Let us now characterize those who report actual practices of participation in solidarity action. In this context, we can talk about the presence of statistically significant responses about the real activity with the responses:
- Discrimination against repatriates from the former Soviet Union
(ρ +211**),
The table below shows that those who have repeatedly participated in mass public and political actions in the last 12 months (63.6%) are the most likely to agree that discrimination against “Russians” exists in Israel. Among those who participated in such events 1-2 times, there is significantly less agreement with the presence of discrimination (36.9%). Further, the proportion of responses about discrimination decreases even more to the group of those who did not participate in mass social and political actions. Conversely, the highest values of responses about the absence of discrimination are found among respondents who have not participated in mass actions, and the lowest – among those who regularly participate in them.
In your opinion, does Israel discriminate against repatriates from the former Soviet Union? / Have you participated in demonstrations, protests, petition signings, and other socio-political events in the last 12 months?
| …Is there discrimination against returnees in Israel…? | Were you involved…? | Yes, repeatedly. | Once or twice. | No |
| Yes | 63,6% | 36,9% | 27,4% | |
| More likely yes than no. | 36,4% | 39,3% | 35,8% | |
| More likely no than yes. | 0,0% | 17,9% | 27,4% | |
| No | 0,0% | 6,0% | 9,3% |
2) On the effectiveness of the use of their intellectual and professional potential (ρ -135*),
In your opinion, how effectively is the state of Israel using the intellectual and professional potential of repatriates from the former Soviet Union? / You have participated in demonstrations, protests, petition signings, etc. in the last 12 months. social and political events?
| Performance Evaluation | Social and political participation | Yes, repeatedly. | 1-2 times | No | |
| Quantity | 2 | 4 | 11 | ||
| Definitely effective | 9,1% | 5,1% | 5,2% | ||
| Quantity | 2 | 15 | 61 | ||
| Rather effectively | 9,1% | 19,0% | 28,8% | ||
| Quantity | 9 | 31 | 86 | ||
| Rather inefficiently | 40,9% | 39,2% | 40,6% | ||
| Quantity | 9 | 29 | 54 | ||
| Clearly ineffective | 40,9% | 36,7% | 25,5% |
3) On the Implementation of Social Justice in Israeli Society (ρ -149**),
If we calculate by groups of “activity” separately the sums of positive and negative answers in varying degrees concerning the implementation of the principles of justice, we can clearly see a pattern of increase in the share of positive answers about its presence from the group of the most active participants to the group of those who did not participate in the actions (from 20.8% to 43.1%). Conversely, those who did not take part in actions are on the whole less likely than others to say there is no justice (56.9% vs. 69.8% and 79.2% in groups that have taken part in them once or twice or regularly). (See table and chart. below).
In your opinion, to what extent are the principles of social justice realized in Israeli society? / Have you participated in demonstrations, protests, petition signings, and other socio-political events in the last 12 months?
| …To what extent are the principles of social justice realized in Israeli society? | You have participated in the last 12 months. in demonstrations? | Regularly | 1-2 times | No |
| Quantity | 0 | 1 | 8 | |
| Definitely being implemented | 0,0% | 1,3% | 4,0% | |
| Quantity | 5 | 22 | 79 | |
| Rather, they are realized. | 20,8% | 28,9% | 39,1% | |
| ∑ yes, rather yes | 20,8% | 31,2% | 43,1% | |
| Quantity | 10 | 36 | 74 | |
| Rather, they are not realized. | 41,7% | 47,4% | 36,6% | |
| Quantity | 9 | 17 | 41 | |
| Not implemented | 37,5% | 22,4% | 20,3% | |
| ∑ No, rather no | 79,2% | 69,8% | 56,9% |
4) The presence of people in the immediate environment, which in the last 12 months participated in mass social and political actions (p +416**!),
The data presented in the table below show that the absolute majority of responses that there are many activists in the immediate vicinity are among those who report regular participation in such events of their own (58.3%). Among those who have participated in such events 1-2 times, the absolute majority (65.9%) indicate that there is only one or a few activists in their environment. Among those who have not participated in mass socio-political actions, two answers with almost identical values prevail: that there is one or more activists in their immediate vicinity, or that there are no such people (40% each). Of course, the connection between one’s own activity and active people in the environment is two-way, yet the influence of the environment on one’s consciousness is obvious.
Are there any people you know who have participated in demonstrations, protests, petition signings, and other socio-political events in the last 12 months? / Have you participated in demonstrations, protests, petition signings, and other socio-political events in the last 12 months?
| Are there any people you know who have taken part in demonstrations… | …participated in the last 12 months. …? | Yes, regularly | 1-2 times | No |
| Quantity | 14 | 18 | 19 | |
| Yes, a lot. | 58,3% | 21,2% | 8,2% | |
| Quantity | 8 | 56 | 91 | |
| Yes, one or more people | 33,3% | 65,9% | 39,1% | |
| Quantity | 2 | 6 | 95 | |
| No | 8,3% | 7,1% | 40,8% | |
| Quantity | 0 | 5 | 28 | |
| I can’t answer that. | 0,0% | 5,9% | 12,0% |
5) On Lobbying (ρ -131*),
From the data presented in the conjugation table below, the following point seems interesting: among all groups of respondents, the opinion that lobbying is an effective tool to influence political decisions is approximately equally common, but not in the case of repatriates from the CIS (approximately 40% of respondents in each group answered this way). However, in the groups that report having participated in mass socio-political actions 1-2 times, or not participating, this answer option prevails. And in the group that regularly participates in mass actions of this kind, the answer option – ready to participate in lobbying activities – prevails. It was chosen by 42.9% of respondents, compared to 14.8% and 15.5% of similar respondents in other groups.
What do you think of lobbying as a tool for advocating group interests by repatriates from the former Soviet Union? / Have you participated in demonstrations, protests, petition signings, and other socio-political events in the last 12 months?
| What do you think about lobbying… | Have you participated in the last 12 months…? | Yes, regularly | 1-2 times | No |
| Quantity | 1 | 13 | 42 | |
| Don’t know/badly what it is and how it works | 4,8% | 18,3% | 23,1% | |
| Quantity | 8 | 28 | 73 | |
| This is an effective tool, but not in the case of repatriates from the CIS | 38,1% | 39,4% | 40,1% | |
| Quantity | 3 | 19 | 40 | |
| An effective tool to be used | 14,3% | 26,8% | 22,0% | |
| Quantity | 9 | 11 | 27 | |
| Ready to participate in lobby-building activities | 42,9% | 15,5% | 14,8% |
6) About participation in any volunteer activities (ρ +305**).
There is a strong connection between volunteer practices and practices of mass social and political participation. In both groups, characterized by different frequency of participation in mass actions, the answer prevails, according to which representatives of both groups participated in volunteer activities (41% each). At the same time, one-third of those surveyed who regularly participate in mass rallies report such practices on a regular basis, while only one-tenth of those who have taken part in them once or twice report such practices. Meanwhile, among those who did not take part in mass public and political actions, the vast majority (73%) report that they did not take part in volunteer work. If we calculate the index of participation in volunteer work, we see that its positive values are registered only in the groups, whose participants with a certain frequency take part in mass socio-political actions, and decrease from more to less active in the socio-political plan group (0.5 and 0.1, respectively). The group whose representatives do not participate in mass social and political actions is also characterized by a negative index, which indicates the prevalence of negative responses regarding participation in volunteer work.
(The index was calculated by the formula: ((n1+n2)-n3)/100%, where n1 is the value of the shares of responses “regularly participate” in volunteer activities, n2 is about “several times”, n3 is “did not participate”. This index allows you to identify the prevalence of positive / negative responses and compare them by group)
In the past 12 months, have you participated in any activities as a volunteer? /In the last 12 months, have you participated in demonstrations, protests, petition signings, and other socio-political events?
| Did you participate… as a volunteer? | Did you take part in …socio-political events? | Yes, regularly | 1-2 times | No |
| Quantity | 8 | 10 | 19 | |
| 1 Yes, regularly | 33,3% | 11,8% | 8,2% | |
| Quantity | 10 | 35 | 44 | |
| 2 Yes, several times | 41,7% | 41,2% | 18,9% | |
| Quantity | 6 | 40 | 170 | |
| 3 Did not take | 25,0% | 47,1% | 73,0% | |
| Index of participation in volunteer activities | 0,5 | 0,1 | -0,5 |
At a glance, we can note that most of the parameters related to socio-political mass activity repeat the parameters of readiness for it. But there are some differences on a few issues. First, the presence of people in the vicinity who lead an active social and political life, and second, participation in volunteer activities. It is interesting not only that these characteristics appeared additionally, but also that they have very high values of conjugation with the responses characterizing the actual practices of solidarity. This allows us to consider the relevant parameters as determinative.
NoteThe hypothesis that one of the hypotheses of the study was the assumption of a relationship between material wealth and the level of socio-political activity. This hypothesis has not been confirmed, either in terms of solidarity action or readiness for it. Material prosperity also does not correlate with solidarity practices at the microsocial level – mutual aid and support.
Again, we are now talking about intermediate data. Presumably, the values of solidarity experience and readiness for it will be lower in the final results because there is little survey coverage at this time of respondents over 60, especially 75, and under 25, as well as “southerners”-population groups that are typically characterized by lower socio-political activism.
In comparative terms, Aliyah from the former Soviet Union again loses to the rest of the repatriates and sabras in terms of their willingness to act in solidarity. 78.6% of those surveyed expressed the opinion that the likelihood of Russian-speaking Olim participating in mass public and political events, as compared to similar activity among returnees from other countries and sabers, is lower.
Among the reasons preventing Russian-speaking Aliyah from actively defending their rights and upholding their interests, the absolute leader is the answer “people’s lack of confidence in their own strength, belief in the pointlessness of such a struggle (33% think so),” followed by the option “lack of positive experience in fighting for their rights and interests,” which 20% chose, which in our opinion is closely intertwined with the first. In a 2009 report by the Israel Center for Democracy Studies
points to a similar trend. It is shown that compared to native Jewish Israelis, of whom 46% believe that they cannot influence government policy, among returnees from the former Soviet Union there is a much higher percentage of 61% who believe that they have no influence on government policy. More than 40% of Russian-speaking Israelis believe that the “average” Israeli citizen (such as themselves) has absolutely no influence on what goes on in the workplace, within the army unit, school, or city. Such views distinguish them from Jewish Israelis and especially from Arab citizens of Israel, who feel influenced by what is happening locally. The participation of “Russian” returnees in politics is limited to voting in general elections for the Knesset. In the “Russian” sector, there is an extremely low percentage of participation in various voluntary movements, demonstrations, and protests. This state of affairs has, in many ways, cultural and historical roots. This is confirmed, in particular, by numerous Russian polls reflecting the aloofness from social and political participation as a behavioral norm of Soviet and post-Soviet man. The same applies to Soviet Jewry. His socio-political detachment , according to S. Vinogradov, is a feature of his relationship with the state, and
The Jewish population was largely hostile to Jews, forcing them to evade conflicts with both the natives and the government[1].
The syndrome of learned helplessness in socio-political life and in individual practices of asserting one’s rights, multiplied by the paternalism of several generations, with a feeling of insignificance, ostensible solidarity with minimal experience of social self-organization and self-government, has its results: the priority of an individual survival strategy, ensuring a more or less successful adaptation to society, as opposed to adapting society to the needs of the group through collective influence on policy through appropriate institutions and mechanisms.