Briggs
Spencer Carhart
Dr.
Stephanie Brown, PhD
ENGL
306
3
November 2016
Israel Tent Protest: Historical and
Rhetorical Context
Historical
Context:
In July 2011, Daphne Leef initiated
a movement by pitching a tent on Rothschild Boulevard in Tel Aviv, Israel. Leef,
at the time, utilized her tent strategy in response to losing her home due to
the increase in the cost of living in Israel (Kershney). The high cost of
living also appeared to have affected a multitude of Israeli individuals for
they gathered in the Rothschild Boulevard with Daphne Leef accompanied with
tents of their own (Shaley 164). These tents filled the town to stand against
the deterioration of social justice with causes ranging from a disheveled
government affected the Palestine-Israel conflict to rising nationalism.
The breakdown of the Israeli
societal infrastructure sparked a public outrage seeded by a woman and a tent.
Daphne Leef didn’t exert an excessive amount of rallying to form the collective.
Leef created a Facebook event to notify her friends and family of her current
status (homeless) and asked for support (Rosenberg & Lior). The support
Leef received was not just in Facebook likes, but also an army of tents pitched
up alongside her to also combat the cost of living. The cost of living at the
turn of the decade was reported to rise around a national average of about 30%
to reports of around 50% in the area of Tel Aviv (Shaley 163). The drastic
increase is what initiated the protest, but reverting to cost to living would
require reverting years of conflict with Israel.
Israel has been in a conflict with
Palestine since the late 19th century (Azoulay 87). The conflict revolved
around the territory of each state and the control of major regions bountiful
for harvest and other uses. The Palestine-Israel conflict has left the focus of
Israeli government in shambles. The Israeli government has tried to propose
peace treaties to no avail and provides little contributions to the Israeli
market (Bresheeth 42). The conflict exists as a distractor for the government
when it comes to fixing social justice issues, such as civil healthcare,
education and particularly housing.
Those social justice issues being
resolved and properly handled by the government are the goals of the Israel tent
protest. Those are the goals that elicited the motivation for individuals to
partake in the protest; however, the Israel-Palestine conflict evoked nationalism
during the protest (Marteu 13). Nationalism is the prideful focus of one’s own
nationality that was evoked from the Arab immigration (Gordon 42). Around the Mediterranean,
a large number of individuals who identified as Arabian immigrated to Israel
(Bresheeth 41). The people of Israel were already in disarray with the conflict
with Palestine that the Arab influx overwhelmed the political system. The
Israeli government was preoccupied with the Palestine Liberation Organization
and the Arab League that issues including healthcare initiatives, education
reform and the housing market fell off the platform (Marteu 3).
The lack of care towards the social
issues created a greater sense of nationalism that plagued most of Israeli
people (Dery 349). The Israel tent movement was in crisis at the moment
nationalism became an accepted idea by the protestors (Dery 349). The
conversations changed from “improvements to government” to “anti-government.”
This ideology wasn’t an issue for the protest itself since there wasn’t much
physical action directed at the government than just pitching tents. The issue
arose when anarchists began hijacking parts of the protest to exemplify their
anarchist viewpoints (Hallward 111-112). The protestors condemned the
anarchists hijacking the scene, so there wasn’t much issue for the first few
cases. The issue comes from the confusion that the general public began
experiencing.
Unless a people on the outside of
the protest were up-to-date on most of the goals of the movement, they would be
confused. The protest only existed as a tent sit-in movement. The protest wasn’t
explicitly violent (Hallward 112). There wasn’t direct picketing on government
square. There wasn’t massive chaos. People became confused what the end goal
was for the protest. The accumulation of tents at the inception of the protest
was a massive statement that triggered responses from around the globe. The
multitude of tents staying in one place not executing large amounts of action
was not seen as productive. There was a massive amount of support for the
protestors and their willingness to live in a tent for weeks, but no one
predicted change after a point.
During the sixth/final week, on the
last day of the protest, the government viewed the protest as irreverent, civil
disobedience and sent officers to force individuals to take down their tents
(Kernshey). The government at this time made no allegiance with Daphne Leef or
any of the other protestors concerning the issue. There wasn’t a change that signified
the protest achieved its goal. By the time the protest ended, the social
policies were not changed for the sake of the movement. However, the movement
remained in the media and support continued. The conversation was changed to
include issues of social justice and advocacy for government reform.
The government reform, according to
the protest, would put the people first instead of focusing on one of the
longest lasting conflicts in history. The support gained from Jewish
individuals, as well as those who don’t identify as Jewish, was an effective
outcome of the protest (Rosenberg & Lior). There was a change. Not an
explicit one in the bylaws of a state power, but a change embedded in the social
network of this generation. Tent protests have sprouted in various countries
and cities, including New York and Connecticut, in regards to the Israel tent
protest. For only occurring in 2011, the Israel tent protest made the issues of
Israel a topic of conversation and was already inserted into the literature as
a major movement for fighting for human rights in the state of Israel.
Rhetorical
Context:
The Israel tent protest rhetorically
exists as a collective that is does not mimic the intuitive methodology of the
more effective protests that have taken place in the recent decade since the
tent protest occurred in 2011. Typically, when thinking about the major protests
that greatly impacted businesses, states, or entire countries, there are consistent
elements that correlate to the effectiveness of the movement. The usual methods
could include direct communication to the protest’s audience, violence, etc
(Wallach 151). The methods of the Israel tent protest oppose the stereotypical methods
by including non-intuitive activising location, non-violence and inclusion with
a combination of identities (Marom 2827). The Israel tent protest didn’t
achieve its goals of having the cost of living reduced to a more reasonable
level, but the rhetoric has certainly made an impact in multiple regards.
Looking at the protest overall, it
was vastly known for the thousands of tents accumulating in the streets of Tel
Aviv – beginning with Rothschild Boulevard. Rothschild Boulevard has been
looked at and reviewed to analyze its relevance with the protest. Rothschild isn’t the main square of Tel Aviv.
Rothschild is a street of located “off-center stage” with respect to the
Israeli government. The protests in Israel beforehand with the Israeli government
being the targeted audience that have body rhetoric are usually located in the
city of Jerusalem (specified to the main square) (Haiman). The body rhetoric executed
in the Israel tent protest consisted of tents in the “non-iconic space” of
Rothschild Boulevard. The idea behind the non-iconic space was it gave a “fresh
experience” to a protest (Marom 2828). Individuals are used to the iconic main
square picketing, but starting a movement in front of someone’s old home establishes a more emotional
connection to the protest. Usually, people see a “stereotypical” protest and
become desensitized to the protest (Marom 2839). The tent camps established a
setting that those people would be more likely to notice the meaning of the
protest as well as feel more inclined to join (Marom 2840).
Joining the tent movement at the
beginning stages of the protest was mostly motivated by people identifying with
the Israeli culture (Tal 151). The tent in Israel culture is significant in forming
a community or collective known as kibbutz
(Gavron 291). New settlements in Israel (especially in the 1920s) focused
were started with tents (Gavron 291). It’s typical for a new settlement to
start out with tents, but for the Israeli culture, the individuals are taught
to associate the tent with a home. That feeling of home gave a connection to
the Israeli identity to make a stronger appeal for social justice. The collective
was able to form because of a more empathetic support system. The group
understood the meaning of the tent together and were able to seamlessly join
the collective.
The concept of the Israeli identity
is different than that of the Jewish identity (Tal 150). There were reports of the
tent protest gathering momentum in other countries because of the Jewish
identity but there is more rooted to the Israeli identity that gives tent
protest its uniqueness. The people of Israel have been in conflicts and been
close with the land of the “biblical kingdom” (Tal 151). The Israeli people
feel a more specific connection that drove the movement forward – how a tent on
one became thousands.
Though the Israeli identity brought
meaning behind the protest, the reason for the tent camps starting was for the cost
of living to increase by a drastic number (Shaley 161). That problem then
evoked the empathy of the Israeli citizens who identified with a lower socioeconomic
status. Those people felt the struggles of living with little to no luxury and that
any effort to achieve comfort in the poor, fiscal state of Israel was
fruitless. Those identifying with a lower socioeconomic status, and perhaps
with the status of homelessness as well, were more willing to devote their time
to pitch a tent (Arnold 190).
The movement was able to
successfully form a collective group of individuals (up to thousands) on
streets around Tel Aviv, but the movement was mostly noted for its lack of
agenda-setting (Dery 38). Agenda setting is the stage where a movement decides (usually
from the leaders) what the goals of the movement are. Agenda setting itself is
a rhetorical goal for theoretically should resonate throughout the protestors
so they are all on the same page (Dery 38). It helps establish the words to
implement, the locations to perform body rhetoric, the dates to move, etc. The
Israel tent protest never executed any agenda setting. Without it, the
protestors, and subsequently the targeted audience, didn’t understand what was
being executed for what purpose. The purpose behind the diction and body
rhetoric wasn’t obvious. There weren’t any guidelines for the Israeli
government to follow so the protest was disbanded (Kershney).
It’s not intuitive to think that a
group with a strong Israeli and low SES identity would fail to promote any
collective political action. This collaborated with the theory behind the
identity-proposition, meaning identity is an important aspect of protest
behavior (Opp 70). This connection between identity and action was thought to
have a bolstering effect when looking at protest movements. It’s been studied
and reviewed that an increase in identity decreases the amount of political
action that is executed during a protest (Opp 70). This theory explains the protest
well since there is the strong identity associated with the tent movement, but
there wasn’t action executed. The reasoning behind this theory was the
identity-proposition holds a marginal benefit/cost effects (Opp 75). This
effect is when increases in goods leads to marginal benefits until a certain
point when more increases in goods have marginal costs. In the case of the
Israel tent protest, an increase in the identity is good until the point where
people focus on the idea of being included in the collective more than the end
goals of the collective. The view becomes inward more than outward. This inward
view deteriorated initial goals of the movement and nothing specifically
directed towards the Israeli government was executed.
Since there wasn’t a seen effect
with the Israel tent protests, the movement was viewed by outsiders as civil
disobedience. This opened the opportunity for anarchists to hijack the movement
because it could be easily skewed to be presented as anti-democratic. The
movement would condemn those individuals (Hallward 130). This implies the
protestors understood was the movement was not about but the protestors never
explicitly stated was the movement was actually about. There was a lack of
executive direction from the protest leaders.
With lack of boundaries established
for the protest, the final stages of the movement lost its sense of true
identity. The movement opened the gates of acceptance for Palestine individuals
who also identified with socioeconomic status (Allweil 43). This opening
expectedly increased the number of people pitching up tents, but the pure
Israeli identity of the protest was compromised. This swayed the protest from
both Israeli and low socioeconomic status to just low socioeconomic status. In
this last week, the conversation changed (Allweil 181). The rhetoric changed
from Israel people feeling victimized from the decisions of the Israeli
government to being forced into the category of low SES to how everyone should
have equal opportunity for anything they desire. This wasn’t an intended
effect. This wasn’t foreseen by the protestors. It was a time where the
conflict between the Palestinian people and the Israeli people didn’t matter
and the voice was to speak for humankind in general.
The Israel tent protest changed the
world’s view of how people should be treated by a governing body. The failure of
acting politically was from the lack of agenda-setting and increased identity,
but the protesting opening up to include Palestinians was an effective way of
changing the stagnant rhetoric of the tent protest. The newer conversation of
social justice around both Israeli and Palestine individuals emerged. The cost
of living didn’t go down, but the Israel tent movement did well in executing a
movement that placed focus on the social issues in the streets of Israel.
Works Cited
Allweil,
Yael. "Surprising alliances for dwelling and citizenship:
Palestinian-Israeli participation in the mass housing protests of summer 2011." International Journal of Islamic
Architecture 2.1 (2013): 41-75.
Arnold,
Kathleen R. Homelessness, Citizenship,
and Identity: Culture and Community in the Industrial Workers of the World.
SUNY Press, 2012. Print.
Azoulay,
Ariella, and Adi Ophir. The one-state
condition: occupation and democracy in Israel/Palestine. Stanford University
Press, 2012. Print.
Bresheeth,
Haim. "The Arab Spring: A View from Israel." Middle East Journal of Culture and Communication 5.1 (2012): 42-57.
Dery,
David. “Agenda setting and problem definition.” Policy Studies 21.1 (2000): 37-47.
Gordon,
Uri. "Israel's ‘tent protests’: The chilling effect of nationalism." Social Movement Studies 11.3-4
(2012): 349-355.
Gavron,
Daniel. The kibbutz: Awakening from
utopia. Rowman & Littlefield, 2000. Print.
Haiman,
Franklyn S. "Rhetoric of the Streets: Some Legal and Ethical
Considerations." Readings in the Rhetoric of Social Protest. Browne,
Stephen Howard, and Charles E. Morris III, eds. State College, PA: Strata
Publishing, Inc., 2013.
Hallward,
Maia, and Julie M. Norman, eds. Nonviolent
resistance in the second intifada: Activism and advocacy. Springer, 2011.
Print.
Kershney,
Isabel. “Summer of Protest in Israel Peaks with 400,000 in City Streets.” New
York Times: Sept. 3rd 2011. Web. Accessed: Oct 23 2016.
Marom,
Nathan. "Activising space: the spatial politics of the 2011 protest
movement in Israel." Urban Studies
(2013): 2826-2841.
Marteu,
Elisabeth. Civil organizations and
protest movements in Israel: mobilization around the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. Springer, 2009. Print.
Opp,
Karl-Dieter. "Collective identity, rationality and collective political
action." Rationality and society
24.1 (2012): 73-105.
Rosenberg,
Oz and Ilan Lior. “Some 450,000 Israelis March at Massive 'March of the
Million' Rallies Across Country.” Haaretix. September 3rd, 2011.
Web. Accessed: October 30, 2016.
Shalev,
Michael. "The economic background of the social protest of summer
2011." State of the nation report:
Society, economy and policy in Israel 2012 (2011): 161-220.
Tal,
David, ed. Israeli identity: between
Orient and Occident. Routledge, 2013. Print.
Wallach,
Yair. "The politics of non-iconic space: Sushi, shisha, and a civic
promise in the 2011 summer protests in Israel." European Urban and Regional Studies 20.1 (2013): 150-154.
Questions:
1)
Are
there any sentences that a. Don’t make sense or b. Too long that it is
torturous?
2)
Does
the context of the Palestine-Israel conflict seem relevant for the Israel tent
protest?
3)
Does
the content of rhetorical context thesis relate back to its thesis? Like is the
content on track and “flow” well?
No comments:
Post a Comment