אֲחֵרוּת, עוני ומשפט: המקרה של מקבצי נדבות ברחבת הכותל

This study examines the legal proceedings in the Schwartz and Moshia casein order to analyze processes of othering and anti-othering in relation to people in poverty in court rulings. This case is unique because although it dealt with a relatively minor offense – panhandling in the Western Wall ––it was discussed in three courts from the Magistrates’ Court to the Supreme Court.The study proposes two tests for analyzing the processes of othering and anti-othering: (a) the human subject test (how the human subject is represented in the text); and (b) the context test (how the context is represented). In terms of the human subject test, we found that the appellants were physically and symbolically absent in the various proceedings. The few references made to them were characterized by the attribution of negative qualities, especially in the proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court. In terms of the context test, the Magistrates’ Court, the District Court, as well as the State Attorney in various courts, paid little attention to the broad life context of the two. On the other hand, other important figures, such as the Association for Civil Rights and most Supreme Court Justices emphasized the context of the social conditions and dynamics that bring about panhandling and the need to create welfare policies that will aid those living in poverty. The article discusses the fruitfulness of analyzing othering and anti-othering strategies in the debate on the access of marginalized people to justice.