I am usually loathe to use words like “fascism” in this blog to denote anything about Israel since the term is loaded, incendiary and draws fierce rebuke from apologists for Israeli policy here. But when I read polls like this one and see powerful graphics like this one published with the poll, then I realize there are many thoughtful Israelis who are thinking and publishing the same thoughts I have.
What stands out in the results below is the absolutely schizoid nature of the Israel polity. While 80% of Israelis are “proponents of democracy,” 55% favor limiting free speech even when it poses no security threat. Go figure.
Only 63% support the right of Israeli Palestinian citizens to vote and 26% would prefer a political leader who would bypass democratic institutions and rule by fiat. 13% place themselves on a continuum between nationalist to fascist (which I would take to be about the size of the settler population and its supporters). 60% of Israelis believe that Avigdor Lieberman is the politician most responsible for incorporating fascist themes into Israeli politics. It makes one understand the psychology at work historically in societies that turn to fascism, even while retaining the illusion that they are still at least marginally democratic.
A few words on the masterful and profound graphic: it pictures in the background an Israeli ID card, which is apt because the entire poll dealt with the nature of Israeli identity. Superimposed on the identity card are the Kahane Kach raised fist logo alongside one-half of the Nazi eagle (the most incendiary feature of the graphic). The document features the pictures of the four Israeli politicians whom respondents were asked to rate in terms of the their responsibility for fascist attitudes entering Israeli politics.
Here is an English translation of the poll results as reported by Yediot Achronot:
Yedioth Ahronoth 15 October, 2010 (by Dahaf Polling Institute) —
Q: Where do you situate yourself on the scale between being a clear proponent of democracy and a supporter of fascism?
Proponent of democracy also in the face of security needs — 16%
Proponent of democracy — 64%
Inclined towards nationalism — 5%
Nationalist — 5%
An extremist nationalist to the extent of supporting fascism — 3%
Yes, it is justified to add the words “as a Jewish and democratic state” to the pledge of allegiance for non-Jews?
Entire population — 63%
Jews — 69%
Yes, it is justified to limit the freedom of speech when this poses a possible risk to non-security related interests of the state
Entire population — 55%
Jews — 58%
Religious —82%
Yes, I support the right of non-Jewish citizens to vote in Knesset elections
Entire population — 63%
Jews — 62%
ultra-Orthodox — 32%
Religious — 42%
Secular — 75%
Q: Are you bothered by the possibility of fascism in Israel?
Yes — 64%
No — 34%
Yes, I prefer a strong leader who reaches decisions alone rather than one who is subject to the decisions of the government and Knesset?
Entire population — 26%
Jews — 25%
Immigrants — 53%
Religious —24%
Secular — 21%
Q: Who among the politicians is most responsible for the increase extreme nationalist and near fascist tendencies?
Avigdor Lieberman — 60%
Eli Yishai — 40%
Binyamin Netanyahu — 30%
The poll questioned 500 people. The margin of error is 4.4%
Thanks to Zvi Solow for the Yediot graphic. The English version of the Yediot article is available here.
One minor caveat about this poll: it claims to incorporate Israel Palestinian opinion which is 20% of the overall population. Yet the results on questions where one would expect almost total unanimity from Palestinians doesn’t seem to reflect that in the comparison between Israeli Jewish opinion and overall Jewish opinion–such as the question about Israeli non-Jews voting in which 62% of Jews support it while only 63% of the overall population does. That result seems improbable.
I likewise see threats in this poll. The biggest to me is that well under a majority of the religious favor voting rights for non-Jews, and they are the fastest growing part of the Jewish population.
The ID card issue I can understand somewhat, even though I disagree with the ID card; I believe if you took a similar poll in the US and asked whether new immigrants should have to swear an oath to America as, say, an English-speaking country, most people would favor it.
The free speech question sounds confusing to me, in all honesty. I don’t think it’s the most reliable indicator of the populace. What is a non-security threat?
The diff. bet. Israel & the U.S. is that Israel will approve a law demanding new citizens swear a loyalty oath to a religion, whereas no matter what American’s believe or favor Congress would never do such a thing.
As for what is non-security, that’s precisely the pt. Security encompasses so much of Israeli life so using the term “non-security” ALREADY restricts and diminishes the threat of what is being said. So the fact that a majority is in favor even of restricting speech that poses no security threat is what is so alarming about this result.
“The diff. bet. Israel & the U.S. is that Israel will approve a law demanding new citizens swear a loyalty oath to a religion, whereas no matter what American’s believe or favor Congress would never do such a thing.”
True. But Israel is the Jewish state. And all of this is tied into the fear Israelis have that the Palestinians want to establish a demographic majority one day. I think most Israelis would have said yes to this question 20 years ago. I also think that if you asked Israelis whether they thought Israel could survive without enacting such an oath, they would probably say yes as well. This silly oath is kind of the answer to a question nobody was really asking, if you know what I mean. It’s political manipulation at its worst.
“As for what is non-security, that’s precisely the pt. Security encompasses so much of Israeli life so using the term “non-security” ALREADY restricts and diminishes the threat of what is being said. So the fact that a majority is in favor even of restricting speech that poses no security threat is what is so alarming about this result.”
Yeah, but that’s why the question is not a great question. An Israeli’s understanding of what security means may be different from yours. If, for example, an Israeli thought demography was not a security issue, then one could understand their answer. It’s just a badly designed question because it may not mean the same thing to everybody. A better one would have given the respondants a few scenarios or issues and asked them whether a loyalty oath was an appropriate response to each.
Another comment I would make is that you can’t interpret the “makes decisions alone” question as being the same as being a dictator. Remember that Israelis are very cynical about their government, even more than we are, and that the Knesset is perpetually paralyzed. If we asked people whether they preferred a President who made his decisions on his own rather than consulting with Congress or his advisors, and people said yes, one could just as easily say that the people preferred a President who kept his own counsel or simply didn’t like Congress, rather than jumping to the conclusion that the people wanted a dictatorship. In any case, it doesn’t surprise me that the Russians, who are used to a more centralized system, favor a stronger leader.
It’s all disturbing, and I think many of us are wondering when, if ever, Netanyahu will get rid of Lieberman. I think, frankly, he uses Lieberman as a bad cop because he looks good by comparison.
Nope, sorry it’s not. It’s a state that includes Jews, Christians & Muslims among its citizens. It’s a democratic state. And if it’s to be any of those things it can’t be solely a Jewish state as you claim. It can be a state that recognizes the religious identities of its citizens & grants these respective religions special status. But it can’t recognize one as supreme or exclusive. Not & remain democratic.
Glad we agree on that. And I couldn’t agree more.
“The diff. bet. Israel & the U.S. is that Israel will approve a law demanding new citizens swear a loyalty oath to a religion…”
the oath is not to a religion, but to a people. The fact that it relates to just one group is troublesome, and making Jews take the oath as well (a recent proposal) doesn’t make it right.
Swearing a loyalty oath to a “Jewish” state is like swearing an oath to a religion. What if in future the state enacts laws relating to its Jewish character which are contrary to the religious freedoms of these non-Jews, but the state sees them as essential. Already many Israelis believe that inter-marriage with an Arab constitutes “treason”.
I mean once you swear loyalty, you’re bound to accept a bunch of other consequences that could arise from this preoccupation with maintaining Israel as a Jewish state forever. I see this as a serious problem contrary to the definition of democracy, freedom and human rights.
One more thing to add to my post above: Another consequence of swearing loyalty to a Jewish State is that religious police might be given undisclosed authority to spy on people and set up a non-Jew for a fall if he’s behaving within the law but in a way undermines the Jewish faith.
I’m sure there are other consequences that aren’t immediately obvious today.
Sure it’s to a religion. It’s an oath affirming that Israel is a Jewish state. What do you think “Jewish” means? It connotes a religion or a state which favors a particular religion.
“Jewish” means being a member of the people who call themselves Jews. In the same manner as “French” means being a member of the people who call themselves French.
Throughout history, Jews practiced a certain religion which takes it’s name from the people, not vice versa.
This is a concept without a distinction. YOu cannot distinguish the Jewish people from their religion. It’s like asking which came first, the chicken or the egg.
# Yakov)
When the Zionists pick France (and I don’t know why, but they often do) to make their point of
“Jewish means being member of the people who call themselves Jews. In the same manner as “French” mean being a member of the people who call themselves French”
the choise of comparison is particularly inappropriate.
Among the “valeurs républicaines” (which of course are theoretical more than reality-based standpoints) is the concept of belonging to the French people. You are French when you have the French nationality. That’s it !
You may be of African, Arab, Jewish or Italian origin, being French has NOTHING to do with your ethnic or religious origin.
Furthermore, in France more than anywhere else, State and Religion are completely separated. You would NEVER hear a French president or other public person say ‘God bless you’, ‘God bless France’ or even speak about his personal faith.
The French concept of ‘laïcité’ (secularity) is even compared by many religious people, Christians, Muslims and Jexs alike, as a anti-religious crusade.
A Non-French living in France.
Sorry. Christians, Muslims and JEWS alike.
Is it any wonder that the Jewish exodus out of Israel still exceeds immigration into it? Give it another 10 years, and all that will exist there will be the religious wingnuts. And by that time, al Qaida will have violently replaced Hamas. Then we can all sit back and watch the Holy War on our television screens — providing there are journalists reckless enough to want to go there and cover it.
A bleak portrait, but a distinct possibility.
I think there is an exodus because of the economic/political climate. However, apparently the assimilation of Jews in the Diaspora is very high, making the Israeli Jewish population the fastest growing Jewish population.
Nice analysis.
Anyone know of an on-line Hebrew version? It seems the English one is just a shortened summery of the original.
I have a translation of the text of the article. But I’ve given you all the poll results verbatim. That’s the heart of the story, I think.
similar polls were taken in the united states during the run up to and the early days of the iraq war
and the results were similar
This comment is so vague as to be meaningless, not to mention it’s not true. So come up with proof of this claim.
Be very, very afraid:
http://www.zoa.org/sitedocuments/pressrelease_view.asp?pressreleaseID=1944
@Richard – The distinction is as clear as the distinction between a Briton and a Christian. The latter being a religion one accepts upon himself and the former is a nationality of which (in general) religion, or lack of, is ofter part.
I’m an atheist and a Jew. And very certain in both of them.
Btw, the chicken and the egg problem is a misnomer. Anybody who has any knowledge in biology will tell you the egg came first. (that’s OT, but just general knowledge).
@Deir Yassin: I suppose that people often pick France because it’s the best studied nation in otherwise very poor history lessons here in Israel.
More to the point: In practice, how do you become French, if it is even possible? What defines someone as French? In my experience, ethnicity has a large part in it (not the only part though).Unless I’m mistaken, modern day french people don’t usually consider the north Africans in France to be really French.
You may be an atheist, but your ancestors certainly were not. They were believing traditional Jews who professed a religious faith, Judaism, which is why you are Jewish. You can’t escape religion no matter how hard you try.
You must be kidding. You claim that I’m Jewish because my great-grandfather carried a sidur in his pocket? Ridiculous.
Religion in east-European Jews served a purpose – to prevent assimilation. Besides religion, there’s tradition, history, culture, values, language and ethnicity. That’s why I’m a Jew, not because my ancestors spoke to some imaginary friend at the synagogue.
Not just. You are Jewish because many generations of yr Jewish descendants davened fr. that siddur, circumcised their male offspring, spoke Yiddish or whatever Jewish language was prevalent, observed Jewish holidays, said Kaddish for their loved ones, etc. That’s why you’re Jewish. And those are all important practices of Judaism, a religion. Those traditions, culture, values, language & even ethnicity are all based in the religion & wouldn’t exist w/o it.
Religion doesn’t exist to prevent assimilation. That’s the wackiest notion I’ve heard in some time. Religion exists as a means of creating community & meaning for a people.
You’re right in saying that some part of Jewish tradition is based on Judaism, but not all. It’s also important to note the emphasis.
For example, I, as an atheist, don’t believe in the biblical miracles, for example. Yet Pesah for me and many other secular people is about national freedom and carrying on the torch,issues still relevant today and not about some mythical acts of a god.
There are such things as a secular Judaism and a Jewish nation. I don’t see the relevance of Yiddish to religion though.
Ethnicity is definitely not based on religion – it’s based on genetics.
As for culture, what we now call the Jewish culture is in large part the result of Haskala, not religion.
Religion doesn’t not exist for any reason – yet it certainly served the purpose of preventing assimilation. Throughout the last 2000 years, it was generally bad to be a Jew in Europe. Jews were often persecuted one way or another and there was always the easy way out – convert to Christianity.
It even worked (for the converts), at least until the 19th century. What do you think prevented the Jews from converting en masse? Pretty much only the religious indoctrination according to which it’s better to die than to convert. Same thing about marriage with non-Jews.
Btw, the exception that proves the rule is the Spanish Expulsion of 1492. 90% of the Jews there actually converted.
If mass conversion would have happened generally, You and I wouldn’t be having this chat.
So you are saying that you are a secular Jew who still finds relevance in aspects of the religious tradition. I’ve got news for you–you can still be an atheist & find aspects of religious tradition relevant. So indeed whether you like it or not, you do acknowledge some bond no matter how faint to a religious tradition.
As is the halachic definition of who is a Jew. Ergo ethnicity, genetics & religion are all intermixed. Sorry, but you can’t get away fr. it.
Not true at all. Jewish culture is also intertwined with religious tradition.
But that’s not what you said earlier. You said Judaism existed IN ORDER TO PREVENT assimilation, which simply isn’t true. Judaism may’ve prevented assimilation, but that wasn’t why it was created.
# Yakov)
If people pick France as an example, it actually tells more about a very poor historical and political knowledge in Israel than it tells about the French concept of ‘being French’.
Whether the ‘indigenous’ French population considers Africans, North Africans or others as French as themselves has nothing to do with law but with ordinary racism or bias.
Don’t tell me that a ‘sabra’ of Ashkenaze origin going back to the first aliyah always considers a Falasha as Israeli – or even as Jewish – as himself. According to Israeli law, they are equals though (theoretically).
Of course you can become French: by asking a naturalization. You have to live a certain amount of years in the country depending on whether you’re married to a French citizen, citizen of another country in the European Union, political refugee and so on.
Nowadays you give an oath to the ‘values of the Republic’, and though I’ve lived here for a long time, I still don’t really know what that means 🙂 It’s kind of a French version of Hasbara, you know “liberty, equality and fraternity” (though we all know this is not true), to respect the separation of State and Religion, to respect the democratic values etc. Absolutely nothing to do with an ethic or religious origin whatsoever. The strict separation of State and religion is due to massive historical religious violence between Catholics and Protestants.
I’ve heard this before. I think the French are fooling themselves. Laicite is basically a secular religion, and it works to exclude those who don’t submit to it, like your Muslim population. You’ve even gone as far as banning the free exercise of religion by banning headscarves.
I think the oath to the “values of the Republic” is just as silly as an oath to the Jewish state. They’re both meaningless nonsense and an offense to common sense. They’re both products of failure – in the French case failure to secularize everyone, in the Israeli case, failure to propound a non-chauvinistic Jewishness that non-Jews in Israel can live with and a state that can earn international legitimacy.
It’s just beyond ridiculous in the same way asking the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state is ridiculous. Is Israel a Jewish state? Yeah. 200 nukes and the IDF say so, whether Mahmoud Abbas does or not. If the Zionist dream is just autonomous sovereignty, we’ve got that already. No one’s ending Israel. But a regular state also has legitimacy, and that Israel hasn’t achieved yet. The oath suggests it doesn’t feel it can achieve that, and that is sad. It’s a major sign of weakness.
As a Jew you have the luxury of thinking the loyalty oath “silly.” But any non-Jew seeking to become a citizen doesn’t have such luxury. For them, it is deadly serious. Not silly at all. I understand & appreciate yr opposition to the oath. But it affects non Jews in ways you may not be able to begin to imagine.
I completely agree with yr comment about the oath speaking to the failure to articulate an Israeli identity that is independent of Jewishness. That is an important pt.
# Michael Brenner)
What is “your Muslim population” ??
If you’ve read my comment and the one above you couldn’t have missed that I’m NOT a Frecnh citizen.
I also stated that the concept of ‘secularity’ is considered by many religious people as a anti-religious crusade.
I’m not trying to defend any position on that matter. In fact, I have various feelings about the whole ‘secularity’-stuff but still, it has been a response to long inter-Christian violence throughout French history.
I have the impression that you don’t really know what the headscarf-banning is about or you mix it up with the total banning of NIQAB in the public sphere.
The headscarf is only banned in the public school system, but you’re free to wear it in university. I have Muslim friends, teaching in high-school, positive to the head-scarf banning, and I know atheists against the banning: in the name of personal freedom.
I don’t have a clear opinion on these matters: the French context is particular, and the extreme centralisation of political matters since the French Revolution has always been rather intolerant towards cultural minorities, and I’m talking of indigenous French minorities such as the Basques, Bretons, Occitans etc. The eager to produce ‘Republican citizens’ has been stronger than the respect for cultural diversity.
The concept of secularity might be wrong, but it still permitted Sarkozy, of Jewish origin, to be elected as the President of the Republic. I’m not sure that would have been possible without the strict separation. You know the French have the Dreyfus-affair in their mental luggage.