Some J Street poll reaction

What do all those numbers in yesterday’s J Street poll of American Jews mean? Jim Besser of The Jewish Week says they show that the American Jewish community has complex views about Israel and the Middle East:

The survey portrayed a community that is pro-peace and that supports a stronger U.S. peace role, but is also not too inclined to challenge Israeli policies on issues like its military response to rocket attacks from Gaza.  Jews supported the recent Israeli military actions in Gaza – but don’t believe they made Israel more secure.  The survey also revealed uncertainty about the best way to deal with the threat of a nuclear Iran.

He also points out that J Street may have stacked the deck a little when it asked about feelings on Avigdor Lieberman:

Lieberman scored near the middle on a “warmness” scale – below Obama, the Democrats and Middle East envoy George Mitchell but ahead of the Republicans, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh.

One question cited Lieberman’s views on the “execution of Arab members of Israel’s parliament who met with Hamas” and his campaign message calling for “Arab citizens of Israel to sign a loyalty oath to the Jewish state,” and asked if respondents support those positions; 69 percent said no, 31 percent yes.  42 percent said they “strongly oppose” those positions.

But as the Jerusalem Post’s Hilary Krieger pointed out in a teleconference with pollster Jim Gerstein, J Street excluded Lieberman positions that might generate a more favorable rating, including his views on secular marriage.

Still, 32 percent said his appointment as foreign minister would weaken “my personal connection to Israel because Lieberman’s positions go against my core values.”  Gerstein said that number went up to 40 percent for respondents under 30 years old; that “should be particularly disturbing to those who are concerned about the connection of young Jews to Israel,” he said.

Liberal blogger Richard Silverstein said he was heartened by some results and disappointed by others. First, what he liked:

Perhaps the most important trend noted is that American Jews support a muscular U.S. policy that actively encourages the warring parties to resolve their differences through negotiation.  Not only that, Jews are willing to see Pres. Obama crack heads, if necessary, to achieve those ends.  86% are in favor of an active U.S. role if that means publicly stating disagreements with the parties.  66% favor an active role if it means publicly disagreeing with ISRAEL.  64% support an active role if it means exerting pressure on Israel.  77% support naming the party responsible for blocking an agreement.  Almost half would support reducing Israeli military aid if it is such a party.  Those are surprisingly robust numbers considering the questions allowed for quite strong criticism and pressure on Israel if it was the recalcitrant party.

And an example of what he didn’t, that a significant number of American Jews are worried about the threat of Iran:

39% support negotiations and incentives aiming to persuade Iran to abandon its possible nuclear weapons program.  37% support sanctions to force Iran to comply.  41% believe the U.S. should not attack Iran if it “on the verge” of attaining nuclear capability.  40% believe it should. American Jews seem to be moving in a different direction than Barack Obama, who made a magnificent statement attempting to engage Iran in building a more constructive bilateral relationship.

Pollster Jim Gerstein did note that the question gave respondents "a tough choice," since it asked whether they’d favor an attack if Iran was "on the verge" of obtaining nuclear weapons. The figure of 40 percent support for an attack on Iran in the Jewish community does seem to be in line with polling of Americans as a whole — a July 2008 poll (fourth question down) with a comparable question portraying Iran as "close to developing a nuclear weapon" had 41 percent support for a military attack and 46 percent opposed. On the other hand, since Jews identify as overwhelmingly Democratic while the country is more evenly split between the two parties, it does appear that Jewish Democrats are more sympathetic to an attack on Iran than Democrats as a whole.

Meanwhile, the Jerusalem Post’s Shmuel Rosner didn’t like last year’s J Street poll and isn’t a fan of the new one either — arguing that since J Street is a advocacy group, their surveys will undoubtedly find support for their positions:

The poll finds an extraordinarily strong base of 69 percent of American Jews firmly supporting active American engagement in bringing about Middle East peace", J Street announces. Last year they’ve made the same assertion on which I wrote this: "Can you imagine a J Street poll suggesting that most American Jews oppose a vigorous Israeli-Palestinian peace process? Can you imagine such a poll asserting that American Jews oppose any American pressure on Israel to make compromises?"

But let’s dig dipper into this new survey: Let’s talk about those 69% of "firm" supporters of "active" engagement.

But the press release also mentions that supporters of engagement will be willing to tolerate it "even if it means publicly disagreeing with or exerting pressure on both Arabs and Israelis". That’s somewhat misleading because the way the questions in this survey were framed people didn’t have much choice: "Would you support or oppose the United States playing an active role in helping the parties to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict if it meant the United States publicly stating its disagreements with both the Israelis and the Arabs?" 46% strongly support, 39% somewhat support. J Street conveniently count this as 86% of support. I think that’s hardly the case: the 39% who somewhat support meant to say that they support the "pressure on Arabs" but not "pressure on Israelis" part. Thus, there’s a strong case to be made that they should be counted with a majority opposing pressure on Israel.

Same problem one might have with the question of "exerting pressure on both the Israelis and Arabs". 43% strongly support such pressure. Presumably on both, but it can also be: strongly support a pressure when it’s justified, and are more likely to think that pressure on the Arab side is more justified. But even if you count all "strong" supporters as people supporting pressure on Israel, there’s still no majority, because the conclusion regarding "somewhat" people is really questionable.

And anyway, there’s also this part of the question about "compromises necessary to achieve peace?" Because I also support pressure to get the compromises that can bring about peace, I just don’t think such compromises exist. Not now. Probably not ever. And since this poll doesn’t specify any compromises, just tells interviewees that it’s those compromises that will get us all peace – it essentially gives them the choice not between "pressure" and "none-pressure" but rather between support and oppose peace. Those who answer the question in the negative oppose peace. That’s hardly a position in which a nice Jewish American wants to find himself.

A couple other numbers worth pointing out from the poll that didn’t get much attention. First, American Jews are paying attention to Avigdor Lieberman. His name identification was 62 percent among American Jews, which seems remarkably high considering the Yisrael Beiteinu leader didn’t get much mainstream media coverage in the U.S. until late last year. By comparison, AIPAC had 64 percent name recognition (and J Street 35 percent).

Also, positions on West Bank settlements are hardened among U.S. Jews. When asked whether they support expansion of settlements, 40 percent said yes and 60 percent said no. When respondents were then read descriptions of each side’s position, the results remained exactly the same. On this issue, at least, there appears to be nobody in the middle.