FRAMING AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A CASE-STUDY ON THE ISRAELI J14 MOVEMENT
Master thesis
Merel Heupers
Student number: 10659242
MSc Political Science – Public Policy and Governance
University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences
Supervisor: dr. Farid Boussaid
Second reader: dr. Dimitris Bouris
Word count: 16.300
Date: 22 June 2018
1 Table of Contents
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ...... 3 CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ...... 6 2.1 Defining social movements ...... 6 2.2 The emergence of social movements ...... 7 2.3 Social movement characteristics ...... 8 2.4 Social movement theories ...... 9 2.5 Social movements and framing theory ...... 10 2.6 Collective action frames ...... 11 2.7 Core framing tasks ...... 12 2.8 Frame alignment processes ...... 14 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ...... 18 3.1 An interpretive method: frame analysis ...... 18 3.2 Conducting a case study: pros and cons ...... 19 CHAPTER FOUR: THE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL BACKGROUND OF ISRAEL . 21 4.1 The security situation ...... 21 4.2 The decline of the welfare state ...... 22 CHAPTER FIVE: THE INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT ...... 25 5.1 Turmoil in the Middle East ...... 25 5.2 Global dissent ...... 25 CHAPTER SIX: FRAME ANALYSIS ...... 27 6.1 DIAGNOSTIC FRAMING ...... 27 6.1.1 Identifying the problem ...... 27 6.1.2 Apportioning blame ...... 29 6.2 PROGNOSTIC FRAMING ...... 30 6.2.1 Strategies and tactics ...... 30 6.2.2 Offering solutions ...... 33 6.3 MOTIVATIONAL FRAMING ...... 34 6.4 FRAME BRIDGING ...... 36 6.5 FRAME AMPLIFICATION ...... 37 6.5.1 Value amplification ...... 38 6.5.2 Belief amplification ...... 39 6.6 FRAME EXTENSION ...... 39 6.6.1 Enlarging frames ...... 39 6.6.2 A lack of frame extension? ...... 41 6.7 FRAME TRANSFORMATION ...... 42 CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION ...... 44 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 46
2
Chapter one: introduction
In the summer of 2011, the largest political mobilisation in the history of the nation of Israel took place (Schipper 2015: 1141). Hundreds of thousands of people throughout the country united, holding various political viewpoints and representing different socio-economic classes. What started as a protest against the lack of affordable housing, soon developed into a widely supported movement addressing all kinds of socio-economic issues. Citizens took to the streets to protest against the consequences of decades of neoliberal policies. Demonstrations all over Israel were characterised by the slogan “the people demand social justice!” (Wallach 2012: 152). Over the last decades, public discourse in Israel had centred around security matters, while socio-economic matters were pushed aside (Schipper 2015: 1141). Yet, in 2011, a newly emerged movement managed to put socio-economic grievances at the top of the national agenda. This movement went by the name of the ‘J14 movement’, referring to July 14, the day the first protest started (Sasley 2012). The J14 movement is an example of a social movement. Social movements have become a highly studied phenomenon among social scientists, as they provide important insights into mobilisation processes and can have a profound effect on how societies are organised (Johnston 2014: 153). Many theories on social movements exist. One of these approaches concerns framing theory. It involves the use of framing by social movements in order to mobilise both consensus and support (Klandermans 1984: 586). According to Coy (2007), the degree to which social movements make use of frames, determines their success (204). Snow and Benford (1988) have categorised different framing types used by social movements, known as the core framing tasks and frame alignment processes (199). This thesis seeks to gain insights in framing activities of social movements. Therefore, a case- study on the framing activities of the Israeli J14 movement is conducted. A frame analysis is carried out as part of this case-study, which focuses on understanding how meanings are shaped by the movement. The central research question of this thesis is as follows:
In what ways has the J14 movement made use of framing to mobilise consensus and support?
3 The central question of this thesis had led to the following sub-questions: 1) In what context did the J14 movement emerge? 2) Which core framing tasks are used by the J14 movement, and how are these expressed? 3) Which frame alignment processes are used by the J14 movement, and how are these expressed?
A rich literature can be found on framing theory within the field of social movements (Benford and Snow 2000: 613). Although it is a relatively young theory, it has attracted much attention from scholars (ibid.). The theoretical framework of this thesis takes a closer look at social movement framing theory, elaborating on the core framing tasks and alignment processes as formulated by Snow and Benford. Many studies have focused on examining framing activities of social movements. Yet, it is beyond the scope of this thesis to review the large number of available articles on the topic. In its broadest sense, this study seeks to add to the existing literature on framing theory within the field of social movements. By conducting a case-study, insights are gained into how social movements make use of framing. More specifically, this thesis seeks to add on the existing literature about the Israeli J14 movement. While some scholars have studied the J14 movement since its emergence in 2011, it remains an understudied topic up until today. Few studies on the J14 movement have been carried out by scholars, all highlighting different aspects. Wallach (2012) examined how the J14 movement made use of public spaces (150). By doing so, he concluded that protesters made use of iconic national spaces, which became symbols of unity, appealing to all kinds of sectors in a fragmented society (ibid.: 153). Allweil (2013) studied how the housing issue was able to unite different groups in Israeli society (41). As Israel was founded with the idea that the Jewish people would find a ‘national home’, she argued that it stood in stark contrast with the housing problems of 2011. In conclusion, Allweil argued that housing became a symbol of the social struggle for equality by Israeli citizens (66-67). Grinberg (2013) examined the emergence of the J14 movement in light of the level of external threats to Israel (491-492). He described how the movement was able to emerge in a period when external threats to Israel had diminished. However, when these threats increased, Grinberg argued that the movement was unable to maintain support (ibid.).
4 Schipper (2016) conducted a case-study on the J14 movement to examine whether it had succeeded in pushing forward a “post-neoliberal mode of housing regulation” (1137). He concluded that while there had been some changes in housing policies, the movement was unable to challenge the Israeli neoliberal policies regarding the issue of housing (ibid.: 1152: 1153). The use of framing by the J14 movement is an aspect which has not yet been addressed in the existing literature. Accordingly, this thesis seeks to fill this gap. By studying the framing activities of the J14 movement, insights are gained into the ways in which the movement was able develop itself and form a large base of supporters. The following chapter provides a theoretical framework that outlines the concepts and theory used in this thesis. A first concept that is defined is social movements. In addition to providing a definition of this term, the emergence of social movements, their characteristics and theories on social movements are discussed. Subsequently, the chapter takes a closer look at framing theory within the field of social movements. This includes an outline of the framing types as formulated by Snow and Benford. Likewise, the concept of framing is defined. The third chapter describes the methodology of this study, including its limitations and advantages. The fourth chapter describes the national context in which the J14 movement was able to emerge. In addition, the fifth chapter provides an overview of the international context, which very likely inspired the J14 movement. The sixth chapter of this thesis is the frame analysis, in which several framing activities of the J14 movement are identified. Finally, it is concluded that the J14 movement made use of all core framing tasks and alignment processes to generate consensus and support among Israeli citizens. By choosing to emphasise certain frames, the J14 movement managed to gain widespread support and to become the centre of attention.
5 Chapter two: theoretical framework
2.1 Defining social movements
The J14 movement, as studied in this thesis, is a type of a social movement. Therefore, an understanding of what social movements are is needed. Social movements are a phenomenon that has attracted much attention from academics working within the field of social science. As the literature on social movements is broad and extensive, various definitions of the term have been provided by scholars. This thesis tries to grasp the core of what a social movement is by looking at the definitions formulated by Tilly, Tarrow and Diani. These are some of the most well-known scholars within the field of social movements, as they have made significant contributions to its literature. They all have conceptualised the term ‘social movement’ in their own way, highlighting different aspects. However, the common core of their definitions, is that they all require some form of collective action and that they seek to change or resist a certain situation in society. According to the definition provided by Tilly (1982), a social movement is “a sustained series of interactions between powerholders and persons successfully claiming to speak on behalf of a constituency lacking formal representation, in the course of which those persons make publicly-visible demands for changes in the distribution or exercise of power, and back those demands with public demonstrations of support” (1982: 26). Thus, when following Tilly’s definition, social movements comprise a few specific characteristics. Tilly stated that people who form a social movement socially interact in specific ways as they want to achieve a certain goal. They aim to challenge a certain situation that is established by the ones holding power. By doing so, social movements intend to change the existing power structure. They are not (yet) formally organised. Tilly emphasised that social movements publicly show their potential by means of the number of supporters. Likewise, they publicly display their demands in order to generate support and succeed. Tarrow (1998) has provided a less specific definition compared to the one of Tilly. He defines social movements as “collective challenges to elites, authorities, other groups or cultural codes, by people with common purposes and solidarity in sustained interactions with elites, opponents and authorities” (1998: 4). From this definition can be derived that he emphasises on the social interactions by which groups in society challenge each other. According to Tarrow, social movements emerge due to shifting conditions in society, which he names ‘political opportunity structures’ (1998: 32-33). He argues that collective
6 challenges towards other groups occur when political structures are altered, and opportunities are opened (ibid.). Tilly and Tarrow (2006) have studied social movements extensively together. They consider social movements as being part of contentious politics (2006: 438). They found many similarities between social movements and other forms of contentious politics. Yet, they argue that social movements emerged in a specific historical and social context and have certain characteristics that separate them from other forms of contentious politics, such as revolutions, civil wars and political violence (ibid.). Diani (1992) has systematically compared and reviewed divergent definitions of the term social movement (1). By doing so, he sought a convergence of the various formulated definitions. As a result, Diani has defined social movements as “informal networks created by a multiplicity of individuals, groups and organisations, engaged in political or cultural conflicts on the basis of a shared collective identity” (ibid.). In line with Tilly, he underlines that social movements are formed in an informal way, other than for example political parties, coalitions and interest-groups (ibid.). Different from the definitions of Tilly and Tarrow, is the emphasis on a shared collective identity. According to Diani, social movements form collective identities, a feeling of belonging to the same group, among individuals who hold more or less similar grievances (1992: 18).
2.2 The emergence of social movements
Social movements are not a new phenomenon. Scholars have located the earliest social movements in England and North America in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century (Tarrow 1998: 4; Tilly, in Arora 2014: 31.24). On the basis of several claims, Tilly regards the British Abolition movement as the first social movement ever. The term social movement was used for the first time in a written text in 1850, when the German sociologist Lorenz von Stein wrote about the French social movement emerging from the French revolution of 1789. The emergence of the first social movements went in hand with big political and economic changes in society. It was a time in which the first parliaments were formed and capitalist industrial economies were developed (Arora 2014: 31.24). At the end of the nineteenth century, people began to organise themselves into labour- and socialist movements in response to the negative socio-economic consequences of rapid capitalist industrialisation (Arora 2014: 31.24). Labour- and socialist movements are viewed
7 as the prototypes of social movements, and eventually they established themselves in the formal political sphere through the formation of political parties. Processes of democratisation and the development of civil and political rights made it much easier for citizens to unite themselves and challenge the status quo (ibid.). In today’s world, social movements are no longer exceptional. Citizens know well how to mobilise themselves and how to express their frustrations about many issues (Johnston 2014: 3). However, in many parts of the world, even in democracies, social movements still face repression from the established political orders.
2.3 Social movement characteristics
Many types of social movements exist. They manifest themselves in various forms and pursue different goals. However, they are all recognised by certain characteristics. According to Della Porta and Diani (2011), “social movements are characterised by their adoption of unusual forms of political behaviour” (4). As Tilly and Diani have pointed out, they are informally organised, outside the established political domain (Johnston 2014: 1). Its participants engage in activities that interrupt the daily routines of people (Della Porta and Diani 2011: 4). For social movements, conflict is a key element within societies. The tactics and practices of social movements are confrontational and disruptive, in order to make the voice of the protesters heard and to make sure the ones in power are pushed into doing something about perceived grievances (ibid.). The structures of social movements can be complex and therefore difficult to understand. They can consist out of various groups and organisations of different sizes, in which individuals are integrated and spurred to take action (Johnston 2014: 7). These different components interact with each other within network structures, which binds them together as a whole. They can be firmly and hierarchically organised, or they can consist out of loosely structured horizontal networks (ibid.). It is argued that social movements have an increasingly important function in twenty- first century societies (Johnston 2014: 153). According to Johnston they are “key forces of social change in the modern world” (ibid.: 1). They challenge the status quo, often with the goal of creating a more just and equal world. Johnston describes how many social movements increasingly target politicians and policymakers who are in the position to formally do something about perceived grievances and sets of demands. Thereby, they intend to influence
8 the established political order. Whereas social movements often emerge in the context of a nation-state and mainly focus on national issues, there are examples of social movements targeting the municipal, provincial and even transnational level too (ibid.: 49). Whereas the labour- and socialist movements of the nineteenth century are the prototypes of social movements, scholars have also identified many other types. Originally, social movements focussed on materialistic gains, such as improving the standard of living (Arora 2014: 31.26). However, since the second half of the twentieth century, researchers started to identify social movements focusing on non-materialistic issues too (Buechler 2013: 1). These issues involved, among others, environmentalism, the promotion of peace and human rights, civil rights and women’s rights (ibid.). Likewise, examples of movements were found which were supported by various classes in society, while movements of the past often spoke on behalf of a particular class, mainly the working class (Arora 2014: 31.26; Buechler 2013: 1). Efforts have been made by some theorists to categorise these ‘materialistic’ and ‘non-materialistic’ types, within ‘old social movements’ and ‘new social movements’ (Arora 2014: 31.26). However, others criticise these categorisations, as characteristics of social movements are often blurred, divergent and context-dependent (Buechler 1995: 447-448). Moreover, they argue that newly emerging movements do not necessarily focus on non- materialistic issues. Over the last decades, there were many examples of social movements that emerged due to materialistic grievances (Johnston 2014: 145-147).
2.4 Social movement theories
History has shown that movements of different types have been successful in pursuing their goals, thereby changing society considerably. Social movement researchers have an important task in studying social movements in order to examine in which ways societies are changing (Johnston 2014: 1). In order to study of social movements, scholars make use of several theories. By applying these theories, social movements researchers seek to explain the emergence and growth, the characteristics and goals, and the consequences of social movements. From a variety of theories, the better known approaches are relative deprivation theory, structural strain theory, resource mobilisation theory, political opportunity theory, collective behaviour theory, new social movement theory and framing theory. Since a frame analysis is used in this thesis, this chapter focuses on the latter theory. First, it is described how framing theory became a popular approach within the social
9 sciences. Second, the concepts frame and framing are defined. Next, it is explained how social movement researchers make use of framing theory to understand the emergence and course of social movements. Subsequently, this chapter takes a closer look at framing theory. This includes an explanation of collective action frames, the core framing tasks and frame alignment processes. The description of the core framing tasks and frame alignment processes provides a theoretical basis upon which the frame analysis of this thesis is built.
2.5 Social movements and framing theory
Framing theory was developed by scholars when interpretivism made its appearance within the social sciences. In the 1990s, interpretivism became an increasingly popular perspective among social science researchers conducting qualitative research (Benford 1997: 409; Creswell 2014: 8). Interpretivism is an epistemological approach that is used by researchers to understand ‘what it means to know’ (Gray 2018: 19-20). In contrast to the positivist approach, interpretivism rejects the view that reality exists ‘external to the researcher’ and that this reality can be discovered. From an interpretivist perspective, truth and meaning are socially constructed. In their interactions with the world people construct their own meaning in different ways. As truth and meaning are subjective, people hold different worldviews (ibid.). According to Blumer (1969) “human beings act toward things on the basis of the meaning things have for them” (2). These subjective meanings are formed by continuous processes of social interactions between individuals (Creswell 2014: 8). They are time- and context-bound (Hudson and Ozanne 1988: 511). It is the aim of the researcher “to make sense of (or interpret) the meanings others have about the world” (Creswell 2014: 8). By using inductive approaches, researchers collect data in the field and generate meaning from it. Central to the interpretivist approach is the understanding of meaning (Benford 1997: 410). This endeavour can be complicated and sometimes even problematic as meaning is “negotiated, contested, modified, articulated and rearticulated” all the time (ibid.). The increased interest of academics in the interpretivist perspective similarly led to a growing interest in framing theory. Framing theory has proved very useful in helping explain how people construct meaning (Wicks 2005: 335). The term frame was conceptualised for the first time by Goffman (1974) in his essay on Frame Analysis. He defines frames as “schemata of interpretation” that enable people to “locate, perceive, identify and label” their experiences (21). In this sense, frames are like lenses people look through in order to simplify and react to
10 their environment. Rein and Schön (1993) define the process of framing as “a way of selecting, organizing, interpreting and making sense of a complex reality” (146). It provides “guideposts for knowing, analysing, persuading and acting” (ibid.). In line with the definition of Rein and Schön, Gray (2003) argues that “framing involves shaping, focusing and organising the world around us” (11). By doing so, people derive meaning from both their own actions and from those of others. Although people continuously engage in framing, they are often not aware of it. Gray points out that while certain aspects are emphasised and highlighted, others are ignored (ibid.). According to Buechler (2000) we are “imparting meaning and significance to elements within the frame and setting them apart from what is outside the frame” (41). This selective process is particularly useful for persuasive purposes and has not remained unnoticed by politicians and policymakers. Citizens are persuaded to a certain point of view by politicians and policy makers using framing (Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid 2012: 142). Political- and policy positions are supported by frames and political- and policy controversies and conflicts are caused by conflicting frames (Rein and Schön 1993: 148). Frames are deliberately used to influence and steer specific political- and policy outcomes (ibid.). However, the deliberate use of framing for persuasive purposes does not confine itself to the established political order. Frames are to be found in strategic communications of all sorts organizational actors, such as journalists and news media channels, lobbyists and nongovernmental organisations (Matthes 2012: 249). Likewise, frames are used by social movements and activists. By framing specific issues social movements and activists try to make these issues part of the public discourse (Benford and Snow 2000: 627; Matthes 2012: 249). Social movement theorists consider framing as a strategy for social movements to mobilise participants, to criticise and challenge the established political and social order (ibid.).
2.6 Collective action frames
Framing theory became one of the most popular approaches among social movement scholars (Benford 1997: 410). According to Benford (1997) it has made significant contributions to the literature on social movements (410). Framing processes have come to be regarded “as a central dynamic in understanding the character and course of social movements” (Benford and Snow 2000: 611). Framing theory proved very useful in order to explain how grievances and feelings of injustice are constructed, how blame is attributed, to explain why people
11 participate in social movements and how they are mobilised, and what tactics and targets social movements use (Benford 1997: 410). Above all, social movement actors influence the interpretations of reality of human beings. They make use of frames to spur people into action (ibid.). However, people do not change their beliefs overnight and in general they are not easily brought into collective actions (Piven and Cloward 1979: 3-4). In order to make this happen, a considerable number of persons has to experience similar grievances for which they cannot hold themselves responsible. Individuals have to experience a shared sense of injustice before they decide to organise themselves collectively and do something about it (Snow and Benford 1992: 137). Although there are always existing grievances in society, they are not always perceived and enabled that way (Smelser 1963, in Arthur 2009: 3). “People perceive certain grievances as important at certain points of time” (ibid.). Framing is used successfully by social movements when some degree of popular discontent is transformed into clear grievances and feelings of injustice and when it finally results in mobilising individuals. Social movements use framing to link individuals to a collective cause. Snow and Benford (1992) have developed the concept of collective action frames which they define as “emergent action-oriented sets of beliefs that inspire meaning and legitimate social movement activities and campaigns” (137). They describe how collective action frames “underscore and embellish the seriousness and injustice of a particular social condition or redefine as unjust and immoral what was previously seen as unfortunate but perhaps tolerable” (ibid.). Thus, social movement actors are actively engaged in framing processes, which eventually results in products referred to as collective action frames (Benford and Snow 2000: 614).
2.7 Core framing tasks
Framing processes of social movements that eventually construct collective action frames are referred to as core framing tasks (Snow and Benford 1988: 199). By pursuing these core framing tasks, social movement actors foster both consensus mobilisation and action mobilisation (Klandermans 1984: 586). Consensus mobilisation is a process by which a social movement promotes shared viewpoints and goals among its potential members or supporters. Action mobilisation is a process through which people are mobilised to participate (ibid.). According Benford and Snow (2000) “the former fosters or facilitates
12 agreement whereas the latter fosters action, moving people from the balcony to the barricades” (615). Although consensus mobilisation does not always lead to action mobilisation, the latter is not possible without the former (Klandermans 1984: 586-588). The degree to which social movements engage in pursuing core framing tasks influences their overall success (Coy 2007: 204). Core framing tasks are divided into three components, named diagnostic framing, prognostic framing and motivational framing (Snow and Benford 1988: 199). (1) Diagnostic framing is the most researched and most important framing task since it lays the foundation on which the two other framing tasks are based (Coy 2007: 204). Social movements emerge because they aim to change a problematic situation or issue. Diagnostic framing identifies what the perceived problem is and decides who or what is to blame for it (Coy 2007: 204). It emphasises why there is a problem and why it needs a solution, who is a victim of the problem and by whom or by what it is caused (ibid). When identifying the problem, Gamson (1992) argues that social movements often adopt an ‘injustice frame’ (68). By using an injustice frame, its leaders frame a certain situation in which they find themselves as morally unacceptable (ibid.: 29-32). According to Gamson, framing something as morally unjust stimulates people to mobilise. As he argues, “injustice focuses on the righteous anger that puts fire in the belly and iron in the soul” (ibid.: 29-32). When the problem is identified, a next step is to agree on who or what should be blamed for it. As Benford and Snow (2000) argue, “since social movements seek to remedy or alter some problematic situation or issue, it follows that directed action is contingent on identification of the source(s) of causality, blame and/or culpable agents” (616). Although people often agree on what the perceived problem is, there is not always consensus on the apportioning of blame. This can create tensions and can lead to fragmentation within social movements (ibid.). (2) The task of prognostic framing is to offer possible solutions to the perceived and identified problem (Coy 2007: 204). In order to find out what can be done to solve the problem, prognostic framing particularly focuses on what action plans are brought up and agreed on by social movement actors. Prognostic framing involves the strategies and tactics of social movements. It can be hard for social movements to reach consensus about the right solutions and action plans. Due to different viewpoints and disagreements, social movements can consist of various factions, wings or social movement organisations. A social movement can be an overarching body, in which “factions still interact, recognising one another’s
13 indispensability”, while they “differ in terms of their prognostic framings and the techniques they advocate and employ” (Benford and Snow 2000: 617). (3) The third core framing task is named motivational framing. It involves social movements framing an issue in such a way that it sparkles motivation to take joint action among supporters (Lamertz, Martens and Heugens 2003: 88). According to Benford and Snow (2000) it provides “a call to arms or rationale for engaging in ameliorative collective action, including the construction of appropriate vocabularies of motive” (617). In this stage, social movements persuade their supporters “to take action on the movement’s behalf” (Einwohner 2002: 511). Gamson (1995) emphasises that agency plays a central role within this third framing task (90). People are made aware that they themselves are able to change their perceived undesired issue or situation. Social movements “empower people by defining them as potential agents of their own history” (ibid.). The view that something ‘must be done’ changes into ‘we can do something’ (ibid.). Yet, while individuals may sympathise with certain ideas and goals of a social movement, it does not necessarily lead them to actively participate in it. This is a next step that requires a considerable effort. When looking at this issue, Klandermans (1984) argues that people consider the costs and benefits of their potential actions (584-585). Therefore, motivational framing is concerned with convincing individuals that their participation is urgently needed in order to achieve the desired outcome (McAdam 1982: 52).
2.8 Frame alignment processes
Social movement researchers have been engaged in analysing distinct types of diagnostic, prognostic and motivational framing. However, alongside and overlapping with these core framing tasks, various frame alignment processes can be distinguished and examined too. Johnson-Cartee (2004) defines frame alignment as “the degree to which an individual’s interests, values, beliefs and goal states are congruent with the social movement’s stated ideology, objectives and activities (246). Frame alignment is of importance since “an individual’s worldview and the social movement’s stated worldview need to be complementary for the individual to be supportive of the social movement’s agenda” (ibid.). Snow, Rochford, Worden and Benford (1986) have defined the term in a similar way, but they included that frame alignment is applicable to both individuals and social movement organisations (464). Thus, in the process of frame alignment, different representations and
14 interpretations of various actors are linked (WRR 2012: 142). Different types of frame alignment can be distinguished. Together, these are described as frame alignment processes. These are strategic processes of communication interactions that are a prerequisite for movement participation (Benford and Snow 2000: 624; Snow et al. 1986: 464). Snow et al. (1986) have identified four frame alignment processes, referred to as frame bridging, frame amplification, frame extension and frame transformation (467). (1) The first alignment process, known as frame bridging, is “the linkage of two or more ideologically congruent but structurally unconnected frames regarding a particular issue or problem” (Snow et al. 1986: 467). Easier said, it is the process of identifying with, and reaching out to like-minded people, experiencing similar grievances, who are not yet connected to the same group. Frame bridging can take place at both the individual level and the organisational level. It occurs because people share certain grievances but lack the organisational capacity to do something about it by themselves or by their own group. They align themselves to emphasise their solidarity and to jointly pursue common goals. Frame bridging becomes possible as individuals or social movement organisations share their information with others and reach out to others by using their personal or group networks and various (social) media channels. Of all four frame alignment processes, frame bridging is the most well-known and most analysed process among social movement scholars (ibid.: 467- 468). (2) Frame amplification “involves the idealisation, embellishment, clarification or invigoration of existing values or beliefs” (Benford and Snow 2000: 624). Snow et al. (1986) argue that successful social movements keep redefining and strengthening their frames to attract new members and to hold on to or ‘reenergize’ the ones they already have (469). Thus, in the process of frame amplification social movements build on ideas which are already there. They strengthen their frames by value amplification and belief amplification. First, value amplification refers to the “identification, idealisation, and elevation of one or more values presumed basic to prospective constituents but which have not inspired collective action for any number of reasons” (ibid.). By emphasising certain values that people already hold, they become reminded of their relevance. While pursuing a specific goal, a social movement emphasises an appropriate value that appeals to people and encourages them to mobilise (Johnson-Cartee 2004: 247). The goals of a social movement can be multiple and they may change over time too. Therefore, it depends on the goal which value is emphasised (ibid.).
15 Second, belief amplification is “the process by which two separate ideational elements are linked together by a social movement in order to mobilise support for something or against something” (ibid.). In this process, the linkage between these ideational elements is boosted and exaggerated in order to reinforce or change people’s beliefs. While “values refer to the goals or end-states that movements seek to attain or promote, beliefs can be construed as ideational elements that cognitively support or impede action in pursuit of desired values” (Snow et al. 1986: 470). Snow et al. (1986) have described several kinds of beliefs that are of of significance to the mobilisation processes of social movements (470). These are beliefs about how serious perceived grievances and problems are, beliefs about who or what should be blamed for it, stereotypic beliefs about opponents and proponents, beliefs about the urgency of mobilising, the effectiveness of joint action, and the likelihood of change (ibid.). (3) The third frame alignment process is known as frame extension. In this process, social movements or social movement organisations try to broaden their scope beyond their primary interests (Benford and Snow 2000: 625). They address other issues and concerns and include them in their programme. By doing so, social movements and social or social movement organisations aim to reach out to potential supporters (ibid.). Although this alignment strategy is often used, the extension of a movement’s frame can lead to instability in the movement too, when movements leaders or participants do not approve (Babb 1996: 1046). According to Benford and Snow (2000) it “underscores the fact that movement framing processes are frequently contested and negotiated processes, not always under the tight control of movement elites, and that employing a particular alignment strategy does not always yield the desired results” (625). (4) The fourth and final alignment process is frame transformation. Social movements engage in this process when they are “promoting ideas and values that are antithetical to accepted lifestyles, beliefs, and values found within a given culture” (Johnson-Cartee 2004: 248). When this is the case, social movements must engage in frame transformation in order to become successful (Snow et al. 1986: 248). “New values may have to be planted and nurtured, old meanings or understandings jettisoned, and erroneous beliefs reframed in order to garner support and secure participation” (Johnson-Cartee 2004: 248). According to Benford and Snow (2000) frame transformation is about changing old meanings and generating new ones (625). When social movements engage in this process they proclaim that a certain condition that has long been disapproved but tolerated, is fundamentally unjust and no longer acceptable (Johnson-Cartee 2004: 248).
16 Frame transformation can be applied to domain-specific or global interpretive frames. Domain-specific frame transformations “seek dramatic changes in the status, treatment or activity of a category of people” (Snow et al. 1986: 474). On the contrary, the scale of global interpretive frame transformations is much larger. Global interpretive frame transformations seek to fundamentally change people’s worldviews (Johnson-Cartee 2004: 249). Up until now, frame transformation has been the least known and the least studied frame alignment process among social movement researchers (Benford and Snow 2000: 625).
17 Chapter three: methodology
3.1 An interpretive method: frame analysis
This thesis is based on an interpretive research method. By using this method, understanding how meanings are shaped and communicated is central to this study. A frame analysis is used in this thesis. Frame analysis is a widely used research method by which social constructions of reality are studied. As it is a relatively flexible research method, operationalisation is needed. First, the frame analysis in this study focuses on identifying and examining the core framing tasks as used by the J14 movement. These core framing tasks include diagnostic, prognostic and motivational framing. Second, the frame analysis identifies and examines the use of frame alignment processes by the J14 movement. These frame alignment processes are frame bridging, frame amplification, frame extension and frame transformation. By carrying out a frame analysis, this thesis shows how framing processes have enabled the J14 movement to emerge and take its course. Due to language limitations, it was not possible to analyse the direct correspondence of the J14 movement. A website and several Facebook pages were used by the movement to communicate. However, as the communication was in Hebrew, it did not lend itself for an accurate and in-depth analysis. The only Facebook page of the movement used for English communication, named the ‘Israel independent Press’, has been deactivated. Therefore, the choice was made to analyse English articles of Israeli newspapers reporting about the movement. By analysing the content of these articles, framing tasks and alignment processes as used by the J14 movement were identified. This decision was not ideal, since newspaper articles are already selections of information, framed by their authors. Accordingly, one could say the frame analysis in this thesis identifies ‘frames within frames’, which is a limitation of this study. Nevertheless, the selected articles were full of direct quotes from both protest leaders and participants and contained a large amount of valuable information for the analysis. Articles available in the online databases of two major Israeli newspapers were selected for analysis. These are the Haaretz and The Jerusalem Post, which publish both in Hebrew and in English. According to Israeli standards, the Haaretz is considered a liberal and politically left-of-centre newspaper that can take on oppositional positions (Haaretz 2001; Remnick 2011; Reuters 2007). By contrast, The Jerusalem Post is regarded as more mainstream and politically right-of-centre (Berenbaum and Skolnik 2007: 240;
18 Encyclopaedia Britannica 2017). By selecting articles of newspapers with different political preferences, an attempt is made to limit bias in the frame analysis. The emergence, course and aftermath of the J14 movement were well-reported by the newspapers. The total number of articles on the topic is too large to be examined in this thesis. Therefore, the time period examined for this analysis is from July 2011 until the end of October 2011. This is because the first protests emerged in July, and the social movements’ last activities of the year took place in October. Although the J14 movement had a short-lived revival in the summer of 2012, this time period is excluded due to a lack of time and resources in this study. The J14 movement arose from housing protests and is also referred to as the ‘social justice movement’. To include as many articles as possible, the English online databases were searched on the terms ‘Israel housing protest’, ‘J14’ and ‘Israel social justice protest’ within the selected time period. The search resulted in a total number of 435 articles, of which 323 articles by the Haaretz and 112 by The Jerusalem Post. Each article was scanned by the researcher, while searching for information relevant to the identification of frames. All information deemed relevant was noted, including quotes, key sentences and words. As the collected material was examined, core framing tasks and frame alignment processes as used by the J14 movement were identified. Found examples were categorised by type of frame task and process, after which the best considered examples were included in the description of the analysis.
3.2 Conducting a case study: pros and cons
The frame analysis is part of an in-depth case study on the Israeli J14 movement. According to Gerring (2011), a case study observes “a spatially delimited phenomenon over some period of time” (5). In this case study, the phenomenon involves the framing activities of J14 movement. This phenomenon is spatially bound to the State of Israel. The frame analysis is carried out within a specific time frame. A case study is defined by Gerring (2011) as an “intensive study of a single unit or a small numbers of units, for the purpose of understanding a larger class of cases (a population)” (6). This design has both advantages and disadvantages. A frequently heard criticism is that it is not possible to generalise from a single case study (Flyvberg 2006: 224). As a consequence, some scholars do not consider it a useful scientific method. Flyvberg goes against this criticism in his article on misunderstandings about case-study research.
19 Concerning the issue of generalisation, he mentions multiple examples of individual case studies from the past that eventually led to great discoveries and influential scientists (ibid.:225-226). Likewise, he argues that it is possible to generalise from a single case study, depending on “the case one is speaking of and how it is chosen” (ibid.: 225). Moreover, Flyvberg argues that generalisation is overrated, being just one of the many scientific pursuits of scholars. He notes that as science concerns the gaining of knowledge, generalisation is just one out of many ways by which researchers gain such knowledge (ibid.: 226-227). The aim of this thesis is not to make generalizable claims. The case of the J14 movement in Israel is atypical, due to the enduring conflict with the Palestinians and its hostile relations with many countries in the region. This situation is unique to Israel. Therefore, the aim of this thesis is to gain an in-depth understanding of a phenomenon in its specific and real-life context. According to Flyvberg (2011), the social sciences essentially exist only out of specific knowledge and context-dependent cases (224). He argues that “predictive theories and universals cannot be found in the study of human affairs. Concrete, context-dependent knowledge is, therefore, more valuable than the vain search for predictive theories and universals” (ibid.). Likewise, Eysenck (1976) notes, “sometimes we simply have to keep our eyes open and look carefully at individual cases – not in the hope of proving anything, but rather in the hope of learning something” (9). A major advantage of a case study is the possibility to carry out an in-depth study into a particular phenomenon (Gerring 2011: 16). In this context, depth refers to the detail, richness, profoundness and completeness of a study (ibid.).
20 Chapter four: the social and political background of Israel
In order to understand the context in which the Israeli movement could emerge, a brief overview is given of the social and political background of the country. By highlighting important events and processes, the security situation and the decline of the welfare state of the country are explained, which both affect the socioeconomic grievances of Israelis. To be able to do so, a step back in history is needed.
4.1 The security situation The starting point of this overview is near the end of the First World War (BBC 2018). In 1917, Britain conquered Palestine from the Ottoman Empire (BBC 2018). After the war, the area became a mandate of Britain. It was given the task to maintain order, while preparing the area for Arab independence. Yet, around the same time, a document known as the ‘Balfour Declaration’ was issued by Britain. In the declaration, the country expressed its support for the establishment of “a national homeland for the Jewish people” (BBC 2018). It was decided that Palestine would be most suitable for this ‘homeland’. The area was considered as the cradle of Judaism, referred to as the Holy Land. Likewise, the population of Palestine already included Jews, of which both original residents and migrants. The Balfour Declaration additionally declared that nothing should be done “which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities” (BBC 2018). However, when the State of Israel was declared in 1948, the majority of the Arab population living in the area was forced to flee to other areas (Sa’di and Abu-Lughod 2007: 2). In response, the Arab neighbouring countries launched an attack on the newly proclaimed state (BBC 2018). This war was eventually won by Israel. The United Nations proposed a partition plan for the area, which was rejected by the Arabs. Several border shifts, wars and other forms of political violence between Israelis and Arabs followed. It led to an enduring conflict, which has not been resolved up until today (ibid.). Most of the territory is nowadays part of the State of Israel. There are areas which, according to official treaties belong to the Arab ‘Palestinian State’. These include Gaza along the Southern coast and parts on the West Bank of the Jordan River (Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs 1994; Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs 1995). Yet, most Palestinian areas are indirectly controlled by Israel, either by economic or military means (Bhavnani, Miodownik and Choi 2011: 134; Lustick 1987: 170-171). Since the economic situation in Palestinian territories is bad, particularly in Gaza, its Palestinian residents face many socioeconomic
21 struggles (Chalabi 2013). In addition, Israel has imposed certain restrictions on the freedom of Palestinians (ibid.). Moreover, Israel has increasingly been building settlements in Palestinian areas on the West Bank, thereby undermining the Palestinian state (Lesch 1977: 26-27). For these reasons, the West Bank and Gaza are also referred to as the ‘Occupied Territories’ (ibid.). Israel faces several security threats (AIPAC 2018). Hamas, a Palestinian militant resistance movement, regularly launches missile strikes on Israeli territory (ibid.). Likewise, suicide attacks and stabbings have been carried out by Palestinians and Israeli Arabs as an act of resistance (Bar-Tal and Labin 2001: 265; The Times of Israel 2017). The latter are a minority of Arabs who did not flee the declared Israeli territory in 1948 (Bar’el 2004). Today, many of them have gained Israeli citizenship, but they are a marginalised group in the country. Some of them are Bedouins, living in the Negev desert. While living in Israel, Israeli Arabs can experience difficulties in identifying themselves with either Israelis or Palestinians (ibid.). Furthermore, Israel faces security threats from countries and actors in the region, such as Iran, Syria and the Lebanese militant group and political party Hezbollah (AIPAC 2018). The security situation is a major source of concern for the Israeli government and its citizens. For decades, the public discourse in Israel has centred around security issues (Wallach 2012: 151). Socio-economic issues were perceived to be subordinate to security threats, which are continuously present in Israeli society (ibid.). As a consequence, a substantial part of the state budget was spent on defense (Taub Center 2010). Under the guise of ‘safety first’, a large part of the collected taxes did not flow through to social services (ibid.). Yet, while Israeli citizens attached importance to their safety, the criticism arose that the government used the security situation as an excuse to cut public spending (Bronstein 2016). The feeling had arisen that citizens were “dominated by a politics of survival, of security emergencies” (ibid.). As a result, an increasing part of the population longed for more political attention to socioeconomic issues. The desire arose to shift the public discourse centred on security matters, to a discourse on social justice (ibid.). This sentiment proved a breeding ground for the development of the J14 movement.
4.2 The decline of the welfare state
During the first decades, Israel was “a social democracy with a strong commitment to social welfare” (Nir and Grey 2013). There was a sentiment of socialism and collectivism in Israeli society, as citizens felt like they were building a new and just society together (Schipper
22 2015: 1139; Shavit 2013: 161-162). The first governments led by the centre-left Mapai party established a welfare state (New Israel Fund Australia Foundation 2016). The Histradrut – the Israeli Labour Union, formed the beating heart of this model. It provided important social services to citizens, such as public housing, education, healthcare, pensions and sports. Furthermore, the Histadrut was Israel’s leading employer, as it built and managed factories throughout the country (ibid.). The Israeli economy was mainly led by the Histadrut and the government (Schipper 2015: 1139). Together, they produced over half of the national income (ibid.). At that time, income disparities in Israel were one of the lowest in the world (Nir and Grey 2013). Yet, not everyone was pleased with how society was structured. Some considered the Mapai regime and the Histadrut far too powerful (New Israel Fund Australia Foundation 2016). Citizens who did not work at one of the companies of the Histradrut, mostly Oriental Jews living in the peripheries, were not allowed access to public services. Likewise, setting up own factories was difficult for individuals, since the Israeli economy was very concentrated and closed (ibid.). In the late nineteen-sixties and nineteen-seventies, an unstable period of wars led to economic decline in the country, resulting in political discontent (Kumaraswamy 2013: 190). Furthermore, an Israeli middle- and upper class had developed over the years, which desired a more open, internationally- and market-oriented economy (Schipper 2015: 1139). In 1977, the right-wing Likud party won the elections (Schipper 2015: 1139). The Likud party aimed to limit the power of the Histadrut in the country, including the limiting of benefits that explicitly applied to its workforce (New Israel Fund Australia Foundation 2016). As Nir and Grey argue (2013), the “worldwide economic trend of neo-liberal capitalism” gained “a foothold in Israel”. Led by neoliberal ideologies, the new government took unprecedented measures to open up the economy and to dissolve the welfare state. Among other things, public enterprises were privatised, cuts on social services were implemented, foreign trade was stimulated and economic regulation was restricted (ibid.; Schipper 2015: 1140). Over the years, the Israeli economy developed into a full-grown consumer capitalist one (Schipper 2015: 1139). Various governments continued to pursue neoliberal policies, thereby limiting the influence of the state and the provision of social services to its citizens. The group of Israeli money makers became increasingly concentrated. Nir and Grey (2013) argue that the implemented policies eventually led to “a catastrophic cocktail of budget cuts and privatisations that has left education, welfare, healthcare and housing in shambles”.
23 Although Israel used to be a country in which inequalities among citizens were small, it had become one of the OECD countries with the largest levels of income inequality (OECD 2011). The erosion of the Israeli welfare state continued under the governments of Prime Minister Netanyahu (New Israel Fund Australia Foundation 2016). To illustrate this, he stated as follows: “we are going to reduce, streamline and downsize the public sector” (ibid.). As inequalities between the rich and poor increased and social safety nets disappeared, citizens began to feel dissatisfied with the situation (Schipper 2015: 1137). They realised something had to be done to halt further implementation of neoliberal policies. The socio-economic grievances of Israelis turned out to be a breeding ground for the emergence of the J14 movement.
24 Chapter five: the international context
The J14 movement arose in 2011, a year in which protests were abundant worldwide. To illustrate this, Time Magazine presented ‘the protester’ as its person of the year (Andersen 2011). Around the world, people decided to rise up against authoritarianism and against decades of neoliberal policies, which had reduced all kinds of social safety nets (Milanovic 2011; Turner 2013: 378).
5.1 Turmoil in the Middle East At the time, a wave of revolts occurred throughout the Middle East, which is often referred to as the ‘Arab Spring’ (Khondker 2011: 676-677). People took the streets to demonstrate against repressive, authoritarian regimes, against widespread corruption, rising food prices and high unemployment rates. Above all, they desired a better life, free from fears and from socioeconomic struggles. Demonstrations in authoritarian states soon led to violent crackdowns. In some countries the turmoil resulted in bloody revolutions and the ouster of dictators (Khondkher 2011: 676-678). Wallach argues that the J14 movement was inspired by the wave of protests in the region (Wallach 2012: 151-152). Its slogan ‘the people demand social justice’ shows similarities with the slogan of the Egyptian revolution that year, saying ‘the people demand the fall of the regime’. Likewise, references to protests on Tahrir Square in Cairo were made at rallies of the Israeli movement. In general, Israel maintains poor relations with Middle Eastern countries, some of which are hostile. Getting inspired by political events in Arab countries was something unusual for Israelis. Wallach even argues that the protests of the J14 movement showed potential for improving relations between Israel and the Arab world. By contrast, the Israeli government expressed deep concerns about the turmoil in the region. It was afraid a shift in regimes would negatively influence the position of Israel in the Middle East in the long run (ibid.).
5.2 Global dissent In 2011, another wave of dissent spread throughout the world (Johnston 2014: 2). Citizens in various countries organised themselves to protest, as they felt the consequences of the global economic crisis that emerged a few years earlier. These protests shared similar grievances concerning socioeconomic issues, including cuts on public spending and the enrichment of elites (ibid.). In the spring of 2011, the ‘M-15 movement’ emerged in Spain (Alvarez, Garcia, Moreno and Schweitzer 2015: 6). The social movement demonstrated for months against
25 government cuts in spending on social services and the negative effects of the economic crisis, such as the widespread unemployment in the country (ibid.). Likewise, massive demonstrations against austerity were organised in Greece, the United Kingdom and Ireland (Johnston 2014: 2). In the summer of 2011, several social movements emerged in Latin America that demonstrated against rising inequality, which is also referred to as the ‘Latin- American Spring’ (Albala 2018: 1). Finally, in September, the Occupy movement set up a tent camp on Wall Street in New York (Cottam, Mastors, Preston and Dietz 2010: 334). Its participants protested against perceived socioeconomic inequalities for which they blamed the neoliberal policies of the last decades. Soon these protests spread to other countries, and various ‘Occupy’ tent camps were set up all over the world (ibid.). Thus, the J14 movement is part of a large number of social movements and loose protests which all made their appearance in the same year. However, although the Israeli movement may be inspired by revolts around the world, it specifically focussed on socio economic issues within the domain of the nation-state (Schechter 2012).
26 Chapter six: frame analysis
As Coy argues, the degree to which a social movement engages in core framing tasks and alignment processes determines its success. This frame analysis demonstrates how the J14 movement was able to develop and expand itself by the use of frames, thereby attracting a large number of supporters. All core framing tasks and alignment processes as described by Snow and Benford, were identified in the examined articles. It shows that the J14 movement was successful in mobilising consensus and support among Israeli citizens. In 2011, the J14 movement became the centre of attention, at least for a period of time.
6.1 Diagnostic framing
6.1.1 Identifying the problem The findings from the examined newspaper articles clearly show that the J14 movement used diagnostic framing to adopt an ‘injustice frame’ regarding socio-economic issues. These articles contain a large amount of quotes from movement leaders and participants expressing feelings of dissatisfaction and injustice. Key to the expressed concerns is the perception that the way in which Israel is organised socially and economically is morally unjust and therefore unacceptable. The injustice frame is evident in the slogan of the movement “the people demand social justice” (Hartman, Lidman and Omer-Man 2011). Likewise, the J14 movement is also referred to as the Israeli “social justice movement” (Hartman 2011a). When the first protests emerged, a full-fledged social justice movement had yet to be developed. On July 14, 2011 a tent camp was set up on Rothschild Boulevard in Tel Aviv as a protest against the high and rising housing prices in the country (Lior 2011a). Daphne Leef, the initiator of the tent camp, said it was “an act of desperation” as she was no longer able to pay her rent (in Lior 2011a). Her grievances proved to be widely shared as she was joined by many residents of the city. A similar tent camp was set up in Jerusalem (ibid.). Initially, the perceived problem of the protesters was framed as being confined to housing. Leef said: “we’re constantly being asked what we want and we say, affordable housing for all” (in Lior 2011b). During demonstrations, slogans were used such as “proper housing, legitimate prices” and “this generation demands housing” (ibid.). Whereas the tent camps grew larger and spread over several places in the country, the number of participants aspiring to address issues beyond housing increased (Sharkansky 2011a). Stav Shaffir, one of the leaders of the movement, mentioned that protesters raised various social issues.
27 “Protesters want a state in which they are provided with their basic needs – attainable housing, attainable health care, attainable education – an attainable future” (Shaffir, in Lior 2011c). Only two weeks after the construction of the first tent camp, hundreds of thousands of Israelis joined demonstrations throughout the country. Among participants, various concerns regarding social issues were expressed. A man named Ro’i took the stage and spoke about his four minimum-wage jobs and his struggle to make ends meet. “The Israeli economy is growing at our expense. I’m afraid I won’t be able to afford healthcare, education and housing” (Ro’i, in Hartman, Mandel and Shemer 2011). Dvir, a lawyer and mother of two told the crowd: “while I make more money than average, I can afford less and less …. something can change, and something must change. We have good jobs, we have attained prestigious degrees and we volunteer to help others, we served in the army and the youth movements, but we can’t afford to raise children in this country” (Dvir, in ibid.). Shmuli, one of the leaders of the movement described the movement’s participants as “people who are demanding a change in the cruel economic policies” (in Hartman, Lidman and Omer-Man 2011). At one of the rallies he spoke: “good evening, citizens of Israel, good evening to everyone who is still demanding from the government not only national security but also social security, who is still demanding defense from rockets while on the way to the market, and defense from the prices on the shelves they find when they get to the market. … we are demanding a personal economy over one that tramples, we are demanding an economy that takes into consideration the suffering of people and not one that only crunches numbers” (Shmuli, in ibid.). Lau, a well-known Rabbi in Israel, took the stage during a protest and stated: “we want to found a state based on social justice. We won’t let this struggle be about any single sector in society or another, we all want social justice’’ (Lau, in ibid.). During demonstrations throughout the country participants chanted “the people demand social justice” (Hartman, Mandel and Shemer 2011). By the end of July, a national social movement had been formed out of the tent camps and protests. Thus, the movement’s problem became a perceived overall lack of social justice in the country. According to the protest leaders, this problem went in hand with the decline of the welfare state and the unfair distribution of resources in Israel (Lis and Cohen 2011).
28 6.1.2 Apportioning blame
In general, the J14 movement blamed the Israeli political order of the last decades for the perceived social injustice in the country (Lior and Lis 2011). Protest leaders published a ‘Vision Document’ that described the principles of the movement. The document stated: “for a number of decades, the various governments of Israel have opted for an economic policy of privatization that leaves the free market without reins. This economic policy, which is presented by those who lead it as precise science and as necessitated by circumstances, has become our daily existence – a war for survival to subsist dignity” (ibid.). However, the examined quotes of protest leaders and participants regarding the apportion of blame mainly focused on the government in charge at that time and its Prime Minister. “The government has abandoned the people” was one of the slogans during demonstrations (Noiman, in Khoury, Cohen, Lior and Hoval 2011). Yona, a professor and participant of the movement, told reporters: “Israeli statehood is collapsing and a banana republic has been established in its place” (in The Jerusalem Post 2011a). Tent camp spokesman Neuman argued that the government “demonstrated absolute insensitivity to all of Israel’s citizens. … The Israeli government doesn’t care about its citizens, only the wealthy citizens” (Neuman, in The Jerusalem Post 2011b). Levy, another protest leader, held the Knesset - the Israeli parliament, responsible. He argued that protest leaders “will go through all publicly elected officials in all of the parties and make sure we get a clear answer this time – who’s with us and who’s against us, who’s with the public demand for social justice and who’s against it” (Levy, in Lior 2011d). Various expressions of protest leaders and participants were directed towards Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. The movement’s initiator Leef accused Netanyahu of “using the nation as a springboard” and “living on our expense” (in Lior 2011e). Therefore, she argued: “the time has come for you to admit your mistakes and understand that your time is running out” (ibid.). Shmuli, another leader of the movement took the stage and spoke “Mr. Prime Minister, we demand solutions. The cost of living hurts all of us – give us a way to live in this country!” (in Hartman 2011b). A chant of the protesters, which rhymed in Hebrew was as follows: “good morning Bibi, the nation is on the streets, calling for justice not charity” (Sharkansky 2011a). In one of the examined articles was described how demonstrations showed an anti-Netanyahu sentiment, with chants and signs demanding the resignation of the prime minister (Hartman, Mandel and Shemer 2011). Likewise, one of the articles noted that the tent camp on
29 Rothschild Boulevard was full of banners displaying “Bibi go home” and other texts showing no trust of the people at the head of the government (Eldar 2011). Moreover, protesters besmirched the garage of Netanyahu with large dollar signs (Shemer and Harkov 2011).
6.2 Prognostic framing
6.2.1 Strategies and tactics When examining its strategies and tactics, the J14 movement centred on a frame of participatory democracy. Protest leaders and participants engaged in various and divergent forms of collective actions. By doing so, the movement drew public attention to the social problems citizens were facing. Protest leaders and participants collectively engaged in a process of finding and formulating solutions to achieve social justice in Israel. Thereby, they intended to directly influence the political decision-making process. The first tent camps that were set up in the streets of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem on the 14th of July, turned out to be more than “a summer festival, with people strumming guitars, singing and drinking beer into the wee hours” (Lior and Shtull-Trauring 2011). Citizens gathered to discuss how the problem of high and rising housing prices could be solved and listened to ideas of academics and real estate experts (ibid.). Soon, the tent camps grew larger and spread all over the country. The J14 movement was not recognisable as a movement from the start. It was loosely organised and had no clear hierarchical structure. “We are not an organization. The last thing you can say about us is that we work in an orderly fashion” protest leader Shaffir states (in Lior 2011f). She continues: “everyone takes part in the process. We don’t stage votes, and we don’t have a hierarchical structure. Increasingly, we are starting to function as a movement, but this is not a movement in the old sense of the word. Our biggest goal is to enable people to feel they have power. If citizens in Israel do not feel like they have power, all of us will lose” (Shaffir, in ibid.). In addition to the set up of tent camps in public areas, the movement organised other forms of protest. These included marches through cities and big rallies during which speeches were held and Israeli artists performed (Hartman, Mandel and Shemer 2011). Some of the marches and rallies were joined by hundreds of thousands of citizens. These forms of protest reached their peak at the “March of the Million” on September 3rd in Tel Aviv, when around a million demonstrators participated (Rosenberg, Yagna and Lior 2011; Shemer, Stern and
30 Hoffman 2011). In addition, a demonstration in the form of a long-distance run was organised, accompanied by the slogan “the people run for social justice” (Melman 2011). In response to the turmoil in the country, Netanyahu appointed the Trajtenberg Committee, to examine how the demands of the protesters could be met (The Jerusalem Post, 2011a). However, as the leaders of the J14 movement questioned the efforts and real aims of this panel, they appointed their “own alternative group of experts”. This “Alternative Committee” would “draw up a new socioeconomic policy” (Lior 2011g). A team of around sixty people, including public figures and academics in the field of economy and sociology, organised themselves to assist leaders of the movement throughout the country (The Jerusalem Post 2011a). Yona, one of the professors, stated: “like the protest leaders, we have no interest in holding discussions with a committee who’s duty is to mislead and sour the opportunity [for change] of this protest” (in ibid.). The Alternative Committee declared that it would provide full transparency and would work in cooperation with citizens and protest leaders. Members of the committee visited tent camps throughout the country in small groups, to listen to what citizens had to say (Lior 2011g). In September, the day after the March of the Million, the movement started with dismantling the tent camps (Rosenberg, Yagna and Lior 2011). Since the homeless had no other place to stay, many tents were left until the police finally cleared them (ibid.). The movement did not consider the take down as the end of its struggle. “The tents were merely sheets and pegs; the people inside are what is important” a protester and representative of the national student union named Bedolach argued (in Lior 2011h). He added: “This struggle is much greater than the tents, much greater than all of its symbols. … The protest continues – the Israeli government knows that the nation and the students will not let it do as it pleases” (Bedolach, in ibid.). A participant named Yosef told a reporter: “at the most recent rally we ended that part of the struggle [the tent camps], we were in the streets, we caused the bang. Now we are in the second stage, demanding implementation, for them to give something” (in Fogelman 2011). Levy, one of the protest leaders said: “we will see all types of grassroots ideas and initiatives in the coming weeks in which people from tent cities across the country will come up with to take the protest into the next stage” (Hartman 2011c). The J14 movement made use of a website and Facebook to inform people about protest activities (Freedman, Obar, Martens and McChesney 2016: 258). It communicated through its website http://j14.org.il , its corresponding Facebookpages in Hebrew https://www.facebook.com/j14live/ , https://www.facebook.com/j14.org.il/ and through an
31 English-written Facebookpage www.facebook.com/israelindependentpress. The latter has been deactivated (ibid.: 258-265). By using Facebook, the movement announced its next step, an event in the form of “round-table discussions” (Hartman 2011c). The announcement described the event’s roundtable discussions as “a giant dialogue of the masses, the first of its kind, which will foster thought, discussion and allow us to examine together what we are demanding and how we bring about the optimal change” (ibid.). Likewise, the event would “clarify the goals of the struggle, form an extensive database of the real needs of the public and prepare practical means to attain them” (ibid.). The idea was to organise these round-table discussions in various places in the country at the same day. One of the examined articles about the round- table discussions described: “the plaza of the Tel Aviv Museum of Art on Saturday night [10 September 2011] resembled an enormous speed dating gathering or open air bingo hall. Participants were given randomly selected table numbers by ushers and at each table perfect strangers met and discussed whatever social issues they wished. Designated ‘social issues experts’ were on hand to facilitate discussion, and at each table, at least one participant took record of the minutes on a laptop, compiling the suggestions for uploading to the internet” (ibid.). Gal, one of the organizers, said the goal was “to allow any citizen who wants to have his voice heard and be part of the designing of the face of Israel to come and take part” (ibid.). The agreement on strategies and tactics did not occur without any hitches. According to one of the examined newspaper articles, an anonymous source in the “radical wing” of the movement confirmed the rumours that disagreement had arisen in the movement (Zilber 2011). “There’s no argument about what the ultimate goal is ... but there is disagreement as to the tactics that need to be used. There are two different groups, and our group says that events like the roundtable discussions … the whole sitting-together-and-drinking-coffee thing, and hearing lectures from intellectuals is not the way to wage a revolution. We need to be more militant. Again, nobody is talking about resorting to violence. There are many other ways that are much more effective than roundtables” (Anonymous source, in Zilber 2011). At around the same period the round-table discussions were held, some tougher measures were taken by an Israeli student union (The Jerusalem Post 2011c). The group launched boycotts against several companies, in order to affect companies demanding high prices for their products and to exert more influence on the political decision making process. One of the companies was Tnuva, a cottage cheese manufacturer. “Starting tomorrow, we will not buy products from Tnuva. We need a permanent reduction of product prices”
32 announced Livneh, who was head of the student union (ibid.). Encouraged by the boycotts, the J14 movement announced a one-day nationwide strike. In response to the organised boycotts and the subsequent planned strike, Shaffir, one of the leaders of the movement states: “we’ve learned that economic pressure is necessary, not just filling the streets” (in Lior 2011f). By the end of October, the movement’s initiator Leef and her fellow protest leaders were invited to the start of the parliament’s winter session (Harkov 2011). As Leef argues, this would be an attempt to “bring the protests to the Knesset” (ibid.).
6.2.2 Offering solutions The J14 movement presented policy reform as the solution to counteract injustices regarding socio-economic issues in Israel. Thus, when examining offered solutions, the movement focused on a frame of policy reform. When the movement came in to being, concrete solutions to the perceived lack of social justice had yet to be formulated. In this stage, protest leaders and participants first had to figure out what they exactly stood for. In one of Leef’s first speeches, she called upon the government to find solutions to the lack of affordable housing (Lior 2011b). “They constantly tell us, ‘suggest solutions’, and we say, ‘why? That is what we have elected representatives for’” (Leef, in Lior 2011b). At the end of July, a draft of the protesters’ main demands was published in the Haaretz newspaper and offered to the Prime Minister (Shtull-Trauring 2011, The Jerusalem Post 2011d). While examining the selected newspaper articles, an English written copy of the original draft was not found. Nevertheless, some of the examined articles summarised what was said in the draft, known as the ‘Litmus Paper’ (Lior and Lis 2011; Shtull-Trauring 2011). In one of the articles the following list of specific demands was summed up: “a gradual reduction in indirect taxes, stopping the privatisation process, cancelling the national housing committees, scrapping the income tax reform, imposing income tax on all income, investing the excess income from direct taxes in Israel’s citizens … renewed investment in social services, free education … beds and medical equipment for the health system and more job slots for policemen, firefighters and social workers” (Shtull-Trauring 2011). In addition, a more general and theoretical paper was published by the movement too, named the “Vision Document” (Lior and Lis 2011). According to its writers, the document provided “a framework of investment for a new socio-economic agenda” (ibid.). Copies were handed out in the tent camps to enable people to give feedback. One of the examined articles gave an overview of the six principles on which the paper was built. According to the
33 document, these principles had to form the basis for a new social contract between the state of Israel and its citizens (ibid.). The following principles as formulated by the movement were outlined: first, “minimising social inequalities and creating social cohesion”. Second “altering the main principles of the economic system”. Third “lowering the cost of living, achieving full employment and state-imposed price controls on basic items”. Fourth, “giving a clear priority to the areas on the outskirts of cities, both in the social and the geographic sense”. Fifth, “treating the essential needs of the weaker population in the country, with an emphasis on the handicapped, the elderly and the sick”, and finally, “investment by the state in its citizenry in the fields of education, health and personal safety, and providing genuine solutions to the housing shortage …” (ibid.). The Trajtenberg Committee, appointed by Netanyahu to examine the perceived problems of the protesters, published a report in September with its recommendations (Shemer and Harkov 2011). However, the J14 movement was not satisfied with the outcome of the committee’s efforts. Leef criticised the report by saying: “it certainly does not address the reasons why hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets to protest during the summer” (ibid.). She argued that the recommendations of the committee “will make little difference if the existing state budget remains the same” (ibid.). In response to the presented findings of the Trajtenberg Committee, the Alternative Committee appointed by the J14 movement presented their own recommendations in what was named the “Spivak Report” (Hartman 2011e). According to this alternative panel, their report was “an overhaul of social policy, the same policy which brought a million people out of their homes this summer, a policy which we demand to change” (Lior 2011i). The movement offered a solution to counter socioeconomic injustices by demanding a budget policy reform. Leef stated: “we demand a new social budget, an accountable budget, one which takes the citizen under consideration …” (ibid.). One of the examined articles presented a Facebook message of the movement at the end of October that said: “we will demand from the Knesset parliamentarians and the government to cancel the 2012 budget and launch a new social budget through cooperation with the public” (Hartman 2011a).
6.3 Motivational framing
In its motivational framing, the J14 movement used a participation frame to attract individual supporters and a solidarity frame to forge a personal connection between them. Leaders of the
34 movement organised all kinds of events in which citizens were able to participate, and they actively encouraged them to do so. Tent camps were set up and marches, rallies and round- table discussions were organised. Likewise, a strike and several boycotts were launched. The movement emphasised the need for solidarity and thereby unity among its participants. They emphasised that everyone experienced the same problems, that every citizen was in the same boat. While examining the content of the selected newspaper articles, examples of motivational framing proved to be less prevalent than other framing tasks and alignment processes. However, this does not imply that the J14 movement made less use of this third core framing task. It does say that the examined articles gave to a lesser extent concrete examples of how the movement spurred people to take action. A first example of motivational framing was found in an article describing a planned Facebook event on July 14th by Leef, the initiator of the movement. “Emergency, take a tent and take a stand” the title of the event said (Lior 2011a). “We, the public, need to demand solutions” she added in the description of the event (ibid.). By doing so, Leef encouraged people to participate in the protest. According to the examined article, she urged citizens to take steps to secure the provision of their basic needs (ibid.). Other examples of calls for participation reported by the newspapers included as follows: Noiman, one of the protest leaders proclaimed: “the people are taking the country back. We’re expecting a powerful demonstration for social change. This is an opportunity we haven’t had for sixty years in this country, and now is the time for people to come out of their homes onto the street” (in Khoury, Cohen, Lior and Hoval 2011). Likewise, one of the tent camp inhabitants named Ro’i told his fellow participants to “turn this fear into anger and action” (in Hartman, Mandel and Shemer 2011). At the end of October, a message on the website of the J14 movement said: “come out en masse to show our elected leaders that we are still here and we aren’t going anywhere!” (in Hartman 2011a). By using a solidarity frame, the J14 movement focussed on forging a personal connection with and between its supporters. Concerning this issue, movement leader Shaffir said: “a demonstration is an emotional act – that’s its great advantage. Sometimes, as citizens, we need to be reminded that we are not alone, that an entire public is with us. … there’s nothing like hundreds of people shouting together” (in Lior 2011f). While announcing a strike, the J14 movement said: “we will all go on strike because of our individual distress, but also in order to show solidarity with the hardships of others. We will not stand alone” (in Hartman 2011f). The movement tried to forge a personal connection between participants of
35 different sectors in society. Shabtai, one of the protest leaders proclaimed: “this is a chance to prove that the protest isn’t only in Tel Aviv but in the periphery as well … this time we’ll stand together – Jews, Arabs and Druze – against the rising prices and the housing shortage” (Khoury, Cohen, Lior and Hoval 2011). A mother participating in the protest felt supported by the large numbers of supporters: “I’ve never demonstrated or gone out onto the street. Today I felt there was a river of people behind me who want to change something ... now I see that everyone has this problem” (Katz, in ibid.).
6.4 Frame bridging
Several examples of frame bridging were found in the examined articles. Movement leaders sought and found support of citizens, organisations and other movements holding similar grievances. By aligning themselves with others they intended to present a stronger front, to be able to make a difference. It all started when initiator Leef announced her housing protest event on Facebook, thereby seeking support of people who were experiencing the same problems. A week later she was not only joined by many residents of Tel Aviv, but also by the National Student Union (Lior and Shtull-Trauring 2011). Dozens of students joined the tent camp to protest against the lack of affordable housing. According to the examined article, Leef said she was “pleased with the turnout and public support and that this was only the beginning” (ibid.). Likewise, the J14 movement linked itself to the Spanish M15 movement, a social movement that had emerged in the spring of 2011 (Lior and Shtull-Trauring 2011). Its leaders and participants had protested against the high housing prices and high unemployment in Spain. Contact between both movements was made by written correspondence and live video-stream sessions. A letter received by the M15 movement said: “what we did is similar to what you are doing at this very moment” (ibid.). Moreover, movement leaders sought support of different sectors and areas within Israel. While the protests were first considered as an activity of the political left, this perception changed when more right-wing and Orthodox groups aligned themselves with the movement (Sharkansky 2011b). Cherlow, a prominent Rabbi in Israel decided to speak at one of the protests in Jerusalem and proclaimed: “we will break down the walls between us and come together. … we are making a covenant between us” [referring to different sectors in Israeli society] (in Ettinger 2011). The Masorti, a conservative religious movement in Israel,
36 expressed its support for the protesters by emphasising the central place of social justice in Judaism (Sacks 2011). The Masorti also said it would designate its annual fast day “Tisha B’av as a day of solidarity with the tent protest movement” (in ibid.). Pinto, a Rabbi active in Israel’s high-society, stated that his community and network of charitable centres would “do everything possible to assist and support the continued protests and a better future for the people of Israel” (in Sharon 2011). Leaders of the J14 movement not only sought support of religious communities, but from all kinds of groups and initiatives throughout the country to make it a nation-wide struggle (The Jerusalem Post 2011e). Shabtai, one of the protest leaders argued: “we want to send a clear message that the State of Israel is not only the ‘State of Tel Aviv’ but also the periphery” (Ashkenazi, Lior and Khoury 2011). One of the examined articles described how the protests included more divergent groups every day (Hass 2011). It described how protests included coalitions that seemed impossible in Israel, such as both left-wing and right-wing supporters of the political spectrum and Jews and Arab-Israelis who joined demonstrations while holding posters with Arabic and Hebrew texts (ibid.). Furthermore, various Zionist organisations in the United States aligned themselves with the J14 movement by expressing their support (The Jerusalem Post 2011f). One of these groups, named Ameinu, wrote an open letter to the movement which said: “the nationwide protests in which you are engaging are an inspiration to those of us who strive for social justice and freedom of economic opportunity in the United States and around the world” (in ibid.). Finally, near the end of the year, a demonstration of the J14 movement showed influences of the international Occupy movement which had emerged in September (Hartman 2011g). Just like the J14 movement, its participants protested against social and economic inequality too. Signs used by Occupy were found at one of the protests of J14 in Israel, including a slogan saying “we are the 99%” [referring to unfair income and wealth distribution] and a sign saying “Occupy Oakland”, a city in California in which the Occupy movement was active (ibid.).
6.5 Frame amplification
Examples of both value amplification and belief amplification were identified in the examined articles. By emphasising certain values and beliefs citizens were presumed to hold, leaders of the J14 movement sought and managed to mobilise support for their cause. The
37 following statement of one of the participants shows that movement leaders successfully managed to raise awareness of values and beliefs in Israeli society: “the important thing, which many people don’t notice, is the change in awareness among the citizens. The dirt under the rug is coming out. People who have kept things inside for over 50 years got the strength to go out and shout. Raising awareness of social issues … is an achievement that may not be obvious” (Yosef, in Fogelman 2011).
6.5.1 Value amplification The value ‘social justice’ was a common theme in the examined articles. Many examples of slogans, banners, chants and other signs calling for social justice were found. The value formed the main slogan of the J14 movement: “the people demand social justice” (Hartman, Mandel and Shemer 2011). Participants adapted the slogan in various ways, while still emphasising the need for social justice. Examples are, among others, “pensioners demand social justice” and “protest creates reality, we are building a just society” (Lior and Lis 2011). According to one of the examined articles, it was the flexibility and dynamic of the value that lent itself well to appeal to different groups in society (Hass 2011). Indications of the appeal of the value to Israeli citizens were indeed found. Shehori, a participant argued: “the real victory will be when there are genuine values here, when the citizens of the country absorb the values of the protest. When we live the concepts of social justice on a daily basis. Justice between people. Fair distribution. Not one at the expense of the other. I pray that I will get to live in a world in which all these things happen” (in Lior and Rosenberg 2011). Turjeman, a representative of one of the tent camps said: “in the future for which we are struggling, the first value our children will learn in civics class will be social justice”. A second value which was invigorated by the J14 movement concerned ‘solidarity’. Various examples were found of protest leaders emphasising the need for solidarity among citizens in order to mobilise support. At one of the rallies, initiator Leef told the crowd: “my generation always felt as though we were alone in this world, but now we feel the solidarity. They tried to dismiss us as stupid children, and as extreme leftists, but last night’s countrywide protest proved otherwise” (in Rosenberg, Lior and Cohen 2011). Another speaker at a demonstration proclaimed: “solidarity between us and the young generation is what will determine this social campaign in the land” (Lior and Lis 2011). Gotler, Chairman of a student union said: “we changed this summer. The voice of the mother, the teacher, the
38 student, have been heard. … the tent city … shows that the protest belongs to all of us” (in Rosenberg, Lior and Cohen 2011).
6.5.2 Belief amplification The J14 movement invigorated citizens’ beliefs, about who to blame for their socioeconomic struggles, or about how they desired society to be shaped. First, the movement emphasised the belief that the Israeli political order was responsible for the perceived social injustices of its citizens. People’s socio-economic struggles were more than just a matter of bad luck or people’s own fault, rather they were caused by the policies of the governments that had been in power over the last decades. Abergil, a well-known social activist in Israel, took the stage during one of the rallies and spoke: “don’t talk about how unfortunate you are, talk about what your rights are” (in Hass 2011). Yosef, a participant was convinced the people had to “take the economy back in their own hands” (Fogelman 2011). Second, leaders of the movement invigorated the belief that alternative, less market- oriented policies would be beneficial to the well-being of society. Shmuli, one of the protest leaders told the crowd during one of the demonstrations: “we’re demanding human economic policy that doesn’t destroy people, that can see people’s distress and that doesn’t only crunch the numbers” (in Ashkenazi, Lior and Khoury 2011). Baroda, a mother participating in one of the marches was convinced she was living in an “economic war of attrition”, and said she held the government responsible for “abandoning [its citizens] to the free market” (Hartman 2011g). Yaakovi, one of the participants described the protests as “a struggle over creating equal opportunities for all the individuals living here” (Fogelman 2011).
6.6 Frame extension In the examined articles, several examples of frame extension were found. Protest leaders enlarged their frames in order to attract more supporters. Due to the use of frame extension, protests gradually concerned various issues instead of just housing. Without using frame extension, the development of a social justice movement would not have occurred. However, the examined articles showed that the movement was also criticised for not enlarging its frame with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
6.6.1 Enlarging frames
39 Whereas the tent camps were initially set up to protest against the high and rising housing prices, more and more issues related to socio-economic struggles were included in the protest. In one of the examined articles was written: “housing protesters have quarrelled with those among themselves who want to emphasise a broad range of social issues beyond housing” (Sharkansky 2011a). Hovav, the chairwoman of the Center for Social Justice participating in the protests argued: “it started with the apartments, but all kinds of social problems bubbled up from the ground” (Hartman, Lidman and Omer-Man 2011). At the end of July, the Israeli Labour Union named the Histadrut joined the protesters (Lior and Hasson 2011). Its Chairman Eini argued that the lack of affordable housing was just one of the socioeconomic problems Israel faced. “The problem is not only the cost of housing. The problem lies with the middle class and weaker sectors of Israeli society” Eini said (in ibid.). In one of the examined articles, disagreement about whether to extend frames or not was described (Sharkansky 2011a). Whereas some protesters wanted to confine themselves to the housing issue, others were in favour of a broader range of demands (ibid.). Initially, the National Student Union joined the tent camp of Leef to protest against the lack of affordable housing for students (Lior and Shtull-Trauring 2011). However, the extension of frames offered an opportunity to address other grievances too. One of the examined articles reported how over more than a thousand students, teachers and professors jointly demonstrated against the state of education (Khoury, Cohen, Lior and Hoval 2011). Demands included improvements of the rights and salaries of teachers, as well as a reduction in tuition fees (ibid.). Participants chanted “free education for all” and “Sa’ar, wake up, education is worth more [referring to the minister of Education]” (in ibid.). Likewise, women’s groups Na’amat and WIZO joined the protests. Mothers organised stroller marches during which they demonstrated against “the high cost of raising children in Israel” (Lior and Hovel 2011). Issues that were raised included the prices of baby products, the costs of day-care, the period of maternity leave and the lowering of taxes on families (Khoury, Cohen, Lior and Hoval 2011). During the marches people yelled: “let’s show the government just who’s dragging the trolley” and “we won’t give up, reduce the prices” (Lior and Hovel 2011). Moreover, the frame of the housing protesters extended when initiators of a boycott on a cottage cheese manufacturer aligned themselves with the movement (Dovrat-Meseritz 2011). The initiators had launched the boycott as the prices on cottage cheese products had risen excessively. Gruberman, one of the organisers of the boycott argued: “there’s no difference between the fight for reasonably priced housing and the fight for reasonably priced
40 food” (in ibid.). He added: “you can’t stop eating and you can’t stop living somewhere. The average Israeli family is breaking under these expenses” (Gruberman, in ibid.).
6.6.2 A lack of frame extension? Although the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is inherently linked to the daily life of Israelis, the J14 movement deliberately chose not to take a position on this issue (Nadav 2011). Israeli settlement policies on the West-Bank and socioeconomic struggles of the Palestinians were avoided as topics for discussion. By doing so, the J14 movement managed to focus solely on socioeconomic problems faced by Israeli citizens, regardless of their background. The neutrality of the movement regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, allowed citizens from both the left- and right-wing political spectrum to participate. However, not everyone who supported the movement agreed on avoiding the question of the Palestinians. Moreover, the J14 movement was criticised from the outside for neglecting the rights to social justice in the Occupied Territories. Thereby, the avoidance of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was by some considered as a lack of frame extension (ibid.). As a consequence, disagreements erupted among participants. According to one of the examined articles, members of the Jewish-Arab Hadash party chanted “Jews and Arabs refuse to be enemies” while participating in one of the protests (Lior and Ashkenazi 2011). Subsequently, they were called traitors by other demonstrators (ibid.). The article reported how one of the participants said there was “a place here for people of all colours” (ibid.). However, he continued: “it annoys me that they shout ‘justice in the territories’ when there is no justice at home. First there needs to be justice at home and then it will be easier to make peace. They are inciting a civil war” (ibid.). Similar opinions were reported in one of the other examined articles. Eyal, a student and participant in the movement argued: “we are tired of having our politics dominated by the question of what to do about the Palestinians. It is ridiculous that we would get criticised for trying to resolve our own domestic financial issues. In England or Egypt they were rioting in the streets and nobody is saying to them wait-stop-you need to deal with other issues first” (Nadav 2011). Likewise, another participant named Leila said: “we don’t have any problem talking about Arab Israelis, Bedouin or Druze. … but when it comes to the Palestinians, it is totally different. In Gaza they have been bombing us all summer – and we are supposed to always put them first? That doesn’t make sense. … I wish they would get behind us rather than demanding that we get behind them right now” (in ibid.).
41
6.7 Frame transformation In the summer of 2011, the J14 movement engaged in transformative framing in order to change the public discourse in Israel. Protest leaders called upon citizens to reject the widespread view that socio-economic problems were insurmountable. By using a social justice frame, the movement tried to put socio-economic issues at the top of the political agenda. Security-matters were for once pushed aside, and the focus on market-oriented thinking was severely criticised. Several indications of transformative framing were found in the examined articles. Stern, Vice President of the Israel Democracy Institute, witnessed a change in discourse in response to the protests (in O’Sullivan and Friedson 2011). “The major issue on most people’s minds today is not security. … For the first time, I see a huge debate about an issue that has nothing to do with security and foreign policy, which is a new phenomenon in Israel. I think this is very good for us. I do believe that the government is listening to the people right now and we are starting to see some kind of negotiations that will lead to a new social contract” – Stern argues (in ibid.). During the summer of the protests, rocket attacks were carried out by Hamas, killing several citizens (Lior and Ashkenazi 2011). In response, the J14 movement decided to halt its activities for a few days. However, the security situation did not bring an end to the debate on socio-economic issues. After some days, protests resumed throughout the country. A banner used at one of the demonstrations a few days after the attacks displayed: “a strong and united society can stand up to any security challenge” (ibid.). Moreover, examples were found of people expressing their changed views on the position of the market in society. Efrati, one of the participants, argued: “what happened here today is that the ethos in Israeli society has changed. In the past, young people would often identify with the tycoon, the maniak. Everyone wanted to study economics, earn an MBA, and try to cheat everyone so that they themselves can become tycoons. Today, it’s changed. Now there’s a whole new ethos among the youth. This is a success that is a direct result of the protest, and it will endure” (in Zilber 2011). Another participant, named Shehori said: “The most important thing is that people are talking differently. … Take me, for example up until two months ago there was no place in my life for economic concepts. Today I understand that every decision made in Jerusalem affects me in the end. We deserve more” (in Fogelman 2011).
42 Shaffir, one of the movement leaders, told a reporter: “the change must be systematic, it is not personal. The ideology of privatisation, of reducing public allocations and of selling society’s resources does not belong to any single individual. The public is seeking a new ideology” (in Lior 2011f). Likewise, an Israeli singer known as ‘Rita’ performed during one of the rallies and spoke to the crowd: “an amazing thing is happening here. The desire to strengthen ourselves from within, to change priorities, broke the dam of our homes and took to the streets. Change will happen very slowly, but it’s clear that it has started” (Ashkenazi, Lior and Khoury 2011).
43 Chapter seven: conclusion
In this thesis was examined in what ways the J14 movement made use of framing to mobilise consensus and support. A frame analysis was carried out in order to formulate an answer to this question. By doing so, this thesis made use of framing theory on social movements. Core framing tasks and frame alignment processes as described by Snow and Benford, were identified within the articles reporting about the J14 movement. The frame analysis showed that all core framing tasks and alignment processes were used by the J14 movement in order to generate consensus and to spur people into action. First, diagnostic, prognostic and motivational frames were identified. In its diagnostic framing, the movement made use of an injustice frame regarding socioeconomic issues. In general, the country’s entire political order of the last decades was held responsible for dissolving the welfare state. Yet, blame was particularly attributed to the government at the time and its Prime Minister. A prognostic frame of participatory democracy was used in the tactics and strategies of the movement. By doing so, citizens were encouraged to take an active role in directly influencing political decision making. The J14 movement suggested policy reform as the solution to the perceived problem. In particular, it emphasised that a new social budget had to be implemented by the government. In its motivational framing, a participation frame and solidarity frame was used by the movement to stimulate citizens to join the movement and to come closer together. Second, examples of frame bridging, amplification, extension and transformation were found. Frame bridging linked individuals and groups which were holding similar grievances, both within the nation-state and beyond. Frame amplification was used by putting continuous emphasis on the values of social justice and solidarity. In addition, the belief that the government was to blame for perceived grievances was invigorated, just as the belief that these socio-economic grievances would disappear when the state would refrain from market-oriented policies. The J14 movement extended its frames in order to include more participants. What started as a protest against high and rising housing prices, transformed into a movement in which participants could address all kinds of socio-economic issues, under the banner of social justice. A deliberate choice was made not to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and thereby it did not include the socio-economic grievances of Palestinians. This was something the movement was criticised for. The final identified alignment process concerned frame transformation. The J14 movement changed the public discourse, that had been focused on security-matters. Instead, socio-economic concerns
44 became the centre of public attention. In addition, the Israeli movement tried to change the perception of citizens regarding the desirability of a market-oriented society. A limitation of this study concerns the use of English newspaper articles to examine the framing activities of the movement. By doing so, this thesis identified ‘frames within frames’, which were already selections of information provided by the authors of the articles. A suggestion for future research, would be to study the direct Hebrew correspondence of the J14 movement on its website and Facebook pages, which could provide an even better insight into the movement’s framing activities. Likewise, it would be particularly interesting to gain a better understanding of the success of the J14 movement on the long-term, which is beyond the scope of this thesis. A study on the movement’s influence on public policy in Israel could be included in possible future studies.
45 Bibliography
AIPAC. (n.d.). Mounting threats to Israel. Retrieved May 30, 2018 from https://www.aipac.org/learn/issues/issue-display/mounting-threats-to-israel.
Albala, A. (2018). Civil Society and Political Representation in Latin America (2010- 2015). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Allweil, Y. (2013). Surprising alliances for dwelling and citizenship: Palestinian- Israeli participation in the mass housing protests of summer 2011. International Journal of Islamic Architecture, 2(1), 41-75.
Alvarez, R., Garcia, D., Moreno, Y., & Schweitzer, F. (2015). Sentiment cascades in the 15M movement. EPJ Data Science, 4(1), 6.
Amram, Y. (2013). Grass fire: outbreak of the social protest, its operation style and the results observed in the short term. American Journal of Social Sciences, 1(1), 1-12.
Andersen, K. (2011, 14 December). Person of the year 2011. The Protester. Retrieved May 30, 2018 from http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2101745_2102132,00.html.
Arthur, M. M. (2009). Resurrecting Smelser: Collective power, generalized belief, and hegemonic spaces. Theory In Action, 2(4), 29-44.
Arora, N. D. (2014). Political science for civil services main examination. New York: Tata McGraw-Hill Education.
Ashkenazi E., Lior, I., & Khoury, J. (2011, 7 August). 300,000 Israelis take to streets in third rally for social justice. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.haaretz.com/1.5041668.
46 Babb, S. (1996). " A true American system of finance": Frame resonance in the US labour movement, 1866 to 1886. American Sociological Review, 1033-1052.
Bar’el, Z. (2004, 25 May). What are Israeli Arabs? Are they Jewish? Retrieved May 30, 2018 from https://www.haaretz.com/1.4678937.
Bar-Tal, D., & Labin, D. (2001). The effect of a major event on stereotyping: Terrorist attacks in Israel and Israeli adolescents' perceptions of Palestinians, Jordanians and Arabs. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(3), 265-280.
BBC. (2018, 1 June). Israel profile – timeline. Retrieved May 30, 2018 from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29123668.
Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual review of sociology, 26(1), 611-639.
Benford, R. D. (1997). An insider's critique of the social movement framing perspective. Sociological inquiry, 67(4), 409-430.
Berenbaum, M. & Skolnik, F. (2007). Encylopaedia Judaica. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA.
Bhavnani, R., Miodownik, D., & Choi, H. J. (2011). Three two tango: territorial control and selective violence in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 55(1), 133-158.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Transaction Books.
Bronstein, Y. (2016, July). Five years after the huge social justice protests, what has changed? Retrieved May 30, 2018 from http://www.thetower.org/article/five-years-after-the- huge-israeli-social-justice-protests-what-has-changed/.
47 Buechler, S. M. (1995). New social movement theories. The Sociological Quarterly, 36(3), 441-464.
Buechler, S. M. (2000). Social movements in advanced capitalism: The political economy and cultural construction of social activism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Buechler, S. M. (2013). New social movements and new social movement theory. The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social and Political Movements.
Chalabi, M. (2013, 14 October). How does Palestine’s economy work? Retrieved May 30, 2018 from https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/oct/14/palestine-economy- how-does-it-work.
Cottam, M. L., Mastors, E., Preston, T., & Dietz, B. (2010). Introduction to political psychology. London: Psychology Press.
Coy, P. G. (2007). Research in social movements, conflicts and change. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
Della Porta, D., & Diani, M. (2011). Social Movements. The Oxford Handbook of Civil Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Diani, M. (1992). The concept of social movement. The sociological review, 40(1), 1- 25.
Dovrat-Meseritz, A. (2011, 21 July). Cottage cheese protesters call for total dairy boycott. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.haaretz.com/israel- news/business/1.5031922.
Einwohner, R. L. (2002). Motivational framing and efficacy maintenance: Animal rights activists’ use of four fortifying strategies. The Sociological Quarterly, 43(4), 509-526.
48
Eldar, A. (2011, 16 August). Netanyahu still has some rabbits up his sleeve. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.haaretz.com/1.5047085.
Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2017, 28 August). The Jerusalem Post: Israeli Newspaper. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Jerusalem-Post.
Ettinger, Y. (2011, 9 August). Rabbi Yuval Cherlow, what made you change your mind and join the protest? Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.haaretz.com/1.5043157.
Eysenck, H. J. (1976). Case studies in behaviour therapy, 1-15. London: Routledge.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative inquiry, 12(2), 219-245.
Fogelman, S. (2011, 23 September). The awakening. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.haaretz.com/1.5182065.
Freedman, D., Obar, J., Martens, C., & McChesney, R. W. (2016). Strategies for media reform: International perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gamson, W. A. (1992). Talking politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gamson, W. A. (1995). Constructing social protest. Social movements and culture, 4, 85-106.
Gerring, J. (2011). The case study: what it is and what it does. In Boix, C. & Stokes, S. C. The Oxford handbook of comparative politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Gray, B. (2003). Framing of Environmental Disputes, in Lewicki, R., Gray, B. and Elliott, M. Making Sense of Intractable Environmental Conflicts. Washington: Island Press.
49
Gray, D. E. (2018). Doing research in the real world. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd.
Grinberg, L. L. (2013). The J14 resistance mo (ve) ment: The Israeli mix of Tahrir Square and Puerta del Sol. Current Sociology, 61(4), 491-509.
Haaretz. (2001, 12 July). About Haaretz. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.haaretz.com/1.5349621.
Harkov, L. (2011, 31 October). Rivlin: Knesset neglected social issues for many years. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Rivlin- Knesset-neglected-social-issues-for-many-years.
Hartman, B. (2011a, 28 October). ‘Social justice’ to hit the streets Saturday. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.jpost.com/National-News/Social-justice-to-hit-the-streets- Saturday.
Hartman, B. (2011b, 28 August). Mass social protests resume across the country. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.jpost.com/National-News/Mass-social-protests- resume-across-the-country.
Hartman, B. (2011c, 5 September). Activists to announce new steps in social protests. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.jpost.com/National-News/Activists-to-announce- new-steps-in-social-protests.
Hartman, B. (2011d, 10 September). Round-table discussions held in cities across Israel. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.jpost.com/National-News/Round-table- discussions-held-in-cities-across-Israel.
Hartman, B. (2011e, 9 October), Daphni Leef slams gov’t approval of Trajtenberg report. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Daphni-Leef- slams-govt-approval-of-Trajtenberg-report.
50 Hartman, B. (2011f, 10 October). Social justice movement calls on public for mass strike. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Social-Justice- movement-calls-on-public-for-mass-strike.
Hartman, B. (2011g, 30 October). Lower turnout as ‘social justice’ hits streets again. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.jpost.com/National-News/Lower-turnout-as- social-justice-hits-streets-again.
Hartman, B., Lidman, L., & Omer-Man, M. (2011, 7 August). Protest draws 300,000 in largest show of force yet. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.jpost.com/Video- Articles/Video/Protest-draws-300000-in-largest-show-of-force-yet.
Hartman, B., Mandel, J., & Shemer, N. (2011, 31 July). Hundreds of thousands join ‘social justice’ rallies. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.jpost.com/National- News/Hundreds-of-thousands-join-social-justice-rallies.
Hass, A. (2011, 10 August). The people want a reset. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.haaretz.com/1.5043838.
Hudson, L. A., & Ozanne, J. L. (1988). Alternative ways of seeking knowledge in consumer research. Journal of consumer research, 14(4), 508-521.
Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (1994, 4 May). Agreement on Gaza strip and Jericho area. Retrieved on May 30, 2018 from http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/guide/pages/agreement%20on%20gaza%20st rip%20and%20jericho%20area.aspx.
Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (1995, 28 September). The Israeli-Palestinian interim agreement. Retrieved May 30, 2018 from http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/guide/pages/the%20israeli- palestinian%20interim%20agreement.aspx.
Johnson-Cartee, K. S. (2004). News narratives and news framing: Constructing political reality. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
51
Johnston, H. (2014). What is a social movement? Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Khondker, H. H. (2011). Role of the new media in the Arab Spring. Globalizations, 8(5), 675-679.
Khoury, J., Cohen, G., Lior, I., and Hoval, R. (2011, 5 August). Housing activists hope for record numbers at Saturday protest. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.haaretz.com/1.5040688.
Klandermans, B. (1984). Mobilisation and participation: Social-psychological expansions of resource mobilization theory. American sociological review, 583-600.
Kumaraswamy, P. R. (2013). Revisiting the Yom Kippur War. London: Routledge.
Lamertz, K., Martens, M. L., & Heugens, P. P. (2003). Issue evolution: A symbolic interactionist perspective. Corporate Reputation Review, 6(1), 82-93.
Lesch, A. M. (1977). Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Territories, 1967-1977. Journal of Palestine Studies, 7(1), 26-47.
Lior, I. (2011a, 14 July). Tel Aviv and Jerusalem residents to camp out in protest of high rent. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.haaretz.com/1.5028194.
Lior, I. (2011b, 23 July). Tens of thousands march in Tel Aviv to protest housing shortage, high rent prices. Retrieved May 25, 2011 from https://www.haaretz.com/1.5033490.
Lior, I. (2011c, 30 July). Thousands turn out across Israel in latest round of mass protests. Retrieved May 25, 2011 from https://www.haaretz.com/1.5037382.
Lior, I. (2011d, 6 September). Israel social protest leaders vow to keep on until ‘profound’ changes made. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.haaretz.com/1.5166169.
52 Lior, I. (2011e, 25 October). Israel social justice leaders: Netanyahu’s time is running out. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.haaretz.com/1.5203381.
Lior, I. (2011f, 28 October). Social protest leader tells Haaretz: Israelis won’t accept the status quo. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.haaretz.com/1.5204380.
Lior, I. (2011g, 15 August). Israel’s social protest leaders to present alternative expert panel. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.haaretz.com/1.5046213.
Lior, I. (2011h, 4 September). Israel’s social activists begin taking down tents day after largest-ever protest. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.haaretz.com/1.5164612.
Lior, I. (2011i, 27 September). Social protest leaders: Trajtenberg report a ‘blatant insult’ to the Israeli public. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.haaretz.com/1.5183817.
Lior, I. & Ashkenazi, E. (2011, 20 August). Social demonstrators in Tel Aviv clash over escalation in South. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.haaretz.com/1.5049773.
Lior, I. & Hasson, N. (2011, 27 July). Histadrut joins housing struggle as activists step up protests in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.haaretz.com/1.5035857.
Lior, I. & Hovel, R. (2011, 4 August). Parents and children protest in ‘stroller marches’ across Israel. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.haaretz.com/1.5040596.
Lior, I. & Lis, J. (2011, 9 August). Protest leaders present their vision for social justice in Israel. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.haaretz.com/1.5042887.
Lior, I. & Rosenberg, O. (2011, 28 August). Low turnout mars return of social protests to Israel’s streets. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.haaretz.com/1.5158927.
53 Lior, I. & Shtull-Trauring, A. (2011, 17 July). Spirit of revolution starts in Tel Aviv, sweeps across Israel. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.haaretz.com/1.5029412.
Lis, J. & Cohen, G. (2011, 5 August). Kadima chairman and MK Mofaz strongly criticize government’s response to cost-of-living protesters, who are expected to hold large demonstrations in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv Saturday night. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.haaretz.com/1.5041228.
Lustick, I. (1987). Israeli state-building in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip: theory and practice. International Organization, 41(1), 151-171.
Matthes, J. (2012). Framing politics: An integrative approach. American Behavioural Scientist, 56(3), 247-259.
Melman, Y. (2011, 10 August). Israelis run through Tel Aviv for social justice. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.haaretz.com/1.5044072.
McAdam, D. (2010). Political process and the development of black insurgency, 1930-1970. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Milanovic, B. (2011, 17 August). The London riots and the triumph of neoliberalism. Retrieved May 30, 2018 from https://hbr.org/2011/08/the-london-riots-and-the-trium.
Nadav, S. (2011, 9 August). Hot tent summer: Palestinians in the cold. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.jpost.com/Blogs/Its-All-Good/Hot-Tent-Summer-Palestinians-in- the-cold-366772.
New Israel Fund Australia Foundation. (2016, 6 November). Magash Hakesef (The silver platter) [YouTube]. Retrieved May 10, 2018 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rS2IRt8lpg.
Nir, T. & Grey, M. (2013). Social justice in Israel. Retrieved May 10, 2018 from http://fathomjournal.org/social-justice-in-israel/.
54 OECD. (2011). Divided we stand. Why inequality keeps rising. Retrieved May 10, 2018 from https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/49499779.pdf.
O’Sullivan, A., & Friedson, F. (2011, 16 August). Protests reveal rift in understanding democracy. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.jpost.com/Video- Articles/Video/Protests-reveal-rift-in-understanding-democracy.
Piven, F. F., & Cloward, R. A. (1979). Poor People’s Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail. New York: Vintage Books.
Rein, M. & Schön, D. (1993). ‘Reframing policy discourse’, in Fischer, F. & Forrester, J. F., The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham: Duke University Press.
Remnick, D. (2011, 28 February). The dissenters. Haaretz prides itself on being the conscience of Israel. Does it have a future? Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/02/28/the-dissenters.
Reuters. (2007, 24 September). Israeli authors urge ceasefire talks with Hamas. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL24528048.
Rosenberg, O., Lior, I., & Cohen, G. (2011, 3 September). Some 450,000 Israelis march at massive ‘march of the million’ rallies across country. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.haaretz.com/1.5164105.
Rosenberg, O., Yagna, Y., & Lior, I. (2011, 30 August). Tent leaders mull pulling up stakes after Saturday rally. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.haaretz.com/1.5160485.
Sacks, A. (2011, 8 August). Rabbi Andrew Sacks: power to the people! Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.jpost.com/Blogs/Masorti-Matters/Power-to-the-people- 366899.
55 Sa'di, A. H., & Abu-Lughod, L. (2007). Nakba: Palestine, 1948, and the claims of memory. New York: Columbia University Press.
Sasley, B. E. (2012, January 8). The future of J14 in Israel. Retrieved May 16, 2018, from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/brent-sasley/j14-movement_b_1078451.html.
Schechter, A. (2012, 11 July). A short guide to Israel’s social protest. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.haaretz.com/a-short-guide-to-the-social-protest-1.5265752.
Schipper, S. (2015). Towards a ‘Post-Neoliberal’Mode of Housing Regulation? The Israeli Social Protest of Summer 2011. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39(6), 1137-1154.
Sharkansky, I. (2011a, 26 July). Hot summer protests: housing, medicine and the government. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.jpost.com/Blogs/Window-on- Israel/Hot-summer-protests-Housing-medicine-and-the-government-366950.
Sharkansky, I. (2011b, 2 August). Revolutions meet realities. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.jpost.com/Blogs/Window-on-Israel/Revolutions-meet-realities-366924.
Sharon, J. (2011, 27 October). Mystic Rabbi Pinto backs social justice movement. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/Mystic- Rabbi-Pinto-backs-social-justice-movement.
Shavit, A. (2013). My promised land. The triumph and tragedy of Israel. New York: Spiegel & Grau, The Random House Publishing Group.
Shemer, N. & Harkov, L. (2011, 15 September). Trajtenberg denies reports of c’tee recommendations. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and- Politics/Trajtenberg-denies-reports-of-ctee-recommendations-238109.
56 Shemer, N., Stern, G. & Hoffman, S. (2011, 3 October). PM forced to postpone vote on Trajtenberg report. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.jpost.com/National- News/PM-forced-to-postpone-vote-on-Trajtenberg-report.
Shtull-Trauring, A. (2011, 3 August). Head to head / what else should the protest leaders be demanding? Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.haaretz.com/1.5039644.
Snow, D. A., Rochford Jr, E. B., Worden, S. K., & Benford, R. D. (1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilisation, and movement participation. American sociological review, 464-481.
Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International social movement research, 1(1), 197-217.
Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1992). Master frames and cycles of protest. Frontiers in social movement theory, 133-155.
Tarrow, S. (1998). Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taub Center. (2010, 29 July). Public expenditures: a look at Israel’s national priorities. Retrieved May 30, 2018 from http://taubcenter.org.il/public-expenditures-a-look- at-israels-national-priorities-2/.
The Jerusalem Post. (2011a, 15 August). Social experts gather to help protest leaders. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.jpost.com/National-News/Social-experts-gather- to-help-protest-leaders.
The Jerusalem Post. (2011b, 3 August). Tent protest spokesman: PM only cares about rich Israelis. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Tent- protest-spokesman-PM-only-cares-about-rich-Israelis.
The Jerusalem Post. (2011c). Students protest outside Tnuva chairperson’s house. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Students-protest- outside-Tnuva-chairpersons-house.
57 The Jerusalem Post (2011d, 3 August). Social justice front united, determined to bring change. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Social-justice- front-united-determined-to-bring-change.
The Jerusalem Post. (2011e, 13 August). Estimated 60,000 attend social justice rallies in periphery. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.jpost.com/National-News/Estimated- 60000-attend-social-justice-rallies-in-periphery.
The Jerusalem Post. (2011f, 2 August). Liberal US groups back Israel protesters. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Liberal-US-groups- back-Israel-protesters.
The Times of Israel. (2017, 14 July). Waqf official may have aided Israeli Arab terrorists in Temple Mount attacks – report. Retrieved May 30, 2018 from https://www.timesofisrael.com/police-arrest-suspects-in-temple-mount-attack-raid-homes-of- israeli-arab-terrorists/.
Tilly, C., & Tarrow, S. G. (2006). Contentious politics. Lanham, MD: Paragon Press.
Tilly, C. (1982). "Britain Creates the Social Movement." in Cronin, J. E., & Schneer, J., Social Conflict and the Political Order in Modern Britain. London: Croom Helm.
Turner, E. (2013). New movements, digital revolution, and social movement theory. Peace Review, 25(3), 376-383.
Wallach, Y. (2012). 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), 150-154.
Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (2012). Vertrouwen in burgers. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
58 Wicks, R. H. (2005). Message framing and constructing meaning: An emerging paradigm in mass communication research. Annals of the International Communication Association, 29(1), 335-362.
Zilber, A. (2011, 6 October). Uncertain future: the final pitch. Retrieved May 25, 2018 from https://www.jpost.com/Metro/Features/Uncertain-future-The-final-pitch.
59