Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ALLOWANCES
Sagit Mor∗
ABSTRACT
The paper identifies and traces the roots of a fundamental tension that underlies
disability politics with regard to disability allowances: are cash benefits an archaic
and outdated form of assistance to disabled people, or are they still a relevant mode of
response to systematic marginalization and exclusion? Based on a field study of the
Israeli disability community the paper shows that while disability rights advocates
tend to reject disability allowances as fundamentally wrong and to support the
transformation of society's social structures, welfare activists tend to view disability
allowances as responding to the most pressing needs of poor disabled people. The
paper employs a disability legal studies framework to analyze the study’s findings. It
suggests thinking of disability allowances as located in a complex and intriguing
tension between two dichotomous conceptualizations of either evil or hope: Disability
allowances are seen as a manifestation of evil because they perpetuate the ableist
structure of society. They offer a vision of hope when seen as a response to a pressing
necessity, an expression of social responsibility, and a means to provide economic
security for disabled people. The paper maintains that both approaches lack a more
complex understanding of the relationships between disability and poverty. It
concludes with a call to re-conceptualize disability allowances, as a form of
compensations that redress disabled people – individually and collectively – for
society's continuing practices of exclusion and discrimination. The struggles of
disabled people over rights and allowances become a fascinating site from which to
draw the critical lessons that disability activism has to offer to social theory.
∗
Assistant Professor, University of Haifa Faculty of Law. LL.B., Tel Aviv University.
LL.M. and J.S.D., NYU School of Law. This work was supported in part by the Ed Roberts
Postdoctoral Fellowship in Disability Studies, at the Institute of Urban and Regional
Development, University of California at Berkeley, funded by NIDRR #H133P020009. I am
grateful to the following people for their insightful and helpful comments: to Christine
Harrington, Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Oscar Chase, Jerome Bruner, Sue Schweik, and Victor
Weinberger, to the participants at the Disability Studies Seminar, University of California at
Berkeley, the Law and Society Association Annual Meeting, the Society for Disability Studies
Annual Conference, and the Haifa Forum of Law and Society. All translations from Hebrew are
mine, unless otherwise noted. Email: smor@univ.haifa.ac.il.
Sagit Mor 2
Contents:
Introduction
A. Disability and Poverty – Challenging Relationships
A.1. The Overlaps between Disability and Poverty
A.2. The Constitutive Relations between Disability and
Poverty
A.3. Group Consciousness and Inter-Group Relations
B. A History of Disability Allowances in Israel
C. Disability Allowances as Hope: A Social Welfare Perspective
C.1. The Disability Allowances Protests
C.2. The Role of Disability Allowances in Disabled People’s Lives
D. Disability Allowances as Evil: A Disability Rights Perspective
D.1. Equal Rights for Disabled People – A Means to Transform
Rights and Welfare
D.2. The Equal Rights for People with Disabilities Law – Avoiding
Disability Allowances
D.3. Explaining the Absence of Disability Allowances
D.4. Reactions to the 1999 and 2001 Protests
E. Between Hope and Evil: Rights and the Persistence of Poverty
F. Towards Reframing Disability Allowances
We are given poor and miserable allowances so that we stay alive and
be silent. They say: “Nobody can tell us that we are an immoral
society, because you are alive.” But what kind of life are we talking
about here? I am struggling so that a disabled person can be part of
society, and this starts with money and food. I want the disabled to
live in dignity, to be able to go to work and to contribute to society.
Yoav Kraim, Campaign for Handicapped
Persons, 2002 1
Introduction
The rise of disability rights has changed the language of disability-related
disputes and struggles – from charity to rights, from a biomedical paradigm
to a social construction perspective, from an individualist focus on fixing and
curing the person to an effort to transform society. This change has also
impacted legal scholarship, which has become increasingly more interested
1 Hagar Yanai, Things I Learned while Sitting, Ha’aretz, 11/1/2002 (A profile piece in
Ha’aretz Magazine).
3 BETWEEN HOPE AND EVIL
not only in disability rights but also in the social construction of disability and
the role of law in that process.
The paper examines the sociolegal construction of disability, focusing
on different attitudes among disability activists toward disability allowances.
The paper is part of a larger project which demonstrates that disability
benefits came to play a major role in defining and constituting the meaning of
disability. It is further argued that due to their significant effect, disability
benefits merit greater attention than that currently allotted by disability rights
activists and scholars. The paper draws on an in-depth field study of the
Israeli disability community during a particularly intensive era, when Israeli
disabled people began fighting vocally over rights, recognition, and economic
security. The struggles of disabled people in Israel have become a fascinating
site from which to draw critical lessons pertaining to social theory.
The field study revealed that within the disability community,
different groups hold different views about disability allowances. While all
are interested in breaking the historical link between disability and poverty,
they do not share a vision about the way to do it. Disability rights’ advocates
(in Israel and elsewhere) tend to reject disability allowances as fundamentally
wrong and support instead the transformation of social structures and
institutions. In contrast, welfare activists tend to view disability allowances as
a most important issue which addresses the most pressing needs of poor
disabled people who cannot wait until the rights revolution becomes a reality.
Given this dichotomy, this study poses the following question: Should
cash benefits be considered an archaic and outdated form of assistance for
disabled people, or are they still a relevant mode of response to systematic
marginalization and exclusion? Do they serve as a manifestation of ableism or
a way to fight it?
This intriguing tension became apparent during two long sit-in strike
campaigns of disabled people in Israel that took place in 1999 and 2001. 2 The
two campaigns were organized by disabled people and were very successful
in bringing the issue of disability allowances to the forefront of the national
agenda and in spurring strong and compassionate public support.3 The strikes
2 For a more detailed account of those protests, see Chapter C. For additional reading
on the protests and their implications, see: Arie Rimmerman & Stanley S. Herr, The Power of
the Powerless: A Study on the Israeli Disability Strike of 1999, 15 J. DISABILITY POL’Y STUD. 12, 15
(2004); Hila Rimon-Greenshpan, Disability Politics in Israel: Civil Society, Advocacy, and
Contentious Politics 27(4) DISABILITY STUD. QUART. (2007).
3 The information on the Campaign for the Handicapped and on their activities during
the strike is based on interview with two of its primary figures, Arie Zudkevich and Yoav
Kraim; In Struggle – The Bulletin of the Disabled Union, Vol. 1-3; the organization’s website (see:
Sagit Mor 4
month, minimum wage about $800 per month. Average wage was $1500.
5 The strikers were criticized for using images that evoked pity and mercy among the
general public rather than dignity and rights. See Chapter D.4.
6 Sagit Mor, Between Charity, Welfare, and Warfare: A Disability Legal Studies Analysis of
Privilege and Neglect in Israeli Disability Policy, 18 Yale J.L. Hum. 63 (2006); Sagit Mor, Imagining
the Law: The Construction of Disability in the Domains of Rights and Welfare – The Case of
Israeli Disability Policy (J.S.D. Thesis submitted to NYU School of Law, 2005).
5 BETWEEN HOPE AND EVIL
politics of poverty and rights, particularly for struggles over cash benefits,
and for the possibility of coalition building around those issues.
Chapter A discusses the relationships between disability and poverty,
and suggests transcending the view of disability and poverty as two distinct
concepts – albeit with overlaps and correlations – in favor of a more critical
view, which emphasizes their contingencies and mutual relations. Chapter B
provides a short introduction to the history of disability allowances in Israel.
Chapter C and D delve into the details of the two perspectives on
disability identified in my fieldwork. Chapter C discusses the social welfare
perspective on disability allowances as expressed by the activists who led the
long protests, a view which associate allowances with hope. Chapter D
analyzes the view of disability allowances as evil, as expressed by disability
rights’ advocates, particularly in their reactions to the protests.
Chapter E explores the tension and the gamut between evil and hope,
without necessarily seeking to resolve it. It provides a more detailed critique
of the disability rights discourse, which is based on the realistic
understanding that poverty is a sustained problem that can neither be ignored
nor assumed to soon become irrelevant. The chapter therefore suggests that
the issue merits an approach more complex than that of a simple dichotomy:
it proposes that disability allowances be acknowledged as an undesirable yet
unavoidable necessity. Chapter F proposes possible alternatives for
reconsidering disability allowances – what they should cover, and how they
should be understood. It is argued that this new approach views disability
allowances as an expression of solidarity and social responsibility: it is society
paying its debt, by supporting disabled people as they bear the extra
disability-related costs in a society that has been and still is inaccessible and
unaccommodating.
Before I proceed, a few caveats are due. First, my goal is not to provide
a detailed reform proposal but to expand the social imagination to alternative
conceptualizations of disability allowances, to continue the discussion about
their role and meaning. For the same reason, budgetary concerns are beyond
the scope of this discussion, although I do not ignore their significance in later
stages of implementation. Finally, the concept of disability allowances
envisioned here does not assume that establishing disability allowances is an
end unto itself, nor that it would constitute the ultimate solution to the
problems of marginalization and exclusion of disabled people. Nor is it
assumed that conceptualizing disability allowances as a right – and I discuss
later what this means – would ensure that they remain a firm and secure.
7 BETWEEN HOPE AND EVIL
7 I also do not suggest that rights are the best solution to disabled people’s social
hardships and suffering, or the most effective form of resistance. I take rights as the current
comprehensive legal language with which to address the marginalization and exclusion of
disabled people.
8 Rebecca Yeo & Karen Moore, Including Disabled People in Poverty Reduction Work:
Nothing About Us, Without Us, 31 WORLD DEVELOPMENT 571 (2003); Dan Atkins & Christie Guisti
The Confluence of Poverty and Disability in THE REALITIES OF POVERTY IN DELAWARE 2003 – 2004
(2004) (available on:
http://www.housingforall.org/rop0304%20poverty%20and%20disability.pdf). Although a
recent survey by the World Bank shows that there are not enough accurate statistics about the
relationships between disability and poverty, when there have been such statistics these
relationships have been proven right. See: Jeanine Braithwaite & Daniel Mont, Disability and
Poverty: A Survey of World Bank Poverty Assessments and Implications (2008).
Sagit Mor 8
become disabled. Thus, whether one thinks that most, or many, disabled
people are inherently unable to work, or that the social and environmental
barriers prevent disabled people from working, both views demonstrate a
close correlation, and sometimes even a causal link between having an
impairment and becoming poor, a correlation which calls for special attention.
There are, of course, many disabled people who are employed and earn their
own living. Yet a considerable number among them are still poor, because of
low wages, limited working hours, and high payments for disability related
costs.9 Clearly, some disabled people may also support themselves using
public or private funds that provide them with the required financial support
(e.g., family resources, public assistance, social security benefits, and charities
of all kinds); however, as statistics show, the unemployment rates among the
disabled remain indisputably high, even after the introduction and enactment
of disability rights laws.10 The challenge of breaking the link between
disability and poverty lies at the heart of recent welfare reforms, and informs
contemporary disability rights laws.
But disability is also an outcome of being poor.11 An insufficient
standard of living can include health risks that lead to illness and impairment.
Thus, for example, malnutrition, unsanitary conditions, and outdated
infrastructures, which are more prevalent in poor areas, are recognized causes
of disability. In addition, access to healthcare, rehabilitation and vocational
services is a chief factor that ultimately determines the degree of disability
remaining after exposure to a disabling event.12 This recognition lays the
foundation for the second, more complex, understanding of the relations
between poverty and disability. The latter considers the poverty-disability
connection to be a product of social construction, rather than of chance and
individual circumstances.
9 Martha Russell & Ravi Malhotra The Political Economy of Disablement: Advances and
Contradictions in SOCIALIST REGISTER 2002: A WORLD OF CONTRADICTIONS (L. Panitch & C. Leys
eds., 2002); Asghar Zaidi and Tania Burchardt, Comparing Incomes when Needs Differ:
Equivalization for the Extra Costs of Disability in the U.K. 51(1) REV. OF INCOME AND WEALTH
(2005), Yeo and Moore, Id.
10 For such statistics in Israel, see Dina Feldman & Eliyahu Ben-Moshe, People with
Disabilities in Israel 2007: A Comparative Report (2007). For a United States perspective on the
matter, see JERRY MESHAW ET AL. EDS., DISABILITY WORK AND CASH BENEFITS (1996).
11 Yeo and Moore, supra note 8; Atkins & Guisti, supra note 8; Katherine Seelman &
BODY: FEMINIST PHILOSOPHICAL REFLECTIONS ON DISABILITY 36-37 (1996); Regina Austin & Michael
Schill, Black, Brown, Poor, and Poisoned: Minority Grassroots Environmentalism and the Quest for
Eco-Justice, 1 KAN. J.L. & PUB. POL’Y 69 (1991).
9 BETWEEN HOPE AND EVIL
13 Yeo and Moore, supra note 8; Jennifer Pokemoner & Dorothy E. Roberts, Poverty,
Welfare Reform, and the Meaning of Disability, 62 OHIO ST. L. J. 425 (2001).
14 N. GILBERT AND H. SPECHT DIMENSIONS OF SOCIAL WELFARE POLICY (2nd Ed., 1986).
15 DEBORAH A. STONE, THE DISABLED STATE, (1984).
16 STONE, Id., at Chapter 2.
17 In the end, there were three major types of programs: a work injury program that
was enacted in 1935, a disabled workers program from 1956 that covered all contributing
workers who paid their social insurance fees (SSD), and a general public assistance program
that covered disabled people who could not enjoy social insurance programs. STONE, Id.;
Williams H. Simon, Rights and Redistribution in the Welfare System 38 STAN. L. REV. 1431 (1986);
Jonathan C. Drimmer, Cripples, Overcomers, and Civil Rights: Tracing the Evolution of Federal
Legislation and Social Policy for People with Disabilities, 40 UCLA L. REV. 1341, (1993);
18Harlan Hahn, Advertising the Acceptable Employable Image: Disability and Capitalism,in
THE DISABILITY STUDIES READER 172 (Lennard J. Davis ed., New York ,1997)
Sagit Mor 10
were, and still are, treated as part of the “industrial reserve army” for times of
employment shortage.19
In Israel, too, the historical public assistance system (the Sa’ad), and
later on, disability insurance, were engaged in drawing the boundaries
between disability and poverty.20 The definition of disability in the disability
insurance program employs a combined test that is meant to determine
whether a person is able to reach a minimum income level, or if her income
capacity should be officially reduced (50% or more).21 The test includes both a
medical and a socioeconomic component, each of which represents a different
rationale for the boundaries between the categories. The medical one assumes
a static understanding of disability, which differentiates between those who
due to their disability cannot work and those who are able to work, a
reminder of the traditional understanding of the deserving poor. The second,
socioeconomic component suggests a more flexible and dynamic
understanding of disability, and therefore calls for an even closer examination
of its definition and use of socioeconomic factors. In any event, the result of
this test is clear: those who were not considered “sufficiently” disabled
remained in the realm of mere poverty. In Israel, for instance, a person with
35% medical disability is not disabled in legal terms, at least not for the
purpose of general disability allowances.22 If unemployed, this person might
be able to enjoy general supplemental income, under the National Insurance
program available to anyone who is unemployed and living in poverty.23
But not only general disability allowances are affected by the
disability/poverty dyad. Other disability allowance programs, such as those
for disabled veterans or disabled workers, are also subject to its impact.24
Unlike general welfare programs for disabled people, which are usually based
on the welfare-related principle of need, other programs are based on
principles of insurance or desert. Such programs are designed to benefit
specific groups of disabled persons, whose disablement was a result of
19 Id.
20 Mor, supra note 6. For a short history of Israeli disability allowances regime, see
Chapter B.
21 National Insurance Law (consolidated version), 5755-1995, Chapter 9 §§ 195-225B
(originally passed as National Insurance (Amendment No. 13) Law, 5733-1973, 27 L.S.I 233
(1972-73)). The formal name for the disability insurance program is “Invalidity Insurance,” but I
shall call it the general disability insurance, or disability insurance.
22 Interestingly, the level of medical disability required to be eligible for work injury
insurance or disabled veterans allowances is much lower and is not accompanied by a working
capacity test or socioeconomic standards.
23 Assurance of Income Law, 5741-1980, 35 L.S.I. 28 (1980-81).
24 See Chapter B for a short review of disability allowances in Israel..
11 BETWEEN HOPE AND EVIL
25 See John Gal, The Perils of Compensation in Social Welfare Policy: Disability Policy in
Israel, 75 THE SOCIAL SERVICE REVIEW, 225, 235 (2001); Mor, supra note 6.
26 Mor, supra note 6.
27 Mor, supra note 6.
Sagit Mor 12
concern not only of the welfare imagery that has been occupied with disability
and poverty, but also of the rights imagery which has created new and, in
some sense, revolutionary means to realize the vision of a more equitable
society. Laws against employment discrimination of disabled people and
rules concerning accommodations in the workplace have been the primary
mechanism through which this has occurred. In one provocative article,
Samuel Bagenstos even argues that the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) was marketed and perceived by the public as a welfare reform, since
the goal was to make disabled people more productive and self-reliant and to
take them off welfare rolls and put them on payrolls.28 The actual goal of
disability rights activists has been, of course, much broader, as they hoped to
transform society and to alter the image of disabled people from dependent,
inferior, and useless, to independent, equal, and productive members of
society. However, in the aftermath of the new legislation, high unemployment
rates persisted and the number of disability benefit recipients grew larger,29
proving that non-discrimination provisions were insufficient to overcome the
long history of discrimination and exclusion of disabled people.
This study will demonstrate that the strategic shift from welfare
concerns to disability rights resulted in a neglect of disability allowances.
Based on the case study of disability protests in Israel and a review of
additional disability rights schemes, I argue that the underlying reason for
such neglect was an implicit aspiration to break away from the historically
tight link between disability and poverty.
A.3. Group Consciousness and Inter-Group Relations
The disability-poverty predicament evokes an additional set of issues that are
related to the realm of group consciousness and inter-group relations.30
Separating disability from poverty generates a politics oriented towards the
inner group, which encourages disabled people to find what unites them as a
group and what distinguishes them from others. It allows disabled people to
distance themselves from pity, misery, and indigence, and instead dedicate
their efforts to fostering activism in the realms of disability pride, identity,
and culture. Yet this direction contributes to the creation of more rigid
28 Samuel R. Bagenstos, The Americans with Disabilities Act as Welfare Reform, 44 WM. &
MARY L. REV. 921, 930-52 (2003) (Bagenstos shows how the ADA was warmly accepted by
policymakers because it was understood as a welfare reform that would reduce welfare
recipients, a view that is problematic because accommodations are not enough of a measure to
overcome the long history of exclusion of disabled people from the labor force).
29 JERRY MESHAW ET AL. EDS., DISABILITY WORK AND CASH BENEFITS (1996); KALMAN RUPP
AND DAVID STAPLETON EDS., GROWTH IN DISABILITY BENEFITS (1998).
30These concerns seem to be beyond the scope of this paper, but at the same time, they
cannot be totally ignored.
13 BETWEEN HOPE AND EVIL
The circularity and the paradox inherent in the argument for disability
allowances create a predicament for the disability community. The issues
informing this predicament are analyzed in the following section. They infuse
the debate on disability allowances and are infused by it. Clearly, these
questions concern both disabled individuals as well as the disabled
community as a collective seeking both inter- and intra-group solidarity.
34For detailed reviews of these models, see: URIEL PROCACCIA & ARIE L. MILLER, THE
RIGHTS OF THE DISABLED IN ISRAEL: BASIC ISSUES 12 (1974) (Hebrew); Gal, supra note 25; Mor, supra
note 6.
35 Invalids (Pension and Rehabilitation) Law, 5709-1949, 3 L.S.I 119 (1949) 1959 law. In
1959, a consolidated version was published: Invalids (Pension and Rehabilitation) Law
[Consolidated Version], 5719-1959, 13 L.S.I. 315 (1958-59) (hereinafter: the Invalids Law).
36 National Insurance Law, 5714-1954, 8 L.S.I. 4 (1953-54).
37 Gal, supra note 25. In this article, Gal provides a detailed account of the relationships
between three allocative principles (desert, insurance and need) and their application to the
various welfare programs for people with disabilities in Israel. To read more on the three
principles, see GILBERT & SPECHT, supra note 14.
15 BETWEEN HOPE AND EVIL
38 On the strike and its achievements, see, In Struggle – The Bulletin of the Disabled Union,
Vol. 1, March 2001 (a bulletin published by the Campaign for the Handicapped, an organization
that was formed during the 1999 strike and that led the second strike, as well).
Sagit Mor 16
impetus was disappointment with the Equal Rights for Persons with
Disabilities Law (ERPWDL), which had not yet brought the anticipated
changes, and in particular, the increasing economic hardship, which was
linked to the inadequacy of disability insurance allowances.39 While the strike
started with a broad agenda that included issues of accessibility, housing, and
the implementation of the ERPWDL, these issues quickly dissipated.
Eventually the strike was essentially about disability benefits, i.e., disability
insurance stipends, mobility allowances, and personal attendance allowances,
their low rates, narrow scope, and outdated structure. It was also about the
requirement of choosing between mobility and personal attendance
allowances even though each was related to a different set of needs.40 The
strike ended with great achievements for the activists, as the Prime Minister
and the Ministry of Finance surrendered to their demands. It was the first
time that a street protest over social welfare issues had succeeded. It yielded
significant changes in mobility and attendance allowances and a rise in
disability insurance payments for the “severely disabled.”41 During the strike,
a new organization was established, the Campaign for Handicapped Persons
in Israel (hereinafter: Campaign for the Handicapped), which perceived the
strike’s achievements as only a first step in a broader effort to improve the
living conditions of disabled people. Indeed, the continuing effort of the
Campaign for the Handicapped produced a second strike.
The 2001 strike lasted 77 days.42 On the agenda was a general reform
in disability insurance that would benefit the majority of disabled people who
live on disability insurance and not just the few who are “severely” disabled.
This time, the goals were few and clear, though still steep : to bring disability
insurance on par with minimum income rates (including an allowance for
people whose benefits were below the minimum income rate), to allow
disabled people who had reached pension age (60 or 65) to receive both
disability insurance and old-age pensions and other disability related
39 Disability insurance allowances were not only insufficient in the first place, but also
had not been updated over more than two years to match the rise in the standard of living, and
therefore suffered continuing deterioration. On the background to the strike, see Einat Fishbein,
The disabled are opening a struggle on their rights: we have nothing to live on?, Ha’aretz, 9/29/1999.
On the disappointment with the ERPWDL I received information in an interview with Simha
Benita.
40 Fishbein, Id.
41 In Struggle – The Bulletin of the Disabled Union, Vol. 1, March 2001, at 8-11.
42 On the strike and its achievements, see In Struggle – The Bulletin of the Disabled Union,
43 Before then, a disabled person would switch from disability insurance to old-age
pension which was many times lower than the disability allowance, and was denied other
benefits (e.g., mobility and attendance allowances).
44 Anat Gov, The Public’s Right to Know, 12/26/01, Ynet online newspaper (claiming
that “with the money that we have we could have been a state where the disabled are smiling”).
45 In Struggle – The Bulletin of the Disabled Union, Vol. 3, March 2002, at 12-14.
46 Neta Ziv, People with Disabilities – Between Social Rights and Existential Needs, in
ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, AND CULTURAL RIGHTS IN ISRAEL 813, (Yoram Rabin and Yuval Shany eds.,
2004); Rimmerman and Herr, supra note 2 (naming their article The Power of the Powerless).
Sagit Mor 18
and its acute relevance to the participants’ daily lives and economic survival.
Yet as we shall see, for the same reason, the strikes were also criticized for
using the politics of mercy and pity.
C.2. The Role of Disability Allowances in Disabled People’s Lives
For the organizers of the campaigns, disability allowances were the most
pressing issue, while civil rights could wait for later stages in the overall
struggle; thus, civil rights were not entirely beyond the scope of this struggle,
but their priority was low. In the 1999 sit-in strike, for instance, disability
rights were included in the initial agenda but were soon abandoned. Top
priority was given to disability allowances due to their fundamental role in
ensuring disabled people’s very existence –their economic security and
physical survival. Thus, Arie Zudkevich said: “Everyone agreed that
allowances were the first priority – first of all: to stay alive.”47 Simha Benita,
one of the campaign organizers was quoted in an interview that announced
the launching of the first strike: “The ground is burning under our feet … we
have nothing to live on, and nobody notices us. Indeed, it is not easy to take
the disabled outside their homes for a demonstration, but this time we are
going to fight and bring hundreds [of people] until we get attention.”48 Momo
Nekave, another prominent activist, was cited as saying: “Our people are
desperate. Our struggle is about the right to life, because in the current
situation many are hardly alive.”49
The formulation of disability allowances as guaranteed by the right to
life resembles a similar attempt in the United States to formulate welfare
benefits as rights. That view was promoted by the welfare rights movement
that flourished for a short while during the 1960s. As early as 1955, A.
Dalefield Smith had developed the approach that viewed welfare benefits as
stemming from the fundamental “right to life,” based on the Fourteenth
Amendment to the American Constitution.50 That argument failed, and the
welfare advocates turned to due process rights as a way of ensuring benefits
for indigent people (using Charles Reich’s theory of the “New Property”).51
The welfare rights movement enjoyed success in courts during the 1960s, and
(emphasis added).
50 A. DELAFIELD SMITH , THE RIGHT TO LIFE (1955).
51 For a chronicle of the struggle, see Edward v. Sparer, The Right to Welfare, in THE
RIGHTS OF AMERICANS 82 (Norman Dorsen ed., 1971). For a chronicle of the movement, see
MARTHA DAVIS, BRUTAL NEED: LAWYERS AND THE WELFARE RIGHTS MOVEMENT, 1960-1973 (1995).
For Reich’s renowned article, see Charles A. Reich, The New Property, 73 YALE L. J. 768 (1964).
19 BETWEEN HOPE AND EVIL
then its influence declined without leaving much impact on the United States
rights discourse.52
For local activists, the sit-in strikes were a spectacle of hope, solidarity,
and strength. As Yoav Kraim, the spokesperson of the Campaign for the
Handicapped wrote in their bulletin:
After long years of walking in the desert with no pastor, we have
finally reached the gates of the Promised Land. We can now state
that the disabled populace has left behind any last remains of
paternalism and represents itself with dignity and with no
mediators. …
… Our two most important achievements: one – the power of
working together …, and second – the public’s understanding of
the needs of all disabled: the mentally disabled, sensory disabled,
physically disabled, and cognitive disabled.
The public knows today that a disabled person is a human being
too, bearing rights.
We too share the image of God. … Furthermore, the disabled
populace is leaving its “closet” behind today and starting to lift
its head. The shame that society has granted us is disappearing,
and we now march to the light of human dignity. This light will
guide the State of Israel ... to become a society that manages its
economic affairs as well in terms of values and fundamental
needs. In this way, we have provided the entire public with
renewed dignity.53
Organized by disabled people and conducted in the streets, the sit-in strikes
represented a grassroots struggle, in which disabled people forced society to
see them, address their hardships and, consequently deal with its own
responsibility for past injustices. For them, disability allowances indeed
concerned the “here and now;” the immediate and basic issue that shapes
their life conditions; nevertheless, their grand vision was one of rights,
dignity, participation and integration in the labor market.
Gradually the Campaign for the Handicapped formulated its own
demands for rights. After the 2001 sit-in strike, its activists increasingly talked
about allowances as rights, as a mechanism that aims to close the gap between
the living expenses of disabled and nondisabled individuals. The size of the
gap, they argued, depends on the level of services provided by the state.
Moreover, they advocated the acknowledgement of
disability allowances [as] an investment that allows the disabled
person to secure his unique needs, to integrate into the life of the
country and contribute to it. We need a new balance between
disability and wage-earning so that the disabled and the state will
pursue the integration of the disabled as an active and productive
worker on the one hand, and so that the quality of life of the disabled
will not decline.54
In the agreement with the government at the end of the 2001 sit-in
strike, the organizers insisted on a provision that guaranteed the
establishment of a public committee. One of the committee’s major expected
tasks was to discuss ways to encourage and provide incentives for disabled
people to work and earn their income, while still ensuring the existence of
mechanisms that guarantee easy transition to economic independence (e.g.,
eligibility for an allowance if income is below minimum standards). The
Campaign for the Handicapped had indeed insisted on the establishment of
such a committee and participated in its proceedings. The Public Committee
to Review Matters Concerning Disabled People and to Advance their
Inclusion in the Community (also named the Laron Report, after Judge Laron,
the head of the committee) published its report in March 2005.55 Yet the
recommendation of the Laron Report has yet to be implemented.
People in Israel regarding the establishment of a public committee, as part of the agreement
that was reached at the end of the 2001/2002 strike. Dated May 9, 2002 (on file with author).
55 See the full report on: http://users.tapuz.co.il/forums/laron-x.pdf. A
comprehensive analysis of its recommendations is beyond the scope of this project at this point.
The government website reported that: “The Committee decided to concentrate on
recommendations that would lead toward improving the quality of life of people with
disabilities and to their inclusion in society and employment. In this context, the Committee
focused on encouraging employment, which constitutes a basis for improvements in all
areas. The members of the Committee believe that the disabled must be afforded a wider
degree of participation as a solution to their problems and indicate the need for policies based
on consideration and the promotion of autonomy.” As this text already reveals, from a
disability critique perspective, a basic fault of the report is the understanding of employment as
a problem of the disabled person, and not a social disablement. Thus, the report develops
advanced mechanisms to support the entrance of disabled people to the labor market, but
ignores the societal aspects of employment discrimination and other structural problems. A
second issue, which stands at the center of other disabled people’s criticism of the report (who
already organized an anti-Laron Report campaign), is that the levels of disability allowances
had basically remained the same, i.e., at poverty lines. Although, according to the report,
21 BETWEEN HOPE AND EVIL
people who go to work will not lose their benefits at once, the reform does not improve the
economic situation of people who live on disability insurance. The opponents of the report
admit its importance in some aspects but argue that underlying it is an aspiration to keep the
expenditure on disability allowance low and to create incentives to work that might lead people
to lose their benefits (e.g., the requirement to participate in rehabilitation program as a
condition for receiving benefits). For a fully developed critique of the report, see the following,
written by Kobi Cohen, a leader of the struggle against the report and the spokesperson of
Keren organization (Keren – K’tu’ei Raglayim Nilchamim (Leg Amputees Fight Back), entitled: The
Laron Report – Why it is Important to Stop its Implementation (available at:
http://mate.ios.st/IOS/Users/mate.ios.st/Files/3546613314.pdf).
56 For the content of the opponents’ critique, see Id. This debate among disabled people
concerning the report began in the online forum on Tapuz.co.il, and gradually gained
momentum, leading to a new alliance of disabled people who oppose the report who now have
their own website and who even initiated a new strike of disabled people in October 2005.
See e.g., a letter sent by the Roof Association for the Organized and Unorganized
Handicapped to the Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, explaining their objections to the report and
complaining for not being represented or involved in the Committee’s proceedings, dated
7/31/2005. (Available at:
http://www.center4all.com/BuildaGate4/portals/disable/imagesP/sub23/237628558.jpg).
57 The Laron Report – Why it is Important to Stop its Implementation, supra note 55, at
9. This latest development in disability activism not only offers a more radical view of disability
allowances, but also questions the disparities among disabled people and expose them to public
discussion.
Sagit Mor 22
58 Neta Ziv “Disability Law in Israel and the United States – A Comparative
Perspective” 1999 Israel Yearbook on Human rights 171 (1999); Stanley S. Herr, Reforming Disability
Nondiscrimination Laws: A Comparative Perspective, 35 U. MICH. J.L. REFORM 305 (2002) (examining
the effect of the ADA on disability reform in Israel, the United Kingdom and Sweden).
59 Equal Rights for People with Disabilities Bill, 5756-1996, H.H. 628.
60 In a press conference announcing the establishment of Bizchut it was declared: “For
the first time in Israel, an organization has been established to promote the interests and rights
of people with disabilities in the spirit of the values of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel,
and to bring the principles of integration within the community and of anti-discrimination into
practice … “Bizchut” wishes to eradicate the prejudices and paternalism towards populations
with special needs, in order for them to be an integral part of Israeli society, Bizchut ve-lo be-
chesed (as a right rather than as charity).” The opening and concluding paragraphs of the
Announcement establishing Bizchut, at the above press conference, 12/5/93.
61 The Report of the Public Committee for a Comprehensive Review of the Legislation
Regarding People with Disabilities (1997) (hereinafter: the Public Committee Report or the
Report). In the following I shall refer to the report in two ways: I shall refer to the analysis, data,
and recommendations of the report as the Public Committee Report, and I shall address specific
provisions as the ERPWD Bill.
23 BETWEEN HOPE AND EVIL
62 Ariela Auphir and Dan Orenstein, Equal Rights for People with Disabilities Law, 1998:
Emancipation at the End of the 20th Century, in MENACHEM GOLDBERG BOOK 42, 87 (Aharon Barak
et al eds., 2002).
63 The ERPWDL eventually included only four parts of the original proposal: general
lies in such a combined approach and argues that it can serve as a model for disability rights
laws. Id., at 201-202. See also The Public Committee Report, supra note 61, at 19; Auphir and
Orenstein, supra note 62, at 56; Herr, supra note 58. The ERPWD Bill included a specific chapter
dedicated to Special Needs (§35-38). A stricter translation of the original concept of adequate
services would be something like “appropriate-response to special needs” (see the ERPWDL §1,
cited supra next to note 19).
65 On the Swedish model of disability, see Ziv, Id., at 194-197; Herr, Id.
Sagit Mor 24
professional aid and consultation for that purpose (as viable alternatives to
restrictive guardianship arrangements); and an entitlement to mobility
allowance.70 Therefore, it is particularly revealing that missing from the Bill’s
content was a reformulation of disability insurance or, more generally, of
disability allowances. The significance of this missing part was profound, as it
overlooked a pressing need of disabled persons and an important arena
where disability was constituted. But most importantly, the inevitable result
was that the issues included were legitimized while the excluded ones were
not, or were even de-legitimized.
D.2. The Equal Rights for People with Disabilities Law – Avoiding
Disability Allowances
A close reading of the ERPWD Bill and the Public Committee Report reveals
that the local disability rights formula avoided the issue of social insurance,
both as a measure of economic security and as a source of human dignity for
disabled people. In fact, this is one of the very rare issues with legal
implications that was totally abandoned in the process of formulating
disability rights.71
It appears that while in general both the Bill and the Report espouse
in-kind benefits (i.e., providing actual services), they also introduce an
implicit distinction between two types of cash benefits (i.e., direct payments):
those intended to cover specific, impairment-related needs, and those that
concern general living expenses. The first type relies on a link between the
readily apparent disability and the particular needs it generates. This category
was incorporated into the rights formula and was in fact celebrated as part of
its “adequate services” component. Disability rights advocates justified these
benefits as a means to realize rights that were otherwise useless for disabled
people and would therefore have remained abstract. The Housing in the
Community Chapter, for instance, included two such provisions. One was the
newly designed entitlement to personal assistance (that was to replace
attendance allowance), which intended to guarantee independence and
dignified living for disabled people, both at home and outside.72 A second
provision concerned state funded financial assistance for housing, which
70 Clearly each one of these provisions can be easily linked to a specific right: special
aimed to provide those who could not otherwise afford housing possibilities
other than institutional care.73
The second type of cash benefit is the focus of this study: it concerns
basic disability allowances for general living expenses, as provided by major
disability welfare laws (e.g., the Invalids Law benefits to disabled veterans,
the Work Injury Program, and the general disability insurance program). This
basic allowance is determined based on one’s level of disability, but is not
linked to any particular need. The structure, definitions, and levels of this
allowance are different for each program; however, in none of the programs is
there any detailed reference to the expenses the disability allowance is meant
to cover. It is clear that they are meant to cover daily expenses, some of which
might be related to the disability, but mostly it refers to basic living expenses.
This is particularly evident in the case of the general disability allowance
available to unemployed disabled people, which provides only very meager
benefits.
The distinction between the two types of cash benefits reflects society’s
willingness to acknowledge and cover disability-related costs (together with
in-kind benefits) in contrast to its decision to relegate most other expenses to
the personal realm of individual responsibility. The central question then
becomes what are the extra expenses that would make it possible for disabled people
to function in society, and whose responsibility is it to bear these added costs?
D.3. Explaining the Absence of Disability Allowances
Clearly, then, disability allowances were excluded from the ERPWD Bill.
None of the Bill’s versions says anything about a right to economic security, to
social insurance, or to a minimum standard of living, to name a few possible
options.74 The question is why. It is clear that cash benefits were not rejected
altogether – only those that were not linked to a specific disability-related
need were rejected. The inevitable conclusion is that cash benefits were not
meant to cover needs which are not disability-related, such as food, clothing,
furniture, or cleaning supplies – the kind of universal needs that all people
share and that advocates for poor people demand. This realization suggests
that here the disability/poverty dyad comes into play. It is the claim of the
current study that the implicit distinction between disability-related needs
73 ERPWDL §25(b); The Public Committee Report, Id., at 59-65 and 69 (finding that
and Cultural Rights. The Covenant’s Article 9 provides: “The States Parties to the present
Covenant recognize the right of everyone to social security, including social insurance.” International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, G.A. res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N.GAOR Supp.
(No. 16) at 49, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 993 U.N.T.S. 3, entered into force Jan. 3, 1976 (emphasis
added).
27 BETWEEN HOPE AND EVIL
75 Absence of attention to social welfare was present in additional sections of the Bill.
Thus, the provision concerning accommodations of legal proceedings did not address
proceedings before administrative tribunals, and the accessibility part (§14-§24) paid no special
attention to access to social welfare services (although it did specify a right regarding access to
healthcare).
76 Minimum Wage Law, 5747-1987, S.H. 68.
Minimum Wage (Accommodated Wage for a Worker with Disability with Reduced
77
recently, she stresses? that argument more specifically, even though she also acknowledges that
“the issue of allowances is a direct reflection of the idea of ‘adequate services.’” Ziv, Social
Rights and Existential Needs, supra note 46, at 844-845.
79 The rights view of disability allowances was voiced most clearly in the Fundamental
Principles document of the Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation (1976), cited in
MICHAEL J. OLIVER, UNDERSTANDING DISABILITY: FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE 21-28 (1996). See also
Anita Silvers, Formal Justice in ANITA SILVERS, DAVID WASSERMAN, AND MARY B. MAHOWALD,
DISABILITY, DIFFERENCE, DISCRIMINATION: PERSPECTIVES ON JUSTICE BIOETHICS AND PUBLIC POLICY
(1998).
80 The Fundamental Principles document, in OLIVER, Id.
29 BETWEEN HOPE AND EVIL
81 Morton J. Horwitz, Rights, 23 HARV. C.R-C.L L. REV. 393 (1988). Note that despite my
critique, I do not advocate the abandoning of rights. Neither do I endorse them as the ultimate
device to promote social change and to dismantle power structures. I examine rights as the
particular paradigm and a concrete resource that was developed in a certain era and ask what it
entailed and what it missed or neglected. Rights in my view are a process and not an outcome,
as I shall explain later, and the critique of rights is an important, yet not exclusive, aspect of my
understanding of how they work. On the constitutive approach to rights in sociolegal studies,
see e.g. MICHAEL W. MCCANN, RIGHTS AT WORK – PAY EQUITY REFORM AND THE POLITICS OF
POLITICAL MOBILIZATION (1994); and JOHN BRIGHAM, THE CONSTITUTION OF INTERESTS (1996).
Sagit Mor 30
82 See FRASER, supra note 31; FRASER AND HONNETH, supra note 31.
83The Protocols are on file with the author. Based on interviews with Rivka Sneh,
Gideon Drori, Simcha Benita, Achiya Kamara, Ariela Auphir, Sylvia Tessler Lozovick, and Neta
Ziv.
84 In Struggle – The Bulletin of the Disabled Union, Vol. 1 and , March 2001. Note the
difference between this text and the one by Yoav Kraim that is cited next to note 53. The
31 BETWEEN HOPE AND EVIL
Conflicted views about the sit-in strikes were voiced also in the public
media. It was a “victory of tears,” observed a journalist known for her
progressive agenda, after the first sit-in strike.85 It was a “performance of
misery,” a participant in an online forum of disabled people noted after the
second sit-in strike,86 a “one-dimensional representation [of disabled people]
as miserable ... as a minority that lives on the margins, a social burden,” in the
words of the late Baruch Kimmerling, an acclaimed sociology professor who
was a wheelchair user.87 “This attitude,” Kimmerling warned, “brings us
closer to societies that have [promoted] physical extinction of unworthy
non-contributing elements in society.” In this view, the image of disabled
people in these strikes was not of equal citizens fighting for their rights, but of
a marginal group begging for compassion.88 “It was a victory of misery,” a
history professor explained, because “you were forced to undress yourself, to
expose your impairments, to recruit some journalists that would bring them to
light, and only in this way could you win. Is this the society we wanted? This
is a return to [Diaspora's – S.M.] town, to charity collections (kupat tzdaka)
…”89 From this perspective, the exposure of the participants’ impairments in
public was communicated as a call for mercy and not an act of dignity.
Like those journalists and commentators, rights activists viewed the
sit-in strikes with mixed responses, as a simultaneous show of solidarity and
misery. The sit-in strikes, then, represented a dual movement, of continuity
and departure, in relation to disability rights activism; continuity, on the one
hand, because they manifested the growing visibility and assertiveness of
disabled people; and departure, on the other hand, because they seemed to
differences between the texts of Kraim and Zudkevich deserve a more concrete analysis as they
represent two generations within the movement (Zudkevich the older and Kraim the younger)
and two phases in the struggle (Zudkevich at the end of the 1999 strike, Kraim at the end of the
2001 strike. Still, I believe, they demonstrate the tensions inside that struggle and in the
messages that it communicated outside.
85 Einat Fishbein, The Victory of Tears, Ha’aretz, 11/10/1999. The tears refer to the
turning point in the first strike when the mother of a disabled child started crying and Knesset
members and reporters were carried away and cried with her.
86 Rita, Ynet communities, 6/13/2002.
87 Baruch Kimmerling, The Disabled of the Media, Ha’aretz, 8/11/1999.
88 A survey by Rimmerman and Herr of media representation of the 1999 strike
concluded that “it is not surprising that the participants of the strike were more often described
in the Israeli press as objects of pity rather than activists struggling for their rights.”
Rimmerman and Herr, supra note 2, at 15. See also Ziv, Social Rights and Existential Needs, supra
note 46, at 843-844.
89 Daniel Gutwein, cited in Fishbein, The Victory of Tears, supra note 85.
Sagit Mor 32
He concluded by saying “Bizchut is not ready to talk about needs, about the
‘here and now.’”93
Similarly, the purpose of this paper is to work within the gap between
hope and evil. While it is understood that this approach may not immediately
resolve the tension between the two options, it could –nevertheless-- facilitate
a shift in perspectives that would ultimately lead to a resolution.
Acknowledging the tension is the first step in thinking critically about
disability allowances; this means acknowledging their unavoidable yet
undesirable character. In other words, the necessity for disability allowances
should be recognized, while at the same time striving to make them
unnecessary, unneeded, and even redundant. This tension is familiar in other
realms of antidiscrimination law, as well. Affirmative action policies, for
example, attempt to undo social wrongs while facing the risk of reinforcing
that very same wrong. For that very reason, at their core, affirmative action
91 Interview with Yoav Kraim; Yoav Kraim, talk in a panel on the disability protests at
94 MARTHA MINOW, MAKING ALL THE DIFFERENCE 47, 385-387 (1990). For a review of
United States history of affirmative action policies and the debates that surrounded them, see
CHARLES R. LAWRENCE III AND MARI J. MATSUDA, WE WON'T GO BACK: MAKING THE CASE FOR
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION (1997).
95 Mari Matsuda, Looking to the Bottom: Critical Legal Studies and Reparations, 22 HARV.
Have What Minorities Want?, 22 HARV C.R.-C.L. L. REV. 301 (1987); Patricia J. Williams,
35 BETWEEN HOPE AND EVIL
same can be said about disabled people’s demands for granting disability
allowances as a matter of right. This needn’t suggest that disability allowances
are a quick and easy repair for disabled people’s destitution, since their
everyday experiences leave no doubt that the road to equality is a long one. In
this view, formulating disability allowances as a matter of rights could indeed
be an act of hope, which rather than representing a naïve approach is – In
effect – a call for struggle.97 Nevertheless, the issue of disability allowances
cannot be embraced unequivocally solely because disabled people demand it.
Critical listening means that “voices from the bottom” are taken into account
but examined and judged, in light of other principles and of relevant
historical, political, and socioeconomic context.
The current disability rights discourse is complicated by the dual
plight of disabled people: disability and poverty. Consequently, it faces two
main challenges. The first challenge, which is also more vocally advocated by
disability activists, concerns disabled people who do not yet participate in the
labor force for various economic, social, and political reasons. The challenge,
in this case, focuses on addressing their status during the transitional period,
until disability rights become a reality. The second challenge concerns the
group of disabled people who will never be able to work, a definition (and
assumption) that, as explained below, undermines the assumptions that are
fundamental to disability rights claims.
Presently, the first challenge focuses on resolving the conflict between
a shortsighted view, which focuses on the present and the immediate and
foreseeable future, and the long-term view, which seeks a better future.
Instead, as the current study suggests, the focus should shift to the measures
that should be taken in the interim time period. Thus, the question that arises
is “who should pay the price for society’s ableist power structure and its
consequences until ableism is dismantled?” Clearly, excluding disability
insurance from the discussion implies that society is not required to bear the
full cost for its past and ongoing ableist norms and practices. It also means
that until society is fully transformed, disabled people will remain poor.
However, as the campaigns and strikes of recent years have demonstrated,
disabled people are no longer willing to bear a burden that belongs to society
as a whole.
Furthermore, focusing on the interim period poses a greater challenge
to rights activists, as it calls for the realization that society’s transformation
will be a long and drawn out process, which might never be fully completed.
Alchemical Notes: Reconstructing Ideals from Deconstructed Rights, 22 HARV. C.R.-C.L. L. REV. 401
(1987).
97 See text to note 101 which discusses the view of rights as process.
Sagit Mor 36
Therefore, the need to rely on disability allowances for survival might persist
for a much longer time than disability rights advocates are willing to consider,
much less admit. The argument that disability rights are indeed a utopian
ideal that will never reach full realization is not so radical in light of the
history of rights struggles.98 That history shows that even heralded rights
victories such as Brown v. Board of Education99 or Roe v. Wade100 are part of long
processes that had ample failures and defeats, and that rights do not make
poverty go away. Yet, contending with poverty during an interim period
poses a fundamental problem for disability rights advocates; namely, given
that their goal is to eradicate poverty from disabled people’s lives, any
measure that acknowledges the persistence of poverty casts doubt on the
efficacy of their approach. It suggests that the goal of creating a world with no
barriers for disabled people is, perhaps, unattainable, and more broadly, it
symbolizes the futility of rights.
Approaching the issue of disability allowances in terms of hope vs.
evil, an unavoidable yet undesirable necessity, requires a different view of
rights (and similarly of law) – as a process rather than an outcome, a resource
rather than an objective, a terrain of ongoing struggle rather than a promise
for stability. Rights in this view belong to the contradictory and conflicted
dynamics of legal and social relations as opposed to abstract theoretical
inquiries. Finally, in this view, rights are constantly produced and reproduced
rather than given.101 Interestingly, disability rights advocates were willing to
acknowledge that in some aspects, the difficulty with disability allowances
and their status as a temporary measure was characteristic of the entire
initiative of legislation for the equality of disabled people. Thus, Auphir and
Orenstein, two of the most influential figures in the legislation process of the
ERPWDL, concluded their article with the following point:
Indeed a paradox. On the one hand, by enacting the ERPWDL a new
age has begun in the annals of the struggle for equality and social
The second challenge to the effort to establish rights for the disabled
concerns the group of disabled people who will never be able to work. This
raises extremely delicate and complicated issues, because it questions the very
project proposed by disability rights activists. Their aim is to narrow the
boundaries of that group, by claiming that many disabled people are
currently unproductive because it is society – rather than their disability – that
limits them. Once society mends its wrongs, a large portion of this
unproductive group can in fact become part of the labor market. However, it
seems reasonable to acknowledge that there is a group of people, particularly
those with very severe developmental disabilities, who cannot perform any
form of wage earning labor. While this is a marginal group, focusing on its
needs assists in urging the question: what about those who must rely entirely
on public support for food, clothes, and furniture, not to mention leisure
activities, such as a vacation or a movie? Therefore, to reject a general
disability allowance, rights advocates must assume the existence of other
types of dignified living allowances, on which severely disabled people can
depend. At this juncture, strategic alliances with other disadvantaged groups
become pertinent, thus leading disability rights advocates to recognize the
role that “mere poverty” still plays in their vision. The inevitable conclusion is
therefore that the scheme of disability rights must depend on a strong social
insurance mechanism that is either particular to disabled people or universal
to all poor people. This last issue is at the heart of the next and last section of
this paper.
Handicapped People in Israel regarding the establishment of a public committee as part of the
39 BETWEEN HOPE AND EVIL
also developed with great elaboration by the Disability Income Group (DIG),
a British organization of disabled people that, since its establishment in 1966,
has been campaigning for the acknowledgement of the extra costs that
disabled people accrue in their daily lives.107
Both the Campaign for the Handicapped and DIG have indeed
asserted that the gap between the cost of living of a disabled and a
nondisabled person (and therefore the level of allowance) is dynamic, and
depends on the level of services provided by the state; both have also viewed
the state as responsible for providing appropriate care and treatment for every
person. However, the situation demands a further elaboration of the role of
the state in creating the current social, cultural, and political barriers, and a
detailed explanation of the ways in which forms of discrimination and
exclusion continue to contribute to this gap.108 The critique offered by the
current study calls for a reformulation of disability allowances as society’s
debt to disabled people, for its failure to supply full access, equal rights and
opportunities, and economic security. A new justification for disability
allowances would therefore include two modular layers: first,
acknowledgement (and in fact exposure) of the social, dynamic, and
interactive nature of disability; and second, the shifting of the costs of
disability to society, which is accountable for denying services and for not
eliminating all forms of discrimination and exclusion of disabled people.
A possible next step would be to demand that any disabled person,
whether working or not, rich or poor, would be entitled to disability
allowances, because such allowance is not intended to be a substitute for
wages but rather to cover additional costs imposed upon disabled people, in
comparison to other non-disabled people, working as well as non-working.
Such a scheme has recently been adopted in England. Moreover, once the
ableistic rationale that underlies disability benefit programs is exposed, no
disability program can escape the consequences. Thus, in contrast to the
current situation in Israel, whereby veterans receive much more substantial
benefits than other disabled people, based on this new logic, disabled veterans
might receive lower levels of disability allowances than other disabled
persons, because they enjoy services that are more comprehensive,
progressive, and generous. However, under the new formulation, the
agreement that at the end of the 2001/2002 strike. Dated May 9, 2002 (emphasis added) (on file
with author).
107 For policy papers developed by DIG, see http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-
109 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, G.A. res. 2200A
(XXI), 21 U.N.GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 49, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 993 U.N.T.S. 3, entered into
force Jan. 3, 1976 (emphasis added).
110 On the welfare rights movement, see text to notes 50-52.