The new J Street poll has some fascinating findings re the complexity of Jewish attitudes re Israel.
First the good news. 60 percent of American Jews are against expanding the settlements and the same number say the Gaza war didn't gain anything. When you break out the subgroup of "political donors," i.e., influential Jews, the number who oppose settlement expansion rises to 72 percent. Jews are well-informed. Avigdor Lieberman has a shocking 62 percent name recognition–I think he could give Jon Stewart a run for his money–and
about 1/3 say that Lieberman having a cabinet portfolio would weaken
their personal connection to Israel. As I noted earlier, 40 percent of those under 30 say that Lieberman in the cabinet would weaken their connection to Israel.
These Jews are for peace. 72 percent are for the U.S. putting pressure on Israel and the Palestinians to bring about a peace. 69 percent are for the U.S. talking to a unity government that includes Hamas. 76 percent are for a peace deal along the Clinton parameters.
So far so good. J Street's doing good work, and it can work with those numbers. (Richard Silverstein echoes my view here.)
But the poll also underscores my feeling that we're not going to make progress till we form a coalition that includes Jews and non-Jews. There's evidence of some obdurate attitudes among J Street's Jews. Look at my headline. It's just "settlement expansion." A good start, but we're not talking about occupation. Or consider Gaza. Yes, 60 percent said Gaza gained nothing. But most of that number are people who said the slaughter had "no impact" on Israel's security. If you compare those Jews who think Gaza helped Israel's security to those who say it hurt Israel's security, the hardliners win 41 to 18 percent. That's what we're up against: 41 percent who approve a massacre.
Consider, too, that 75 percent of American Jews approved of Israel going in there. Well by 45 to 29, American Democrats were against Israel's actions. That's a real cleavage between Jewish American attitudes and progressive attitudes. Today on the phone pollster Jim Gerstein said that Jews are still "progressive Democrats." I don't know, Jim. Jews really separate from the progressive family on this issue.
Why do they? Based on the data, I'd say because Jews make an identification with Israel out of concerns about anti-Semitism, that's why. More than half of Jews haven't even been to Israel (54 percent), but when the polled were asked about why they feel a connection to the place, 35 percent said it is because "I'm Jewish and Israel is the Jewish homeland." After that, because it's an American ally (31 percent), and We share their democratic values (19 percent). Only 6 percent said, I have friends and family there.
Finally, the assimilation numbers. American Jews are assimilating, notwithstanding the fears of antisemitism. My own degree of observance is extremely conventional. 58 percent are not affiliated with a synagogue or temple, and when asked about attendance at a synagogue, the largest bloc of Jews (a third) say "Hardly ever." Add up Hardly ever, never, or a few times a year: 77 percent. Jews are like other privileged people I know: religious observance just isn't that important to them.
Finally, my subset. How many Jews say "I don't support Israel"? 3 percent.
94% of the Israelis said they found Israel insufficiently ruthless in Gaza, later, voting with their feet for the Nazis Leiberman and Netanyahu to "finish the job."
94%
Persuading these "people" holds as much promise as rehabilitating Mengele.
"First the good news. 60 percent of American Jews are against expanding the settlements…"
That's nice. But are they also for dismantling the settlements, all settlements, and sending them packing back to Israel and New York?
FYI, Phil:
link to 88.80.13.160
I couldn't resist: I poked into Norm Coleman's supporter database, made publicly available by the Coleman campaign itself and subsequently provided for public consumption by Wikileaks.org.
I'm not going to provide the database, or any links deeper than to Wikileaks' homepage, from which you can confirm what I found on your own. But the disclaimers aside, the headline says it all.
Campaigns are required to track the source of records like these — since they buy, lease, and otherwise borrow lists from various organizations, it's important (and legally required) to note where you got a given name from. Most campaign databases will include a column called "Source" or something similar to denote this piece of information.
And Coleman's database includes just such a column. One of the codes in that column is "gopjew_091307" — and there are over 20,000 of them.
Coleman is Jewish, as is his Democratic opponent Al Franken. But of 50,000 names in the database, over 20,000 from a single list, brought to the campaign September 13th, 2007?
There are a couple of possible connections here — On September 20th of that year, Coleman sponsored a Sense of the Senate resolution that said "that the U.S. should 'combat, contain, and roll back' Iran's 'violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq."
Earlier this year, after he was shuffled out of the Senate once his term officially expired, Coleman accepted a role with the Republican Jewish Coalition, which very well could be the source of the "gopjew_091307" source list in the first place. There's no way to know for sure.
But 40% of a supporter database from a single source in the American Jewish political lobby could make for a very powerful special interest arrangement for a former Senator. Whatever organization it was that leased, sold, or gave its list to the Coleman campaign, they're more than entitled to their views and their advocacy efforts. I don't expect the RJC to give Al Franken their list any time soon.
these who "oppose settlements" are most likely the pragmatic livni bunch. they'd still oppose any real reparations from the nakba and withdrawing of settlements, or "sharing" jerusalem. don't give the pragmatists too much credit, after all they were happy to go for the partition scam in the first place.
According to PressTV today: "A poll shows that Jewish Americans who favor a military strike on Iran over its nuclear program barely outnumber those against such an attack."
The Jews who are justifying a war on Iran are guilty of blood libel (a phrase similar to "conflict of interest" that they like to accuse others of, but are heavily guilty of themselves).
Consider, too, that 75 percent of American Jews approved of Israel going in there. Well by 45 to 29, American Democrats were against Israel's actions. That's a real cleavage between Jewish American attitudes and progressive attitudes. Today on the phone pollster Jim Gerstein said that Jews are still "progressive Democrats." I don't know, Jim. Jews really separate from the progressive family on this issue.
Perfect illustration Phil. There is no way to explain that away. It's staring us right in the face, right here in black and white: Israel is an exception to everything else that a majority of "progressive" American Jews believe in. Atrocities that they will readily condemn in others are ignored or rationalized when it comes to Israel.
It has to stop, for the sake of all involved.
Let's get these numbers reversed: If only 25% of American Jews support Israeli military atrocities, and 75% oppose them with the passion that they bring to so many other causes, then perhaps we'll begin to see serious change in policy.
Philip Weiss's position on Israel is as "progressive" as David Duke's.
What do people mean when they say "Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people."?
I'm not against settlement expansion. I'm against taking of land by force, without due process.
From my perspective, danger to someone who is Jewish because they are Jewish is important not just because it is anti-semiticism. It is a form of prejudicial discrimination, and as such must be battled with recognition that any form of such discriminatory behavior is a danger to us all. Bigotry is all too often deadly.
Personally, I battle also with my reaction to the distinction between Gentile and Jew. It's awkward to interact in environments where one encounters such a division, because it says: "You and me, we're different." which I don't believe to be true in any way that is important to my being. Religious beliefs and ethnic history may be different but that doesn't make us different from each other as people.
Such divisions are beneficial to those who would profit from the loss of unity that results.
I'm against taking of land by force, without due process.
So, if an Israeli court says, "it's ok," then no problem?
Due process? Why on earth would you waste time and money on that, witty?
Israel has already rendered its verdict:
The settlements are legal
Torture of detainees, including children, is legal
Blowing up people's homes and stealing their land is legal
Denying right of return for Palestinians is legal
Bombing playgrounds with white phosphorus is legal
Using children as human shields is legal
Dumping your sewage and toxic waste on Palestinian land is legal
Monopolizing the region's water supply is legal
Dropping a two ton bomb on a residential building killing 17 civilians is legal
Murdering a family on a beach is legal
Shooting children point blank is legal
Using the military to protect settlers destroying crops and beating old women half to death is legal
on less of course you want to turn the matter over to any judicial body with a hint of credibility, such as the ICJ which unanimously affirmed that ALL the settlements are illegal, the wall is illegal and Palestinians have an unalienable right to return to the lands from whence they were ethnically cleansed.
frizzled: Not to worry — NORPAC are on it… The rabid pro-israel PAC 'pin our congress members to the wall' annual lobby BUS crew are truly working it…
” rel=”nofollow”>The Jewish Week: Pro-Israel PAC goes to bat for Coleman in war of attrition with Franken
frizzled: Not to worry — NORPAC are on it… The rabid pro-israel PAC 'pin our congress members to the wall' annual lobby BUS crew are truly working it…
” rel=”nofollow”>The Jewish Week: Pro-Israel PAC goes to bat for Coleman in war of attrition with Franken
Never fear they're not fussy they love a good
” rel=”nofollow”>Democrat or Repubican that at the end of day will utimately perform!
Never fear they're not fussy they love a good
” rel=”nofollow”>Democrat or Repubican that at the end of day will utimately perform!
margaret
I agree 100%. But what happens when we take the humanistic approach and say we're really all just people?
POOF!
No more Jews!
And some of them can't handle that.
I'm "Jewish" but so what? I feel kinship with Jews (and non Jews) of decency and character and could care less about Jews (and non-jews) who defend israel and revel in their Nazihood. I have more in common with a Trobriand Islander than with this sort of Jew.
Margaret:
"From my perspective, danger to someone who is Jewish because they are Jewish is important not just because it is anti-semiticism. It is a form of prejudicial discrimination, and as such must be battled with recognition that any form of such discriminatory behavior is a danger to us all. Bigotry is all too often deadly."
Change that word Jewish to Arabish and you might be onto something
It's awkward to interact in environments where one encounters such a division, because it says: "You and me, we're different." which I don't believe to be true in any way that is important to my being. Religious beliefs and ethnic history may be different but that doesn't make us different from each other as people.
Such divisions are beneficial to those who would profit from the loss of unity that results.
Great points, Margaret. Thank you.
But what happens when we take the humanistic approach and say we're really all just people?
POOF!
No more Jews!
Why does saying "we're really all just people" equate to "Poof! No more Jews?"
Ethnic bonds, as well as religious bonds, add value to people's lives. They become problematic when they are used to discriminate against others, either by others toward someone or by oneself toward others. To recognize that people are of different ethnicity and have different religious beliefs is to recognize that they share those aspects of life in common.
cogit8, I'm not sure what your meaning is but the paradigm is broad enough to include any one who is endangered because of membership in a group toward which others discriminate, which basically means anyone who is Other, and thus means each of us.
To judge by the no-talent trolls showing up in the comments awaiting approval on my blog, they are down to using high school kids to troll "anti-zionist sites" now, I mean, really no talent, no venom, no energy, just pathetic, perfunctory "what you say is not true" type comments.
R,
Due process is the name of the game.
Each form of politically defined exceptions to law is a perversion. The form of Zionism that states that the "other" is not entitled to equal due process, the form of Palestinian nationalism that states that the "other" is not entitled to equal due process, and the form of "dissent" that states that the other is not entitled to equal due process.
The reactionary likudniks and Kahanists want to exclude Palestinians and Arabs from equal due process. The reactionary Palestinian nationalist factions (Hamas, Islamic Jihad) want to exclude Israelis and Jews from equal due process. The reactionary left wants to exclude Jews from equal due process.
They EACH confuse the questions of sovereignty and title, and seek to impose and exclude.
They each seek monochrome rather than diversity, as they don't accept and integrate (integrity) what is different.
Richard, IMHO, one has to have control over one's country in order to establish due process for self or others.
It's all very fine to say 'we are the same, you, me and everyone, so let's play nicely', but the reality is that people are different, they have different experiences and different interests and that's OK, it's what makes diversity. The grown up thing to do is to look for solutions starting from the premise of difference and accepting that not everyone is going to be happy with the out come.
@ Witty
Please describe the judicial entity you would be happy to have decide property rights under full due process of law. Do you mean an Israeli court? An international court? A court comprised of both Palestinians and Israelis? Human-written laws are only as effective and just as the human court that interprets them. I assume any court you pick will utilize all applicable laws and the principles of conflict of laws.
It's all very fine to say 'we are the same, you, me and everyone, so let's play nicely', but the reality is that people are different, they have different experiences and different interests and that's OK, it's what makes diversity. The grown up thing to do is to look for solutions starting from the premise of difference and accepting that not everyone is going to be happy with the out come.
True, although I don't think too many people are saying "we are the same." People recognize differences (I don't know that it's best to start "from the premise of difference" – we could just as easily start from the premise of commonalities, if we so choose).
Thanks, Dan.
Laurie – I was referring to people being divided into groups considered as essentially different because of culture, religion, 'race,' etc. Everyone shares culture, although cultures are different. Everyone is different, even within cultures, but that, IMO, doesn't make them qualitatively different as people. Within a group, especially in a multicultural society, use of such terms often reflects comrade. Historically, they have been used to devalue others.
What is the difference between "accepting that not everyone is going to be happy with the out-come" and "playing nicely"? Seems to me they're the same. What would be different is if everyone wins enough to be able to accept what they can't achieve.
can influential j,000,000s and good j,000,000s say "israel has no right to exist"?
no
jews who are human can and are no longer considered jews.
I guess you could collapse that to two wrongs don't make a right?
Whether American Jews are assimilating or not, a movement to help bring change to Israel or in America's relationship to Israel must be made up of Jews and non-Jews. Hopefully, it'll be made up of Americans. If we are drawn into a military conflict on Israel's behalf, I don't think it will be mostly Jewish boys going over there, to be crude about it.
I suppose it would be harder to make such a movement if Jews hadn't assimilated. But the fact that they have makes it inevitable the movement will be "mixed".
And, I don't know, that term, "assimilation", doesn't it imply that there was a self-contained, self-sustained, self governed community of Jews from which an American Jew comes out. Was that ever the case in America? Even if it was, it would be a voluntary affair.
The process of acculturation has been very kind to Jews in America, there seems to be a special reciprocity in many ways.
I don't know if the term is relevant for American Jews, apart from acculturation.
I never thought that ceasing temple attendance or not belonging to a synagogue was a condition of assimilation.
"I'm Jewish and Israel is the Jewish homeland." A shudder goes through me when I read that. So that's the post '67 thinking, huh. American Jews are so ecumenical! They've been to Sunday school!
"What is the difference between "accepting that not everyone is going to be happy with the out-come" and "playing nicely"? Seems to me they're the same." –
They seem the same to you Margaret because you have the prevailing Western Christian point of view (though you don't have to be Christian or Western to have this view). There are other points of view however that must be considered. The Jewish settlers for instance will not accept this view. They will not accept anything less then what they want and what they want is land at any cost to the Palestinians. Granted the Settlers are extremist but they do illustrate the point. Most of them were brought up and educated in the U.S. or Europe but they do not have the 'we are all people so lets be nice' attitude. They have a Jewish Supremacist attitude. Even liberal/ecumenical American Jews will not call for ending aid to Israel or ending our 'special relationship' even though Israel continues (under dove leadership such as Rabin settlements grew) their land grab/ethnic cleaning with settlements and wars. American Jews continue to fund and give moral support to Israel. The settlers give the 'liberals' something to stew about and talk against so that the rest of us think they (the liberals) are interested in peace. They are interested in peace but only on their terms. The reality is their talk of peace is only a time wasting exercise while the real business continues, the building of a greater Israel. When Phil talks about "My People" he isn't talking about all Americans, he's talking about those he values first. Jews are not the only people who talk and think this way. It's been my experience that much of the world does. But I don't believe Americans really understand or appreciate this and therefore we believe everyone should be able to play nicely according to our rules (which in itself is pretty arrogant). History would suggest people can't play nicely. So when I say 'not everyone will be happy' what I'm really saying is the seeds of future conflict are sown.
Good comments by Mooser and Laurie.
Laurie – Historically, Americans haven't played nicely, either. Current foreign policy isn't nice.
As individuals, we have power only if united. I'd prefer to work against the idea that conflict is inevitable -other than as we experience it now- because that expectation empowers those who benefit from division. If you aren't familiar with the concept of conciliation, you might look into it. People do get dedicated to ideas and then… watch out world!
What's with the suggestion that I am not part of the group Phillip Weiss values? He shares my values; I expect I have value to him in uniting with him in his statements of those values.
Divisive tactics, from the textbooks. Good try, no goal.
My reading of the J Street poll: link to bureauofcounterpropaganda.blogspot.com