The Increasing Political Power of Immigrants from the Former Soviet Union in Israel: From Passive Citizenship to Active Citizenship

Abstract

The immigrants in Israel from the Former Soviet Union (FSU) followed a different pattern of political growth than other immigrant groups. Their increased power began on the national level and moved down to the local level, rather than from the periphery toward the centre -the pattern followed by the Oriental Jewish immigrants. We can trace three stages in the development of their political power.The first stage was during the 1992 elections when the immigrants attempted to organize their own list. Though they failed, the results of the election strengthened them because they were given credit for the left's victory, giving them a sense of political effectiveness.The second stage came during the 1996 elections. It was a defining moment for the former Soviet immigrants' political power. In this stage external factors and internal factors reinforced each other. The change in the electoral system made it possible for the immigrants to vote for their community on the one hand and for a national figure on the other, thus resolving their identity dilemma.The local elections in 1998 marked the third stage in their political strength. They found the immigrant community better organized, with an improved understanding of its local interests, the capacity to put forward a strong local leadership, and a stronger link between the immigrant political centre and the local level.

Military Conflict and Neo-Liberalization in Israel (2001–2006): A Neo-Gramscian Approach

“…Second, the resentment of “leftist” economic ideologies as a consequence of the experience with communism made the group tolerant if not receptive to neo-liberalism. Third, the group was considered by other Jewish groups as part and parcel of the Jewish collective and its effort to fight against Palestinian terror, despite the religious establishment’s refusal to acknowledge some 30% of the group as Jews (Horowitz, 2003; Kimmerling, 2004).…”

Leadership in Migration Systems: The Case of Israel

“…Immediately after the 2003 elections, Israel in Aliyah decided to stop being a political party and joined the Likud, the large Israeli party. Natan Sharansky, head of the party, explained the fading of Israel in Aliyah as successful integration of the immigrants in Israeli society after ten years in the country, which makes an immigrant party unnecessary [46]. It seems plausible that during the last few decades, the migration leadership system in Israel had no need for personified leaders, especially long-term ones, because other means ran its mechanisms.…”

Terror, Resource Gains and Exclusionist Political Attitudes among New Immigrants and Veteran Israelis

“…Politically, the NJIs tend to espouse hawkish attitudes, support ‘strong leaders’, and vote for right-wing parties and candidates (Goldstein and Gitelman 2004; Horowitz 2003). 3 Previous studies show that immigrants from the FSU exhibit exceptionally high levels of intolerance towards PIs (Al-Haj 2004; Ben-David and Biderman 1997; Weiss 1996).…”

“…3 Previous studies show that immigrants from the FSU exhibit exceptionally high levels of intolerance towards PIs (Al-Haj 2004; Ben-David and Biderman 1997; Weiss 1996). Today, most scholars attribute the roots of this hostility to their general distinctiveness and high self-esteem and/or to well-rooted negative Russian sentiments towards Islam (Gitelman 1995; Horowitz 2001). Although we accept those assumptions, this study suggests another, complementary perspective.…”

“…As for the other two elections (1992, 1999), the leftist candidate (Yitzhak Rabin and Ehud Barak respectively) was perceived as a ‘strong leader’ or army hero, and hence the voting pattern of NJI was more balanced (for a more elaborate analysis of NJI voting patterns see Horowitz 2003). Other explanations for the provisional support of large groups of immigrants for leftist candidates are based upon their major disappointment with the absorption policy of right-wing ministers (Gitelman 1995) and their espousal of social-democratic solutions for their socio-economic problems (Horowitz 2003). …”