Framing and social movements : a case-study on the Israeli J14 movement

(1)

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

(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:

(4)

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.).

(5)

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.

(6)

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

(7)

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

(8)

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

(9)

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

(10)

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

(11)

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

(12)

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

(13)

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

(14)

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

(15)

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.).

(16)

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).

(17)

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).

(18)

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;

(19)

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

(20)

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.).

(21)

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

(22)

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

(23)

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

(24)

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.

(25)

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,

(26)

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).

(27)

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.

(28)

“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).

(29)

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

(30)

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

Framing and social movements : a case-study on the Israeli J14 movement