally, the Arabs are being discriminated against and alienated in ways that are unbecoming for a democratic regime. The democratic legitimacy of Israel requires this reform.

And to further address the major norm of the protests, to truly accomplish a more equal distribution of resources, a reduction in the cost of living and more welfare, another significant change in the political structure is required. Israel, generally, has been ruled by coalition governments. These have been deeply flawed. They have been, as many Israelis have come to call them “Goalitzia.” This is a combination of two words in Hebrew: “Goal Nefesh” meaning “disgusting” and “Coalitzia” meaning “coalition.” This diabolical form of government is incapable of effective rule. Many decisions of Israeli governments are never carried out, nor does anybody feel responsible for the decisions that are made. This form of government simply means that any politician, or group of politicians, can promise voters the moon, sky and maybe the whole galaxy. but once they form a coalition with others, politicians, does not keep their election promises. They have the ultimate excuse for why not – the coalitional government. Each coalition party can blame one or more of its partners for not delivering on the promises it has made, freeing the party leaders from any responsibility. On top of this, this type of government has an almost built-in tendency to give small parties the power and resources way above and beyond their size, fundamentally distorting the will of the vast majority. A more democratic form of government would go along way in answering the democratic demands of the summer.

Now, the probability that any of the above listed suggestions will be applied is close to zero. Netanyahu appointed a committee of experts in response to the demonstrations. Its mandate is limited (e.g., to tax reforms) and it probably cannot, and perhaps should not, make recommendations for such significant social and political changes as I am proposing here. This should be done politically, not bureaucratically. For major political changes, one does not need a committee of experts. One needs politicians with a positive, democratic vision and a passionate drive to accomplish such a vision. Of course, a political solution of the conflict with the Palestinians and other Arab countries would not just release resources for civilian expenses, but, more generally, enable Israel to orient itself toward a more civil, liberal democratic society.

Given present political realities a resolution of the conflict, along with the practical reforms I have examined here, is difficult to imagine – even for this science fiction fan.

When I first found out about the Rabbinical letter banning the sale or rental of property to Arabs, I noticed that my old friend and colleague, Nachman Ben – Yehuda, was quoted condemning it in the Toronto Globe and Mail. I then wrote to him asking for more extended reflections for DC. I received this post from him over the holiday weekend. He took his time, he explains, hoping for consequential official response. He offers his sober deliberate considerations. -Jeff

There are times and places where people like to stick together with their own flock, in defined, sometimes confined, geographical locations. In these locations, they live their own life style, with their own dress codes and eat their own foods. The Amish in Pennsylvania and the Jewish ultra-orthodox in Mea Shearim in Jerusalem are two examples. People outside of these communities and non-members may find it difficult to move and live in such social habitats. Moreover, in the case of ultra-orthodox communities, strangers who live in their neighborhoods and practice a non-religious life style may find themselves facing aggression and violence. I am writing about this to contrast it with the call of some rabbis in Israel not to rent apartments to Arabs in Israeli cities.

Israeli Arabs are just that – citizens with full and equal legal rights, and Israeli cities are not confined communities with a uniform worldview and way of life. Israeli cities, like most other cities of the world, are centers of diversity, including the religious and the secular, Jews, Christians and Muslims, old and young, Sephardi and Ashkenazi, etc. These cities are open. Renting an apartment is basically an economic issue. Making and publicizing a general call not to rent apartments to Arabs (or to any other culturally defined group) is quite simply racism.

The rabbinical pamphlet received very critical comments from some Israeli politicians and others, but this did not prevent activists from the Israeli right and religious right to stage a large demonstration on Thursday, December 23, 2010 in Jerusalem where public support was openly given to this pamphlet.

What can, or should, be done? I think two roads are open. First, the police could reasonably open investigations aiming to bring the pamphlet writers and their supporters up on charges of instigation or other relevant violations of the law. This is a route that will probably last for a very long time (investigation, charge, court, appeal). Those sticking to the idea of not renting to Arabs would probably invoke issues of freedom of speech and of Jewish identity (right wing religious “identity” to be sure). And, because tens, maybe hundreds would be investigated and charged, this is probably not an effective way. On the other hand, the public arena can and should be used. Many of these rabbis are paid with the taxpayers’ money and as such represent the state of Israel in at least some religious and moral issues. The state should demand that they retract their statement within a very short period of time, or else risk their employment. Moreover, the state should make it very clear, officially and unofficially, that such statements are unacceptable.

I have waited, deliberately, to respond to this issue, waiting to find out what would happen. Unfortunately, nothing has. In other words, those Israelis spreading hatred, intolerance and racist views against about 20% of the citizens of Israel may have learned that that they can do it and get away with it.

It is inconceivable that such a pamphlet or public demonstration would have taken place in, say, the 1960s. To my mind, this pamphlet and demonstration is a reflection of the increasing influence of the politics of hatred that is pervading this region. For many years, the common ideal here, if not the practice, was of peace, co-existence and togetherness between Jews and Arabs, we now hear more and more about separation and living side by side, with each side barricaded. The movement within Israel to the political right, and to the religious right, is the ground upon which such pamphlets of hatred, fear and racism have developed.

And it is difficult to change these people’s behavior. It is induced by two very powerful motivators: fear and hatred. The level of fear and hatred has not been counterbalanced by politicians who have real peace and mutual co-existence in their hearts and do their best to create or sustain the conditions, ambiance and situations where Jews and Arabs can live here peacefully together. The social and cultural change reflected in a pamphlet like this is a direct result of years of mistrust, hostility, terror, propaganda, and first and foremost a continued failure (some of it probably intentional) of regional politicians to exercise their primary responsibility to their people, to negotiate a peace or some political settlement to the conflict, to the benefit and well being of both Jews and Arabs.

Worse yet, as the top to bottom approach is not working, attempts to better the situation in daily life, a politics of small things as Jeff puts it, suffers a serious blow with such hostile steps as calling for, and actually not renting apartments to Arabs, and “explaining” why such a call is “justified.” Fear and hatred wins at the local level as it is winning at the summit.