New York — New polling data suggests that recent U.S.-Israeli policy disputes over settlements and Palestinian statehood have hurt the Netanyahu government’s standing in the United States and the Obama administration’s popularity in Israel.
A Jerusalem Post-sponsored Smith Research poll found that only 6 percent of Jewish Israelis believe that the Obama administration is pro-Israel – a drop from 31 percent in mid-May. It also found that 50 percent of Israeli Jews consider the Obama administration’s policies to be more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israeli, with 36 percent describing them as neutral.
The poll, based on interviews last week with 500 Israeli Jewish adults, has a margin of error of 4.5 percent.
Also earlier this month, a poll commissioned by The Israel Project, a Washington-based advocacy group, found a significant drop in American voters’ support for Israel.
According to the survey of 800 registered voters, which was conducted June 9-11 by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, those who believe Israel is committed to peace has dropped to 46 percent this month from 66 percent last December. The poll found that some 49 percent of American voters call themselves supporters of Israel, down from 69 percent last September, and only about 44 percent of voters believe the United States should support Israel – down from 71 percent a year ago.
The poll results come as advocates and observers debate whether the key to advancing the peace process is for the United States to align itself closely with Israel or be seen as an honest broker willing to pressure all sides, including Jerusalem.
In recent weeks, President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared to have taken steps to dispel the view that they are locked in a bitter showdown over West Bank settlements and a Palestinian state.
During an interview Sunday on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” Netanyahu sought to portray Obama as a reliable ally in the fight to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The interview came just a week after Netanyahu’s much-hyped policy address in which he declared his support for the creation of a demilitarized Palestinian state after months of upsetting U.S. officials by refusing to do so.
While the two sides remain divided over the Obama administration’s insistence on a full settlement freeze, the White House avoided the issue in comments about the speech, opting instead to praise Netanyahu for embracing the two-state formula.
Laura Kam, a senior adviser at The Israel Project, noted that her organization’s recent poll was conducted before the Netanyahu policy address, so it does not reflect any boost Israel may have experienced from its leader’s endorsement of a Palestinian state.
In general, she said, the Obama administration has taken the lead in laying out a clear agenda, whereas Netanyahu’s vision is still not clear to most Americans.
“Even when the prime minister set out his policy agenda, it was in Hebrew,” Kram said. “He has given a few interviews since, but he has yet to communicate with the American people broadly. I think there is a time lag here.”
Kam said that over the years her organization has seen shifts in U.S. attitudes and therefore believes that Israel’s standing eventually will rise again – once Netanyahu does more to communicate his vision to the American public.
“I think that it is extremely important for the prime minister to communicate often with the American people,” she said. “And I think when Netanyahu does, Americans will see that indeed Israel is the country that they have always known, the country that wants peace and is working toward peace.”
Americans for Peace Now spokesman Ori Nir said Netanyahu “may be able to convince Americans he is peace-seeking.” But Nir speculated that the threshold is higher than before since Netanyahu already has been seen as being at odds with Obama on Mideast-related issues, which the president has cast as a critical national security interest.
In an interview with The Jerusalem Post, unnamed Netanyahu advisers suggested that the positive reaction to the prime minister’s speech helped explain the Israeli public’s increasingly negative view of Obama. One adviser said Netanyahu was benefiting from media attempts to overplay the tensions between Jerusalem and Washington.
The Post cited another adviser as saying that Israelis were rejecting perceived attempts by Obama to blame Israel for the conflict or take an even-handed approach.
Israeli commentator Shmuel Rosner, whose blog, Rosner’s Domain, is housed at the Post’s Web site, said that Israeli public opinion is important, but he stressed that government decision-making is what really matters.
Aaron David Miller, a former U.S. diplomat involved in Israeli-Palestinian talks, has noted that U.S.-mediated breakthroughs in the Israeli-Arab conflict came after U.S.-Israeli tensions during the Nixon, Carter and first Bush administrations.
Rosner cited the second Bush administration to make the opposite point.
“The Israeli establishment will be much more forthcoming toward a friendly administration,” Rosner told JTA in an e-mail.
He noted that the Sharon government, which enjoyed a strong relationship with President George W. Bush, is the only Israeli government to have evacuated settlements in Gaza and the West Bank.
The key for Obama, Rosner said, is to stick to pressuring Netanyahu into accepting positions already embraced by large swaths of the Israeli public. Along these lines, he said, Obama was “smart” to make settlements the major issue of contention.
But he said that anything seen as weakening Israel’s security, such as demanding the removal of checkpoints, will be “more problematic, especially so in the case that such removal leads to terror attacks.”
The Jerusalem Post-sponsored poll did find that while Obama may not be popular among Israelis, the gap between Obama and Israelis on actual policy is not nearly as wide. For instance, 70 percent of Israelis support a demilitarized Palestinian state, and majorities support removing illegal outposts and freezing construction in “isolated, far-flung settlements.” So does Obama.
Sixty-nine percent, on the other hand, oppose freezing construction in “large settlement blocs like Gush Etzion, Ma’aleh Adumim and Ariel.”
For their part, Americans appear satisfied with Obama’s moves in the Middle East.
A Pew Research Center poll of 1,502 American adults taken June 10-14 found that 62 percent feel Obama “strikes the right balance” in dealing with the Israelis and Palestinians, compared to 17 percent who say the president favors the Palestinians too much and 6 percent who believe he favors Israel too much.
“Bottom line: American pressure will help Netanyahu move slowly toward more accommodating positions (hence, the two-state solution speech),” Rosner said. “But if this pressure becomes more brutal, the coalition will not back him up.”
(JTA staff writer Eric Fingerhut contributed to this report from Washington.)
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
As First Maharats Graduate, Orthodox Women Leap Forward
Why a Rabbi Should Not Marry Outside the Faith
Why I Only Date Jewish Guys
Taking Aim at Corporate Jewish Burial Business
Barbra Streisand Visits Western Wall After Landing in Israel With Puppy
You've successfully signed up!
If 69% of Israelis oppose *freezing* the major settlements, that's a problem.
The settlements are illegal.
No Palestinian leader could accept them. No Palestinian state could be viable cris-crossed with settlements and Israeli-only roads.
Netanyahu is saying that he will continue to violate international law, and he wants the U.S. to accept that.
In return, he's willing to bomb Iran's nuclear plants for us.
With friends like that, who needs enemies?
Regarding the Israeli/palestine situation, a two state solution is out of the question. Especially since Netanyahu insists the Palestinian state needs to be an unmilitarized one. The territories are lready too fragmented to allow for a contiguous state, and devoid of any military to discourage it, the settlement expansion could go on forever. However, administrations as far back as that of Lyndon Johnson,have lied to the palestinians, the Americans, and the rest of the world. That by continuing to help finance them, we set as a stated policy that incursion of housing was objected to. So it begs the Question - when does the military and financial aid end? I hope it is soon, because that's the only way Israelis will confront the error of their ways, and engage in some honest diplomacy.
Frank,
You have no right to decide who is an anti-Semite.
Why isn't the Forward enforcing its policy against "name-calling and personal invective"?
Who would have ever thought that an administration that is infused with anti-Israel pundits would come to logger heads with the Jewish state? Who would have thunk it?!?
I agree with you, settlements are illegal; therefore all so-called Palestinians should be evicted from their dwellings and relocated to Jordan. According to Security Council Resolution 242, Israel is permitted to administer the land until 'a just and lasting peace' is achieved. Israel, according to this resolution will be required to withdraw 'from territories', not from 'the territories'. Individuals who were responsible for drafting this resolution state openly that such language was deliberate. Stephen Schwebel, a judge on the international court of justice explicitly noted that in the case of Israel, the territories were acquired in a war of self defense and must be distinguished from territories acquired through aggressive conquest. So who calls them illegal today except the most nefarious dregs, hell-bent on securing Israel's defeat against a pathological sadistic genocidal regime? The U.N.? The Arab League? Left wing fascists? Big whoop!
The mantra of 'illegal settlements' is totally bogus and should be exposed for the shenanigans that it is. The PLO, a murderous band of terrorist thugs, was formed in 1964, before the supposed 'obstacles of peace' came about. So I guest you're right, it makes perfect sense, the Arabs went to war prior to 1967, in order to get back 'their land' that they lost in 1967 and to eliminate the 'illegal settlements' that were not even there yet. This is pure genius.
As far as anti-semitism is concerned; anyone who sides with the enemies of Jews, whether Jew or gentile, is an active opponent to our right for self-determination and should be labeled as such. If you don't want such a moniker, then I suggest you switch teams.
I am not anti-semitic, but actually, anti-semantic. You and yours are very talented linguistic gymnasts when it comes to transforming words to suit your agendas.
The settlements are illegal. Theodor Meron, legal counsel to the Israeli Foreign Ministry in 1967, wrote a "Top Secret" memo in which he said that settling the territories would unequivocally violate international law. No one challenged that view.
The historian Gershom Gorenberg discovered the memo in the government archives, while doing research for a book. Meron is now a professor of international law at New York University, and he has repeatedly said that he still believes the settlements are illegal.
This has been widely reported. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/10/opinion/10gorenberg.html Gorenberg posted the memo on his web site.
These arguments about a "war of self-defense" are bogus and irrelevant. The Soviet Union captured the Soviet bloc countries in a war of self-defense against Germany. By your logic, the Soviet Union had a right to those countries.
The Israelis themselves know that the settlements have always been illegal. They openly admit it in government memos.
The US has NEVER been our "friend." AT best, it has been a strategic ally and alliances shift. The relationship only began in earnest after 73, though it began in 61. Prior to 61 the US was as dear to Israel as the UK was, i.e. "not much at all."
The US Objective was to build a defence against Soviet hegemony in the region, while Israel's does not need explaining. However, Israel has never "needed" the US.
All the hand wringing is being done by the Jewish Community in America. They are the ones most unprepared for this rapid shift in outlook. In Israel most of us are not suprised, and indeed most in my world have expected this since the early 90s, though after Bush the expectation was that it would not take place for some time.
The US has been fooling itself if it imagines for a second that Israel will eer sacrifice its Primary Objectives for US largesse. When Obama took it upon himself to publicly negate 2 previous US Commitments on Natural Expansion (Clinton and Bush Jr.), it should have expected the cold shoulder.
Israel has been taking it on the chin far too long: The SCUDs in Gulf War I? The X-Band Installation at Palmachim? Sophisticated Technological and Arms Assistance to Lebanon? Now Uncle Sam crosses his arms, says it does not care about Agreements, it better have its way "or else?" Good Riddance!
Obviously right wing Israelis and their AIPAC cronies in the US have successfully and unfairly portrayed Obama as less than a friend of Israel. Don't worry, when it comes down to it, Obama will not be able to do what should have done long time ago, wean Israel from American taxpayer dollars as well as promote a more even-handed foreign policy.It will happen one day but for now.....