Will Diskin crack Netanyahu’s “good for security” armor?
A review of public surveys on the Iran issue shows that even prior to the damning critique on Friday by Yuval Diskin, former head of the Internal Security Agency, the public already diverged sharply from the leadership’s policy: Survey after survey, as I wrote in March, showed that only a minority – somewhere between 19 percent and 31 percent – favors a unilateral Israeli attack on Iran. The majority – at least half (here’s a similar survey in Hebrew), and up to nearly two-thirds (Hebrew) – is against a unilateral attack.
There are a few reasons why Diskin’s words could open a crack in the myth among the public that Netanyahu is good for security: First, Diskin voices the public’s basic divergence with government policy, as stated above. Second, Diskin joins a growing list of senior security figures who have expressed reservations about an attack, and that’s hard for the public to ignore. Third, commentary and speculation from some of the most influential (and most importantly, non-left wing) opinion-forming columnists in the Hebrew press have largely defended Diskin’s integrity.
At the very least, Diskin’s words and their reverberations could raise reasonable doubt in the public mind about Netanyahu’s competence on security. If so, citizens may then re-visit their own positions, instead of placing unqualified trust in the government. And if the public looks at itself, here’s what it will see (this revisits the polls I wrote about in March):
- Just one-fifth of all Israelis (22 percent) – and only 19 percent of Jews – believe that a strike would delay the nuclear program by five years or more. All the rest believe it would delay it only by one to five years (31 percent). Some think it would actually accelerate the program (11 percent) and one-fifth (19 percent) say it would have no effect at all. (Telhami)
- Three-quarters of Israelis believe that if Israel strikes, a major war would erupt in the Middle East. (Truman)
- Half the population believes that the ensuing conflict would last months or years; nearly half believes it could strengthen the Iranian government; and almost 70 percent (actually, a full three-quarters among Jewish respondents) believe that Hezbollah would join a retaliatory effort by Iran. (Telhami)
One newer survey showed quite different results – and it’s one of the more biased reports I’ve seen, by the usually-respectable Camil Fuchs (who polls for Haaretz). The survey was conducted on behalf of the right-wing Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, an outfit which helped found NGO Monitor, is headed by Dore Gold and has Gerald Steinberg (the head of NGO Monitor) on its list of fellows. The respondents are Jews only; remarkably, the sample contains a disproportionate number of ultra-Orthodox (see the survey information notes, below). The survey stated hawkish positions and asked people to agree or disagree, rather than presenting two opposing views and asking them to state a preference. According to the data:
- When told that “The only way to stop Iran from becoming nuclear is through a military strike,” 60 percent agreed (37 percent disagreed).
- When told that “Israel will pay a higher price for living under the shadow of an Iranian bomb than it will for attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities,” 65 percent agreed (the question did not clarify whether the attack would be unilateral or in concert with any other actor).
- But when asked to compare American versus Israeli military capacity to substantially harm Iran’s nuclear program, the gap becomes apparent even here: 87 percent agreed that America has this capacity, compared to 66 percent who agreed with relation to Israel.
Close monitoring is needed, but the public has spoken clearly against an Israeli unilateral strike and knows categorically that it will cause a major, protracted war. Personally I’d be happier if the numbers showed more doubts about a military strike in general.
But when surveys prior to Diskin’s critique repeatedly show Netanyahu and Likud running high, affirmed again by a survey published today in the pro-Netanyahu daily paper Israel Hayom (a classic case of shoddy poll reporting, free of sample size, description and dates), and the New York Times called Netanyahu’s popularity “all but impenetrable,” it’s clear that the venting of economic frustrations last summer never touched the current government. A crack in the armor of Netanyahu/Barak’s security defense (of themselves, that is) is probably the only thing that stands to chip away at their support.
Survey Information:
- Telhami: Survey authored by Professor Shibley Telhami at University of Maryland. Dates: February 22-26, 2012. Sample: 500 adult Israelis, national representation (Jews and Arabs); error: +/- 4.5%
- Truman: Survey authored by Professor Yaacov Shamir as part of the Israel-Palestine poll project at the Truman Institute at Hebrew University. Dates: March 11-15, 2012. Sample: 600 adult Israelis, national representation (Jews and Arabs), interviewed in Hebrew, Arabic, Russian; error: +/- 4.5%
- Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs: Authored by Camil Fuchs, March 2011 (no precise dates given). Sample: 505 Jews, no margin of error given. Sample critique: the demographics show that 15% of the sample self-defined as Haredi (ultra-orthodox), the most right-leaning group in Israel – and the group with the highest support for an attack. I have never seen statistics from the Central Bureau of Statistics or in any survey I’ve conducted that shows their number higher than nine percent. The report says the numbers in the analysis are weighted according to CBS data; but since Haredim invariably under-respond to surveys, the sample is quite hard to explain.
Correction appended: Nearly half the Israeli public believes a strike on Iran would strengthen the Iranian government, not the Israeli government as originally written.
For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.
Jack
Of course.
Diskin made a great effort to stop israeli governments war plans. There are plenty of people who are against war all over the world and its great but when people like Diskin comes out like that, thats what giving anti-war group a major boost and credibility and advance the position of anti-war groups because then people really begin to doubt the obvious lies and warmongering by the netanyahu regime.
-
The israeli society is trapped in a siege mentality where violence have often been used and have gained Israel temporary, short-period victories. Like using violence against palestinian kids throwing rocks is one thing. However some israelis due indocntrination by netnyahu and other warmongers think that violence then is the solver-of-all-problems, but be rest assured, an israeli attack on Iran will ONLY escalate tensions, violence, war and more and more israelis realizing that this is not what they want.
Hopefully Diskin voice will start a serious debate where people question their leaders and their misleading rhetoric whatever it is on palestinians, iranians or settlements.
caden
Israel doesn’t have a big enough air force to pull this off. Not to mention that it would be the most telegraphed attack in military history. All these articles and hand wringing are simply mental masturbation.
palestinian
When the enemy is powerful and may disrupt our lives and beautiful Tel Aviv then we start protesting with colorful placards ,but as long as they are powerless people under our control then fine lets send our children to shoot,steal and demolish …remember we are “civilians” ….. again hypocrites.
blu
Dagan, Meridor, Gantz, and now the straw that broke the camel’s back, Diskin – the Israeli confidence game Netanyahu has been running on the US over Iran is over.
.
There will be no US attack on Iran after this – the game just got gamechanged with this ‘General’s Revolt’
.
Can anyone imagine Obama going along with any Iran-plan with Netanyahu at this point? – he would have to answer to Israelis who warned him (esp Gantz, Dagan, and Diskin) at this point, if not anyone else
.
The Chief of Staff of the IDF, Mossad, and Shin Bet – versus Bibi who has been caught redhanded, lying? C’mon…
.
Netanyahu was simply caught running a confidence game on the US with his Iran plans, in (very) close coordination with his Lobbyin the US
.
Like Bernie Maddoff…
.
It was a house of cards and now it is collapsing and Diskin just pulled out another card
.
First there is exposure of the scam – then there is the exposure and removal of the scam-artist
.
Bye bye Bibi – your 30 minutes is up
aristeides
I’ll feel safer when Diskin is invited to address the US Congress. This is where the real danger lies.
caden
Aristeide would be more likely to convert to Judaism and take the stick out of his ass then Obama was ever going to hit Iran.
RichardL
You are an interesting creature Caden. Racist, vulgar, aggressive, condescending, arrogant, advocate of violence and apparently lacking the milk of human kindness to all except your own kind. Do you consider yourself to be a typical Zionist?
caden
Not feeling the love Rich.
Paul
But here’s the question most Israelis never consider and I doubt has been polled:
Do you belive that bombing Iran (or any other country) can destroy the region’s opposition to the occupation of Palstine and dispossession of the Palestinians?
Or in short: can bombs destroy ideas?
Of course, it’s a question the ‘other side’ should also answer.
Arnon Schwanzingera
BLU: “There will be no US attack on Iran after this – the game just got gamechanged with this ‘General’s Revolt’”
About a month back all major Israeli papers ran with a headline saying Mossad has cut back its overt actions in Iran. Supposedly, so the story went, to avoid detection. This was the top headline over the weekend, yes?
I believe this was right after the “Iranians, We will never bomb you, We love you” campaign reached the same papers.
So we all got the implicit message that Israel is not going to attack Iran. And that diplomatic backroom deals are being struck. This is just the actors playing their parts dutifully to diffuse the warmongering – once they know they’re truly off the table. And, of course, keep the myth alive that people’s actions on facebook actually matter. That’s important too.
Greg Pollock
I am beginning to see the IDF as nearly a seperate branch of government. Israel has been, mostly, in some sort of war state since foundation; the Knesset strikes me as still something of a war council of groups (parties). The IDF, or former elite from them, will stand up to PM policy (or rumored policy), essentially placing a bar on some actions–or challenging the PM to cross that bar. The IDF refuses High Court opinions when it comes to the “security” of its own and, for several years, refused to shift part of the Wall (fence) as ordered by the Court. That most Jewish citizens must serve in the IDF becomes kind of a populist base, independent of party organiztion.
.
There seems to be three branches to the State, the Knesset (and its derived cabinent with PM), the IDF, and the Court. Israel’s “constitution” seems to be the relative veto power of each over the others, which relative strength depending on issue regime. (So the Court has now stayed the removal of settlers it has ordered by 60 days, giving the government time to “state its case,” a de facto short term, maybe longer, veto over the Court.) These vetos or bars seem essential to the evolution of Israeli political thought. In coaltion warfare, groups can similarly shift outcomes by threatening to pull out or not support an action. Silent is the polity itself, which seems to view all of this from the outside. J14 had no real effect on the three powers, as far as I can see. And I know of no evidence that a major party wants to change this structure by embracing J14; nor evidence that a new party derived from J14 is in the works (although how would I know?).
.
Under this “analysis,” it may take a major failure of the 3 branch veto system to instigate at least a true call of change.
.
But there is a sleeper: Israeli Arab citizens, embedded in the Israeli encomny. Civil rigts action via the Courts might find a populist foothold for the Court istelf. Of course, I don’t expect this to happen any time soon.
Rowan Berkeley
There are several reasons why Israel cannot launch a unilateral air attack on Iran. First of all, until Hezbollah’s supply lines through Syria are cut and Hezbollah has lost its capability to maintain and fuel its rockets, such an attack would invite an immediate retaliation from these which would devastate Israel as far south as Haifa. Second, an air attack on Iran by Israel using non-nuclear arms would be ineffective. Fordow, the main enrichment complex, is designed to withstand anything short of the giant 30,000-lb GBU-57 MOPs, which can only be delivered by B-52s or B-2s with specially reinforced bomb bays, and I don’t see Obama & Co lending any of these to Bibi.
aristeides
Greg – It’s a wellknown aphorism. In normal nations the state has an army. In Israel, the IDF has a state.
Rowan Berkeley
A Smith Research poll sponsored by the JPost late last week indicated that Likud would win more than twice as many mandates as any other party if the prime minister advanced the next general election. According to the results, Likud would win 31 seats, followed by Labor and Yisrael Beytenu with 15 each, Kadima with 13, Yair Lapid’s new Atid Party with 11, Shas eight, United Torah Judaism six, National Union four, and Habayit Hayehudi and Meretz three each. The three Arab parties together would win 11 mandates. Altogether, the Right-Center bloc would win 67 seats and the Left-Center bloc 53. The split in the current Knesset is 65-55.
Rowan Berkeley
What does the above poll data tell us? I think it tells us that the public know perfectly well that the US, not Israel, will decide who attacks Iran and when, and that the whole pseudo-dispute going on is faked up on US instructions.
Greg Pollock
Aristeides,
.
The US is not immune. During WW II Japanese Americans living in the Pacific coast states were interred. This came at the demand of the general in charge of the Pacific home front who, obviously, had little to do. Those in the Attorney General’s office were forcefully against this plan. I have read that FDR followed the general’s recomendation because, beginning a war, FDR did not want to upset his command. By the battle of Midway it was clear the Japanese could not launch an attack on the US coast. Yet the camps continued to be.
.
It is all easy fine to say how evil the IDF is. Ask instead what it would take to make your country like that. The US has never been at quasi war for decades; rather, one of its miricales was the demobilization of one of the largest armies the world has ever seen while still retaining a growing economy.
.
If the IDF has become a quasi autonomous branch of government, I want to know exactly how political discourse is thereby affected. I want to know how the rules are developed, trial by trial, between the contention of this three branches, Knesset as government, Court, and IDF.
.
If you want to find a way to channel this conflict, you have to think beyond this conflict. Sorry for the arrogance, but this is my stand.