Board & Mission Statement
Why IAM?
About Us
Articles by IAM Associates
Ben-Gurion University
Hebrew University
University of Haifa
Tel Aviv University
Other Institutions
Boycott Calls Against Israel
Israelis in Non-Israeli Universities
Anti-Israel Petitions Supported by Israeli Academics
General Articles
Anti-Israel Conferences
Anti-Israel Academic Resolutions
Lectures Interrupted
Activists Profiles
Readers Forum
On the Brighter Side
How can I complain?
Contact Us / Subscribe
Ben-Gurion University
BGU Lev Grinberg, last part "Is there a chance to democratize Israel without ending the occupation?" U California, Berkeley


BGU Professor Lev Luis Grinberg
Email: lev@bgu.ac.il

Editorial Note:
Lecture by Lev Greenberg ........  Part III  
Grinberg, a political economist and sociologist from Ben Gurion University is known for  his extremely harsh condemnations of Israel; he rejects the notion that  Israel is a democracy in any sense and accuses Israeli leaders of conducting "state terrorism" and  "symbolic genocide" against the Palestinians.  

 Part III of his lecture is even less coherent that the previous segments;  in fact, at times,  it resembles a "stream of consciousness" tirade.  Some of Grinberg's classic conspiracy themes can be recognized.  One of them, which he shares with other radical academics, is the argument that Netanyahu fabricates enemies in order to torpedo the peace process.  As Grinberg puts it, first it was the PLO, now it is the jihadists and Iran.  Grinberg is really upset  that the United States backs Israel on these threats, calling it  a "real tragedy." 
His other conspiracy theory pertains to domestic affairs. He states that the Dor B, the younger generation, is worse off that the generation of their parents because the government and the labor union conspired to settle their disputes at the cost of Dor B.   Since he claims to be a political economics, he would be well advised to look at a comparable phenomenon in the West, whereby the younger generation has fared less well than their parents, primarily because of the globalization of the economy.
Grinberg's "stream of consciousness" presentation reaches a climax in the concluding passage where he seems to talk either about Egypt or Israel.  In whatever version, he mixes facts with wishful thinking, interspersed with rhetoric delivered in poor English. 
Still, the issue here is not what Grinberg thinks about the future of the Arab spring of the Israeli protest movement.  The reall question is why Grinberg can afford to indulge in this type of ideological mussing masquerading as academic research.  The answer, as was already stated, resides in the lax academic standards at Ben-Gurion University; they provided Grinberg and other radical activists with academic legitimacy, and equally to the point, with a secure income.  The Council on Higher Education denounced such appointments in the Department of Politics and Government. They should have also looked at the Department of Sociology and Anthropology.    

Is There a Chance To Democratize Israel/Palestine?

The Israeli movement for social justice, J-14, was initiated in the quiet summer of 2011, inspired by the Egyptian democratic mobilization in Tahrir Square and the Spanish M-15 movement. Within 52 days, J-14 gained incredible popularity with 85 percent support, according to the polls, and it mobilized a mass demonstration of more than half a million people, with no precedent in Israel. The government recognized its economic policies were inducing inequality and declared new taxation and budget policies aiming to reduce poverty and the social gap. However, the movement never mentioned the military occupation nor the injustices the state caused to the Palestinians.

Is there a chance to democratize Israel without ending the occupation? Is there a chance that the J-14 movement for social justice will embrace justice for Palestinians too? Using the analytical concepts and insights suggested in his book, Politics and Violence in Israel/Palestine: Democracy vs. Military Rule, Prof. Lev Luis Grinberg (Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Israel) will analyze the recent political events from a historical perspective.

The lecture was delivered by Grinberg at the University of California, Berkeley, on Nov. 3, 2011

Part 3, transcript by IAM
The democratic opening starts with intifada.  Today, the First Intifada, because we had a second!   It put an end to the stability of the regime.   It demarcated the borders of the State of Israel and also the hopeful State of Palestine, and created new power relations, forcing Israel to recognize the Palestinians and negotiate.   The elections in 1992 coordinated the two arenas claiming the change of priority.   I want to explain this point.   We have two arenas of politics.   As a matter of fact, we have three, but now I want to talk about two.   The internal arena of the politics inside Israel, with conflicts and different identities and claims, etc. and we have the Israeli-Palestinian arena of relations, which also need to be democratized.  The question is how to do it.   So the articulation was done by the leader and for sure later with the cooperation of the leader of the Palestinians, it was Rabin and Rabin articulated the two arenas with the slogan changing of priorities.   What does it mean?   We need to stop investing money, effort, people in the occupied territories and to put all of this money inside Israel to develop the economy, close inequalities, etc. etc.   That is the way that the Labor Party started the democratization process.   From the moment that the Palestinians space was open to negotiations, internal spaces inside Israel were opened too.   Class conflicts appeared, ethnic hostilities between Mizrahim and Ashkenazi Jews appeared, civil rights claims of the Palestinians inside Israel appeared, and the hostility between the secular and the religious.   Every thing was open.   When you open one, you immediately open the other.   You close one, you close the other.   That is my point.  


The tribal left-right mobilization was weakened by the emergence of tensions between different sectors because you suddenly have Mizrahi voices; they can represent themselves.   They don’t need the Likud folks to do it.   Also the Ashkenazis with the anti-religious identities have their own parties.   They don’t need the Labor Party precisely.   And they lost power.   At the beginning of the process, they more or less had 80 seats in the Knesset.   At the end of this process, they had 40 in six years, something like this.    The dominant upper classes were unable and unwilling to open space to the peripheral groups, which were mobilized one against the other, creating fear of national disintegration.    The point is the following.   It is not only to recognize the identity of the Mizrahis or the Arab Palestinians citizens or the orthodox.   It is to put money in the budget to solve their problems.   So, the dominant group, that was mainly motivated to keep power on their hands, was completely enabled to open the political space to their rivals.   Enabled and willing because it would share their power.   And this was the failure.   This was my argument in my book.   The first flaw of this process was that it was mainly inside Israel, not in relations with the Palestinians because of the simple fact they did not even enter real negotiations, but the first process failed due to the inability to coordinate the opening of political spaces in the two arenas.


[…]   What we have since then is what we more or less call cows.   The Palestinian Authority is inside the territories.   The military are surrounding them and separating them, but they have some standing organization and there is no possibility of stability in this situation, because Rabin was killed in the moment.   We don’t know where he was moving at all.   We can imagine but the process was ended in the middle without any possibility to continue.   Without the political forces and without the agendas to continue this movement, the Israeli internal tensions grew until 2000, and the feeling was that Israeliness was disappearing and secular identities started to appear and completely ignoring the suffering of the Palestinians.    I call this the imagined peace.   They imagined that we are in a peace process, then immediately the internal struggles appeared but no one was taking into consideration that the Palestinians are in a worse situation than before.   Then, when the Second Intifada appeared, the Israelis united against the Palestinians.   So, all the previous tensions, went again under the carpet were covered by the violence but also all of the openings inside Israel were closed.   Violence closed the space for the Palestinian representation and the space for the Israeli presentation.  


And now I come to what I call the orphan generation, Dor B.   Dor is in Hebrew generation and B is the name of the movement.   B is the first letter of beit, home, and this is the way they called themselves and added that the meaning of it is also related to labor relations because Dor B was something that was invented to worsen the situation of the next generation of workers.   It was invented by the trade unions when there were struggles they said, ok, we can compromise with you, but the next workers will not have your conditions.   And this is Dor B.   This is the meaning of next generation.   It means that parents; not direct parents, I didn’t do that to my daughter and my son, in principle I have better conditions than them.    Work conditions, salaries, pension rights, whatever, my generation has much better than the next generation.   And this is something new, because in the past, it was the opposite.   We have a better situation than our parents.  


This generation has a very interesting history and experience.   They experience, more or less, this generation, starting with Dalpha Leef, the first leader of the movement, she said as a girl.   She is now 25.   And she was ten when Rabin was killed or nine.   And she tells the story in the demonstrations and in the media, this is the first experience; the loss of hope when Rabin was assassinated and all the violent experiences of the Second Intifada, the repression, terror, and the neoliberal economics.   This is the experience of this generation.    I think that we can frame them as being 10 to 20 in the day that Rabin was assassinated.   That is tomorrow, btw, Nov. 4.   The neoliberal economics also forced them to start to struggle.   I think almost immediately because the meaning was that the middle classes were losing their economic power and their resources and the children felt it too.   Sure, I witnessed in the university in the strikes of the students, but the first strike was in 1998 and already in that strike I said this is a generation that wants their own political space and they are building something new.   This was a very impressive strike during fifty days.   All of the universities and colleges in Israel were closed.   And the constant demonstrations and they even then started to develop this discourse that solved this problem of identities, sectarianism.


This was the problem of the left leading to peace.   They didn’t want to include the others and they started to and their slogans were, “we are Jews and Arabs, Mizrahi and Ashkenazi, women and men.”   These were the slogans in 1998.   And in the end of the struggle they went, a group of them, on a hunger struggle that lasted twenty days.   Bibi Netanyahu was the Prime Minister and he broke this struggle in a very nasty way.   […] He brought pizza to the strikers and some were eating, but others were people who were not in the hunger strike and then the media took their pictures and it broke the solidarity of the movement.     Incredible, he is now in my opinion paying the bill of this irresponsibility on those days.  


In 2007, there was another strike of students.   Their claim was not against the rise of feast like here, it was to reduce the feast.   They claimed to reduce it in 50 percent.   But there were other strikes.   And this is very interesting.   In the last year, the high school teachers went to strike, the doctors are now I think within the conflict; they are striking for five months right now, and the social workers.   In each of these cases, there was a conflict inside the trade union between the new generation and the old generation.   The new generation were the representatives of the trade union, and their in power and they always compromise and they didn’t improve the situation of the young generation.   In several cases, they broke the agreements after the trade union reached an agreement; the young people went against the agreement.  Now this is the problem in case of the doctors.   They resigned from jobs in the hospitals.   Not only strike, but resigned from jobs in the hospitals.   They don’t accept the compromise with the government.  


This new nation started to organize.   To organize NGOs!   They worked with oriental Jews, […] youth, women, Arabs, and Bedouins, in peripheral towns.   They also organized the social economic organizations.   There are a lot of organizations struggling against occupation.   I don’t want to mention them, in order not to offend any group, but you have Machsom Watch, Ta’ayush, the soldiers refusing to go, the soldiers that go to the military but afterwards they tell what they are doing there, Women’s Coalition for Peace, Women in Black, a lot of organizations.   Now Sheikh Jarrah, I think they call themselves now Solidarity.      I want to make clear.   In the J-14, these two groups of solidarity, social and economic activists and peace activists, are together.   They are participating together and what you have here is a kind of atmosphere of democratization.    In the tents, you don’t only have discussions about the neo-liberal economy, how to reduce inequalities, there were debates also on the one state solution.   So, every thing is open and every thing is legitimate.    This is what the movement is trying to do.   There is a very important organization that I must mention, the Koach l’Ovedim, the Organization of the Workers that are not organized by the Histadrut. And this is a very important organization.   They have several achievements.   The last one was yesterday night, I think.   The agreement in Haifa!   They are fighting all the time to organize the unorganized and the agreement of yesterday was precisely canceling the agreement to allow to separate the young from the veterans!   This was the meaning of the last agreement.   They are doing a very important work in creating the transfer of solidarity.  


The movement is very interesting in the sense that they have these assemblies every day that you also now have in this occupy movement!   I hate the word occupy and the occupation, it’s why occupy, but they have this anthem every day in the tents.   They also have big national meetings cause its not coming from New York and San Francisco.   It’s coming from Jerusalem, so they have national meetings.   So there is an atmosphere of democracy, but there are people taking decisions.   Not only every one can do every thing, for example the decision to go to this demonstration or another demonstration, is central so they are doing something that is in my opinion very interesting, clever, and intelligent.   The question is, can the J-14 movement open political space in both arenas?   Not only inside Israel, but also for the Palestinians?  Well, my argument is that they have no choice.   If they don’t open the political space towards the unrecognized and negotiate with the Palestinians, their own political space will be closed by external clashes with violent enemies and you can trust Netanyahu to find external enemies every where.   No problem if at the beginning it was Abu Mazen, Fatah, then Hamas, now Jihad Islamic, and now Iran.   And you can continue.   Our problem is that the United States supports him.   That is the real tragedy.


So, you have no choice but change.   But how are they doing something in this direction?   There are some elements of democratization already from the beginning.    If we leave balance of power, they are trying to balance the power of what you call here the one percent, they call it the tycoons.   The tycoons are not the one percent.   They are the one percent of the one percent of the one percent.   It’s a very very small group.  And they are talking in the name of the people that is almost every one!   It’s the middle classes, the lower classes, the upper middle classes, but the interesting point is that not only that they are balancing the power of the tycoons.   They are unintentionally demarcating the borders of the state because they are claiming houses in their cities, not in the occupied territories.   They don’t say that.   I think they didn’t even think about it.   And the government is building houses.    All the time, in the occupied territories!   It’s investing a lot of money building houses.   So if you are in the settlement, you can not join the movement except if you go to Tel Aviv to join the movement.   If you go to Tel Aviv to join the movement, it’s ok because it’s exactly what they want.   Go back to the borders of Israel!   But they can not make an encampment in the territories and claim built for us houses because the government is building houses for them.  So, unintentionally, by starting from the question of housing, they demarcated the borders of Israel.   So you have people demonstrating every where but these are the borders within Israel.


And it was funny, because the settlers were the beginning immediately, reacting by attacking the movement as leftists and also they say if you want cheap houses, you can come to the territories.   No problem!   And when they saw that it was so popular, they started to want to join the club.   Even Kahane had some tents in Rothchild, so they wanted to be part of, because this is a people that want to be part of the people.   But they completely failed.   And I think the most important is to create the feeling that there is space for every one in the movement because part of the failure of the left, the Ashkenazi left, it identified with the upper middle classes, the secular identity, and my impression is that they want to escape this image.   At the beginning, it was the main campaign to say this spoiled kid, they are eating sushi and they are aware of the demands must include the demands of the lower classes.   These are the ethnic groups that are excluded.


It is not at all easy to do but this is a point that they are working hard to build this coalition.    And it is related to the demands of social justice, of better housing, education, and health.   I know the ages of this generation because my young son is 25 and my daughter is 35, so this is exactly, she was 20 and he was 10 when Rabin was killed and my daughter is part of the Jerusalem camp.   You have several camps in Jerusalem.   Part are of the people that are really without house, that are in the streets!  Families, mainly women with children, women alone, and they have some separate camp and they are doing now squat.  But this squat is not called to stay there.   These are squats to demonstrate that they are without houses.   And this became a very strong event, because in order to remove them from their houses, they are using a lot of violence and this became also an important issue.  


How do they build a new discourse?     That is clear that it is connecting the question of the Palestinians with the question of…Its not at all easy because at the moment they will be tagged as leftists, they lose the struggle.   So they do it in a very mild way.   They mention that the Rabin assassination is the first experience they had.   Rabin is always there.   I think they even exaggerated a little.   At the end, I will show you the show.   I think it creates an atmosphere yearning for Rabin.   Its problematic but mentioning the assassination of Rabin is a political point.   It has a political meaning.   They emphasize the building of a new Israeli identity based on solidarity and justice, and it is inclusive of the peripheral group that includes also the Palestinians.   This is very important.   I’m not sure that they are succeeding to do it in practical terms and there is a lot of problems because the Palestinians citizens are very suspicious of the movement.   They say, well, at the end, you will make us the dog bait.   You will forget us.   You will have houses for you but not for us.   And there are groups that are struggling now for this issue to destroy the houses of 30,000 Bedouins in the Negev.   The movement is against that, but it’s not mobilizing all the masses against it.   So it’s difficult to mobilize every one in solidarity with the Bedouins.  It’s not easy and this is exactly the kind of challenges the movement is facing.


But obviously the most important obstacle is that the government can easily escalate violence and mobilize fear and hate, not against the movement.   This is a mistake I believe.  Against the Arabs and against the Palestinians, it’s not a question.   You need nothing more than to close the space for the social and economic claims because at the moment you have fear and hate, it closes the political space for the Palestinians.   So they must continue and it is not at all easy.    They started I think to move in this way.   I don’t know if you know, the last Saturday there was a demonstration in Tel Aviv, big demonstration in Tel Aviv, I don’t want to say how many people but I will show pictures.   This is the first time they go to Rabin Square, where he was killed, and they made a big issue for the fact that they are in Rabin Square.    And the Rabin Square was full.   I will show you some picture.   But the important point was that it was in the middle of the fire in Gaza.   And there were demonstrations also in Jerusalem, in Haifa, and the demonstration in Be’ersheva was canceled because Be’ersheva was under fire.   So, this window of opportunity in the summer disappeared.   September is over.   Now they need to continue and if they continue they need to start being able to mobilize people also in periods of violence.   I think this is also with no precedent.   Such a big demonstration on social and economic issues; it wasn’t for peace.   For peace, there were demonstrations.  For social economic issues during the time of fire on the south, it never happened.   And who was in this stage?   This I can refer to the ending, how you can fit politically.   They invited the most famous satiric group that were fifteen years ago, not by chance, and they made a sketch!   They start to say oh we are in Rabin Square, do you remember how nice it was in those days, when Rabin was alive?   And then they    started to make a joke of the situation since then.  Hello in Hebrew is Shalom.   Don’t say shalom.   Don’t say peace.   You can not say peace now.  It’s very sporadic to say peace now.  And they started to say, are we expecting now again?  Do we have hope?   Are you going to change?   And then they say, no no, this cannot be.    They joke, what is this smell?   And they started to say, well, we don’t smell hope.   We don’t smell change.   What you are smelling is war!  


The challenge is very difficult.  The chances that the government would be able to reactivate violence and silence in the movement is big but this will push the movement to decision!   They will need to decide how to react.   It is a real movement. No chance!   The enthusiasm in the summer was incredible.   Every one wanted to be in the streets to be part of it.   It means the political space of this people is closed, for almost fifteen years, so the enthusiasm that we can go to the streets and make a difference…This is in relation to Tahrir.   Tahrir was also a case to open the political space and to be recognized.   This is a matter of    recognition.   I don’t like to be optimistic or pessimistic, but I can show this is a movement that may reach the point of effective movements.   Effective movements have two elements: civil society mobilization and political articulation.   Still, there are no political parties!  They may appear.   I am not talking about existing political parties that are trying to make some capital from the movement, but really representing the parties of the movement.   This may happen.   I assume that if there is time, it will happen but part of the debate will be not only what happened on the socio-economic claims but how to discuss the question of peace with the Palestinians.      


Back to "Ben-Gurion University"Send Response
Top Page
    Developed by Sitebank & Powered by Blueweb Internet Services
    Visitors: 256828411Send to FriendAdd To FavoritesMake It HomepagePrint version