In his well-known “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” African-American civil rights leader (and Zionist) Martin Luther King Jr. explained the justification for peaceful civil disobedience, “You may well ask: ‘Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?’ You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Non-violent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored…”
King continued, “Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.’”
On September 2, 1997 a Jerusalem Magistrate Court handed down a verdict of guilty of sedition to Moshe Feiglin and Shmuel Sackett, co-chairmen of Zo Artzeinu. The verdict was based on actions taken by Feiglin and Sackett in 1995 during the Rabin-Peres regime. Their crime was organizing thousands of demonstrators across Israel and blocking main intersections in protest against the Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles. Feiglin considered himself “one of the planners of the first attempt at organized civil disobedience,” in Israel. Feiglin has spoken widely of following Dr. King’s example of civil disobedience.
Since the 1990s protests of civil disobedience have been periodically seen in Israel. Before the disengagement from Gaza in 2005, opponents of the eviction blocked roads to protest the government’s decision to leave Gaza. When Jerusalem considered annexing the city of Mevaseret Zion, residents of Mevaseret blocked the main Tel Aviv-Jerusalem highway protesting the rise in taxes that would be a result of the annexation.
Over the past few years, Israel has seen more civil disobedience style protests by different groups. Charedim opposing the IDF draft, opponents of judicial reform, and of the government’s handling of the war, have all blocked highways as acts of protests.
In addition to blocking highways as acts of civil disobedience, more recently, Israelis have begun protesting outside the home of government ministers and Knesset members they feel responsible for government policies they oppose. Protesters have even shown up at minister’s synagogues during prayer times. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s two private residences, along with his official residence are sites of constant protests. It isn’t just the Prime Minister’s residence, but Ministers Ron Dermer, former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, Economy Minister Nir Barkat, Agriculture Minister Avi Dichter and Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee chairman Yuli Edelstein, have all been targets of protests outside their homes.
In the case of opponents of judicial reform, protesters explained targeting specific politicians could “tip the balance of the scales” for the protest movement, which has featured weekly mass demonstrations across the country. “Our goal is to make these members of the Knesset understand that if they vote in favor [of government reforms], they will cause irreparable damage to the State of Israel and the Israeli people.”
Although protesters feel justified blocking highways and disturbing the families and neighbors of elected officials, many Israelis find the practice abhorrent. They ask what gives one person the right to disrupt another person’s life just because they oppose a government policy? They maintain that only the rudest Israelis think it’s acceptable to scream and yell outside of someone’s home just because they instituted a policy they oppose.
Israelis point to the hindrance these protests pose to emergency vehicles reaching the sick and injured needing quick transportation to hospitals and security services’ ability to reach areas where attacks are taking place.
In addition to finding the protests rude, selfish, and insensitive, many Israelis question the efficacy of the protests. They claim there isn’t verifiable proof of even one case of a government policy or proposal that was changed because of demonstrations of civil disobedience, let alone protesting outside of elected official’s homes. If anything, opponents of civil disobedience in Israel claim, the demonstrations are more reminiscent of immature temper tantrums than the civil rights protests of Martin Luther King in America.
Recently, National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir has proposed legislation implementing a new policy dictating how police are to handle protests, which would forbid demonstrators from blocking major roads or rallying at synagogues. The new policy would prohibit protests blocking highways and major routes, as well as roads leading to hospitals, isolated towns, emergency routes and Ben Gurion Airport.
While any legislation blocking Israelis from protesting is sure to face strong opposition from free speech advocates, many Israelis are fed up with years of weekly protests that have disrupted their lives. Israeli elected officials face a difficult challenge in balancing the right to vocally oppose government policies while not allowing the personal lives of Israelis and their elected officials to be constantly disrupted.