Jewish Israeli views on peace, security

Every year, Tel Aviv University’s prestigious Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies conducts and then reports on a wide-ranging study of public attitudes in Israel on peace and security issues.
(Not wide-ranging enough for my humble tastes, since they like many other public opinion surveyors in Israel poll only Jewish Israelis, and not the 20 percent or so of Israeli citizens who are ethnically Palestinian/Arab… I mean, can you imagine someone in the US conducting a poll that charted only the attitudes of “white” Americans, and then presenting that as the views of “Americans” in general?)
Well anyway, dropped into my mailbox today the little report on this year’s Jaffee Center survey, which was conducted mainly in April this year. According the Exec Summary of the report,

    Israelis were more optimistic regarding prospects for peace and supportive of the measures required to move the peace process forward compared to the respondents of the 2002 survey. For example, 59% of respondents in 2003 supported the establishment of a Palestinian state … in the framework of a peace agreement, up from 49% in 2002… Those who agreed to abandon all but the large settlement blocs [i.e. blocs of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank] increased from 50% in 2002 to 59% in 2003.

So, perhaps some modestly good news there.
Also good news: the survey has annually, since 1986, asked the general question as to whether respondents would choose peace talks or increasing military strength as the most effective way to avoid another war with Arabs. Between 1986 and 2001, the percentage who chose “peace talks” dipped beneath 50% only once– that was in early 1995. But the responses to both the 2001 and 2002 surveys on this question showed “peace talks” chosen by significantly fewer than 50%. This year, it was back up again– to 56%. Still well short of the high levels of 1991 and 1992, which look to my eye to be in the low 70s. But still, the trend line is up.
What a pity, though, if Israelis are “feeling” a little more secure and accommodationist only because they think their army has succeeded in penning the Palestinians inside the razor-wire fences that ring every West Bank city except Jericho, and that cut Gaza up into segments, or behind that monstrous wall that is now snaking its way through the heart of the West Bank.
(Have you noticed that the US Army has decided to put a fence all around Saddam’s home town of Auja, near Tikrit? Wonder where they got that idea from… )
Anyway, another thing I wanted to write here about the latest Jaffee Center report is something that appears only near the back of the report. It appears that since as long ago as 1987, this survey has routinely asked respondents if they think the Israeli government should “encourage the emigration of Arabs from Israel”. And in at least three of the surveys they have now explicitly asked respondents if they favor “transfer”, that is, the forcible ethnic cleansing, of, firstly, the Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel, and secondly, of the Palestinians of the occupied territories.
The results on this question are disquieting–no, I would say almost literally sickening. Support expressed for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel out of their ancestral homeplace (and present state of citizenship) was at 24% in 1991, at 31% and 33% in April this year.
I guess that’s why they don’t administer the survey the survey to Israel’s Palestinian Arab citizens. “Excuse me, ma’am, do you think the government should ethnically cleanse you out of this country?” It could seem a little tasteless.
Views of respondents on ethnically cleansing the Palestinians out of the occupied territories are even more upsetting: 38% of support in 1991; 46% in 2002, and 46% again this year. (How’s that again about favoring peacemaking over military strength? Who do these respondents think they’re going to make peace with?)
So, disquieting, yes. Sickening, yes. But here’s something else. If a “reputable”, “mainstream” Israeli research organization can go around the streets of (Jewish) Israel asking such questions as these as part of a calm, objective survey of people’s attitudes, does this asking in itself actually help to normalize the whole sick idea of transfer in people’s minds? (“I mean, if even the Jaffee Center people with their clipboards are proposing this as one discussable option, that must mean it’s kosher to talk about it don’t you think?”)
Kosher? Talking about ethnic cleansing in the modern day and age (and after everything the Jewish people themselves have gone through in their history)? I wonder if the survey-askers got any expressions of sheer outrage and horror at the idea of “transfer” from any of the people they talked to?
Actually, I don’t know how quite how I feel about this asking. (“Good evening, sir, I’m from a prestigious research center in Washington DC and we’re conducting a survey on people’s views on the reintroduction of lynching?”) I suppose I’m glad to know the sick truth about how extremist the attitudes of many Jewish Israelis are.
And definitely now that this survey has been done, its results should be widely publicized.
You cannot, alas, link directly to the text of this year’s survey report yet. But if you click here, you can find, on pp.27-31 of last year’s survey, a lengthy discussion of the views that those respondents expressed on both the “encouraging emigration” question and that of forcible “transfer.” You can also, of course, read the whole of last year’s report right there, too.
Tell me what you think about the Jaffee Center folks even asking these questions.

16 thoughts on “Jewish Israeli views on peace, security”

  1. That 46% level of support for “transfer” is the reason that I find the current emphasis on a “One-State solution” a little disquieting. In a perfect world, I would like to see this conflict resolved with a singular, democratic, binational state that offered constitutional guarantees to its various ethnic groups. However, in the real world, I think we should bear in mind that there are two ways to a One-State solution: either the negotiated, bi-national approach a la South Africa, or the ethnic cleansing by the stronger party of the weaker out of historic Palestine altogether. I really hope that the settlements have not made the Two-State solution unworkable, because I have a very pessimistic feeling that the alternative to the Two-State solution might not turn out to be a bi-national state.

  2. I wouldn’t read too much into those polls. If 59 percent support evacuating the large settlement blocs and 46 percent support transfer, then some people are answering “yes” to both questions. I think the only real way to explain this sort of cognitive dissonance is to interpret the results as an expression of war-weariness and willingness to do whatever will end the conflict. It’s sorta like those Palestinian polls that show majorities in favor of both suicide bombings and peace treaties.
    I’m going on intuition here, but I suspect that, of those 46 percent, only 5 to 10 percent would choose ethnic cleansing as a preferred option while the others would only support it if nothing else worked. If there were really that much “hard” support for ethnic cleansing, a major party would advocate it (as in, e.g., the Balkans). There’s going to be a two-state solution eventually, probably within the next two to five years – the situation is approaching endgame in a number of ways, and I think everyone’s reached the point where they’re just about ready to do what it takes.

  3. Diane, hi.
    I actually think there are many routes to a one-state outcome. One would be via a two-state settlement (regional agglomeration, Europe-style.) But then, as Keynes notably said, “In the very long run, we’re all dead.” Not sure of the time-frame on a possible regional agglomeration scenario…
    Jonathan, hi, too– Your points on people holding seemingly contradictory opinions are well-taken and have been a feature of Jewish-Israeli opinion for quite a while now. (Also, as you note, of Palestinian opinion.)
    I think I disagree with you, though, when you say “There’s going to be a two-state solution eventually, probably within the next two to five years – the situation is approaching endgame in a number of ways, and I think everyone’s reached the point where they’re just about ready to do what it takes.”
    Maybe you have your figure on the relevant political pulses better than I do. I do see a HUGE amount of conflict-weariness in both communities. But I don’t, sadly, see the political leadership on either side that has the vision or political capabilities to take the situation to a sustainable two-state outcome within the time-frame you refer to. As the saying goes, in Palestine/Israel you have neither the Mandela figure nor the de Klerk figure that this would require.
    Under those circs, “conflict-weariness” can lead to people supporting incredibly escalatory and mean-spirited moves (the Wall/Fence; the next big innovation in violent actions by the Palestinian hardliners; or whatever)– provided these moves seem “dramatic” or “new” enough to hold out a promise (however illusory) that “this time we’re gonna nail the other side once and for all.”
    Of course, not every conceivable two-state solution is either sustainable or, necessarily, a good idea. remember, the S. African homelands also bore the name of “states”…

  4. You asked: Tell me what you think about the Jaffee Center folks even asking these questions.
    I don’t think there’s anything wrong with asking questions; you cannot solve a societies problems by sweeping them under the carpet. If questions have disturbing answers, all the more reason for them to be asked.

  5. I actually think there are many routes to a one-state outcome. One would be via a two-state settlement (regional agglomeration, Europe-style.)
    Regional agglomeration is not the same thing as a one-state solution. The EU nations have ceded part of their sovereignty to a multinational overlay, but they retain the rest – including, crucially, the right to maintain armies and set qualifications for citizenship. An EU-style arrangement in which a Jewish state in Israel, an Arab state in Palestine and their neighbors share multilateral institutions but retain their nationhood seems much more viable than a binational state, especially over the long term.
    I actually think both Israel and Palestine should join the EU itself, but that isn’t likely to happen anytime soon.
    I do see a HUGE amount of conflict-weariness in both communities. But I don’t, sadly, see the political leadership on either side that has the vision or political capabilities to take the situation to a sustainable two-state outcome within the time-frame you refer to.
    Israel is a democracy, though, and leaders who don’t jump can be pushed. Granted, the Israeli proportional representation system gives a disproportionate amount of power to small extremist factions, but I suspect the next change of government will see a realignment toward the center.
    Of course, not every conceivable two-state solution is either sustainable or, necessarily, a good idea. remember, the S. African homelands also bore the name of “states”…
    A Palestinian state along the lines proposed at Taba – or for that matter at Geneva – wouldn’t even be close to a bantustan. And I think that in the long term, no other arrangement will satisfy the aspirations of both sides. A Jewish state is a moral and just concept, and so is a Palestinian state, and the sooner both sides accept those propositions the better.

  6. And in case you’re wondering what my concept of a “Jewish state” is, I’ve written about it here. I’ve discussed the idea in a few other places as well, but they should all be within two degrees of separation from that article.

  9. Oops I did it again! – Brittney Spears TGP thumbnail gallery we live together welivetogether little trouble maker joey jenna big naturals in the vip latina hardcore movies solo video girl

Comments are closed.