Israel is a country of immigration, and immigration to Israel (aliyah) is a central ethos of Israeli society and politics. Jewish immigration to the Land of Israel was the primary goal of the Zionist movement, and was established in the Law of Return enacted in 1950, which officially stated the right of every Jew to immigrate to the State of Israel. The large wave of immigration from the former Soviet Union (henceforth: FSU) during the 1990s changed the composition of Israel’s population and the face of Israeli society. The year 2009 marks the twentieth anniversary of this wave of immigration, which began in the spring of 1989. The Democracy Index 2009 reviews public attitudes concerning democracy, the measure of support for it, and the level of satisfaction with the functioning of Israeli democracy. Moreover, the Index offers an extensive survey of the immigrants’ integration into Israeli society and politics, of their political culture, and of their relationship with the absorbing society.
Most Israelis continue to support democracy and to be interested in politics, but are dissatisfied with the functioning of Israeli democracy. Most feel they cannot influence government policy and long for strong leadership that will govern more effectively. Another troubling finding is the sense of most respondents concerning the level of corruption prevalent in Israeli politics. Most maintain that corruption is widespread in Israel, and that politicians are mainly concerned with their personal interests. Not only are politicians distrusted, but so are the country’s institutions. Although the level of trust in institutions has risen slightly since last year, the level of trust in political institutions – the Knesset and the political parties – remains low. Moreover, a troubling decline was recorded in the level of trust in institutions of law enforcement, particularly the police. By contrast, most citizens maintain that the status of the IDF has been successfully restored since the Second Lebanon War, and trust in it is extremely high.
In the rights aspect, a majority of the Israeli public theoretically endorses political liberties, but the level of support declines when questioned about specific liberties. A decline was also recorded in the support for equal rights for the Jewish majority and the Arab minority. This finding is particularly prominent in the political domain – most Jewish citizens do not agree to the participation of the Arab minority in the government or in the making of decisions fateful to the country’s future. Concerning rights, pronounced differences emerged between the political culture of the Jewish old-timers and that of the FSU immigrants, who have less liberal attitudes concerning rights. Regarding the Arab minority, for instance, the immigrants’ attitudes are more extreme, and most advocate encouraging Arabs to emigrate and denying them their rights. Immigrants’ attitudes toward gender relationships are also more traditional. The findings in the rights aspect are also supported by the findings of international indices, which show that the level of the protection of rights in Israel is low relative to other democracies.
In general, two years after the end of the Second Lebanon War, the national mood appears to have improved. This positive finding of the survey relates to issues of community belonging – the majority are proud to be Israeli, and feel part of the State of Israel and its problems. The rate of people stating a desire to live in Israel has also increased. This finding is salient among young people, and the rate of young people who definitely wish to remain in Israel has risen over the last two years, currently reaching 80%. Yet, gaps are evident between Jewish old-timers and young immigrants in this regard – the rate of young immigrants who are sure that they wish to live in Israel is far lower than that of Jewish old-timers in a similar age category. The main reason for the Jewish old-timers’ lower motivation to live in Israel is a sense that their chances of improving their standard of living are greater elsewhere. Among the immigrants, the main reason is the security situation.
A complex picture is revealed regarding social solidarity. Israel is characterized by deep social and ideological cleavages, which are reflected in inter-group relationships, mainly between the Jewish majority and the Arab minority, between religious and secular Jews, between left-wing and rightwing supporters, and so forth. Furthermore, the level of social trust in Israel is very low, and most people maintain that one should be cautious in relationships with others. This finding stands out in an international comparison, which shows that the level of social trust in Israel is far lower than in most of the democracies that participated in the study.
The deep cleavages in Israeli society influence not only social relationships, but also political stability. The party system is highly split, and governments generally complete about two thirds of their terms of office. The public also sense that the Israeli political system is unstable. Another finding related to political stability is the fact that about 25% of the public are willing to justify the use of violence to attain political aims. Although this figure indicates that support for the justification of violence has dropped to some extent relative to 2008, it is still high for a democratic country where the rules of the game are based on the adoption of decisions through peaceful means.
Social relations were also examined in the context of the relationship between the immigrants and the absorbing society. A combination of positive and negative stereotypes concerning immigration prevails in old-time Israeli society. Although most citizens harbor doubts about the Jewishness of most 1990s immigrants, they do not regret their arrival. The immigrants’ attitude toward the State of Israel is not clear-cut. Most claim that their pre-immigration aspirations and expectations have been realized in Israel to some extent, but they also maintain that their contribution to the country exceeds the benefits that they receive from it.
This attitude is related to the immigrants' difficulties in integrating into Israeli society and into the Israeli economy. Most of them assert that their socio-economic status declined after immigration. They work in jobs unsuited to their education and qualifications, and report many problems related to low salaries and discrimination at the workplace. Moreover, most immigrants are concentrated in the Israeli periphery, a fact that affects the accessibility of jobs suited to their education. Concerning political integration, the immigrants do not feel they can influence government policy or events in their immediate environment – in the residential community, in the educational institution, and at the workplace. Most continue to acquire information about politics through the media in Russian and to participate in politics, mainly by voting in elections.
In February 2009, general elections were conducted in Israel. Despite dissatisfaction with the functioning of the political system, voter turnout in the elections was slightly higher than in the 2006 elections. Although the results of the elections are characterized by high proportionality, the Knesset is extremely divided – a factor that is likely to influence political stability. Israeli society too continues to be characterized by deep cleavages, by a lack of trust, and by reservations about the implementation of equal rights for all citizens. These findings indicate that Israeli democracy contends with many problems, and is still in need of enhancement and improvement in many areas. Furthermore, the absorption and integration of the immigrants into Israeli society requires special attention. On the one hand, attempts should be made to deepen the socio-economic integration of the immigrants, and on the other, action should be taken to instill democratic values in the public, in general, and among the immigrants who arrived from a non-democratic political culture, in particular.
Click here to download the 2009 Democracy Index in English