On the subject of ‘partners for peace’

Didi Remez has the results of an interesting poll from today’s Yediot Ahronoth on Israeli attitudes toward the peace process. Here are the findings:

Q: Should Netanyahu extend the settlement construction freeze after September 26, or should construction be resumed?

Extend construction freeze: 39%

Resume construction: 51%

No response/don’t know: 10%

Q: Would you support a compromise in which construction in the territories is partially suspended—in other words, for there to be construction only in the settlement blocs?

I would support such a compromise: 42%

I am opposed because the construction freeze should be comprehensive: 20%

I am opposed because the construction freeze should be ended: 32%

No response/don’t know: 6%

Q: Do you believe that Netanyahu is serious in his intentions to reach an agreement, or do you believe that he has entered negotiations because of American pressure?

Because of American pressure: 56%

His intentions are sincere: 36%

No response/don’t know: 8%

Q: Do you believe that the Palestinians are serious in their intentions to reach an agreement, or do you believe that they have entered negotiations because of American pressure?

Because of American pressure: 70%

Their intentions are sincere: 23%

No response/don’t know: 7%

Q: Do you believe that a resumption of construction will derail the negotiations with the Palestinians?

Believe construction will derail negotiations: 68%

Do not believe construction will derail negotiations:24%

No response/don’t know: 8%

Q: Do you believe that there is a chance that the negotiations Netanyahu is holding with the Palestinians will lead to a peace agreement?

I believe they will lead to a peace agreement: 25%

I do not believe they will lead to a peace agreement: 71%

No response/don’t know: 4%

Q: There is a plan stipulating that in the framework of a peace agreement in which the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state, Israel will concede most of the territories in Judea and Samaria but the settlement blocs will remain in Israeli hands, in exchange for which Israel will return to the Palestinians territory of comparable size from within the State of Israel. Do you support such a plan or are you opposed?

Support: 45%

Am opposed: 48%

No response/don’t know: 7%

The article relates these findings back to the allegedly controversial Time magazine cover article that questioned Israelis’ commitment to the peace process.

A week ago Time magazine ran a cover story about why Israelis don’t want peace. Many people criticized the article’s point of departure.

When one reads the findings of this poll, one is forced to contemplate the possibility that that thesis is not so ludicrous.

About Adam Horowitz

Adam Horowitz is Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Israel/Palestine | Tagged , , , ,

{ 27 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. Les says:

    What per cent of the land stolen in 1967 does the US want Abbas to sign away. Imagine a mugger facing a judge who agreed that only a little of the stolen loot had to be returned to the victim!

    • eljay says:

      >> Imagine a mugger facing a judge who agreed that only a little of the stolen loot had to be returned to the victim!

      According to resident “humanist” RW, the judge would tell the mugger to keep all the loot he stole in exchange for a promise not to steal again. The mugger and the victim could then face the future and forge a new narrative as partners in peace.

      This, according to the judge and to RW, is called “justice”.

      • Antidote says:

        fair enough, eljay

        However, I can’t remember any recent conflict resolution in the ME or elsewhere (Europe 45, for instance) that was ‘just’. Or maybe even in all of human/political history. You?

        • Mooser says:

          You are so right, Antidote! So when vengeful Arabs, empowered by who-knows-what turn of events, slaughter every Jew in Israel, I’ll expect you to shrug and say “So what, shit happens, don’t lokk for justice”

        • eljay says:

          >> However, I can’t remember any recent conflict resolution in the ME or elsewhere (Europe 45, for instance) that was ‘just’.

          Using the injustices of others to justify one’s own injustices. Always a solid argument, and a heck of a “better wheel”, too…even if it does cast a bit of a shadow over Israel’s self-professed moral superiority.

        • Citizen says:

          Not to mention Israel’s self-proclaimed “uniqueness.” My, isn’t that SPECIAL,” (said the Church Lady).

      • Shingo says:

        “This, according to the judge and to RW, is called “justice”.”

        He also calls it reconciliation.

        • The criteria of success is the impact on the present to the future.

          If justice causes an escalation of pendulum swinging harms, then it is not in fact “justice” so much as revenge and opportunism.

          It stops Palestinian liberation, rather than enhances it.

        • Citizen says:

          He also calls lebensraum “self-governance.”

        • Shingo says:

          “The criteria of success is the impact on the present to the future.”

          That’s probably true and as we can see from these headlines, the present is a sorry state of affairs.

          “If justice causes an escalation of pendulum swinging harms, then it is not in fact “justice” so much as revenge and opportunism.”

          In which case, you’re prescription is to keep the pendulum skewed drastically to Israel’s advantage, where land theft, mass murder and ethnic cleansing as the status quo right?

          ”It stops Palestinian liberation, rather than enhances it.”

          Yes, there is just so much Palestinian liberation going on right Witty?

        • eljay says:

          >> If justice causes an escalation of pendulum swinging harms, then it is not in fact “justice” so much as revenge and opportunism.

          If justice becomes unjust, it’s not justice anymore. Very insightful.

          So it’s better to avoid justice altogether. Very “humanist”.

  2. Kathleen says:

    “partial” belongs in front of that construction freeze statement PARTIAL…VERY PARTIAL.

    NPR used it once or twice this morning. But mostly not when they cover this issue. Often call it a freeze, moratorium. Recently

    Michele Keleman and Linda Wirtheimer
    Linda Wirtheimer “partial moratorium”
    Michele Keleman “the moratorium”
    Michele Keleman “a moratorium”

    It has never ever been a FREEZE. Partial moratorium. Very partial

    Notice how Netanyahu has moved that line again. Used to be Palestinians have to recognize Israel’s right to exist. Now it is they have to recognize Israel as a homeland for Jewish people?

    link to npr.org

    • Kathleen says:

      there has never been a construction freeze. The question is a spin coming out of the gate

      • potsherd says:

        But you know that the US public, those who know anything about the issue, believe that there has been a comprehensive freeze and why are those Arabs so ungrateful?

        • Kathleen says:

          And NPR and other MSM outlets purposely spin and confuse. Pick an accurate term and keep using it “partial moratorium”

        • hophmi says:

          Israelis are pessimistic. Everyone is pessimistic. That is why coming to an agreement is important.

        • potsherd says:

          What we see going on is the power of the self-fulfilling pessimism.

        • eljay says:

          >> Israelis are pessimistic.

          I’d be pretty pessimistic, too, if no one liked me for what I had stolen and continued to steal, and for what I had destroyed and continued to destroy. :-(

          But then someone would tell me that “justice” means keeping all I have stolen – and being excused for all I have destroyed – in exchange for promising not to steal and not to destroy anything anymore. And that would turn my frown upside-down! :-)

          It’s a tough gig being an oppressor-victim and – to borrow from Rodney Dangerfield – Israel “don’t get no respect!”

  3. yourstruly says:

    No matter what the occupiers want or think the settler-state’s (not its people’s) days are numbered, the reason being that BDS is going to rachet-down their standard of living to a level such that those who can will pack up and go elsewhere, either to where they came from or to a country where they hold dual citizenship. This will weaken the settler-state to such an extent that it’ll have no option but to accept whatever terms the Palestinians offer them. The settlers needn’t worry, however, since the Palestinians will be generous, not vindictive, as were Black South Africans after the collapse of apartheid South Africa. One difference is that any settlers who committed mass-murder &/or crimes against humanity can expect to be tried for said crimes in a court of criminal justice. A South African style truth and reconciliation approach won’t be acceptable to the Palestinian people.

  4. pabelmont says:

    yourstruly has a point. BDS constitutes an external (and almost the only important external) environmental element affecting how Israelis and their government make their calculations (or adjust their gut feelings). World reaction to the Mavi Marmara attack is another. World reaction to Gaza/2009 is another.

    If there were a BIG change in Israel’s environment, such as trade boycotts from the EU, Israel might ask if its arrogant attitudes will for much longer be productive of the “good life” (thanks, TIME Magazine).

    As matters stand, Israel exists outside any context and does as it pleases. The pressure it exerts on Palestinians creates a context for the Palestinians, but there is no countervailing context for the Israelis.

    Coupled with Israel’s long term attitude (it matters not what the goyim say, it matters what the Jews do), we will see no positive change until the goyim begin to DO and stop merely TALKING (although they don’t even do much of that, the pressure of THE LOBBY being what it is).

    • Europe is sympathetic with the damned if you do, damned if you don’t attitude towards Israel.

      They’ve experienced terror and the irrationality and unconditionality that drives it.

      Maybe its possible to make good change. I hope so. But, I’m not yet confident.

      • Mooser says:

        Well Richard, hopefully the Europeans will develop a more generous attitude towards Israeli terror, irrationality and “unconditionality”.

        But you just keep on making up non-existent words, that’ll help immensely. It’s as easy as falling off an “ideolog”, too. Or so some would “contest” (sic, sic, sic)

      • Shingo says:

        “Europe is sympathetic with the damned if you do, damned if you don’t attitude towards Israel.”‘

        “attitude” is not a verb Witty.

      • Chaos4700 says:

        See, this is where having your posterior permanently bonded to your armchair makes it painfully apparent that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

        Everyone? Go TALK to Europeans. Better yet, ask the ones on this blog — there are plenty of Europeans here.

  5. Despite this poll numbers and the recent poll on Israeli attitude to Palestininan or to the IDF’s handling of Flotilla, a number of syndicated columnists , Obama cabinet members,and TV anchors are peddling the news of Israreli readiness for significant compromises to achieve peace.
    This poll number will not be remembered .What will be cited in future negotiations when this round also fails like the previous ones are the assertions and expectations of these liars to blame Palestine/Arab for past failures.

  6. The most consequential question – (paraphrase:) “Are you willing to exchange territory for peace?” the poll states that 45% are in favor and 48% are opposed. Even though it would be more reassuring if those numbers were the opposite and even though there were a number of aspects to the question (recognize as Jewish state; comparable size instead of equal size land swap), I find the numbers encouraging. Even in 93 or 95 when Rabin signed Oslo I and Oslo II, the country was roughly 50-50 on the cause of territory for peace, for the numbers to have shifted only slightly, even after the 2nd intifadeh, the failed experience with Gaza and demographic changes is encouraging. If Netanyahu and Abbas can reach an accord, Netanyahu should be able to pull enough of the Israeli public behind him.