• HOME
  • REVISTA GEOPOLITICA
    • BOARD
      • DIPLOMATS
      • NATIONAL BOARD
      • INTERNATIONAL
    • 2022
      • nr. 92-93/2022
    • 2021
      • nr. 91/2021
      • nr. 89-90/2021
      • nr. 87-88/2021
      • nr. 86/2021
    • 2020
      • nr. 85/2020
      • nr. 84/2020
      • nr. 83/2020
      • nr. 82/2020
    • 2019
      • nr. 81/2019
      • nr. 80/2019
      • nr. 78-79/2019
      • nr. 77/2019
    • 2018
      • nr. 76/2018
      • nr. 75/2018
      • nr. 74/2018
      • nr. 73/2018
    • 2017
      • nr. 72/2017
      • nr. 71/2017
      • nr. 70/2017
      • nr. 68-69/2017
    • 2016
      • nr. 67/2016
      • nr. 66/2016
      • nr. 64-65/2016
      • nr. 63/2016
    • 2015
      • nr. 62/2015
      • nr. 61/2015
      • nr. 60/2015
      • nr.59/2015 EN
      • nr.59/2015 RO
    • 2014
      • nr. 58/2014
      • nr. 57/2014
      • nr. 56/2014
      • nr. 54-55/2014
    • 2013
      • nr. 53/2013
      • nr. 52/2013
      • nr. 51/2013
      • nr. 49-50/2013
    • 2012
      • nr. 48/2012
      • nr. 47/2012
      • nr. 46/2012
      • nr. 44-45/2012
    • 2011
      • nr. 43/2011
      • nr. 41-42/2011
      • NR. 40/2011
      • nr. 39/2011
    • 2010
      • nr. 38/2010
      • nr. 36-37/2010
      • nr. 35/2010
      • nr. 33-34/2010
    • 2009
      • nr. 32/2009
      • nr. 31/2009
      • nr. 30/2009
      • nr. 29/2009
    • 2008
      • nr. 26/2008
      • nr. 25/2008
      • nr. 28/2008
      • nr. 27/2008
    • 2007
      • nr. 24/2007
      • nr. 23/2007
      • nr. 22/2007
      • nr. 21/2007
    • 2006
      • nr. 20/2006
      • nr. 19/2006
      • nr. 18/2006
      • nr. 16-17/2006
    • 2005
      • nr. 14-15/2005
      • nr. 13/2005
      • nr. 12/2005
      • nr. 11/2005
    • 2004
      • nr. 09-10/2004
      • nr. 07-08/2004
      • nr. 06/2004
      • nr. 04-05/2004
    • 2003
      • nr. 02-03/2003
      • nr. 01/2003
  • EDITORIAL
  • APARIȚII EDITORIALE
  • G-FOCUS

GeoPolitica

Portal de analize geopolitice, strategice si economice

  • ASOCIATIA “ION CONEA”
    • SCOP
    • DONATIONS. SPONSORSHIPS. ADVERTISING
  • Carti TOP FORM
  • G-FOCUS
  • Comanda GEOPOLITICA!
  • ABONAMENTE
  • G-FOCUS
  • CONTACT
  • GDPR
  • 07/07/2022
You are here: Home / GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS / MIDDLE EAST & NORTH AFRICA / Poll: Israelis Find the Security Establishment “Too Timid”

Poll: Israelis Find the Security Establishment “Too Timid”

by https://www.geopolitic.ro/author/

by Daniel Pipes
Jerusalem Post
July 23, 2019

http://www.danielpipes.org/18963/poll-israelis-find-the-security-establishment-too

Share: Facebook Twitter
  Be the first of your friends to like this.

The poll topline is available here.

Despite it all, Ehud Olmert (L) still has faith in Mahmoud Abbas.

Twenty years ago, the idea of Israel defeating the Palestinians appealed to maybe 3 percent of Jewish Israelis. The dominant Oslo spirit asserted that, given enough concessions, money, and hope, Palestinians would abandon their enmity toward Israel and become its peaceable neighbors. So pervasive was the spirit of accommodation, even defeatism, that as late as 2007, the prime minister of Israel could declare that “Peace is achieved through concessions. We all know that.”But relentless Palestinian vitriol and violence eventually disabused most Jewish Israelis of this gentle hope. By now, according to a poll commissioned by the Middle East Forum, barely a quarter of them still hold on to the Oslo dream. (The poll with 703 likely Jewish voters and a 3.7 percent margin of error, was conducted in Hebrew by New Wave Research on July 7-11. It follows on similar MEF-commissioned polls in 2017 and 2018.)

The poll finds that a plurality of Jewish Israelis now support that once-marginal idea about Palestinians needing to experience the bitter crucible of defeat – what I call Israel Victory. This approach draws on common sense (conflicts go on so long as both sides expect to win) and the historical record (wars usually end when one side gives up) to argue that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict can only be resolved by Palestinians accepting the Jewish state of Israel.

How do Jewish Israelis currently see this issue? Let us begin with what the survey finds by way of consensus.

  • 70 percent agree that “It’s time to stop managing the conflict and begin winning it.”
  • 76 percent agree that “Negotiations with the Palestinians should take place only after they consistently show they accept Israel.”
  • 79 percent agree that “Israel’s security establishment is too timid vis-à-vis the Palestinians.”
  • 82 percent say the Israeli government is “too soft” in its policies towards Hamas.
  • 82 percent agree that “Palestinian rejection of Israel is the source of the conflict”
  • 91 percent agree that “Palestinians will benefit when they stop making war on Israel.”

To sum up, the survey finds that 84 percent of Jewish Israelis say it’s somewhat or very important “to achieve victory in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” (Of that number, 58 percent deem it very important, 26 percent somewhat important.) Also, by a 2-to-1 ratio, they like the sound of Israel Victory (Hebrew: nitzachon Yisrael), finding the term either sensible or inspiring.

These numbers suggest a sense of exasperation not just with the Palestinians but also with Israel’s government and even its semi-sacrosanct security establishment (82 percent say “too soft” and 79 percent say “too timid,” respectively). The people want a change.

The people are right about this, and not just because they suffer from unabated Palestinian violence. Looking at the larger picture, West Bank and Gaza Palestinians hang like an albatross from Israel’s neck. They alone, not Iran, Turkey, Syria, or Israel’s Arabs, spur the global phenomenon of anti-Zionism, with the attendant antisemitism, United Nations resolutions, and economic boycotts. Israel urgently must address its alleged iniquities against Palestinians who live in the West Bank and Gaza.

The Gaza albatross around Israel’s neck.

More of the old, failed policies virtually guarantees disaster should there be a President Sanders or Prime Minister Corbyn. Only “Israel Victory” tackles this problem by addressing the roots of Palestinian hostility.

But exasperation, it turns out, does not automatically translate into detailed policy preferences. When asked, “How do you define an Israeli victory in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?” a mere 32 percent say, “Palestinians [must] give up their goal of eliminating the State of Israel.” An equal number call for a peace agreement with the Palestinians to end the conflict – a reversion to the discredited Oslo formula.

Likewise, just 41 percent opt for “Palestinians giving up their dream of eliminating Israel” as their preference for ending the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. And only 49 percent consider their government “too soft” vis-à-vis the Palestinian Authority.

These figures point to a sense among Jewish Israelis that Palestinian aggression must be more actively confronted, without agreeing about the nature of the change. In other words, this topic calls for education and discussion, out of which will emerge policy recommendations.

Accordingly, the Middle East Forum is launching a victory campaign in Israel over the next eight weeks, consisting of commissioned research, events, debates, conferences, billboards, and rallies. By election time, we hope the path to Israel Victory will be clearer.

An Israel Victory billboard in Tel Aviv, featuring Ismail Haniya in a swimming suit, thanking Israel.

The writer is president of the Middle East Forum. © 2019 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.

Related Topics:  Arab-Israel conflict & diplomacy, Public opinion polls

The above text may be reposted, forwarded, or translated so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information about its author, date, place of publication, as well as the original URL.

Related

Filed Under: MIDDLE EAST & NORTH AFRICA

About

ARTICOL INTEGRAL
Pe geopolitic.ro sunt publicate abstracte ale articolelor publicate în Revista GEOPOLITICA, care poate fi comandată pe www.geopoliticamagazine.com, în format tipărit sau electronic.

AUTHORS

ES dl Mircea Geoana - Secretar General Adjunct NATO

GEOPOLITICA MARILOR PUTERI ÎN ASIA-PACIFIC

Controversat 11.03.2022 (p II)

Controversat 11,03.2022 (p I)

Contextul geopolitic - Olectie de viata (p II)

Contextul geopolitic - O lectie de viata (p I)

Interviu cu `Sasha` (Slaviansk -2019), militar in trupele speciale ucrainene

Legile puterii cu Alexandra Pacuraru martie 2022, partea a II-a

Interviu cu Oleksandra Tsekhanovska, analis razboi hibrid

Legile puterii cu Alexandra Pacuraru martie 2022, partea I

Pe linia de contact ucraineano-rusa, 2019

Subiectiv de Marti, 1 Martie 2022

INTERVENTIE NEWS MAGAZIN ANTENA 3, 27.02.2022/13.00

Russia's Gamble in Ukraine

RAZBOI SI PACE IN EUROPA DE EST

Revista GeoPolitica

Antena 3 - Situatia din Ucraina

Extras din conferința Institutului Schiller "Crearea unei noi arhitecturi de securitate"

NOUTATI EDITORIALE

Ucraina în ghearele ursului Putin // Intelligence4ALL - 14.02.2022

Analiza de intelligence și Strategic Foresight - 21.01.2022

Analiza de intelligence și Strategic Foresight - 20.01.2022

KEYWORD

Asia Centrală (26) Azerbaijan (27) Black Sea (44) carte (37) China (71) conflict (36) cooperare (29) criza (30) energie (28) energy (27) EU (46) Europa (35) European Union (41) geopolitica (157) geopolitics (54) globalizare (55) identitate (26) integrare (28) internationala (32) Irak (47) Iran (62) Islam (41) lansare (44) marea neagra (94) NATO (96) Orientul Mijlociu (29) putere (26) religie (26) Romania (184) Rusia (123) Russia (79) securitate (85) security (48) strategy (26) SUA (77) terorism (56) terrorism (34) Turcia (67) Turkey (38) Ucraina (58) UE (99) Ukraine (51) Uniunea Europeană (55) USA (30) şcoală (33)

Afganistan Tragedia unui popor 06.10.2021

Social Media

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • Google+

Emisiunea "Obiectiv Strategic" - invitati Vasile Simileanu si Olivia Comsa

GeoPolitica Copyright © 2015 - Log in