Israel Tent Protest Artifacts Analysis

Briggs Spencer Carhart

Dr. Stephanie Brown, PhD

ENGL 306

10 November 2016

Israel Tent Protest Artifact Analysis

Figure 1. Tent Setup on Rothschild Blvd.

            The Israel tent protest sparked conversations about the social justice for the Israeli citizens since it was hard to avoid the tents physically located in the middle of the street. The Israeli people started this protest for they were motivated by the cost of living being too high to sustain living in their homes. The loss of homes pressured individuals to move to different cities or move in with family/friends. For some, the loss of homes lead people to move to the street their old – vacated – home was on. These streets featured tents from small tents to freshly built architecture partaking in the protest with signage and other propaganda (Fig. 1; Frankel). The gradient of rhetoric a particular protestor implemented varied from just the body rhetoric to adding statements focused to attract citizens to the protest. The protest was focused around the identities of being Israeli and lower socioeconomic status. These identities morphed the style and rhetoric of the movement to add protestors to build a more powerful movement. The movement’s effectiveness was the result of the specific rhetoric implemented by the protestors to showcase their goals of inclusivity to drive collective action.

            As mentioned before, a demonstration the collective performed was a form of tent sit-in that included signs and handmade tents. An iconic tent was built on the corner of Rothschild and Tahrir for its mentions the protestors new home being that very spot (Frankel). The tent offers as a station to show any bystanders that see the tents’ existence. The tent was made with bright colors and posted signs that said “the corner of Rothschild and Tahrir” (Frankel). It could be assumed the residents of the neighborhood and the people of Israel can already understand where the tent was located. The location wasn’t the purpose. The purpose was the sign acted as a form of possession on that street corner. The street corner (which was previously accessible to everyone) was claimed by a protestor who couldn’t afford to live in their own house or apartment because of the cost of living. That street corner became the home of a protestor as a way to make a statement advocating for social justice. Social justice, the concept that is both a process and a goal, holds value in the idea that every person has a home – home meaning something different than a house/apartment. Since owning a house/apartment wasn’t feasible for this protestor at the time, they decided to make their home in the middle of the street. This location was a strategic form of body rhetoric in order to exemplify their lower socioeconomic status to the other citizens of Israel.

            Identifying with a lower socioeconomic status added to the ethos of the protestor’s demonstration and bolstered the body rhetoric. That specific identity allowed the government and the Israeli people in general to see the injustices a person faced with a lower SES. There isn’t much luxury or security by living in a tent on the street; the average person would only live in a tent if it was a last resort. This put a heightened pressure on the Israeli government because it indicated the people of Israel were not in a comfortable place. A place of comfort for all citizens is the goal for every government established in the world. The discomfort being displayed by the protestor on the street of Rothschild should have itself brought alarm/concern the government. The protestor can’t afford housing costs. The protestor showcasing their financial struggles gave the audience the possibility to see the social injustices the cost of living placed on the citizens of Israel.

            As the people view the protestors with the identity of lower SES, the logos of the protest is strengthened by the kairos of the protest. The protest made the clear argument the inability to afford a house/apartment was a negative consequence of the government’s lack of focus/reactive sense of the ongoing rise in the cost of living. An addition to the argument came from the second sign on the tent translating to “Revolution” (Frankel). That message connected the economic problems of Israel to the reasoning behind the protest. Protests aren’t the first reaction to a problem such as the economy crashing. The written language (in Hebrew) sent the message to the people (and subsequently the government) that the revolution was Israel’s mistake. The Israeli government didn’t focus on the social issues that needed to be addressed. The Kairos of the tent was crucial to understanding the purpose of the tent. Pitching a couple wood planks and a tarp during any other time would not have connected the tent with any issue. Pitching the tent at the time when people were losing their homes in the street connected the tent with those losses. The extreme scenario of living in a tent put urgency on the economic crisis in hope of the Israeli would produce new policies to help its constituents. Otherwise, the Israeli government would have failed its people.

Figure 2. Protestors of the tent protest

            The Israeli people that felt victimized by the government enough to participate in the protest shared the identity of being Israeli. The Israeli identity was a strong one that connected and unified a multitude of individuals together during the protest. The protestors would wear the Star of David during the protest in order to show their identity (Fig. 2; Hartman). Displaying that symbol connects the protestors with the Israeli identity and thus forces to Israeli government to claim fault for the cause of the social injustice. The Israeli protestors share the same roots and values as those running the government would feel connected with them. It strengthens the ethos appeal to achieve social justice. Anyone can criticize a government’s policies. The government wouldn’t particularly listen unless the criticisms are from their constituents. That’s the goal achieved by unifying the protest. The identity of the protestors will have the government officials listen to them in order to progress the economy to the point where people can by homes again. The identities of the protest elicit the ethical appeal for the presented inclination of social justice.

            The argument around the tent movement evoked appeal to its audience from various lenses except the pathos lens. From analyzing the artifacts of the Israel tent protest of 2011, there was a lack of emotional appeal to drive the movement forward. The movement unified groups of people because of the identity they shared. The movement lacked elements to link the protest with emotion. The tent protest was a peaceful protest that lacked emotionally-charged language, lacked strong verbal rhetoric, and even lacked emotionally inducing symbolism/imagery. The argument presented by the protestors wasn’t support by pathos appeal.

            Other than not possessing pathos, the tent protest movement present a decent argument and showed promise with a unified identities holding the protest together. The tents at the protest established a physical presence that couldn’t be moved easily. Those tents were occupied by protestors who made it clear that was their new home. The protestors wanted the Israeli government to understand that the tent was their new home because of the lack of focus on social issues. The protestors felt victimized by lack of resources that they felt the need to explicitly call for a revolution. The tents were to make a statement that protestors were subsequentially denied safety and comfort by government policy and management. The Israeli people felt there was a lack of focus on themselves so they made the focus on them. The people pitched tents in the middle of the streets to force the focus upon them. The civil disobedience from the protestors was the purposefully timed method taken to initiate the conversation focalize on social justice– to initiate the process and achieve the goal.

Works Cited

Frankel, Rafael. “After the Arab Spring, Israel Gets Its Own Protest Movement.” The Atlantic. 3 August 2011. Web.

Hartman, Ben. “Protesters call for affordable housing in Tel Aviv tent demonstration reminiscent of 2011.” The Jerusalem Post. 1 March 2015. Web.