The Students' Assembly

Five Days in December...

Day 1 – The Shared Question and the Unresolved Enigma

The assembly opened not with resolutions, but with listening. Students first encountered one another through questions of truth, future, and certainty, creating a space where one is permitted to pause before diving into debate. From there, the day transitioned into a deep framing of the "Big Question": What is the role of the university in a time of constitutional crisis? An open dialogue with the President of the University, Prof. Ariel Porat, drew sharp lines between a strike and a shutdown, between protest and coercion, and between moral conviction and institutional authority. The discussion did not seek consensus – it sharpened tensions: Who decides for whom? When do we "break the rules"? And are there moments when inaction itself becomes a political choice?

​

Day 2 – Breaking the Mold

On the second day, the assembly refused to remain trapped in dichotomies. Through philosophical and political framing, a critical dialogue with a piercing counter-perspective, and a panel representing a diverse range of political cells, the concepts of "power," "authority," and "democracy" were deconstructed. In place of the binary question of "to strike or not to strike," a formative framework emerged: identifying "Red Lines" that demand a response, alongside "Arrows" – a broad spectrum of potential modes of action. It was a day of productive discomfort, where it became clear that while most agree there are moments when one cannot stand idly by, there is almost no agreement on the "right" way to act.

​

Day 3 – The Playground of Political Imagination

After two days of intense activity, the assembly left the classroom – but not the politics. Students worked independently on "aMAZE’n Politics" (Pa-Politika), a computer game that thrusts the player into the heart of the dilemma. It is no longer about "what is my opinion on a shutdown," but "what do I do now" – facing public pressure, legal boundaries, competing interest groups, and the very real cost of every decision. Through various historical and political scenarios, the game forced players to choose between action and avoidance, symbolic protest and escalation, and principled purity and partial effectiveness. This was not just another homework assignment; it was a small-scale civic experiment – an experience where power is revealed not as the force to coerce, but as the capacity to bear responsibility for a choice and for those impacted by it.

​

Day 4 – A Gateway to a Different Politics

Upon returning to the classroom, the fourth day bridged inspiration and practice. A lecture and discussion with the Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences, a panel of experts, and an in-depth conversation with the Swiss Ambassador revealed models of direct democracy, gradualism, and participation. From here, the assembly moved into intensive group work – not to reach a final verdict, but to design a "control panel": a graduated toolkit that replaces the "shutdown or nothing" binary with responsible navigation.

​

Day 5 – The Final Stretch

The final day was about the "bottom line." Groups wove their paragraphs together, offered mutual critiques, and converged for a collaborative writing session in the style of a "Tel Aviv Talmud" – not erasing disagreements, but working through them. In the plenary, a graduated response model for a constitutional crisis was adopted. This included clear "triggers," a campus-wide referendum with participation thresholds, and escalating stages of action – ranging from preventative measures that blend academia with active citizenship, to short warning strikes, and finally to more severe steps as a last resort. Simultaneously, the assembly ratified principles for protecting minorities, minimizing harm, and connecting the academy to the society beyond its gates.

​

What, then, did we achieve here?

The assembly week did not produce a "magic solution" – but it did catalyze something rarer: living democracy. A process where disagreement is not fled from but used to build a mechanism; where power is measured not by the ability to impose, but by the ability to choose together; where the university is tested not only as an institution of knowledge, but as a thinking, acting civic community. This was not merely a question of striking in the face of crisis – it was about responsibility, partnership, and the courage to navigate together in moments when there are no "clean" answers.

​

And now – are you ready to read the Assembly Proposal that will be put to a campus referendum and form your own opinion?