#Israel Democracy Institute (IDI)

[izraelinfo]

Az izraeli demokrácia mutatói – október 7-tel súlyozva

A 2023-as demokrácia indexet 2024. március 14-én tette közzé az Israel Democracy Institute (IDI). Az indexet az elmúlt 21 évben évente publikálják (mi is itt és itt), és ez összetett képet ad arról, hogyan értékeli a közvélemény az izraeli demokrácia erejét, az állami intézményekbe vetett közbizalmat, és az izraeli társadalom belső szolidaritását. Tekintettel arra, hogy az október 7-i események…

[muslimintp-1999-girl]

This planet is a joke. Black and Brown lives matter and if you stand with Israel you're not with us or one of us.

Israel Forcibly Injected African Immigrants with Birth Control

Fifty-two percent of Jewish Israelis identify with the statement by MK Miri Regev that African migrants are “a cancer in the body” of the nation, and over a third condone anti-migrant violence, according to the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI) Peace Index for May 2012.

Israeli rabbi under fire for calling black people 'monkeys'. The chief rabbi of the Sephardic community used two slurs in his speech.

[good-old-gossip]

It isn’t Netanyahu who is acting against the will of his people, it’s Biden

Source - https://mondoweiss.net/2024/03/it-isnt-netanyahu-who-is-acting-against-the-will-of-his-people-its-biden/

By

Mitchell Plitnick

On March 14, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, long one of Israel’s most zealous supporters on Capitol Hill, made international headlines when he called for Benjamin Netanyahu’s ouster in new elections. In a speech in the Senate, Schumer said, “Israel is a democracy. Five months into this conflict it is clear that Israelis need to take stock of the situation and ask, must we change course. At this critical juncture I believe a new election is the only way to allow for a healthy and open decision-making process about the future of Israel at a time when so many Israelis have lost their confidence in the vision and direction of their government.”

This reflects a pivot Democrats have been making as we enter the sixth month of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, and the Biden administration attempts to frame their unpopular support for Israel by isolating Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the most fanatical of his ultra-right ministers, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir. 

Vice President Kamala Harris did this during a March 8 interview with CBS, where she sought to deflect criticism of the Gaza genocide at large and instead pin it on the Israeli government as a non-representative outlier of sorts. In the interview, Harris said: “It’s important for us to distinguish or at least not conflate the Israeli government with the Israeli people.”

This argument needs to be scrutinized carefully. U.S. leaders love to say they are not antagonistic to a given group of people but to their leaders. But these pronouncements are rarely used in regard to an ally, especially one the United States considers a close friend and a fellow democracy. But upon analysis, it is clear that it is in fact not the Netanyahu-led government that is acting against the will of its people, but the Biden administration.

The views of the Israeli people

Harris’s contention is that we should not blame the people of Israel for the actions of their government, implying that the truly horrific actions of the Israeli military in Gaza are not supported by the people of Israel. But is that true?

In a poll published on February 20, the Israeli Democracy Institute (IDI) asked a number of questions that pertain to Harris’s point. 

One key question was, “Do you support or oppose the idea that Israel should allow the transfer of humanitarian aid to Gaza residents at this time, with food and medicines being transferred by international bodies that are not linked to Hamas or to UNRWA?”

The implicit linking of UNRWA and Hamas says a lot about the general atmosphere in Israel, but by qualifying in that way, the IDI made it easier for Israelis to support the idea of humanitarian aid getting in. 

Yet, fully 68% of Israeli Jews said they opposed aid going into Gaza. Only 30% supported it. Of course, the Palestinian population of Israel’s citizenry overwhelmingly supported letting aid in (85%), but no one even pretends that their views have any impact anymore. 

Take a moment and consider that response. By stipulating that Hamas would not be involved in the transfer and distribution of aid, the question makes it clear that it is asking whether civilians in Gaza should get humanitarian aid. And 68% of Israeli Jews answered “no.” Even among the dwindling Israeli Jewish “left,” nearly 40% want to keep aid out of the hands of Gaza’s civilian population. 

One might wonder what Israelis think about Biden’s golden calf, the two-state solution. This notion, one which Israel years ago murdered as effectively as it has killed over 31,000 people in Gaza, is the windmill Biden will tilt at until he dies. Do Israelis support this vision?

The IDI poll gives a definitively negative answer. Israeli Jews oppose even accepting the notion of a de-militarized Palestinian state (something, we should recall, that it is hard to imagine the Palestinian people agreeing to after this onslaught) as an abstract goal relegated to sometime down the road by a margin of 63% to 30%. By more than a two-to-one margin, they reject this idea. 

Netanyahu contends he is representing the will of the Israeli people in his actions and positions against the Palestinian people. It certainly appears he is correct. 

Israeli and American views of Netanyahu

In January, an ISI poll found that only 15% of Israelis want Netanyahu to remain in office after the Gaza onslaught ends but that 56% supported continuing the offensive, while only 24% thought that a swap and political agreement was a preferable option for retrieving the Israeli hostages held in Gaza. 

This poll reflected the common understanding that Israelis are fed up with Netanyahu, and why would they not be? His corruption is common knowledge, and even many of his supporters understand that he has broken the law. Before October 7, the waves of protests against Netanyahu’s attempts to disempower the Israeli judiciary to save his own skin and enhance the power of the ultra-right made his diminished popularity clear. 

Many Israelis across the political spectrum justifiably blame Netanyahu for allowing the October 7 attack to happen and for the Israeli defense’s slow response that day but have consistently supported the massive assault on Gaza. 

Americans, in general, were less hostile to Netanyahu, with a January Statista/YouGov poll showing that 36% held an unfavorable view of Netanyahu while 34% held a favorable one. But Israel’s high-profile war crimes have had a real impact among Democrats. 

A February 27 poll by Data For Progress showed that more than three-quarters (77%) of Democratic voters wanted the United States to call for a ceasefire. Netanyahu’s refusal not only to stop the slaughter but even to try to rein in the daily war crimes that range from looting to Israeli soldiers opening fire on civilians lining up for aid has angered Democratic voters and embarrassed their pro-Israel elected officials. 

Biden administration continues to ignore reality

On Thursday, the Likud issued a statement in response Schumer’s admonition of Netanyahu. “Israel is not a banana republic but an independent democracy,” and stated, correctly, that Netanyahu’s policies in Gaza were “supported by a great majority of the people. We expect Senator Schumer to respect the elected government of Israel and not undermine it. This is always true, but especially in a time of war.”

To use words I never thought I would, I agree with Likud. Schumer is a U.S. senator. It is not his job, nor Biden’s or Harris’s, to decide on the composition of Israel’s government any more than it is their job to determine who may or may not participate in Palestinian politics. 

Schumer likely does not believe his words will suddenly lead to snap elections in Israel. This is just a continuation of what Harris did with her misleading statement. Of course, there are many Israelis who feel that a diplomatic resolution is needed in Gaza and beyond. But it is equally certain that the general will of the Israeli Jewish public (again, especially when it comes to matters like Gaza or anything dealing with the Palestinians, the non-Jewish sector in Israel is of no political consequence in the apartheid state) is to maintain the military operations even if a majority do not believe that Hamas can be fully exterminated by military force. 

Netanyahu may be hated by an overwhelming majority of Israelis, but this is not a case of a government acting outside the will of its people. Indeed, that description is far more fitting for the Biden administration than it is for the Netanyahu government. 

It is far from certain that a new government will be much different from the current one. For one thing, recent developments in Israeli politics have changed the outlook. The National Unity party, headed by Benny Gantz, has split, with Gideon Sa’ar’s New Hope faction leaving the party, essentially leaving Gantz’s Blue and White party and a couple of independent Knesset members alone. How that might affect an election is unclear, but Sa’ar made it clear that he was supporting Netanyahu, a major reversal of his position for years. 

For another, as I explained recently, Gantz’s policies regarding Gaza are not much different from those of Netanyahu. But while those differences are miniscule for Palestinians, they might make all the difference for Biden and the Democrats. Gantz may well be amenable to a vague commitment to a Palestinian state somewhere down the road and might also be less brazen about attacking international relief sites and food lines. Basically, while Gantz has the same goals as Netanyahu, he is not beholden to the ultra-right and so would not be reluctant to go back to the more traditional practice of less brazenly committing the same war crimes. And appearances, as we’ve seen, are really all Biden and his gang care about. 

But if a hypothetical Prime Minister Gantz were to sharply change course and agree to a permanent ceasefire, it would be he who would be going against the will of the majority of the Israeli Jewish public. Recalling that fully 68% of Israeli Jews said they want to continue starving Palestinian children to death, it becomes clear that Schumer, Harris, and Biden are all trying to mislead the U.S. public once again.

Netanyahu is a despised man in Israel. It will be highly unlikely, though not totally impossible as it would have been six months ago, that he will retain his position in new elections. 

But the idea that he is leading Israel into pariah status — which he is — without the support of the Israeli people is untrue. How much of that extremism is due to the ongoing rage after October 7 is impossible to say. Americans who lived through the aftermath of September 11 know how long that rage can last and how murderous it can be, especially among privileged people like Americans and Israelis. But right now, for whatever reason, what Netanyahu is doing in Gaza is what the majority of Israelis want. Pretending otherwise is just another in a lengthy list of examples of Americans hiding their eyes from reality. 

[licheninsect]

America and USG

Someone sent me an email with some patriotic stuff. At first I considered replying only with a JPEG of a Viking shaman standing between a pair of huge, phallic gilded fasces. (How did someone not get a better picture of that?) But the response came out in a short “ELI5” style that I thought might be useful.

My political testament

America is a country. USG is the sovereign corporation, or regime, that owns the country. More people need to learn to see this distinction clearly and frankly.

I love the country although frankly I think it needs a lot of work. But it’s a classic property. It’s the ‘68 Mustang of countries. Most people can’t even begin to imagine the things you could do with the place. A Mustang chassis with a Tesla powertrain…

I think the regime needs to go wherever Sun Microsystems went—or maybe Czechoslovakia. Or the Protectorate of England. Or even Theranos. I’m done with it and I don’t see how anyone else could be otherwise. I will continue to meticulously comply with all its rules, orders and commands, of course, as should everyone else.

No regime is forever and every regime is best retired according to its own principles. Thomas Jefferson had a cool line:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

(Of course, Jefferson was a racist. We’ve learned a lot about the “paradox of tolerance” since then. As for Happiness, here’s what’s most likely to effect it: Fentanyl.)

I have no problem with USG’s employees, who are generally wonderful and need to be treated well, or its fans, who are sick in the head but will recover as soon as the toxin is withdrawn. There are a lot of both and they are mostly great people—as individuals.

My friends keep begging me to flee to Israel. I’m like: I don't think I’m in much danger right now. Also, Israel is a foreign country. Israel is a country for Jews and I’m not even a real Jew, my wife is 100% shiksa and my son looks like a Hitler Youth poster, and not only can I not speak the language, I can’t even read the goddamn language. (But let’s see how I feel once I’ve read the new regime’s 20,000-word security bill.)

Neighbors: America is my country. I will flee when they chase me out. The Internet is also my country. I will flee when they kick me off it. (I won’t even use the distributed social network I invented!)

But it is only America that I love. I feel absolutely no emotional connection to USG. Not only do I not love it, I don’t even hate it—though I do feel, purely as a scientific proposition, that America would blossom like a rose if the Chesapeake watershed was ecologically restored as seen in that great classic of the silver screen, Logan’s Run.

It is easy for me to feel the difference between America and USG, because I grew up inside USG. My dad was in the Senior Foreign Service, my mom worked for Joe Romm on climate policy at DOE, my stepdad was on Biden’s staff in the 80s.

As a Foreign Service brat, you see USG without America. Almost no one gets to see that. It’s a great parallax. But I think more Americans are starting to get the distinction.

Isn’t it amazing, by the way, that the great temple of our democracy which that foul mob of lawless and irresponsible hooligans defiled—dumping someone else’s tea into the harbor is not who we are—is… about as democratic as the Supreme Soviet?

Specifically: it has the incumbency rate of the late Bourbons, a seniority system that would get Chernenko hard, and the popularity of Idi Amin Dada. And standing behind it is the whole legislative branch, miscalled the “executive branch,” with its permanent civil service—as permanent as anything in the USSR.

I grew up in the Cold War. I took it seriously, especially the nuclear holocaust thing. But in the end, did East and West turn out to be all that different?

[reveal-the-news]

Cost of living, economy are top priority for voters in upcoming election -- survey

Cost of living, economy are top priority for voters in upcoming election — survey

Israel’s high cost of living and general economic climate will be at the top of voters’ minds this November when Israelis go to the polls for the fifth national election since 2019. According to a survey released Tuesday by the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI), 44% of Israeli respondents said the main factors influencing their decision when voting were a particular party’s economic platform and…

[israelseen1]

The Israel Democracy Institute - Israel’s Cease-Fire Government Should Promote Healing, Not Division

The Israel Democracy Institute – Israel’s Cease-Fire Government Should Promote Healing, Not Division

flash90

The Israel Democracy Institute – Israel’s Cease-Fire Government Should Promote Healing, Not Division IDI Written By: Yohanan Plesner

Netanyahu and Gantz could use their unity government to put in place a ‘democratic ceasefire’ and speed Israel’s economic recovery rather than entrenching political deadlock.

Israel’s 18-month political nightmare—including three election campaigns—is finally…

[balkantimes]

Izrael i Palestinci: Zaustavljena aneksija na Zapadnoj obali?

Nakon formiranja vlade u Izraelu, Palestinci strahuju od aneksije područja na Zapadnoj obali. Premijer Netanjahu je to oduvijek podržavao. Ali, hoće li u tome ipak biti zaustavljen?

Narednih šest mjeseci u Izraelu će biti "vanredno stanje". To su tokom koalicionih pregovora dogovorili predstavnici konzervativne Likud partije premijera Benjamina Netanjahua i saveza lijevog centra Benija Ganca pod nazivom "Plavo-Bijeli". U tom periodu će sve zakonodavne inicijative koje nisu vezane za pandemiju korone morati dobiti saglasnost oba koaliciona partnera - s jednim izuzetkom: prijedlozima zakona koji se odnosi na aneksiju palestinskih teritorija na Zapadnoj obali.

To je upravo ono što je Netanjahu obećao u predizbornoj kampanji nakon što je američki predsjednik Donald Trump odobrio aneksiju u svom planu za Bliski Istok predstavljenom u januaru.

Palestinska država?

Ganc je izričito pozdravio Bliskoistočni plan američkog predsjednika Donalda Trumpa ali se usprotivio odsječnom i jednostranom pristupu. Ali njegove rezerve – a još manje prigovor - nisu ni spomenute u koalicionom sporazumu. Teoretski, Netanjahu bi u parlamentu Knesetu mogao čak i bez koalicionog partnera provesti odgovarajuću politiku aneksije sa izvjesnim šansama za uspjeh, jer se zahvaljujući nacionalistima još uvijek može nadati većini glasova.

Pozdrav Vašingtonu: Izraelske pristalice Trumpa u starom jezgru Jerusalema

Ali, Trumpov mirovni plan predstavljen početkom godine je i u Knesetu sporan - mada iz drugih razloga nego kod Palestinaca. Plan daje suverenitet Izraelu nad preko 30 posto takozvane zone C, u kojoj živi oko 150.000 Palestinaca. Istovremeno bi Palestincima trebalo dozvoliti da grade svoju državu na preostalih 70 posto teritorije. Ono što je Palestincima premalo, izraelskoj desnici je previše. To se posebno odnosi na stranku bivšeg ministra ekonomije Naftalija Bennetta "Ha Jamin".

Glasanje u julu?

Aneksija teritorija na Zapadnoj obali nije isključena, kaže Johannes Becke, politolog sa Univerziteta za jevrejske studije u Heidelbergu. Za njega je dogovor kojim bi, prema koalicionom sporazumu, Netanjahu "od 1. jula stavio Knesetu na izglasavanje američko-izraelski sporazum o aneksiji na okupiranim teritorijama", odlučujuća i prelomna tačka za budućnost palestinskih teritorija. "S Jarivom Levinom, Knesset će uskoro dobiti novog glasnogovornika koji izričito pozdravlja takav projekat aneksije." Međutim, Netanjahu bi mogao imati dobre vanjskopolitičke razloge da se suzdrži od aneksije. Jer, u novembru Amerikanci biraju predsjednika. Ako se on bude zvao Joe Biden, Netanjahu bi morao očekivati ​​znatnu odbojnost i neraspoloženje prema planovima za aneksiju.

Johanan Plesner, direktor istraživačkog centra "Israel Democracy Institute" (IDI) u Jerusalemu, kaže kako je trenutno nejasno kako će se razvijati izraelska politika. Zamislivo je da se u pojedinim naseljima poduzmu simbolični koraci. Ali, sveobuhvatan plan aneksije Netanjahu trenutno nema.

Prostor za djelovanje

Ipak, Netanjahu ima i slobodan prostor za djelovanje, piše "Jerusalem Post" (JP). Jer, koalicija s Gancom omogućila mu je znatne manevarske mogućnosti. S Gancom na svojoj strani, Netanjahu bi mogao krenuti kursem desničara koji traže aneksiju palestinskih područja na Zapadnoj obali ili se ipak opredijeliti za kurs ljevice i razmišljati o palestinskoj državi.

Svejedno za koji scenario ili manevar se odluči, Netanjahu ima osam mjeseci da djeluje. "Strahovi da bi Trump u novembru mogao biti zamijenjen svojim rivalom Bidenom čine taj period presudnim za budućnost 52-godišnjeg sna izraelskih doseljenika", konstatovao je "Jerusalem Post".

"Fatalna faza"

Suprotno tome, palestinski list "Al Quds" koji izlazi u Istočnom Jerusalemu, smatra da je Netanjahuova politika već zacrtana i da će nova izrealska vlada  anektirati dijelove Zapadne obale. List pretpostavlja da će takav projekat pronaći potrebnu većinu u Knesetu: "Tu počinje nova, sudbonosna faza u kojoj više nema šansi za dogovor i mir."

Palestinski premijer Mohammed Shtajeh već je u ponedjeljak (20.4.2020.) govorio o novoj "aneksionoj vladi" u Izraelu. "Nova izraelska vlada zalaže se za okončanje rješenja koje podrazumijeva dvije države i dodatno će smanjiti prava palestinskog naroda", rekao je on.

Još uvijek se ne zna hoće li se to zaista i dogoditi. Jer, bez obzira koji kurs Netanjahu odabere, to će imati bitne posljedice kako na unutrašnjem tako i na vanjskopolitičkom planu. Starog i novog premijera moglo bi posebno zaokupiti jedno pitanje: Kako će Washington, nakon predsjedničkih izbora u SAD, reagovati na ono što po pitanju aneksije bude dogovoreno u Jerusalemu.

izvor: dw.com

[bigyack-com]

Israel is in crisis. This time, it has no one else to blame | Analysis - analysis

Democracy is crisis in Israel today. Benjamin Netanyahu, the country’s longest serving prime minster and the globally known face of Israel for more than a decade, has been indicted for corruption and the breach of trust. He was under investigation for corruption charges in three cases since 2016. Legally, he does not have to resign, and he feels that, morally, he is not bound to do so, as he is innocent.This sentiment is shared by the wider Likud party, which he leads. Another crisis has been brought on by the failure of the political parties to reach the majority mark (61 out of 120 total seats in the Knesset, Israeli parliament) after two consecutive national elections this year. The country has never had two elections in a single year till 2019, but now, even a third might be in the offing. It is going to be a serious test of the faith of Israel’s citizens in the ballot box. Last week, around 68% of the people said they are not optimistic about the future of Israeli democracy, as measured by the latest Israel Democracy Institute (IDI) Israeli Voice Index Survey.While greeting late Indian foreign minister Sushma Swaraj, during an official visit to Israel in January 2016, Netanyahu said, “The Middle East’s only democracy welcomes the Foreign Minister of the world’s greatest democracy.” Despite these grand words, many critical questions can be raised about the procedural nature of democracy in Israel today. From the start, Israel has been attempting to negotiate the contradictions between a theological state and the principles of democracy. It finally chose to be the nation-State of the Jewish people, first and foremost, as declared in the nationality bill passed in 2018. All non-Jews have lesser political rights/value in Israel now. The tipping point has come today due to unprecedented circumstances in Israeli politics. An indicted prime minister has got into a battle with the State itself on the grounds that the long process of prosecution was a conspiracy and coup by the police and the office of the attorney general, Avichai Mandleblit, who was Netanyahu’s cabinet secretary for three years until 2016. Also known as ‘King Bibi’ in Israel after Time magazine put him on its cover in 2012, the PM is one of Israel’s most successful politicians. In the last ten years in the top job, he achieved not only security (an extremely important priority for the Israelis) and stability, but also big diplomatic victories. He single-handedly ensured that the conflict with the Palestinians did not hurt Israel as much economically as had in the past; got the Iranian nuclear deal nullified; convinced the United States that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and that the Golan Heights, captured territories of Syria, belonged to Israel. For those who consider national interest in terms of the power and realpolitik, Netanyahu doesn’t disappoint. With these and many more perceived successes, he was able to secure the trust of the Israeli majority repeatedly. However, Netanyahu’s time in politics has led to some adverse fallouts like the centralisation of power, erosion of rule of law, deepening of social-cultural divisions, radicalisation of religion in the Israeli polity, fear-mongering against the minority of Israeli Arabs, and the complete breakdown of the peace process with the Palestinians. He is going to leave behind a controversial political legacy. His battle against the State will further strain democracy in Israel and also further divide society. Last week in Tel Aviv, he held a public meeting with his supporters to declare his intent of continuing the fight. He also mounted an attack on all those who find him guilty of fraud, bribery and breach of public trust. David Ben-Gurion, the country’s first PM, once cautioned Israel’s future leaders and the people by saying that the State of Israel will be no picnic. Israel today stands next to a cliff when it comes to the recovery of political legitimacy and the faith of its people in the democratic way of life. It cannot blame the Palestinians resistance, the violent Hamas or hostile regional actors for this crisis. Khinvraj Jangid teaches at Centre for Israel Studies, Jindal School of International Affairs, OP Jindal Global University, SonipatThe views expressed are personal Source link Read the full article

[chrissterry]

How Netanyahu's campaign against Israel's Arab citizens backfired | Euronews

How Netanyahu’s campaign against Israel’s Arab citizens backfired | Euronews

TEL AVIV, Israel — If Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’scampaign for re-election will be remembered for one thing, it will likely be the unabashed vilification of Israel’s Arab citizens, who represent a fifth of the country’s population.

He accused Arabs of stealing the inconclusive April vote. Five days before last week’s election, his official Facebook page said that Arabs “want to annihilate…

[78682homes]

« Les Palestiniens ne sont plus perçus comme une menace stratégique en Israël » 78682 homes

http://www.78682homes.com/les-palestiniens-ne-sont-plus-percus-comme-une-menace-strategique-en-israel

« Les Palestiniens ne sont plus perçus comme une menace stratégique en Israël »

À l’occasion des élections législatives israéliennes, ce mardi 9 avril, Tamar Hermann, directrice académique du Israel Democracy Institute (IDI), revient sur le sentiment de sécurité de la population, très élevé depuis dix ans.

homms2013

#Informationsanté

[izraelinfo]

Van oltásunk a demokrácát megtámadó "betegségek" ellen is? - Az Izraeli demokráciaindex 2020 évi adatai

Van oltásunk a demokrácát megtámadó “betegségek” ellen is? – Az Izraeli demokráciaindex 2020 évi adatai

Az Izrael Demokrácia Intézet (The Israel Democracy Institute -IDI) az államelnök, Reuven Rivlin jelenlétében idén is hivatalosan közzétette a 2020-as évre készített izraeli demokráciaindexet. A fontos felmérést az intézet kutatócsoportja immár 18. alkalommal végezte el, ezúttal is Tamar Hermann professzor vezetésével. Az éves kutatás fő célja az, hogy feltárják az izraeli társadalomban végbemenő…

[mytraceyblodget]

IDI launches innovative 'tag yourself' initiative

With the Israel Democracy Institute's "tag yourself" online survey, citizens can determine how they fare in comparison to their fellow citizens. IDI launches innovative 'tag yourself' initiative published first on https://medium.com/@Sex777

[israel-jewish-news]

Israelis Divided, Disgruntled Politically But Satisfied with Life

New Post has been published on http://hamodia.com/2017/12/12/israelis-divided-disgruntled-politically-satisfied-life/

Israelis Divided, Disgruntled Politically But Satisfied with Life

With the prime minister facing a slew of corruption allegations, the peace process at a standstill and the government battling media critics, it is no secret that Israel is a deeply polarized nation. But a new survey released on Tuesday shows just how divided the country has become.

The annual Israeli Democracy Index found that 45 percent, or just under half of Israelis, believe the country’s democratic system of government is in serious danger. But the survey found very different sentiment among different parts of the population.

Just 23 percent of Jewish right-wing and religious voters, the base of support for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s government, fear that Israel’s democracy is in danger. Yet among Jewish left-wing voters found in the opposition that number jumps to 72 percent, even higher than the 65 percent of Arab citizens of Israel who feel that way.

According to Tuesday’s survey, sponsored by the Israel Democracy Institute, nearly three-quarters of Jewish right-wing voters believe “the leftist judiciary, media and academia interfere with the elected right wing’s ability to rule.” On the other hand, 79 percent of secular Jews believe “the religious population is gradually taking control of the state.”

Yohanan Plesner, president of the IDI, a respected think tank, said the country is riven by “fundamental differences of opinion,” not only between Arabs and Jews and not only on questions of security.

“Within the Jewish Israeli public, deep and ongoing disagreements exist regarding the proper balance between Jewish and democratic values of the state,” he said.

The survey found widespread dissatisfaction with the country’s politicians. It reported that 68 percent of all respondents felt that Knesset members do not perform their duties properly, and 80 percent believe politicians are more concerned with their own interests than those of their constituents.

Yet, there was a startling inconsistency between perceptions of public figures versus the country as a whole, about which respondents were much more positive.

Tamar Hermann, an Israeli professor who led the research, acknowledged that while the dissatisfaction levels were similar to last year’s survey, this year there was a marked increase in people who believe the country’s overall situation is good, to 48 percent from 36.5 percent last year. Nearly three quarters of Israelis are satisfied with their personal situations.

Hermann, academic director of the institute’s Guttman Center for Public Opinion and Policy Research, said this contrast was striking.

“You see the politicians as if they live on another planet, whereas the public lives on this planet,” she said. “In a way, it is possible to live a quite good life on the public planet, whereas on the politicians’ planet the situation is quite dismal.”

The study interviewed 1,024 people and had a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points. The margin increased to 3.4 points for Jewish respondents and 7.9 points for the smaller Arab sample size. The research was conducted in May, but took months to analyze and publish. Hermann said, however, that public opinion on such issues is “pretty stable.”

[yutanews]

You have been added to our mailing list. Our next newsletter will be sent to your e-mail. As the Shaked Committee begins to vote on its proposal for the Haredi draft, IDI Vice President Prof. Yedidia Z. via Pocket

[newstfionline]

Israel’s right-wing revolutionaries

Christa Case Bryant, CS Monitor, February 14, 2017

JERUSALEM--As a leftist 20-something in the 1990s, Anat Roth railed against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for not making peace with the Palestinians. She recruited university students and organized demonstrations day after day outside his house, his office, anywhere--armed with slogans such as “the wild right is a danger for Israel.”

“It was very noisy and it was very effective,” recalls Ms. Roth, noting that Mr. Netanyahu lost to a pro-peace candidate in 1999. “We succeeded ... to get rid of Netanyahu--big time.”

Today, Netanyahu is back in power, and Roth is opposing him again--but for a completely different reason. She thinks he isn’t conservative enough.

Netanyahu has said in the past that he supports the establishment of a Palestinian state, a move that she now believes would be suicidal for Israel. She has come to that conclusion after years of Palestinian bombings, shootings, and stabbings that have killed more than 1,200 Israelis; after Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip that led to the rise of a terrorist regime that showered her fellow citizens with rockets; after her liberal friends failed to answer her increasingly persistent questions about how to protect the country.

Roth has also become more religious and moved from her small Jerusalem apartment to a spacious home in Efrat, an Israeli settlement in the West Bank. In the last election, she ran for parliament with a party to the right of Netanyahu. She has given up entirely on the two-state solution she once fought so hard to achieve.

“You have to fight for what you believe in,” says Roth. “But if you realize that it is not achievable, and that the theories and assumptions you believed in are not right, you need to have the guts, the strength, to confront it and look for other options and not be stuck in prior assumptions that don’t bring you anywhere.”

Roth’s transformation in many ways mirrors what has happened to Israeli society. Over the past two decades, Israel has undergone a fundamental shift that has brought to power the country’s most right-wing government in history.

And it may be about to get more conservative.

Netanyahu--whose hard-line stances taxed his relationship with former President Barack Obama and other Western leaders--is being pulled inexorably to the right by rising rivals, toughening public opinion on security issues, and by the increasingly religious tilt of the Israeli population.

For years, when Netanyahu wanted to check the power of interest groups to the right of him--most notably the settler movement--he could always invoke the United States: Washington, he’d say, won’t let us build more. But now that could change. President Trump has signaled a more hands-off stance toward Israel--including a pro-settlement pick for ambassador, David Friedman. Right-wing elements see a chance to move the country decisively against the formation of a Palestinian state and perhaps toward formal annexation of lands in the West Bank, which they refer to by the biblical names of Judea and Samaria.

All this could fundamentally change Israel’s standing with much of the West, at the United Nations, and with other countries in the volatile Middle East--a region already seemingly in a perpetual state of war and splintering increasingly along religious lines.

“I think Israel is at a unique junction,” says Naftali Bennett, one of the most prominent politicians pulling the Israeli government to the right. “For the first time in 50 years, we need to ask ourselves, what do we really want? There’s a unique opportunity for Israel to go through quantum change.”

While Roth has given up completely on a Palestinian state, many Israelis have shifted more conservative largely out of a loss of hope--though not a desire--for peace with the Palestinians. But there are other factors behind the hardening attitudes as well.

Israelis have long touted the dual nature of Israel as Jewish and democratic. In the past, when asked to choose which of those foundational principles should take precedence, they would refuse. But increasingly Israelis are revealing a preference--and it’s “for the Jewish element,” says Yohanan Plesner, president of the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI), an independent research center in Jerusalem that does extensive polling.

The growing presence of religious Jews, both in number and influence, is challenging the secular Zionist vision that has long dominated Israel’s elite institutions: its parliament, courts, military, and media. A religious nationalist vision, one that sees Israel establishing its sovereignty over Judea and Samaria as a prelude to the Messiah’s coming, is increasingly moving from the fringes of Israeli society into politics. It is spurring right-wing parties, which now make up about half of the political spectrum, to try to outdo each other ideologically, says Dahlia Scheindlin, a political scientist and pollster.

The most visible sign of this, and the one arguably of most concern to the international community and its hopes for ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is the rising clout of the settler movement. Ideological settlers have become a critical part of Netanyahu’s base in the Likud party, and key supporters of his chief rival, Mr. Bennett of the Jewish Home party--the party to which Roth now belongs.

Her move to Efrat, a ridge of red-roofed homes surrounded by Palestinian farmland, is part of a surge in the Israeli settler population in the West Bank, which has nearly quadrupled since the 1993 Oslo Accord. Since Mr. Trump’s inauguration, the government has approved another 5,500 homes in the settlements.

The settlers are now “probably the most effective interest group in the country,” says Mr. Plesner.

Bennett, a software entrepreneur who made millions before going into politics, is pushing a far-reaching--and controversial--solution in the West Bank: Extend Israeli sovereignty to the 61 percent of the area that is already under full Israeli control. Allow the more than 400,000 Israeli settlers there to stay in their homes, offer Israeli citizenship or residency to the area’s estimated 80,000 Palestinians, and let the rest of the West Bank Palestinians live in autonomous areas under a government of their choice. He’d couple that with a “massive Marshall Plan” to improve infrastructure and economic opportunity.

Bennett plans to introduce a bill in the coming weeks that would extend Israeli sovereignty over Maale Adumim, a settlement of 40,000 people just outside Jerusalem. Nearly 8 in 10 Israelis support such a move, but it would set a legal precedent for implementing the rest of Bennett’s plan--which is not as widely accepted. Only 44 percent of Israelis support annexing the West Bank, according to IDI. “I feel that if we don’t make our move now, and apply Israeli law based on my plan, we’ll miss this window,” he says.

If Bennett succeeds, that would effectively kill the prospects for the two-state solution, ending the international community’s decades-long drive to establish a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

“There would be no need to talk about a two-state solution in a scenario of annexation of occup[ied] territory,” says chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat in a statement to the Monitor. “[It] seems that the ‘two-state solution’ that Israel is talking about is the State of Israel and the state of the settlers that this extremist government has been vigorously building. Their vision is one of ‘one state and two systems,’--apartheid, rather than two states. Without international intervention, it will be very difficult to save the prospects of a sovereign and independent State of Palestine.”

Bennett admits that his vision for a Greater Israel is not appealing to the world, but says people respect a “coherent vision.” If there’s one thing he says he’s learned from doing business in America, it is to be honest.

If there’s a problem with your product, “Call the guy, tell him the truth, tell him what you know, tell him what you’re doing about it, bite the bullet,” he says. “They’re not going to be happy ... but they’ll respect you.”

“What I think is unacceptable is when we say, ���Hey, we want a Palestinian state but but but--this and that,’ “ says Bennett.

Many analysts are skeptical that Bennett will succeed in implementing his vision, given Netanyahu’s considerable legislative power as prime minister, as well as the prospect of international opprobrium. But in a tumultuous era of populism that brought “Brexit” and now a Trump White House, it’s not inconceivable.

Even during her years as a peace activist, Roth found it painful to accept that Israel should give up the West Bank, which it conquered in the Arab-Israel conflict of 1967, to create a Palestinian state.

“The basic thing is that you don’t want to get rid of it because it’s ... one of the limbs of your body,” she says. “When do you amputate a limb? Just when you’re forced to.”

When Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005, with no negotiations or concessions from the Palestinians, the militant Hamas movement took credit for pushing Israel out--and won elections the following year. Gaza militants showered Israel with rockets, despite periodic poundings by Israeli planes that killed thousands of Palestinians. The 2014 war, in which Hamas even targeted Tel Aviv, sending parents and children scurrying to bomb shelters, shattered the idealistic notions that many leftists had harbored.

“Gaza is like a laboratory of what will happen in Judea and Samaria,” says Roth, who formally left the Labor Party after those attacks. “The security threat of having a Palestinian state next to us is more dangerous than the demographics.”

To be sure, there are security risks involved in denying Palestinians a state as well. “No one can control the new generation” of Palestinians, says Issa Samander, a former Palestinian activist in the West Bank, who sees the seeds of a new Palestinian uprising germinating. “[Israelis] don’t know the new generation.... They will be surprised.”

But for religious settlers, it goes beyond safety to a sense of mission. This is why Roi Harel still lives in his home on a windswept hill surrounded by Arab villages, with the skyscrapers of Tel Aviv visible in the distance.

One morning last March, while his five kids and wife were still sleeping, Mr. Harel opened his door on his way out to serve in the army reserves. Suddenly, in the predawn darkness, two Palestinian teenagers assaulted him with baseball bats and knives. They pushed him back into his home, down a corridor. Unarmed and wounded, he was all that stood between the assailants and his family. He shouted to his wife to call security. Then, somehow, he managed to push the intruders outdoors. Soon thereafter, security forces found the Palestinians and killed them.

Palestinians, many of whom feel justified in defending their homeland by force, pointed out that six times as many Palestinians as Israelis had been killed in the most recent wave of violence.

Netanyahu, for his part, called Harel to congratulate him on his bravery, while local schoolchildren made a sign for the family’s front door that celebrated “the hero.”

For some Israelis, formally extending the country’s sovereignty to the West Bank is fundamentally opposed to its nature as a Jewish and democratic state. For either Israel would have to absorb so many Palestinians that Arabs would become the majority in the near future, or it would have to relegate Palestinians to a different civil or legal status.

Palestinians, for their part, already see Israel’s claim to being a democracy as a sham. Not far from the West Bank settlement of Eli, a small outpost called Amona has become a firestorm of controversy, a symbolic battle against the entire settlement enterprise and its legal underpinnings. Palestinians claiming ownership of the land celebrated when Israel’s High Court of Justice ordered the outpost evacuated. The government complied earlier this month. But its offers of compensation and resettlement, as well as a new law to legalize homes built on private Palestinian land, are seen as running counter to the court decision.

“I feel the democracy in Israel is just for their people,” says Mayor Abdulrahman Saleh in the neighboring Palestinian town of Silwad, who has been involved in the legal battle. “But for Palestinians, either in [historical Palestine] or here--it is like Bashar al-Assad,” he adds referring to the Syrian strongman. “It is dictatorial.”

Hilik Bar, the deputy speaker of Israel’s Knesset (parliament) and a friend of Roth’s since her Labor Party days, is among the shrinking minority of Israelis who haven’t given up on a Palestinian state.

As head of the lobby for the two-state solution since 2013, Mr. Bar has pitched his plan to the Knesset and the Israeli president. He’s gone to Ramallah to talk to Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority president. He’s even consulted with leaders from the broader Arab and Muslim world, whose support he sees as crucial for such a deal.

He insists that a two-state solution can be achieved without endangering Israel’s security.

“Look, Israel is surrounded by many, many enemy states with ordinary armies, with long-range missiles, with tanks, with combat jets--and we are living. We won five [or] six wars in seven decades against almighty armies of Arab states, because we have a very strong army and the most courageous soldiers that you will meet,” Bar says. “And this is why it seems to me very defeatist to assume that ... we should be afraid to do a peace agreement because of a small, demilitarized ... state that will be in some of the areas in Judea and Samaria.”

It’s not that he’s sanguine about the Palestinian leadership. In fact, he says he has “no confidence” that Mr. Abbas can broker a deal. “He’s not strong, he’s not always reliable, he’s often closing his eyes against incitement,” says Bar. But, he adds, “We will never find a Palestinian president who will be a great Zionist and have ... an Israeli flag in his office.”