Since J Street released a second poll of American Jews' views on Israel, the Middle East, and the US role in resolving conflicts in the region, some of the usual suspects have tried to reject the results out of hand.
Like a similar poll we commissioned last July, the findings show that an overwhelming majority of American Jews support the United States government taking the reins when it comes to peace making between Israel and its neighbors, even if that means pushing both sides to do it. (A PowerPoint presentation of the findings, the full poll results, and our pollster's analysis can be accessed on our website here.)
The results certainly present a problem for J Street's opponents who have claimed to speak for the majority of American Jews. The poll does paint a pretty bleak picture regarding the lack of depth of American Jewish support for right wing positions. Learning those views are actually in the minority has got to be a hard pill to swallow.
I suppose, then, it is understandable that some of our more virulent and frequent critics would use this opportunity to mount attacks on J Street and the poll we sponsored.
First out of the gate was conservative columnist Shmuel Rosner who posted on the Jerusalem Post's website that our poll was a "joke," "tailored to J Street's needs," and "problematic."
Tough charges. But after reading Rosner's post, I had to question whether he'd actually read through the entire poll.
In one case, Rosner argued that the respondents to Poll Questions 33 and 35 who "somewhat support" either the "US publicly stating its disagreements with both the Israelis and Arabs (Q. 33) " or "the US pressuring the Israelis or Arabs" (Q. 35) may have chosen this answer because they support, in his words, "pressure on Arabs but not pressure on Israelis."
Actually, we tested whether or not Rosner's claim was correct in the very next question. Focusing in on support for publicly disagreeing with or pressuring Israel, we asked if respondents would support if the "US publicly stated its disagreements with Israel" (Q. 34) or the "US exerting pressure on the Israel." (Q. 36) We found that, understandably, there was a drop off in support amongst American Jews who support "active American involvement" for public disagreement just with Israel (76% → 58%)) and support for pressure just on Israel (72% → 57%).
We didn't highlight Questions 35 and 36 in our press release because we didn't want to give the impression that J Street supports the US singling out Israel for pressure. If you're asking, we don't.
After a few more paragraphs attacking the formulation of the questions for stylistic reasons, Rosner uses our own poll - which he had just tried to discredit - to accuse us of hiding our position on the recent Gaza conflict.
We've never done such a thing. All our statements on Gaza are freely available on our website. Actually, we asked this question in the poll in order to contribute to our own understanding and the overall conversation on the efficacy of Israel's military operation in the Gaza Strip, which has been J Street's central point about the use of military force in the region more generally.
We have never and will never question Israel's right to self-defense. We also recognize that military force must be a part of the toolkit that Israel and the United States use to defend against terrorism. But we think it is important to ask whether specific military operations actually make Israel and the United States more secure in the long run. We believe that when it came to the Gaza operation, it did not.
Interestingly, when asked if the Gaza operation made Israel more secure, American Jews echoed the concern posed by J Street during the operation. 59% of those polled believe that the Gaza Operation had did not make Israel more secure.
Rosner concludes with the warning that, "[J Street] should have been extra careful if they want me to believe their numbers. But they're not."
After reading Rosner's criticism and remembering what he's already said about J Street and the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement, I'm not sure that we should care about getting Shmuel Rosner's endorsement.
When you take a step back, the reason he attacked our poll comes into focus. He's just not that into J Street. I think we can live with that.
The myth that Israel speaks for 'all Jews' is essential for the Right Wing's racist agenda. J-Street throws a monkey wrench into that propaganda farce like no other.
Being a Jew should not precede poll participation~~ this is a foreign policy issue which should be dealt with as such.
The security of our country is at stake and emotional feelings on Israel typically belonging to Jews should not be driving the specifics of policy making. Open up this issue and stop asking only Jews. Do we do this with any other topic singling out only the reactions of just one segment of the population? The answer is NO. C'mon J Street all voices should be counted not just some.
I would speculate that as the older generations die off (with their ghettoized view of non Jews and theWorld) that the results will swing even more towards the opposite position of the right wingers.
This is happening across the planet. Arabs are finding their younger generations rejecting more and more the crazy views of their elders, Jews are experiencing such, Anglos, asians, etc etc etc
It is welcome news. Speed the day of the oldsters passing and taking their outdated myopic views with them. the younger generations are and will find the middle ground for compromise and peace
Your views will be different when you grow up.
Opinion #2 - Let's do the same thing except have the American politicians arrange to borrow the money from Saudi Arabia.
Opinion #3 - Let's call any American who opposes this anti-semitic.
opinion #2 = you do not like to educate yourself on the multiple complexities of any issue
opinion #3 = You have no clue what you are talking about
The largest contributors to a one sides Israel/ palestinian issue are in fact USA xtianistas ala pat rabertson's brigade, james dobson's holy rollers, etc.
Tune into xtianista hate radio any day they are discussing the region and you will hear them going on and on ...."Halalujah, the more violence there just means jeeeebusssssss is coming back sooner! amen halelujah"
Israel has a nuclear base, the most modern weapons in the region, and is trespassing on four countries: Jordan, Egypt, Syria, And Palestine off course..
Israel is trying to take the holy land of the Palestinians "AlQuds" Jerusalem. trying to empty the now Arab parts.. And take over.. So I don't think that Israel should defend it self. I think that they should leave the land that the have stolen to the rightful owners...
yes, there are OLDER right wing religious nuts (just like all groups have) who due to their age have a ghettoized view of outsiders/ the world.
There are also anglo saxon (goy) xtianista zionists who make up the loudest , most politically powerful, and the largest contributors for certain results. This group in particular are not true friends of Jews, Israel, hell they aren't friends of the world. They wax poetic as violence in the region increases and go on and on about their jesus myth coming back. They become almost orgasmic the greater the violence in the area. They contribute huge sums of money to US politicians and Israeli right wingers to bring about their armagedon fantasies. Any talk of real peace in the area is met by these US xtianistas with loud screaching and huge sums of cash flowing in the other direction.
I have always been intrigued by the CONSTANT connection of the phrase "Israel's right to defend itself," and the word "terrorists."
Two questions come to mind:
1. Does Israel defend itself ONLY against "terrorists?"
2. In "defending" itself, would it be more efficacious for Israel to attack the symptoms of "terrorism," or the cause of "terrorism," .....for everybody involved?