One of the biggest criticisms of the left wing and its arguments is that they have failed to convince others outside the left camp. It’s not a genuine argument in the long run, given how many top Israeli leaders over the last two decades have at least described sea changes in policy – even if they have not implemented them. But the current challenge of making the policy real is enormous – those who define themselves as left wing in Israel cannot end the occupation alone. Their electoral power is insufficient and their numbers scant.
How can the urgency of ending the occupation, ending human rights violation, reaching a two-state solution and bringing some measure of justice to the region, be conveyed to a broader spectrum of Israelis whose active support is desperately needed? That was the question of a panel at J Street’s conference – here is a summary of the analysis I provided.
Data collected in November showed serious opportunities for expansion to the center. In general, there’s been a great deal of of talk about working with the center at this conference. There is a strong Kadima presence here – in fact, there are more MKs for Kadima than from any other party: Nahman Shai, Orit Zuaretz, Shlomo Molla, Yoel Hasson – Danny Ben Simon is holding up the Knesset representation for all the left-wing parties on his own.
The Israeli ideological map: Here’s how Israeli Jews break down today. When asked to describe themselves in a survey, Israeli Jews break down as follows.
• 45% call themselves “right,” 27% are “center” and 17% describe themselves as “left.” Twelve percent of Israeli Jews say they don’t know.
• The Left breaks down into 7.5% left and 9% “somewhat left” – more than half of the self-defined left-wingers lean center. For the right it’s the opposite: 29% are “right”, just 16% “somewhat” right – right breaks down into much more than half who feel strongly
• Who are those who don’t identify a political leaning? It’s a bit hard to gauge. But here are some of their characteristics: They are somewhat disproportionately made up of former Soviet immigrants, who probably don’t want to say their political opinions. The fact that they are slightly older than the rest of the population could be a confirmation, as the Russian-immigrant population is significantly older than the veteran Jewish population in Israel; a strong plurality don’t state a religious preference. Many also report lower than average income and education. So although we don’t know exactly who they are – most of these qualities would put them into a right-leaning camp.
Major opportunities from the center. For the purposes of moving the beyond the left, this data yields critically important opportunities found within the center and the findings are very consistent throughout the survey (and in others). The basic finding is that when it comes to the conflict, the center behaves more like the left than the right.
There are many examples:
• Although just 38% who feel favorable, 73% of the left feels favorable, and fully 52% of the center. There’s even 19% of the right who are favorable to an agreement.
• When asked about the country’s priorities, 18% of the center respondents placed peace highest – compared to 8% of the right; and in fact 21% of Kadima voters placed peace first, a higher percentage even than among Labor voters (15%).
• Over 80% of the left is dissatisfied with how the Prime Minister has handled the peace process, but also 68% – more than two-thirds of the center. Only 51% of the right is disappointed and that’s logical – since the peace process has not yielded the peace they oppose.
• When asked if “a peace agreement is essential for Israel’s survival” – again, two-thirds of the center believe this is true, compared to just 30% of the right.
The data also shows the consistent problem regarding young people and support for a peace process. Young people are consistently less interested, more complacent and more actively opposed.
• Just 11% of young people (18-34) place peace as the highest priority for the country, compared to twice as many among the oldest (22%) respondents
• Only 36% – just over one-third – think that peace is essential for Israel’s survival, compared to 57% of middle aged respondents, and 63% of the oldest respondents.
• Nearly 60% of the young people believe a peace agreement could hurt Israel’s security.
A number of audience members asked why young people are becoming increasingly hard line when it seems so out of character for young people. There are many reasons: growing up during a decade of hopelessness regarding the peace process, the violence of the second Intifada, the two wars in recent years, has not helped. In my analysis, the events have left youngsters unable to place hopes in any form of peace; as a result they cling to an increasingly exclusivist nationalist rhetoric under the banner of Zionism. In this context, the fact that irresponsible opinion leaders in Israel have turned “Zionism” into a litmus test of legitimacy for groups and individuals who express criticism of Israeli policy just legitimizes that self-destructive meaning of Zionism. Wielding a twisted “Zionism” of intolerance, anti-democratic and anti-Arab sentiment in order to banish the realistic, pragmatic critique that is the only true response to the events on the ground is a grave and dangerous mistake.
*The data from this post comes from a survey I wrote and analyzed for a private client, examining Israeli attitudes towards peace. The survey was conducted from 15 October – 5 November, 2010, by New Wave Research, among a sample of 1008 adult Jewish respondents. Margin of error: +/- 3%. The presentation is not yet available on-line.
March 1, 2011
12:00 am
” The data also shows the consistent problem regarding young people and support for a peace process. Young people are consistently less interested, more complacent and more actively opposed. ”
The young people on left wing kibbutzeem today are motivated by the green movement ( the environment ) more than by the peace process as we were when we were young . They have given up and who can blame them .
March 1, 2011
1:55 am
Dahlia-
Your two excellent pieces here dramatically show the growing gulf between liberal/progressive/leftist American Jewry and Israeli Jewry. The following comment you wrote is most enlighting:
———————————————–
A number of audience members asked why young people are becoming increasingly hard line when it seems so out of character for young people.
———————————————–
Why is it “so out of character”? Is it because young, liberal/progressive/Leftist Jews take a universalist and increasingly anti-Zionist, anti-nationalist position it should be assumed that the rest of humanity and young Israeli Jews should be genetically programmed the same way? Most young people in the world are quite nationalist, Europe and the US are something of an exception where there are signficant “progressive” minorities that are anti-nationalist. The fact that so many of the Jews attending the J-Street conference are so ill-informed about how Israelis think, as you have pointed out, is due to the very different historical conditions both communities have lived under (having lived in both the US and now in Israel I feel somewhat qualified to comment on this).
American Jewry is largely Ashkenanzic, secular and decendents of Jews who arrived in the US before 1924. This group is in demographic decline, is highly assimilated to non-Jewish culture and has weaking family ties outside of their own nuclear families, which are also breaking down. Whereas 50 years ago, when emotional support for Israel was high among the mass of American Jewry, at the time many Jewish men had served in the military and a significant percentage had seem combat in World War II and Korea. They also had family ties to living ancestors who had lived in Europe and recalled the antisemitism there.
Few young American Jews today have served in the military and few have any contact with living relatives who had faced the Holocaust or other antisemitic conditions.
Israeli Jews are VERY different. Many are from the former Soviet Union, personally recall state antisemitism from there. Other Ashkenazi Israelis who otherwise can identify with the Left are children or grandchildren of Holocaust survivors and still have contact with living people who remember these things. The Sefardim (edot haMizrach) have a very different social make-up, they also have close personal contact with relatives and ancestors who suffered pogroms and antisemitism in the Arab/Muslim countries. Young Israelis face mandatory conscription to the IDF and many have fought in Israel’s war and remember the Arab threats against Israel.
Young Israelis also maintain close ties to extended family which broadens their contact with those with historical memories of the Holocaust and antisemitism.
In Israel there is also a renewed interest in Jewish tradition, particularly among the Sefardic (edot haMizrach) communities which strengthens Jewish group identitiy, the exact opposite of what those who said above the “young people are (supposedly) anti-nationalist”.
Thus, the Lefist/liberal/progressive/universalist agenda that seems so self-evident to liberal Jews and even to old-time “progressives” like Pete Seeger who used to support Israel and who now supports BDS, is driving a wedge between these Jews and Israel and Zionism, is alien to most Israelis, even young ones. The gulf will only widen, I am afraid.
Since the progressive/Left/universalist camp has now come around to identifying Israel and Zionism and the number 1 violator of human rights in the world , those still want to be “progressives” are simply going to have to choose sides. Israel, yes or no?
March 1, 2011
3:55 am
Ben Israel – excellent analysis
March 1, 2011
7:34 am
Another important point to remember is that the whole premise that J-Street was founded on was wrong. The original idea was to split the Jewish community so that a President could take stands that were traditionally viewed by the pro-Israel camp as hostile to Israel (e.g. supporting condemnation of Israel in the UN, placing sanctions on Israel, etc) and feel that he had at least part of the Jewish community behind him. But this is based on the fallacy that American politicians support Israel primarily due to Jewish “pressure”. But support for Israel in the US is widespread. Even if there were NO Jews in the US, the US political system would still support Israel because it is popular with the non-Jewish population. Political support for Zionism in the US began in the 1840′s, (yes, during the 19th century!) at a time long before there was any significant “Jewish vote”. Thus, J-Street’s raison d’etre is based on a fallacy.
March 1, 2011
8:46 am
“Many also report lower than average income and education. So although we don’t know exactly who they are – most of these qualities would put them into a right-leaning camp”
what rubbish.
being poor and dumb can only mean your “right” leaning.
you dont even offer a concise, consecutive explanation as to what these terms are supposed to mean.
are you talking narrowly about left/or right specifically in reference to the priority one places on the achieving a “peace agreement”? and yet even that says virtually nothing