Since the shift in the American policy, to one which is much more hospitable to Netanyahu and his government, every time the prime minister returns from Washington, his numbers jump. The last poll (from Haaretz) sees the Likud with 37 seats, which means a very easy job assembling the next government.
Yet note this: Despite personal support for Netanyahu, a clear majority of the public – 58 percent! – believes that Israel should not strike Iran’s nuclear facilities on its own, even if the United States decides to avoid military action. In a country where military operations usually get very high support in the public (until they go wrong), this is very telling. With all of Netanyahu’s Holocaust rhetoric, it seems that Israelis don’t want this war.
Read Also:
War with Iran is closer than we think
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.
XYZ
I don’t know how a responsible citizen can even answer a pollster’s question on something like this. We simply don’t have enough information to make a knowleldgable reply. I would resfse to answer such a question.
I think the reason polls show that on the one hand they support Netanyahu and his government, but on the other, don’t seem to go along with the dire warnings they hear from the leaders is that the IDF and security people have very little credibility left after years of deceit from themk, even though the public is satisfied with the overall performance of the government. Starting with the intelligence failure leading to Israel being surprised by the Egyptian-Syrian attack during the Yom Kippur War, the disastrous 1982 Lebanon and the “peace process” fiasco of Oslo, and the unilateral flights from Lebanon and the Gaza Strip leading to massive rocket attacks and the dismal performance of the IDF in the Lebanon II war, top security experts have repeatedly supported disastrous mistakes by making false assurances that they and the government knew what they were doing and Israel was not taking any chances in carrying out dangerous policies. These security people viewed advancing their careers by licking the boots of their political overlords as more important than their responsibility to the public. Now they are paying the price by losing their credibility with the public.
Noor Fawzy
The title should read: Most Israelis Against Unilateral Attack on Iran. The given title is misleading and does not accurately match the content of the article itself.
Arnon Schwanzinger
A war with Iran can either spell the destruction of the state of Israel in its current form or the beginning of Jewish empire.
Like Mordecai, who bet on the lives of all his people in order to win for his niece Esther up to half the kingdom, I think the choice Bibi’s cabinet will prefer is obvious. The polls of the proles don’t matter.
Jazzy
Was Roee’s piece about the Israeli lawyer for Gaddafi taken down? Why was that?
Jogortha
This operation is just not smart move because it seems predicated on the assumption that the Iranians wouldn’t retaliate. I understand the israelis have a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t feeling about this. Tough choices.
John Yorke
Whatever the pros and cons in the argument for or against a pre-emptive strike on Iranian nuclear infrastructure, the present situation clearly leaves much to be desired. One fully-fledged (but undeclared) nuclear power in active confrontation with a nation that may, in time, achieve the very same status is bad enough. Given that these two just happen to be Israel and Iran, the danger level can be seen climbing closer and closer to critical with each new day.
Indeed, the whole arrangement could be said to parallel that of a nuclear reaction itself. Left to their own devices, these two groups present no significant threat to themselves or to the wider world. But bring them into contact with each other and they both begin to interact in a very uncontrolled manner, the analogy with fissionable material becoming quite marked in places.
If this analogy can be taken somewhat further, then the obvious remedy here is to introduce the presence of a moderator, a component that slows down most of the activity generated and allows the entire process to be regulated well within safety margins. President Obama might be attempting to provide such a service at the moment but his performance in this capacity is limited by a multitude of factors, election year in the US being only one of them.
So, a more specialised moderator is required to carry out the tricky business of cooling down the overall temperature in the region and calming so many fears for its future.
Http://yorketowers.blogspot.com
Man, that’s cold.
caroline Good
It should be no surprise to anyone that the people of all warring countries generally don’t want wars, especially since it’s their children that will be going to fight. In my opinion, there has never been a war, in any country in any era that was ever fought for the good of the people, but always for the profit of corporations or more power for the leaders. It does happen that the leaders will skew information (Iraq) to control their people until they are lusting and pushing to go fight willingly & to possibly get killed.