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.
