The recently announced American Jewish Committee 2007 survey provided reassuring results about Jewish attitudes toward U.S. Middle East policy and troubling results about attitudes toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. U.S. Jews are profoundly opposed to everything to do with the Iraq war and feel the same about potential conflict with Iran. So far so good.
Glenn Greenwald picked up on these results when he wrote his ridiculously optimistic account for Salon, New Poll Reveals How Unrepresentative Jewish Neocon Groups Are. I use that phrase advisedly because I respect Glenn Greenwald a great deal. But he simply refused to review ALL the results and cherry-picked the ones that suited him. A more nuanced account would’ve acknowledged that American Jews are profoundly liberal when it comes to general issues of war and peace. But when it comes to Israel, some atavistic Jewish impulse kicks in which closes down any possibility of understanding the Arab perspective on the conflict or what are Israel’s true long-term interests.
James Petras picks up on that in his profoundly mean-spirited piece in Dissident Voice, American Jews on War and Peace. Although I find his essay distressing it also contains many provocative arguments which we on the Jewish left must consider as we face results as troubling as those in the AJC survey.
The only comforting answer regarding the IP conflict was to the question of creating a Palestinian state. 46% approve and 43% disapprove of such a policy. But if you consider that this has been the policy of several U.S. presidents AND Israeli prime ministers it is surprising, and disturbing, that the result is as close as it is. The remaining answers are flat out unnerving and make me realize how much work remains to be done if there is ever to be a realistic understanding of the IP conflict among American Jews. As a group we have swallowed hook, line and sinker some of the worst prejudices and ignorant attitudes toward Palestinians and the Arab world as a whole.
Here are the results:
Do you think there will or will not come a time when Israel and its Arab neighbors will be able to settle their differences and live in peace?
Will 37
Will Not 55Do you think that negotiations between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas can or cannot lead to peace in the foreseeable future?
Can 36
Cannot 55Do you think that Israel can or cannot achieve peace with a Hamas-led, Palestinian government?
Can 17
Cannot 74In the current situation, do you favor or oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state?
Favor 46
Oppose 43In the framework of a permanent peace with the Palestinians, should Israel be willing to compromise on the status of Jerusalem as a united city under Israeli jurisdiction?
Yes 36
No 58Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? “The goal of the Arabs is not the return of occupied territories but rather the destruction of Israel.”
Agree 82
Disagree 12
After reading these answers you realize how far off Eric Alterman is in his characterization of these results in this International Herald Tribute article:
Jews are also impressively sensible [!] when it comes to Israel/Palestine, all things considered. Though barely more than a third think peace is likely anytime soon, and more than 80 percent believe the goal of the Muslim states is to destroy Israel, a 46-to-43 percent plurality continues to support the creation of a Palestinian state.
Petras’ response to these results is to blame American Jewish “progressives.” He uses the term disparagingly and indiscriminately to tar and feather every American Jew or Jewish group to the left of Israel lobby constellation of organizations:
How is it that a majority of US Jews who, according to the AJC poll (and several others going back over two decades) differ with the principal American Jewish organizations, have not or do not challenge the position of the dominant Jewish organization, have virtually no impact on the US Congress, the Executive and the mass media in comparison to the Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations?
Petras has a grasp of the organized Jewish community but no grasp at all of unaffiliated Jews, who constitute just under half of the population. The AJC survey includes ALL Jews whether affiliated or unaffiliated. Unaffiliated Jews are much more likely to have views to the left of the “dominant Jewish organizations.” The reason that unaffiliated Jews do not challenge the prevailing wisdom in the mainstream community is that doing so does not interest them. That’s why they’re unaffiliated. It’s a vicious circle really. So to blame those who have essentially opted out of the program for the perpetuation of noxious attitudes among those who are still with the program misses the point entirely.
Blaming Jewish peace groups for not moving the Jewish agenda toward the left is wrong-headed. These groups attempt to work with both affiliated and unaffiliated Jews to move the prevailing consensus in a leftward direction. There are many reasons why they have not had more success (lack of funds and powerful leaders, lack of strategic vision, strength of their opponents). And I think that most members and staff of these organizations realize they need to do more. But to denounce them for this lack of success and blame the troubling AJC results on them is mean-spirited and just flat out wrong.
Despite the disparaging tone of Petras’ analysis, he raises important points that should be grappled with by all Jewish progressives:
…It is clear that both the ‘progressive’, majority of Jews and the reactionary minority who head up all the major American Jewish organizations have a fundamental point of agreement and convergence: Support and identity with Israel and its anti-Arab prejudices, its expansion and the dispossession of Palestine. This overriding convergence allows the reactionary Presidents of the Major Jewish Organizations in America to speak for the Jewish community with virtually no opposition from the progressive majority either within or without their organizations. By raising the Israeli flag, repeating clichés about the ‘existential threat’ to Israel at each and every convenient moment, the majority of Jews have bowed their heads and acquiesced or, worst, subordinated their other ‘progressive’ opinions to actively backing the leaders ‘identity’ with Israel.
I think Petras is on to something here and I mentioned this earlier in this post. When it come to Israel many American Jews simply leave their high-minded ideas at the door and betray a sort of political schizophrenia.
It is the mission of the Jewish peace groups to educate and persuade these Jews that you don’t have to abandon your principles to support Israel; that liberal principles supporting peace and justice can go hand in hand with supporting Israeli-Arab peace. This is an extremely difficult task. But I think our movement is having some success and will have more in the future especially as events in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict move in a general direction toward an eventual peace settlement (though clearly in fits and starts).
Here again Petras betrays both churlishness and imprecision:
Progressive Jewish organizations are on the fringe of the organizational map, with virtually no influence in the Congress or Presidency and backers of a pro-war Democratic Party and Congress.
I would say that these progressive groups are in a nascent stage in terms of realizing their political potential. But being in a nascent stage doesn’t mean that they are “fringe” or have “virtually no influence in Congress. To say this means Petras has absented himself from the results of the last Congressional session in which a liberal coalition fought AIPAC to a standstill on two different proposals regarding U.S. Israel policy.
This passage is simply “out there” in terms of its connection with any Jewish reality as I know it:
The apparent paradox of progressive anti-war Jews contributing big bucks to pro-war Democrats is based on the latter’s unconditional support for Israel which trumps any ‘dissonance’ that might exist in the head of progressive Jewish political activists.
I’d like to know precisely which “progressive anti-war Jews” are contributing big bucks to Hillary Clinton based on her unconditional support for Israel. George Soros? I doubt it. Who else? Or does Petras lump Obama in with all the other “pro-war” Democrats? I find this type of statement to be terribly reductionist and unhelpful.
Perhaps part of the problem is Petras’ abuse of the term progressive as one of his commenters notes in the comment thread. A donor who gives big bucks to a Democratic candidate because he or she supports Israel unconditionally is NOT progressive. They may consider themselves progressive, but that doesn’t make it so.
Petras continues going off the rails here:
With the American Pro-Israel Power Configuration leading the way to savaging the National Intelligence Estimate study, released in December 2007, on the absence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program, progressive Jewish opinion is silent or complicit.
I might agree with the first half of his statement, but where does he get off saying progressive Jews are silent in the face of the attack on the NIE? I’m certain that the vast majority of American Jews are overjoyed with the NIE because it means there will be no war against Iran. To claim that such Jews are “silent” on this subject is downright odd. AIPAC may want the U.S. to go to war against Iran, but that doesn’t mean that American Jews want this.
Here Petras creates a progressive Jewish chimera which inhibits criticism of Israel within the anti-war movement:
…Progressive liberal and radical Jewish peace activists have acted as gate-keepers in the anti-war movement — prohibiting any criticism of Israel and labeling individuals or citizen activists critical of the pro-war Zionist lobby as ‘anti-Semites’.
It’s hard to know precisely what the author is talking about here since he doesn’t provide either evidence or context to prove his point. But clearly Petras doesn’t accept that there may be some criticism of Israel on the left that crosses the line and that is where I would differ from him.
I’m not a Jew, but I would like to thank you for your courageous writings in support of justice and against militarism. So much anti-semitism today is the result of the ascendancy of the far-right wing in Israel and and some of its self-described U.S. supporters. I may be naive, but I think most of the anti-semitism would simply melt away if Israel made a fair peace with its neighbors. Anti-Semitism would probably not disappear for good, but it would be surely be cornered, isolated and ripe for eventual consignment to history’s dustbin.
I think you could expand your campaign further by making common cause with non-Jews of good will. Some of these people are today on an unfortunate path. Their frustration over mideast issues — and over the harsh attacks they risk when they voice these frustrations to some Jewish acquaintances — is leading some of these people to start blaming Jews collectively. In other words, they are on a path to becoming anti-Semites. If your movement were to make common cause with these folks, they would quickly see that there is no need to adopt such views. They would instead work with you and help you to expand your movement and spread your message, and become partners with you AGAINST injustice and anti-semitism.
Please let me know if I can assist you in any way.
Richard, even though I disagree with almost everything you say, I have to say “Kol hakavod” to you for this piece. You are acknowledging the reality of the situation that most American Jews don’t agree with your position. I have an ongoing battle with MJ Rosenberg over at his blog because he refuses to admit that he represents a minority position. He keeps railing at American politicians because they see what he doesn’t see, that American Jews more or less support Israeli government policy towards the Palestinians. He attributes to AIPAC some sort of almost Satanic power to convince people of their position (which is generally coordinated with the Israeli gov’t) and he claims that this is because this is because he says that the “Right” contributes far more money to American politicians, something that I believe is debatable. American politicians know where the votes are, and the votes in the US, both Jewish and non-Jewish generally align themselves with Israeli gov’t policy.
You are quite right that, in spite of years of Israeli gov’t propaganda in favor of establishing a Palestinian state, in addition to support from the US for this, that it is surprising that only 46% of those polled are in favor of this policy. I also think that the finding of over 80% of those polled believe the goal of the Muslim world is the eradication of Israel and not simply finding the resolution of a “border dispute” is credible and in line with Israeli public opinion as well. There is a consensus in Israel that the Palestinians do not want a peace agreement with Israel, and the disagreement (and a deep on it is) in Israel is over what to do about it…either to unilaterally withdraw and force a state on them, whether they want it or not (this is currently out of fashion, but I believe it will come back once the Annapolis process runs into its inevitable impasse over the Palestinian “right of return”) or whether the way forward is maintainance of the status-quo leading to some sort of unofficial modus vivendi which would lead to a relaxation of Israeli security operations in the Arab areas.
My question to you is what do you attribute this to? You state that some sort of “atavistic
Jewish impulse kicks in”. What is it that you see that most American Jews don’t see, or vice versa, what do you think they perceive that you don’t?
This is an interesting essay. Thank you. I’ve been puzzling over the AJC poll and think your idea on the differences between synagogue and unaffiliated Jews interesting. I gather you’re saying that, by voting with our feet, unaffiliated Jews leave the debate field to more conservative synagogue attenders.
My experience may be slightly different. My own sense is that there is significant interest in two-state solutions among many congregants. People I know for whom synagogue life is central sometimes fear expressing their views will isolate them.
Comments on this for Richard:
“Here Petras creates a progressive Jewish chimera which inhibits criticism of Israel within the anti-war movement:
…Progressive liberal and radical Jewish peace activists have acted as gate-keepers in the anti-war movement — prohibiting any criticism of Israel and labeling individuals or citizen activists critical of the pro-war Zionist lobby as ‘anti-Semites’.
It’s hard to know precisely what the author is talking about here since he doesn’t provide either evidence or context to prove his point. But clearly Petras doesn’t accept that there may be some criticism of Israel on the left that crosses the line and that is where I would differ from him.”
And my comments are general but related. I think liberal and progressive Jews such as Richard are missing part of the equation in this. The Jewish doves don’t have any real mojo on the Isr-Pal issue because they are Jewish.
There is a difference between how non jews and jews come at this issue. If you notice in the current food fight on Israel , gentiles and etc. question the “entire” premise of US support for Israel…while Jews, even doves, can’t bear to think of the US withdrawing any support or aid for Israel at all.
So politicans see all “the Jews” as united in supporting Israel and only differing in how they want Israel to behave.
And as we all know only the small portion of special interest in this country ..all special interest….that pump money to politicans hold any sway on policy and legistation.
Gentiles on the other hand who are now questioning and ranting on Israel can cause much more of an uproar on this Israel fetish in US ME policy. For instance look at who has caused the most talk among the public about Israel…non jews such Carter, W&M, Tutu, a host of General Zinn’ s, Scott Ritters, Bamfords, Moran’s and etc…..
I don’t think this was exactly what Petras was talking about but jews collectively “supporting Israel and only differing on how , is not as much of an impact or push back or any kind of political force against the hard core right wing zionist as non jewish gentiles and others who are raising hell about the entire ball of wax , involving special influence for foreign country by US citizens within our country…Palestine occupation , US aid to Israel, all of it.
What this means is this…..Jews, progressive or not, only want half of the US-Isr-Pal-ME issue discussed or questioned. They can’t get any traction or real political force going because
they don’t want to and are afraid to have the WHOLE issue of US-Isr discussed or examined for fear of what it would further stir up politically among average Americans and so on their politicans and how that might affect all of our Israel policy.
While I have followed and contributed to the efforts of the more realistic and dovist Jews and groups to push for peace between Isr and Pal I don’t see the solution coming from strictly Jews in putting on enough pressure to end the conflict becuase of what I described. I think it has to come and is coming eventually from the wider public interest in our foreign policy mess putting pressure on congressional candidates and from the realist in our foreign policy establishment .
Some wise chinaman said that to know a subject you must first divorce yourself from all love or hate for the subject. Given the taught or ingrained Jewish loyalty toward Israel they can’t be totally objective ,and if israel can’t be considered objectively in relation to the rest of the ME there can’t/won’t be any just and lasting solution for Israel or the region.
Bar Kochba: I want to temper yr assumption about what I believe: this particular poll reflects findings that disagree with my views. Polls are ea. diff. depending on who is polled, questions asked, what news events impacted respondents opinions, etc. Polls are a snapshot of a moment in time. Take a poll a month or yr later & things could be entirely diff. I’ve read AJC national surveys with results far closer to my own political outlook. And I think Amer. Jewish opinion on this issue is fluid to a certain extent. So I don’t see the results as timeless or absolute.
M.J. is absolutely right in saying that the pro-Israel right wing (in Israeli, thought not necessarily American terms) crowd contributes far more to political coffers than pro-peace Jews. That’s why Clinton & Giuliani’s views are so hardened vis a vis Israel.
Again, this attitude is more fluid than you make it out to be. Most Israelis also understand there must be some sort of peace agreement for ISRAEL’S sake, if not for the Palestinians. That’s why contrary to their government policy a plurality of Israelis favor direct negotiations with Hamas & Syria to attempt to resolve disputes. I’d call Israeli attitudes hardened but relatively pragmatic. That’s where I & Israelis disagree w. the right which sees Israeli opinion as monolithic & unchanging.
I totally disagree w. yr view here. First, unilateralism is a dead end as proven by Sharon’s Gaza disengagement. Second, Annapolis may not necessarily founder & the right of return may not prove its death knell. Both the Arab League and Geneva Initiative proposals provide an excellent model for how to resolve the right of return issue that will likely be adopted in a final peace agreement.
Third, the status quo is even more of a dead end & can never lead to “relaxation of security operations.” It will lead to endless strife violence & bloodshed.
You’re a nice guy minding your own business walking down a street you’ve traveled 1,000 times before and all of a sudden you think you see in the dark shadows a raging lunatic wielding a knife. Adrenalin kicks in. You go into survival mode. You gain superhuman strength. You consider acts to defend yourself and yr loved ones you never would in a normal mode of existence.
This is something like what happens when Jews consider Israel. Because of a 1,000 yrs of Jewish suffering when we perceive a threat we go into automatic survival mode. Our perceptions are altered. Our values are altered. Defense & survival become all important. But we don’t consider that the raging lunatic in the shadows may not really BE a raging lunatic. Maybe its just a person dressed in black who appears a threat but isn’t? Maybe it’s someone who can be reasoned with despite the possibility of threat or menace?
The key for supporters of peace is to persuade Jews not to let those automatic adrenalin boosting responses kick in regarding Israeli survival. But rather to attempt to consider issues rationally & not to react as if one’s life depended on immediate visceral action. We need to reflect on these issues & consider them carefully rather than reacting instinctually.
Daniel: I’m not claiming there are not pro-peace affiliated Jews and unaffiliated Jews who believe in attempting to change the ridgid ideological positions of the mainstream organizations and leadership. Thank God there are lots of people in both categories. But by & large the preponderance of affiliated Jews hold less progressive views & the majority of unaffiliated hold more progressive views but have less interest in lobbying for change among the mainstream groups. I think that we progressives have to try to maximize the numbers in each group & unite them on behalf of a progressive pro-peace position.
Carroll,
You ought to get out more.
“Jews, even doves, can’t bear to think of the US withdrawing any support or aid for Israel at all.”
More and more, Jews are questioning US support for Israel. Some of these Jews, who are apparently not in your field of vision, want to withdraw all support, some want support conditional on a civilized behavior by Israel, such as respect for the Geneva Convention.
It is the height of ignorance to assume that because one is not conversant with something, it doesn’t exist.
ellen
Ellen,
I think my eyes are pretty wide open on this issue and stand by my description of what I said was “part” of the equation in why Jews alone can’t get more traction with congress on the peace side of Isr-Pal.
I have been following the Isr-Pal conflict as part of the ME issue like a lot of Americans since 911 made the ME an area of interest for the public and have looked at discussions and positions of a wide range of Jews, Gentiles and particulary those in organizations who work on the US-Israel relations.
To me Rosenberg is a good example of a dovist approach and a realist approach, who is still ardent in his basic support of Israel. I also see some Jews who are divorced from Israel emotionally and are objective but think they are still in the minority as far as being activist and contributors who could have some influence.
I have watched the discussion on this in this country evolve over the past 6 years and a lot of it from the realist, both Jews and Gentiles, and both the right and left Israel side of Jewish organizations and indvivduals I think supports my opinion.
In my personal experience with Jewish friends who aren’t particulary political, or pro or con Israel either way, they are, from peer pressure or conditioning, pretty much keeping their heads down and wishing the whole US Jewish Israel Palestine issue would go away.
Ellen is right. There are Jews who hold a wide range of critical views on Israel. Some as she says support an end of U.S. military aid to Israel. Some pragmatic Israelis support this as well believing that Israel must stand on its own 2 feet & not depend on outsiders. That’s certainly not a moral position. But still fits yr criteria. I’m in favor of doing whatever will have a serious impact in stopping Israel’s bad behavior. That might mean divestment or boycott or reducing military aid. Mainly I want to do something that will work.
Without Jews supporting the peace movement it doesn’t matter how many non-Jews do–it just won’t work. Contrary to Carroll’s belief we need ea. other in this project.
Well Richard I can understand you and Ellens wanting to believe that the Jewish community can or will be the largest part of bringing about a settlement of the Isr-Pal issue. It is normal for responsible Jews, seeing what the neo or fanaticial wing that speaks in the name of Jews has done, to want to work against this and be the major force in righting what has gone wrong on this issue .
But for all the reasons I described I don’t believe it will happen that way. Even if those in your camp had the money to get the ear of the politicans it would still be a long drawn out struggle against the more powerful and monied right wing groups. And I think everyone sees time running out on both Israel and Palestine..
I am not trying to downplay the importance of Jews being involved. I am just looking at where the most pushback has come from on this and particulary lately. And I am not trying to discourage Jewish peace activist from being in this battle. I just think that bottom line the “realist” within the US interest sector who are working within the government agencies are the ones who are going to change policy regarding the Isr-Pal situtation.
In other words I think they are going to beat the Jewish peaces orgs to the punch on Isr-Pal situtation because they are now seeing the Isr-Pal conflict as bumping up against the US interest in our ME FUBAR. Aand they are in more of a position to actually change policy.
And I am not trying to insult anyone here but your reply and Ellens also affirms part of my contention that it is hard for Jews to be objective when looking at what is going on “overall”.
Both your replies went straight to a defensive posture regarding Jews or the Jewish peace movement exclusively. While I am looking at the entire picture of all the various groups and interest involved in the Israel-Palestine problem , in and out of the government and in particular at current changes in US moves in the ME associated with Iraq, Iran and Israel.
Of course it is important for liberal Jews to be involved. But being a hard core realist myself I understand that peace for Isr-Pal is most likely not going to be settled until the national interest purist in the US see it to the US’s own advantage to impose or pressure, even covertly, some kind of settlement.
But go for it, every effort helps in the fight for some kind of peace for the region.
If only a disappointingly small plurality of American Jews support the establishment of a Palestinian state now, that should not be taken as a major shift in American Jewish hopes about the future. I think the operative word is “now”. Every credible poll during the last 20 years or so has indicated that vast majority believe that Palestinians deserve a state of their own, and that a 2 state solution is the only way out of this mess. A poll is always a snapshot as a given moment in time, and this is a moment when despair and pessimism abound — with two Palestinian governments in two different territories, and a politically weak Israeli Prime Minister.
In May, 2007, a Zogby International poll indicated that 72 percent of American Jews “strongly support” and 7 percent “somewhat” support a “peace agreement that included the establishment of an independent, secure Pal. state alongside an independent secure Israeli state, and resolved final status issues of Jersualeam, refugees and borders.” Those people have not disappeared, but in many cases, their sense that an enduring settlement can and therefore should be reached any time soon were dashed after the mini-civil war in Gaza. All this means is that fewer Jews are willing to take a leap of faith about a Palestinian state NOW because of their sense –right or wrong– of the inherent instability of such a state and the danger it would pose to Israelis.
I don’t think anyone should over-react to the latest poll. It’s a sign of despair, not of the victory of right-wing ideology.
Actually, the poll question was “in the current situation,” do you favor the establishment of t a Palestinian state?. That bolsters what I just noted aboe.
Actually, the poll question was “in the current situation,” do you favor the establishment of a Palestinian state?. That bolsters what I just noted aboe.
Very good pt. Dan. In fact, I had a strong sense that the way the questions were worded might’ve influenced the survey results. In this case, that’s certainly what happened. If you’d asked: “In principle, do you believe in a 2 state solution” the results would’ve been along the lines of the Zogby poll I’m convinced.