EVOLUTION OF CIVIL SOCIETY IN THE STATE OF ISRAEL:

CHANGES AFTER THE LIKUD “UPHEAVAL”

Aloshyna O.I.
National University Kyiv-Mohyla Academy
e-mail: [email protected]

The State of Israel has created a civil society with huge difficulties. The historical
and political course changes, dynamics, and the relations between the society and the
state can explain it. After the Likud “upheaval” and the Ottoman Associations` Law of
1980, the situation with nonprofit organizations has changed rapidly. Using the term
“civil society” as a theoretical framework, the public sphere and its ability to influence
state policy was examined. As a result, the society prospered in imposing its collective
understanding of civil society influenced by the Israeli state.
Israel draws a lot of public attention around the globe. This is especially the case
for the various groups that compose Israeli society − the immigration waves that brought
them to Israel and the relationships between the majority and the minority in a
multicultural immigrant society. According to Tamar Hermann: “Analysts of Israeli
society have traditionally pointed to six cleavages that were often metaphorically
referred to as “tribes”: Jews and Arabs, secular and religious (orthodox and
ultraorthodox), veterans and newcomers, rich and poor, Ashkenazi and Sephardic, doves
and hawks. The relative importance attributed to each of these divisions has depended
greatly on the analysis, epistemological, and ideological point of departure. Still, the
fractures within Israeli society are real, no matter whether they are still deep enough to
shatter the bedrock upon which it is built” [1]. That is why we need to pay attention not
only to the titular group of Israel’s population but also to analyze all of the country’s
minorities.
Nevertheless, from the first year of the state building, Israel had been defending
itself as a Jewish democratic state. The first stage of Israeli democracy (1948-1977) can
be called “semi-competitive”. None of the parties received an absolute majority in the
Knesset, and the dominance of Mapai and its successor the Labor Party was evident.
Strong, independent social movements have not yet been formed outside of the party
system. Most of the institutions, public organizations, and the media were associated
with the government itself, with the Histadrut and the Jewish Agency, or with political
parties. Additionally, many media outlets were also owned by one or other party. At the
same time, the majority had a political power with a strong center of power, and the
most important issues of domestic policy were resolved through negotiations and
compromises between almost all conflicting parties [4].
Until 1977 while the Labor Party was in power their political and economic
structure played a key role in the Labor political movement. A political party that was
formed in 1976, the Democratic Movement for Changes brought Labor down and
enabled Likud to take power in 1977. Before the 1980s the State of Israel was
intensively mobilized and control of social resources through the Histadrut. Likud
launched an economic liberalization program designed to dismantle the political and
economic structure that was the mainstay of Labor’s power [5].
For the development and consolidation of democracy by civil society, it can be
argued that the Israeli setting, rather than hampering the intended study, lends it further
support and comparability. The State of Israel is indeed much closer institutionally,
ideologically, and culturally to Western democracies than it is to any other country in
the Middle East. This is not only expressed by Israel’s adaptation of Western norms but
also by Israel’s Western-like reaction to similar situations and incidents. Security
considerations which have often been faulted with Israel’s democratic insufficiency,
have also led other democracies to take actions that can be considered contradictory to
democratic norms and behavior. All this considered, the study of democratization in
Israel may bring much knowledge to the study of civil society in the State of Israel.
In “strong” states, such as Israel, civil society organizations are often incorporated
into state politics and also tend to become dependent on state cooperation and resources,
thus unable to effectively pose independent agendas or oppose undemocratic state
behavior. The historical development of civil organizations in Israel dates back to the
days of pre-statehood. It was utilized by the small Jewish community, consisting mainly
of immigrants from Eastern Europe, and characterized by a high level of political
awareness, and a participative political culture. Pre-state civil society organizations gave
all the fundamental necessities of the Jewish settlements. Pre-statehood civil society was
so incorporating and viable that large portions of these associations were called upon by
the new state following autonomy to proceed with the arrangement of administrations in
the developmental years. The 1977 elections, and the fall of the Labor Party which had
been considered a dominant party until this point signified a new era for civic activity.
The “upheaval” period of civil society was nearing its to conclusion.
However, based on the general problem on which the existence of the people
themselves depends, the states, provided that the less significant contradictions that
prevent the unification of the people are eliminated, it is possible to create a society that,
by the standards of liberal ideologists, can be called civil.
The Israeli third sector consists of a combination of these classifications. It
includes organizations that are integrated into the welfare state system and receive
government funding to provide services that either supplement or replace those of the
state. The Israeli third sector also includes autonomous organizations that do not receive.
State mechanisms have always been well-advised in their contacts with civil society.
Israel’s legal framework burdens the self-finance of the civic organizations.
To sum up, is needed to say that Israel’s “semi-democratic” regime presents an
interesting case. The country was established as a parliamentary democracy, with a
multi-party system. The establishment and evolution of civil society in Israel play a
hugely important role in shaping Israeli daily lives, from the interaction between the
policies that guide laws and regulations, and the market forces that allocate resources.
During this time, civil society has been almost absent concerning most aspects of Israeli
politics. The situation changed in 1977 after the Likud “upheaval”. However, closer
examination shows that pro-democratic civil society is still struggling against a strong
and inclusive state.

References

1. Tamar S. Hermann, “The role of civil society and NGOs in peacebuilding in Israel,” in
Bridging the Divide: Peacebuilding in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, ed. Edy Kaufman, Walid Salem,
and Juliette Verhoeven (Boulder: Lynne Reinner, 2006), 39-58.
2. Baruch Kimmerling, Clash of Identities Explorations in Israeli and Palestinian Societies (New
York: Columbia University Press, 2008), 69.
3. Benjamin Gidron, Michal Bar, Hagai Katz, “The Third Sector and Civil Society in Israel,” in
The Israeli Third Sector. Nonprofit and Civil Society Studies, ed. Benjamin Gidron, Michal Bar, Hagai
Katz (Springer: Boston, MA, 2004), 141−162.
4. Eliezer Don-Yehiya, Religion and Political Accommodation in Israel (Jerusalem: The
Floresheimer Institute, 1999), 85.
5. Guy Ben-Porat, “Conclusion: Implementing Peace Agreements,” in The Failure of the Middle
East Peace Process?: A Comparative Analysis of Peace Implementation in Israel/Palestine, Northern
Ireland, and South Africa, ed. Guy Ben-Porat, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), 260.
6. Shared Haim and Dishon Daniel, “Middle East Contemporary Survey in 1983-1984,” Shiloah
Institute of the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University 8
(1986): 501.
7. Michael Bruno, Generating a sharp disinflation: Israel 1985 (Cambridge: National Bureau of
economic research, 1986), 27. Last modified May 17, 2017, http://www.nber.org/papers/w1822.pdf
8. Yoav Peled, “Who Was Afraid of Decolonization?,” in The Failure of the Middle East Peace
Process? A Comparative Analysis of Peace Implementation in Israel/Palestine, Northern Ireland and
South Africa, ed. Guy Ben-Porat (Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), 221.
9. Smooha Sammy, “The Model of Ethnic Democracy: Israel as a Jewish and Democratic State,”
Nations and Nationalism 8, 4 (2002): 475-503.
10. Gershon Shafir and Yoav Peled, Being Israeli: The Dynamics of Multiple Citizenship
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 285.
11. John S. Dryzek, “Political Inclusion and the Dynamics of Democratization,” American
Political Science Review 90, 1 (1996): 457-487.
12. Avraham Brichta, Political Reform in Israel: The quest for Stable and Effective Government
(Sussex: Sussex Academic Press, 2001), 51.
13. Meron Benvenisti, Report: Demographic, Economic, Legal, Social and Political Developments
in the West Bank (Jerusalem: West Bank Data Base Project, 1987), 66-80.
14. Gershon Shafir and Yoav Peled, The New Israel: Peacemaking and Liberalization (Boulder:
Westview Press, 2000), 234.
15. Yael Yishai, “Civil Society and Democracy: The Israeli Experience,” Voluntas: International
Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 13 (2002): 215, accessed May 17, doi: 10.1023/A:
1020303908944.
16. Peter Y. Medding, Mapai in Israel: political organizations and government in a new society
(New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 216.

Supervisor: Ph.D., senior research fellow, Chernoivanenko V. V.