To avoid misunderstanding, let me state at the outset that if passivity were the only alternative to public demonstrations against unwise or unjust government policies, I support demonstrations even if they have no discernible impact on the government itself.  

However, it is misleading to say that those who do not join in such demonstrations are complacent.  Consider demonstrations against the so-called peace process.  It can be shown that such demonstrations, large and small, have been going on intermittently for almost 23 years,  i.e., since Camp David 1978, and they have failed to divert the government from its unwise, indeed, suicidal path.   One may then conclude that those who still engage in such demonstrations have learned virtually nothing from 23 years of experience, hence, that they suffer from some sort of intellectual complacency or stagnation.  Nor is this all.

It may also be argued that the government actually welcomes such demonstrations!  After all, they serve as a “safety-valve” to prevent perhaps more serious actions on the part of protest groups or malcontents.  Besides, by tolerating such (futile) demonstrations, the government reinforces the self-serving (but fallacious) idea that the State of Israel is an authentic democracy.  And since such demonstrations are directed only against a particular POLICY of the State and not against the State’s STRUCTURE, in which parties Left and Right have a vested interest in preserving, the government can well afford to be tolerant.  

Only when a demonstration assumes revolutionary proportions, or threatens to bring the country to a standstill, will the government act to suppress it.  Even a demonstration involving 250,000 people can be tolerated by Israel’s government, when the object is merely to protest against a policy—including the policy of “territory for peace.”   Incidentally, a demonstration of 250,000 people in Israel is equivalent to 13,750,000 people in America.  Yet, when merely a few thousand Gays demonstrated in Washington, D.C. for increased congressional appropriations for AIDS research, they accomplished their objective!   The reason is simple enough:  America is a genuine democracy, largely because congressmen are individually accountable to the voters in district elections.  

Returning to Israel, however well intended, demonstrations against some pernicious government policy can become counter-productive when they divert the public from the basic causes of that policy.  Typically, Israelis identify a policy with the prime minister or his party.  Hence they believe that changing the prime minister or the ruling party is sufficient to bring about a change in the policy.  Israel’s periodic elections foster this myth.    There have been no less than seven elections in Israel since the Menachem Begin government came to power in 1977.  Yet every government since then has pursued the policy of “territory for peace,” notwithstanding the countless small and large demonstrations against that policy.  It’s too simple to blame American pressure for this phenomenon; and if that were a sufficient explanation, it would be pointless to demonstrate against Israel’s helpless government.  
 
 

Another thing:  there is an overwhelming tendency among protest groups to react to events.  They frequently pursue rather narrow or limited objectives.   They lack a comprehensive goal, one that envisions basic changes in the direction and institutions of the State.  Also, they usually employ the direct approach against a government policy, when an indirect approach would be more effective.  Let me offer only two of many practical suggestions.

First, choose a vulnerable target, one that can easily muster broad public support.  I recommend Arab MKs who violate Basic Law: The Knesset, which prohibits any party that negates the Jewish character of the State.   Accordingly, organize weekly demonstrations against reputedly right-wing Knesset Members for failing to uphold their oath of office by taking NO steps to expel seditious Arabs from the Knesset, even if such steps include amendment of the parliamentary immunity law.   The public will rally to such demonstrations and even provide financial support.  What is more, the expulsion of a seditious Arab MK will diminish the power of those committed to the policy of “territory for peace”! 

Second, conduct weekly demonstrations calling for democratizing the Supreme Court—this, by advocating presidential nomination and Knesset confirmation of judges. Refer to certain Court decisions that offend various groups of Israelis, both religious and secular, and quote criticism of the Court by professors of law and former Supreme Court judges.  Consistent therewith, demand that the Knesset assert its lawful and democratic authority by limiting the power of the Supreme Court, which has become an entrenched oligarchy as well as a super legislature.  

This second kind of demonstration would obviously win the support of the Haredi community.  Hence the organizers of such a demonstration would be in the position to “prompt” various Haredi leaders to take a more forceful stand against the policy of “territory for peace.”   But even if this were not forthcoming, to diminish the power of the Supreme Court is to diminish the pernicious influence of post-Zionism on the entire array of government policies.

The above recommendations, which implicate the laws and structure of the State, do not preclude demonstrations against this or that State policy.  But they convey a more mature and comprehensive understanding of Israel’s flawed political system.   And it is against this flawed system that protest groups should focus much if not most of their energies.