On June 1, 2023, the results of a sociological study entitled “The Opinion of Israelis on Judicial Reform” were obtained. This is the second study conducted by the NGO “ Dor Moria ” as part of the project “ Haifa Format “. Based on the results of the study, we tried to test our hypothesis. To what extent do the protests around judicial reform fall under the definition of “Maidan technology.
We believe that the findings will raise a constructive public debate around judicial reform. This will reduce the risks of social destabilization.
Sociology as Scandal
Often, sociological research yields unexpected results. Unless, of course, the researchers are as neutral as possible in their approach to the study of public opinion. This kind of research reveals a lot of interesting things. For example, the internal contradictions and driving forces of social processes that were not previously apparent.
It is precisely this kind of research, independent of political narratives, that the nonprofit organization “ Dor Moria “. Our experts formulate the subject of the study. TheMaagar MohotSociological Center conducts a sociological survey, providing the necessary sampling and margin of error.
In developing the subject of the study, we adhere to the main goal of our project “ Haifa Format. “. We seek to help reduce both external and internal risks to the State of Israel.
We take into account the poignancy of the themes chosen for Israeli society. Therefore, the experts who discuss the results of the studies often hold opposing views on the issue under study. Proposals developed by experts contain options to reduce the identified risks. And we bring these proposals for discussion within the existing lobbies in the Knesset.
Risks of involvement
The subject of the first study was the acute problem of Israeli involvement in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Westudied the opinions of Israelis regarding Israel’s involvement in this conflict. As a result of the expert discussion of the results of the study, the opposing sides unexpectedly came to a consensus. The consensus is as follows. It is necessary to strengthen humanitarian aid to civilians affected by the Russian-Ukrainian military conflict and not to transfer weapons to Ukraine. Not to become a party to the conflict, given the risks of Russia’s presence on Israel’s borders.
How not to notice 56% of respondents. Citizens who consider the main risk of Israel’s involvement in the conflict to be the deterioration of relations with the Russian Federation. Compared to the 9% who fear a deterioration in relations with the United States. Or the 3% who are afraid of worsening relations with Ukraine.
Hypotheses and assumptions
The second study was a continuation of the discussion at the Haifa Format meeting. The expert meeting was held on April 30, 2023, in Tel Aviv.
The meeting hypothesized that the socio-political crisis was being artificially rocked. According to experts, the civil confrontation over judicial reform is artificial. The radicalization of the political agenda is not only related to the topic of reform. The socio-political crisis is primarily related to information and mobilization technologies. Which we have designated as “Maidan technologies.
The results of the second study showed many interesting, and for us quite unexpected results.
Is reform necessary?
Here are some figures:
- 63% of respondents believe that some kind of reform of the Israeli legal system is necessary. That’s 72% of those who have an opinion on this).
- Sixty percent of those surveyed believe that the Israeli justice system is ineffective or inefficient.
- 61% agree with the statement that the judicial system is characterized by excessive bureaucracy and numerous delays.
- The majority of respondents (60% with an opinion) have little or no trust in the judicial system.
We are witnessing a public consensus on the question of whether the judicial system needs to be reformed.
Is Israel’s judicial system effective?
The Israeli justice system is ineffective or inefficient. This, in total, is reported by 60% of respondents in the sample as a whole. And 67% are of those who have an opinion on the matter.
In assessing the effectiveness of the justice system, the most differing answers are given by respondents born in the former Soviet Union. They are more likely to talk about its effectiveness. 35% vs. 19% and 24% among those born in Israel and other countries. Less frequently reported ineffectiveness (14% vs. 23% and 33%, respectively). (Table 1.)
Table 1.
There is excessive bureaucracy and many delays in the judicial system. This was reported by 61% of those surveyed. Non-transparency of the judicial system was mentioned by 36% of respondents. Approximately one-third of those surveyed are convinced that some judges are not professional enough, and some judges (Table 2).
Table 2.
The main conclusion that emerges from this data is. Judicial reform is overdue and the vast majority of the population understands this.
Legitimate questions then arise, what makes people come out to protest rallies? And how many Israelis participate in rallies, both for and against reform?
Russian Speakers and Reform
Those born in the former Soviet Union have a special opinion. These respondents have the lowest level of interest in the topic of reform. (Diagram 1)
Chart 1.
For most parameters, the “Russian-speakers” also have the least amount of complaints about the judicial system. And, judging by the data, they have the highest level of trust in this institution.
This is more clearly reflected in the trust indices for each of the population groups. The indices are calculated as the difference between differently positive and negative responses. The negative values of the index, which characterize all groups of respondents, reflect the prevalence of distrust of the courts over trust. Therefore, in this case it is more correct to talk about the distrust index. The index of distrust among respondents born in the former Soviet Union is only -7. Those born in Israel and other countries have 2.5 and 4 times higher rates. The numbers are -17 and -29, respectively. (Table 3, Diagram 2).
Table 3. How much do you currently trust or distrust the judicial system? (by country of birth)
Diagram 2.
In terms of political attitudes, it is the “right wing” that is most distrustful of the courts. Representatives of the “left wing” have a positive value in the trust index.
Diagram 3.
Consensus and Protests
The results of the study showed that there is a consensus in Israeli society on the need for judicial reform. Nearly 76% of respondents agree or partially agree that the current crisis is systemic. The crisis is not only in the judicial system. It concerns all spheres of public life in Israel. 46% of respondents see a way out of the crisis in a compromise between opponents and supporters of judicial reform.
There is a strong understanding in Israeli society of the need to reform the judicial system. At the same time, more than half of those surveyed believe that demonstrations are an effective means of influencing the government. This includes the issue of judicial reform. Although only 4% of respondents constantly participate in demonstrations, and 89% of respondents do not participate or participate sporadically.
Table 4 Do you participate in demonstrations against legal reform?
It turns out that with the existing consensus on the need to reform the judicial system, there is a radicalization of society. At the same time, the majority of society does not participate in the protests.
44% of respondents agreed with the statement that protests lead to increased political instability. 44 percent of respondents also agreed with the statement that protests hurt investment, the business sector and economic stability.
Choice without choice
So how can this happen? Apparently we are seeing the use of “Maidan technology. Discussions of specific social issues are replaced by political slogans. And these slogans are essentially unrelated to judicial reform or another social problem.
For example. certain forces interested in replacing the current government. They begin to impose narratives that become “triggers” for a significant number of people. In Israel, this trigger was the confrontation: “only Bibi” or “only not Bibi. The “only Bibi”/”only not Bibi” confrontation was used throughout the years-long election marathon. Thanks to the frequent elections, both election slogans and Israeli society have become radicalized in many ways.
As a result, the discussion of judicial reform translates into a stalemate of choice without choice. You are not in favor of improving the judicial system. You are only for or against the current prime minister. As a result of this simple scheme, social tension builds up. Radicalization and systemic divisions in Israeli society are intensifying.
This split could lead to political chaos and undermine social and political stability. The “only Bibi” and “only not Bibi” argument is accompanied by information campaigns to intimidate the population. Which also strengthens the civil confrontation. The role of the media in radicalizing society should also be considered.
Media as a tool
The media intimidate Israeli society. Security problems (disintegration of the army, refusal of pilots to serve…). The collapse of the economy (investors are leaving, indices are falling…). International isolation (the U.S. did not invite Netanyahu, the EU is not with us…). These threats are “confirmed” by spot actions and information campaigns.
14% of respondents cited the media as a reason for the disintegration of the sociopolitical situation in Israel.
Note that only 6% of respondents are familiar with legal reform documents. Respondents indicatedthe most common ways to obtain information about legal reform. These are: listening and watching the news (36%); reading the Internet (20%); and reading articles on the topic (14%).
It should also be borne in mind that in Israel there is a sectoral nature of socio-political discourse. Both in politics and in the media. This reinforces the role of the media as an important tool for radicalizing opinion in Israeli society.
Instead of an epilogue
We see a situation in which, on the one hand, there is a public consensus on the need for judicial reform. On the other hand, a planned campaign to destabilize Israeli society by simplifying and radicalizing slogans. This, in our opinion, is an example of “Maidan technology.
The results of these technologies are quite predictable – a change of government, socio-economic chaos and the loss of the country’s political entity.
And it begs the question: Who benefits from the destabilization of Israeli society? Why is the topic of judicial reform replaced by the question of the legitimacy of the government and the prime minister? Instead of a public discussion about the problems of the judicial system there are clashes with the police? Why is no alternative to judicial reform offered? It is possible and necessary to debate about it. One conclusion is obvious: the goal of the protests is not judicial reform itself, its support or fight against it. We have reason to believe that our hypothesis about the use of “Maidan technologies” is confirmed.
And this topic requires discussion and not only within the framework of the project “ Haifa Format. “. We will discuss the results of our study in different formats. And we hope to involve in the discussion various social forces interested in the stable development of Israel.
Dan Fayutkin, Center for the Study of Social and Military Conflict, Chairman of the Dor Moria Supervisory Board
Igor Kaminnik, journalist, political technologist, director of Dor Moria