RubinReports
Barry Rubin
There is an interesting recent poll of Jews in the United Kingdom but an article about the poll is equally interesting. I’m not writing to criticize Jonathan Boyd’s analysis but to point out some of the assumptions it reveals. [No need to follow the link as I quote practically the entire text.]
His article’s theme is clear. Entitled, “The Writing on the Wall,” (suggesting that it is the beginning of the end for British Jewish support of Israel) the idea is that while the poll results show support for Israel it also reveals disquieting trends. My response is that all of the alleged contradictions of what British Jews are in fact not contradictions at all, and an analysis shows their support for Israel even stronger than it seems. Here are two aspects to keep in mind:
--Jews should not have to think of Israel as perfect in order to support it. If on one hand the discovery that Israel makes mistakes or has imperfections drives some Jews on the left to reject it completely (Israel is horrible because it doesn't give the Palestinians everything they demand), those on the right often try too hard to prove Israel is perfect or demand that it fulfill their political standpoint regardless of Israel’s own interests (Israel is falling apart because it pulled out of the Gaza Strip or supports compromises).
--Most of their views are in the context of Israel’s own political spectrum of debate, which the author does suggest, or even policies. In this respect, thinking otherwise shows outdated or mistaken concepts of Israel that often surface in attacks on the country. There are simply ludicrous articles written, often in prestigious publications, by those who only identify as Jews when criticizing Israel and make the silliest errors about analyzing the country.
Boyd notes:
“90 percent of Jews in Britain believe that Israel is `the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people,’ 82% consider it to play an important and even central role in their Jewish identities and 72% categorize themselves as Zionists, in contrast to only 21% who do not. Furthermore, an estimated 95% of Jews in Britain have visited Israel at least once, 77% agree that Jews have `a special responsibility to support Israel’ and 87% agree that Jews are responsible for ensuring `the survival of Israel.’”
Let’s also remember that these people are under an around-the-clock barrage of anti-Israel opinion and information from the British media, universities, and other institutions, which makes their steadfastness all the more remarkable.
“The dovishness of the community comes across very clearly: 67% favor giving up territory for peace; 74% are opposed to the expansion of existing settlements in the West Bank and, perhaps most strikingly, 52% think that Israel `should negotiate with Hamas in its efforts to achieve peace.’”
I don’t think the first two points are particularly dovish as such. Israelis overwhelmingly favor giving up territory IF that would secure real and lasting peace. As for expanding settlements, it has been Israeli policy not to do so since…1993. That’s 17 years ago. So supporting that position is not exactly anti-Israeli, indeed Benjamin Netanyahu accepted it back in 1996. I admit the point about Hamas is shocking but perhaps they mean if it ever moderates (don’t hold your breath).
The article continues:
“However, at the same time, the hawkishness of the community is also apparent: 72% consider the separation fence/security barrier `vital for Israel’s security’ and the same percentage viewed Operation Cast Lead as `a legitimate act of self-defense. Furthermore, fully 87% of respondents believe that “Iran represents a threat to Israel’s existence.”
Those three points aren’t hawkishness, that’s common sense. To have a barrier to keep out terrorists, who killed hundreds of people before it was built and literally none since within Israel’s borders seems a rather proven policy. To attack the Gaza Strip when Hamas had declared the ceasefire ended and was firing scores of rockets appears to make sense. And to think that Iran is a threat to Israel’s existence cannot be described as “hawkish” but as sane.
The article goes on:
“The apparent paradox captures perfectly the nature of Israel’s ongoing dilemma. The peace versus security equation needs to be balanced on a daily basis; most overtures toward peace involve taking risks on security, and most clampdowns on security involve damaging prospects for peace. What Jews in Britain are saying – in much the same way as Israelis are saying – is that we want both.”
Makes sense to me. Then why does he continue:
“My personal view is that there are signs of considerable disquiet in the findings, which indicate that all is not quite as rosy as some would like to believe.
“Consider the following. In our investigation of the state of Israeli society, 67% agree that there is `too much corruption in Israel’s political system.’ Approximately six out of 10 believe that both Jewish and non-Jewish minorities `suffer from discrimination.’ Three-quarters think that `Orthodox Judaism has too much influence in Israel’s society’ and that includes, surprisingly perhaps, almost half of those who self-define as `religious’”
Well, Israel’s political system is too corrupt and there is certainly room for improvement but you should hear what Israelis say about these things. Why should this turn them against Israel? Do British people turn against their country—or you could mention any other place in the world—because it has not achieved full justice or has corruption?
But the article doesn’t see it that way:
“Each of these findings suggests that a majority of Jews in Britain is looking at these aspects of Israeli society and struggling in some way to reconcile the realities they see with the values they believe ought to underpin a Jewish state. Perhaps it is the allegations against Ehud Olmert or Moshe Katsav, perhaps it is the growing alienation of Arab Israelis, perhaps it is the stranglehold Orthodox authorities have over the conversion process, but whatever the reason, it is clear that these types of difficult issues are leading some Jews in Britain to view Israel through quite critical eyes.”
Yet these problems and complaints don’t mean that those values aren’t in place. Orthodox authorities only have a stranglehold over conversion within Israel, which does recognize conversion abroad. Perhaps that is a significant point to explain. Even if one favors allowing Reform and Conservative rabbis within Israel to do conversions, upholding Jewish law as it has existed for many centuries should not be described as some shocking misplacement of values.
As for Arab Israelis, the unspoken assumption here is that they are being “alienated” because they aren’t given enough concessions and would be perfectly happy if they were given more, an interesting question for discussion. I wonder what percentage of these people would, even in the midst of its Politically Correct, multicultural, sneezing at the wrong time is an act of racism phase?
There’s more. A clear majority of British Jews considers Israel to be “an occupying power in the West Bank.” Forty percent do not think that control of the West Bank is vital for security; 43% do not believe that Israel has “little or no choice in most of the military action it takes.”
And one-third thinks that Israel holds either as much responsibility – or even more responsibility – for the failures of the peace process than its neighbors.
Again, I don’t find this shocking. Since Israel is willing to give up almost all of the West Bank in exchange for peace, it is occupying the territory and is thus stating that controlling the West Bank might not be vital for Israeli security, as long as there is a full peace settlement. And of course Israel has a choice in taking military action. For example, it did not have to attack in 2006 even though Israeli soldiers were killed and kidnapped. It decided to do so.
So there is nothing shocking in these conclusions. All they prove, at most, is that British Jews aren’t far to the right or far to the left of mainstream Israelis.
I thus totally disagree with the article’s conclusion:
“But below the surface, there is evidence to suggest that a significant number of people are starting to ask some probing questions….We should not rule out the possibility that the currently strong foundations might begin to crumble in the years to come. Right now, Jews in Britain remain deeply tied to Israel; the future, however, looks far less certain.”
Well, if it is uncertain it won’t be because they changed their minds but because they have either left Britain altogether or are too intimidated to speak. The fact that Jews are defying a massive tidal wave of elite opinion, university training, and media slander shows the foundations of their loyalty are far from crumbling.
If Jews don’t regard Israel as perfect, that’s a good thing. The my-country-only-if-perfect argument is dangerous because for those who believe it the appearance of flaws may trigger a total rejection. They are simply recognizing, as I have remarked elsewhere, that Israel is in many ways a “normal” country. And in these days of demonization, lies, and slanders that’s just fine.
Incidentally, to see what British Jews have to face, here's Melanie Phillips' exposure of how British newspapers distorted Israeli President Shimon Peres's remarks. There are between one and four such stories every day in the UK.
Syria Marches Into Lebanon; Saudis Surrender to Inevitable, State Department Proclaims Victory
Posted: 31 Jul 2010 11:57 AM PDT
Please be subscriber 17,003. Put your email address in upper right-hand box of the page.
We depend on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
P.J. Crowley, State Department spokesman and its answer to Pollyanna (Note 1), looks at the advance of America’s enemies and gives the advice that their strategy isn’t working. Ah, but it is.
Crowley responds to the following question about the joint visit of the Saudi king and President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, self-styled leader of the Resistance to American interests in the Arabic-speaking world, to Beirut.
“Do you see this as an effort, with your help, to distance Syria from Iran?”
For goodness sakes! People in the region see the visit as the exact opposite: the Saudi acceptance of Syrian (and hence of Iranian also) hegemony in Lebanon. It is the seal of Saudi approval for Lebanon’s surrender to the Iran-Syria bloc, but at the same time trying to preserve some remnant of Saudi influence.
It's just like Turkey. Iran and Syria pull Turkey into their orbit and the U.S. government and British prime minister congratulate Turkey for being a good influence on Iran and Syria!
Crowley responds to the question:
“Well, we have made clear that Syria’s relationship with Iran is of concern to us. And to the extent that Syria wants to advance its relations within the region and around the world, it would be much better for Syria to distance itself from Iran and move in a more constructive direction.”
Why better? The United States does maintain some sanctions on Syria but Washington is engaging Damascus. The Obama Administration puts no obstacle in Syria’s way regarding its reestablishment of Lebanon as a satellite; does nothing about Hizballah which now bullies the UN “peacekeeping” force at will; has actually helped the Syrian- (and Iranian) backed Hamas in the Gaza Strip; and pretty much ignores Syrian organization and helping terrorists in Iraq who kill Americans.
Meanwhile, Europe is moving toward giving Syria what it wants, while Syria’s protector Iran is advancing toward nuclear weapons. (Iran faces tougher sanctions but these have no negative effect on Syria.)
So why should Syria distance itself from Iran? In fact, the two countries are constantly tightening their relations and now (virtually unnoticed by the U.S. and UK governments) have brought the Turkish regime into the alliance.
Crowley makes a statement that can only provoke gales of laughter in the Middle East:
“The relationship between Syria and Iran gets Syria very, very little….”
Let’s see, how about this list: billions of dollars in Iranian aid, free weapons and political support for Syrian clients Hamas and Hizballah, backing for Syrian ambitions in Lebanon and among the Palestinians, religious cover to sanctify Syria’s non-Muslim rulers as Muslim, and soon a nuclear umbrella! This is not the entire list by any means.
Meanwhile, as Assad triumphantly enters into Lebanon—a country he had to flee due to U.S. pressure a few years ago—the U.S. government doesn’t even notice that it has suffered a defeat.
The clueless Crowley urges Assad to listen to Saudi King Abdallah, who presumably will have some moderating effect on him. P.J. doesn’t get it. The situation is the exact opposite: Abdallah looked at a weak and confused U.S. policy and then decided to listen to Assad.
Note 1: A literary character famous for being naïve and engaging in wishful thinking.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan).
No comments:
Post a Comment