Israeli Spring

On September 1, I arrived to see tent cities along every major boulevard in Tel Aviv. They arose spontaneously in response to an impulsive act of a single college student. She was struggling to make ends meet when her landlord raised the rent. Desperate, and expecting an eviction the following morning, she posted on Facebook: At 7:00 tomorrow morning, I will be evicted from my apartment because I cannot afford the rent. I will pitch a tent on Boulevard Rothschild, and there I will live. Within the hour, 60 others had responded to her note: Me, too. And they did, by the hundreds. Among them were middle-class professionals unable to buy homes, parents with young children to educate and care for, students hoping for meaningful work, elders worried about transportation and health care. Their concerns were diverse, their dialogue dissonant, but their desire for change was undeniable.

The French would call this a manifestation. Deep dissatisfaction and frustration of the Israeli people manifested itself as a widespread movement, literally, to the streets. At every street corner, bedraggled furniture was pulled into circles where the cool of the evening brought people to discuss their hopes, fears, and plans. The following Saturday, I joined 360,000 people marching to the center of Tel Aviv, demanding social justice. In cities all across Israel people marched. Reports told of 500,000 demonstrators, in a nation of only 7,000,000 inhabitants.

A week later, the day after I left Tel Aviv, 5,000 people met in round tables to dialogue about the challenges of life in Israel today. As a result of the demonstrations, nine councils of experts have been convened to explore concerns and recommend action to right the wrongs that had inspired the civil awakening. They focus on the wide variety of concerns expressed by demonstrators, including: health, economy, education, transportation, and land use.

It was difficult to get news of this emergent phenomenon outside of Israel. The nation’s foreign affairs filled the airwaves and preoccupied the formal power structures around the world. In the meantime, within the community, individuals and groups began to express their frustrated hopes and personal and financial disappointments with the internal affairs of the State.

I don’t know enough about the circumstances to comment on their messages, and I’m not a member of the community to earn my own say in the melee, but I do know that the demonstrations manifested some fundamental truths about the complex emergence of human systems dynamics.

The diversity of the movement gave it power. The press and members of the establishment said the group shouldn’t even call itself a movement because it had no single vision or purpose. On the contrary, the diversity of concerns made it quite difficult to counter the claims. The government had no choice but to explore a complex response to such a diverse and unpredictable message.

The coherence of the movement gave it power. Within a tradition of radically diverse views and habits of assertive interaction, this movement brought people together with hope and joy. Even in the press of masses streaming into the square on Saturday night, people were smiling and greeting each other warmly. It seemed a bit like a massive block party of neighbors who knew and cared about each other.

Clarity of action engaged swift and coherent response. Put up a tent. Move into it. March with others. Meet for dialogue. At every point, though the message was complex, the invitations were simple. Anyone who wanted to be involved knew exactly how to do it.

The butterfly effect was not about the butterfly. The small “cause” that prompted the enormous response succeeded because it ignited a smoldering pattern of dissatisfaction. The environment already held the potential for the pattern that emerged, and the young woman and her Facebook note simply released the pattern to inspire action across the system.

Emergent change demanded action from both the powerless and powerful. The individual passion that initiated the movement could not, by itself, have sustained change over time. On the other hand, the power of political and policy infrastructures, which will be required for sustained change, were incapable of igniting the fires of passion for change. Transformative change required the sustained commitment of both the individual and the State.

Difference without dialogue is dead. None of the concerns voiced by the movement were surprising. Everyone knew that costs are rising and services are declining. Nothing happened until the dialogue began, and nothing will be resolved unless the dialogue continues.

We can surprise ourselves. As we streamed toward the city center on Saturday night, I was thrilled and moved to tears. The inequity they fought was miniscule when compared to that in my own country, but I could not imagine the America of today taking such action in support of social justice. I said as much to my friend who marched beside me, and she responded, “Six weeks ago, I did not see this potential for powerful action among the Israelis, either.”

Glenda Eoyang, Ph.D.
Executive Director
HSD Institute