Upsetting the Balance

  • David Hall-Cathala
Part of the St Antony’s Series book series

Abstract

Sociologists generally agree that people become involved in various forms of protest after experiencing dissatisfaction, frustration or a sense of ‘relative deprivation’.1 This observation is often backed by accounts of peasant revolts, workers’ strikes, bread riots and the like. In these cases, the source of dissatisfaction is usually obvious and it comes as no surprise when frustrations become manifest in collective action. Such action ranges from sporadic acts of protest to full-fledged revolution. Although sustained protest only rarely develops into revolution, it may develop into a social movement — a sustained form of collective action aimed at rectifying perceived ‘defects’ in society.2

Keywords

Europe Assimilation Peris Egypt Concession 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    See Barry McLaughlin (ed.), Studies in Social Movements (New York: The Free Press, 1969)Google Scholar
  2. and J. A. Banks, The Sociology of Social Movements (London: Macmillan Press, 1972).Google Scholar
  3. 2.
    Charles Tilly, From Mobilization to Revolution (London: Addison-Wesley, 1978).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S.N. Eisenstadt, The Transformation of Israeli Society: An Essay in Interpretation (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1985) p. 45.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    R. J. Isaac, Israel Divided: Ideological Politics in the Jewish State (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1976) p. 5.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    Gwyn Rowley, ‘The Land of Israel: A Reconstructionist Approach’, in David Newman (ed.), The Impact of Gush Emunim: Politics and Settlement in the West Bank (London: Croom Helm, 1985) p. 125.Google Scholar
  7. 16.
    Kurt Kanowitz, ‘The Role of the Army in Israeli Politics’, New Outlook August-September 1984, p. 11.Google Scholar
  8. 17.
    Ofira Seliktar, New Zionism and the Foreign Policy System of Israel (London: Croom Helm, 1986) p. 206.Google Scholar
  9. 20.
    For an in-depth study of this process see: Lilly Weissbrod, ‘Delegitimation and Legitimation as a Continuous Process: A Case Study of Israel’, Middle East Journal vol. 35, no. 4, 1981, pp. 527–43.Google Scholar
  10. 23.
    S. Aronson and N. Yanai, ‘Critical Aspects of the Elections and their Implications’, in D. Caspi et al. (eds), The Roots of Begin’s Success (London: Croom Helm, 1984) p. 28.Google Scholar
  11. 25.
    Amos Oz, In the Land of Israel (London: The Hogarth Press, 1983) p. 133.Google Scholar
  12. 33.
    Ora Namir interviewed by Mark Segal, The Jerusalem Post 23 September, 1985.Google Scholar
  13. 34.
    Eti Rond, ‘The Battle Over Temple Mount’, New Outlook vol. 27, no. 2, February 1984, pp. 11–14.Google Scholar
  14. 35.
    W. Laqueur, A History of Zionism (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1972s) p. 303.Google Scholar
  15. 36.
    On the growth of Revisionism see L. Brenner, The Iron Wall: Zionist Revisionism from Jabotinsky to Shamir (London: Zed Books, 1984).Google Scholar
  16. 37.
    M. J. Aronoff, ‘Political Polarization: Contradictory Interpretations of Israeli Reality’, in S. Heydemann (ed.), The Begin Era: Issues in Contemporary Israel (London: Westview Press, 1984) p. 54.Google Scholar
  17. 42.
    On the role of Dash in ending Labour’s rule see H. R. Penniman (ed.)., Israel at the Polls: The Knesset Elections of 1977 (Washington: AEIPRP, 1979).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© David Hall-Cathala 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Hall-Cathala

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations