Military Conflict and Neo-Liberalization in Israel (2001–2006): A Neo-Gramscian Approach
| Author | Amit Avigur-Eshel,Dani Filc |
| Date | 01 May 2018 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032321717722356 |
| Published date | 01 May 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2017
Article
Political Studies
2018, Vol. 66(2) 503 –520
Military Conflict and
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
Neo-Liberalization in
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321717722356
DOI: 10.1177/0032321717722356
journals.sagepub.com/home/psx
Israel (2001–2006): A
Neo-Gramscian Approach
Amit Avigur-Eshel1 and Dani Filc2
Abstract
Existing analytical frameworks for the study of Israel’s political sociology and political economy
tend to view the Israeli society as polarized into a neo-liberal secular and peace-seeking elite and
religious ethno-republican social groups. The turn to ethno-republicanism following the outbreak
of the Second Intifada in 2000, and two neo-liberal economic programs in 2002 and 2003, exposed
the limitations of those approaches. We suggest that a Neo-Gramscian approach provides a better
theoretical framework for the analysis of the early years of the twenty-first century. We argue that
during the years 2001–2006 a hegemonic project was constituted which succeeded in combining
neo-liberal and ethno-republican elements. This project was based on a relatively stable socio-
political alignment of social groups, primarily drawn from the Jewish middle class. In order to
establish our argument, we characterize the project and analyze the position of the main social
groups in Israeli society relative to it.
Keywords
neo-Gramscian approach, historical bloc, ethno-republicanism, Israel, neo-liberalism
Accepted: 24 May 2017
Introduction
The most salient analyses of Israeli society and politics—notwithstanding the differ-
ences between them—tend to understand it as polarized into a neo-liberal, more secu-
lar, elite that supported the peace process, and more religious, conservative social
groups that supported ethno-republican models, and opposed the peace process (Ben-
Porat, 2005; Ram, 2008; Shafir and Peled, 2002). The turn to ethno-republicanism fol-
lowing the outbreak of the Second Intifada in October 2000, and two neo-liberal
1Department of Political Science, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
2Department of Politics and Government, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
Corresponding author:
Amit Avigur-Eshel, Department of Political Science, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91905,
Israel.
Email: amit.avigur@mail.huji.ac.il
504
Political Studies 66(2)
economic programs in 2002 and 2003, exposed the limitations of those approaches.
This article argues that a neo-Gramscian approach (NGA) provides a better theoretical
framework for explaining the developments in Israel’s politics, society, and economy
during the early years of the twenty-first century. Our main argument is that what
explains these developments is the emergence of a national-neo-liberal hegemonic pro-
ject during the years 2001–2006. This project succeeded in combining neo-liberal and
ethno-republican elements and was based on a relatively stable historical bloc—a
socio-political alignment of social groups.
The theoretical approach that grounds the more salient macro-level analyses of Israeli
society and politics (even when discussing with it) is the citizenship discourse approach
(CDA). CDA argues that in Israel coexist three citizenship discourses: liberal, republican,
and ethno-national (Shafir and Peled, 2002: 11). Discourses are used by socio-political
actors as means to legitimate differences in resource allocations (political power, sym-
bolic status, and access to material resources) among social groups in a particular incor-
poration regime. Until the mid-1980s, the liberal discourse legitimized the allocation of
basic rights and status to all citizens; the ethno-national discourse distinguished Jews and
awarded them a preferred status; and the republican discourse legitimized a superior sta-
tus for the Ashkenazi group (Jews of European origin, see below), since it viewed
Ashkenazim as having fulfilled at the highest degree their duties as citizens, in the build-
ing of the national project. According to Shafir and Peled (2002), in the mid-1980s, the
republican discourse was weakened as the dominant Ashkenazim opted for a liberal dis-
course that fitted the neo-liberal turn of the economy. Concomitantly, the decline of
republicanism invigorated the ethno-national discourse among Mizrachim (Jews originat-
ing from Arab countries) and national-religious Jews (NRJ) (Peled, 2008; Ram, 2008).
This approach has difficulties in explaining the above-mentioned combination of deepen-
ing neo-liberalism and ethno-republicanism. In order to adapt to the post-2000 reality,
proponents of CDA had to abandon a key element of this approach, namely, the distinc-
tiveness of the three citizenship discourses (see Peled, 2008), since the combination of
nationalism, neo-liberalism, and war includes elements of liberalism, republicanism, and
ethno-nationalism. Moreover, the pairing of neo-liberal reforms and military conflict
challenges CDA’s assumption that group positions are determined solely by the material
dimension. If Mizrachim opposed neo-liberalization, why in 2003 some of them deserted
a party who partially opposed it (Shas) and voted one which played a leading role in the
neo-liberalization of the economy (Likud)? If liberalization was so beneficial to
Ashkenazim, why did they support a hard-line response to the Palestinian uprising that
could jeopardize the neo-liberal economy? (see Shalev and Levy, 2005).
This apparent contradiction was not resolved by later works which were influenced in
different degrees by CDA. Ben-Porat (2005), while criticizing Peled and Shafir’s conclu-
sions by emphasizing the Ashkenazi elite’s failure in pursuing the peace process, accepted
their theoretical assumption of a clear and fixed division concerning the political and
symbolical positions of the main social groups. Grinberg (2007) addressed the demise of
the Oslo peace process and the closure of the political way it represented, but his empha-
sis is on the interaction between Israel and Palestine and the opening or closure of a politi-
cal space, and he addressed only marginally the consolidation of a neo-liberal model.
Ram (2008) contributed a seminal examination of neo-liberalization processes and refined
the analysis of the social groups’ ideologies, but he also considered the Ashkenazi secular
elites as supporting neo-liberalism and liberal post-Zionism, the religious groups as sup-
porting neo-Zionism (ultra-nationalism) and a significant sector of Mizrachim as
Avigur-Eshel and Filc
505
supporters of anti-liberalism. Levy (2007a, 2007b) analyzed the relationship between
changes among social groups in Israeli society, changing socio-economic models, and
Israel’s management of the conflict, but his excellent analysis is focused mainly on the
relationship between social processes and the military. Similarly, Cohen (2000, 2006)
analyzes changes in Israel’s approach to the conflict, by focusing on the ways in which
changes in the Israeli society had decreased the military’s autonomy.
We argue that an NGA offers a better explanation of post-2000 socio-political pro-
cesses. NGA is able to explain the combination of neo-liberalism, ethno-nationalism, and
war since it considers the material dimension as necessary rather than determinant, and
since it classifies social group positions by categories whose content is not determined a
priori (e.g. citizenship discourses), but results from a political process. Hence, the cate-
gory contents are unique to each hegemonic project.
An Neo-Gramscian Approach
The central concept of NGA is hegemony, defined by Filc (2006: 47) as “a state or process
in which a political subject—the historical bloc—tries to stabilize the social structure
around a project which responds to the core interests of the dominant group in the bloc.”
Thus, a hegemonic project is constituted by a historical bloc which is a political align-
ment of groups. The bloc itself is formed during attempts to promote “its” hegemonic
project in the context of social conflict. Hence, the project and the bloc are mutually
constitutive. The bloc bears two central characterizations. First, it attends to interests of
all the social groups comprising it. Yet, the material interests of the dominant group are
awarded precedence over those of other groups in the bloc which are served only partly
(Gramsci, 1971: 182). Second, it promotes a certain perception of the world which the
dominant group believes in and which allied groups share. This worldview acts to homog-
enize the bloc (Mouffe, 1981: 229). Hence, NGA suggests a three-dimensional analytical
framework—political, material and perceptional—where neither holds a priori prece-
dence over the others and all are indispensable to explain socio-political outcomes.
The material dimension consists of the distribution of monetary, physical and other assets
and resources. Direct distribution is a product of the relations of production or more specifi-
cally the labor process (Gramsci, 1971: 161). Indirect distribution, or re-distribution, results
from state function (which affects direct distribution as regulator of the labor market,
employer, and owner of material assets). Material distribution and re-distribution of assets
and resources play a necessary, but not sufficient, role in the constitution of social groups.
There are two important...
To continue reading
Request your trial