Sunday, December 4, 2016

Research Project Final Draft - Israel Tent Protest

Briggs Spencer Carhart
Dr. Stephanie Brown, Ph.D
ENGL 306
4 December 2016
Israel Tent Protest
            In July 2011, Daphne Leef initiated a movement by pitching a tent on Rothschild Boulevard in Tel Aviv, Israel, in response to losing her home due to the cost of living increase in Israel (Kershney). Leef was noted as a “regular citizen” of Tel Aviv – not an activist, militant, or radical foreseen to act in a physical protest (Rosenberg & Lior). 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 (Shalev 164). These tents filled the town for 6 weeks before dismantling to stand against the deterioration of social justice. Analysts looked at this protest because it was one of the major contemporary protests that recruited a large percentage of the population. It was evident that the protest was a stand between the Israeli people and the Israeli government (Shalev 164). The tension between the people and the government was viewed as a consequence from the Palestine-Israel conflict and the crescendo of nationalism emitting from the Israeli people. These issues and occurrences added to the economic troubles the population was facing to give the people a reason to protest.
            The Israel tent protest possessed historical factors that lead to its existence, but another question surrounds the rhetorical efforts of the movement. Examples of the tents of the protest didn’t explicitly mention the audience. The movement was on the passive end of the spectrum in terms of the style of body rhetoric implemented (Haiman). Though, the specific rhetoric exemplified was viewed under a lens to correlate with the movement’s identity. It was assumed that the growing identity hindered the movement from attaining a lower the cost of living (Opp). Though there was a historical foundation that assists in understanding the formation of the movement, the collective identity and rhetoric implemented controlled the effectiveness of the movement’s methods.
            The breakdown of the Israeli societal infrastructure sparked a public outrage. 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 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. There were reports about a national average of about a 30% increase in the cost of living but there were also reports of a 50% increase in the cost of living in 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.
            The land shared between Israel and Palestine has never been rightfully declared by either nation which has evoked tension for the past few decades (Azoulay 87). The conflict revolved around this territory for the land was 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 that lead to no avail and the economic troubles progressed (Bresheeth 42). The financial troubles the population encountered were never seen as an explicit effect from the dissension between the two states. 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, many individuals who identified as Arabian immigrated to Israel (Bresheeth 41). There wasn’t any major efflux of citizens in Israel, but with the major influx of individuals, the population grew drastically in Israel (Bresheeth 41). 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. These anti-government hijackers pitched their own tents in the large crowd and pitched signs and shouted about government conspiracy relating to issues other than housing and social justice (Hallward 111-112). These tactics and issues were not associated with the peaceful tent protest. The Israel tent 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. Thousands 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 change was (expectedly) not sensed or experienced by the protestors.
            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 (Kershney). There isn’t any documentation for violence and the protestors were compliant with the police orders (Kershney). The government at this point in the protest timeline did not make any sort 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 aspired 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. However, the protest was viewed as not being entirely effective when looking at the rhetoric implemented and the actions taken.
            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 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 more specific than that of just the Jewish identity (Tal 150). There were reports of the tent protest gathering momentum in other countries because of the Jewish identity but the Israeli identity was more connected to the movement because of the people of Israel actually experienced the struggles that lead to the movements formation. The people of Israel have been in conflicts and been close with the land of the “biblical kingdom” (Tal 151). The Israeli people do practice Judaism but there was a deeper connection that drove the movement forward – how a tent of 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). Each tent sent a message and they were clear and obvious to the community.
           
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 identity 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 sub-sequentially 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 on them. That was an effective method to
            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 behavior1 (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 (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 what the movement was not about but the protestors never explicitly stated was the movement was about. There was a lack of executive direction from the protest leaders.

1Opp concluded that when individuals in a collective action have a stronger connection with the identity that there is less focus on the action. All the focus is on the identity. The more individuals holding that strong identity, then the protest loses individuals that could instead be executing action
            With a lack of boundaries established for the protest, the final stages of the movement lost its sense of 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 Israeli identity of the protest was compromised. The cause for the acceptance of the Palestine community into the protest was because the Palestinians expressed support near the later weeks of the protest. This had a major effect on the number of individuals participating in the protest. Palestinians saw a gain in the protest, so their support grew as the protest formed. This change in dynamic 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.
            The Israel tent protest changed the world’s view of how people should be treated by a governing body. It exemplified the negative effects of a government paying too much attention on foreign affairs that a loss of focus on the people the government if governing occurs. This is what established a strong identity in the protest though. The protestors felt victimized by the government that they felt the need to start the tent movement. However, this strong identity lead to the failure of acting politically was from the lack of agenda-setting. The protest opening to include Palestinians was a way of changing the stagnant rhetoric of the tent protest by adding more people, but this initiated the dismantling by the police force because of the large number of people. Even though it was dismantled, a 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 – all from a single tent.





















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.
Frankel, Rafael. “After the Arab Spring, Israel Gets Its Own Protest Movement.” The Atlantic. 3 August 2011. Web.
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.
Hartman, Ben. “Protesters call for affordable housing in Tel Aviv tent demonstration reminiscent of 2011.” The Jerusalem Post. 1 March 2015. Web.
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.

No comments:

Post a Comment