July 21, 2008

J Street Poll: Jews Eager for Compromise but Wary on Jerusalem; Good but not Great News for Obama

James Besser, Jewish Week

A new poll by J Street, the pro-peace process political action committee and lobby, showed overwhelming Jewish support for new peace moves in the region, but strong resistance to territorial compromise on Jerusalem.

The survey of 800 respondents by the new group, which is trying to convince lawmakers and congressional hopefuls that it’s okay to support a more robust peace process, also included these predictable findings: American Jews strongly disapprove of the war in Iraq and by an even bigger margin disapprove of the way President George W. Bush is handling his job.

Overwhelmingly, Jews surveyed say Israel is less secure since Bush moved into the White House.

But that didn’t necessarily translate into great news for Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama. Asked about their current presidential choice this year, 58 percent indicate they back Obama, with another 4 percent saying they “lean” toward the Democrat.

If those numbers hold, Obama would still win a majority of Jewish votes -62 percent - but fall short of recent Democratic presidential nominees. And Sen. John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee, would get about 32 percent, a big increase from President Bush’s 24 percent in 2004.

J Street being a pro-peace process group, it’s hardly surprising the group asked questions about Jewish support for the kind of strong U.S. involvement the group advocates.

87 percent in the poll say they support “the United States playing an active role in helping the parties to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict.”

The pollsters then added a zinger to the question, asking whether they would support such a role “if it meant the United States publicly stating its disagreements with both the Israelis and the Arabs.” Support dropped only slightly, to 86 percent.

Then J Street asked the question again, this time asking whether respondents favor an active peacemaking role if it means U.S. pressure on both sides to achieve a compromise. Support dropped, but again only slightly - to 81 percent.

When asked simply if they support “a two-state solution that declares an end to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, resulting in all Arab countries establishing full diplomatic ties with Israel and creating an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza,” 78 percent said yes, 22 percent said no.

[Does this mean that 22% oppose the two state solution?]

But support dropped when they asked if respondents supported a full peace that included an Israeli withdrawal from “most of the West Bank” and the dismantling of “many of the Israeli settlements, with 59 percent supporting, 40 percent opposing.

The numbers flip when it comes to Jerusalem; 56 percent say they would oppose ceding Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem to a new Palestinian state, suggesting that the city has a much stronger emotional hold on Jews than the territories, that groups like the Orthodox Union that have been campaigning against any compromise on Jerusalem are having an impact - or both.

J Street’s goal is to create a “comfort zone” for politicians who support Israel but also support a more active peace process and more extensive compromises.

That was explicit in several questions asking respondents to evaluate statements from “a candidate from Congress,” and say whether the statement would make them more or less likely to vote for the candidate.

Not surprisingly, candidates who reflected J Street positions did the best.

The survey also asked a number of questions about Christian Zionism and its most visible practitioner, Pastor John Hagee, whose Christians United for Israel (CUFI) holds its Washington Summit next week.

Hagee, who has stated strong opposition to territorial compromise and support for Israelis who want to remain in the West Bank, fared poorly when respondents were asked about their feelings towards individuals and organizations; only 7 percent view the CUFI founder positively, barely above the 5 percent scored by Obama’s former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. On a different question, 50 percent said they had a negative impression of CUFI, 19 percent a positive one. A full 30 percent said they didn’t know anything out the organization.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), once an icon of the Jewish community, was viewed unfavorably by 48 percent, favorably by 37.

Finally, the poll suggests that Israel, while an overwhelming political priority for the activist community, remains far down the list for Jewish voters in general.

Asked about the “issues…most important for you in deciding your vote for President and Congress this November,” 55 percent said the economy, 33 percent the war in Iraq, 21 percent health care, the same for terrorism and national security.

Israel registered at only 8 percent as an issue in the elections.

Do U.S. Jews really support ‘necessary compromises’ for peace?
By Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz Correspondent

J Street poll reveals that 55% of American Jews see Mideast peace as ‘core’ U.S. interest.

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?

If you can’t, this is your lucky day. J Street just released a public opinion pollwith no such surprises. Not if you read the press releases accompanying it. American Jews, the poll says, want peace, readily support American pressure, and believe that Middle East peace is “a core American interest” (55 percent).

Case closed: American Jews support the J Street agenda.

Or do they?

Let’s take a look at a couple of interesting numbers from this poll:

1.

J Street’s press release reads the following: “Instead of holding the hawkish, hard-line positions often expressed by many established Jewish organizations and leaders, American Jews actually overwhelmingly support assertive peace efforts and an active U.S. role in helping Israelis and Arabs to resolve their conflict? American elected officials and politicians have for years fundamentally misread the American Jewish community,” said Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street?s executive director in the press release.

But here’s what the poll says: More people agree that “established” and “traditional” Jewish organizations represent their views than the number of people who say such organizations do not represent them. Even when AIPAC - supposedly the great Satan - is mentioned by name, more people (34 percent) believe it accurately represents their views than those (23 percent) who don’t. The 40 percent who do not have an opinion also represent a group that can hardly be considered “fundamentally misread.”

2.

J Street opposes military action against Iran, “a terrible option for the U.S., regional stability, and for Israel.” But American Jews will be more likely than not to vote for a Congressional candidate who believes that “America must do everything it can to protect Israel’s security. This means militarily attacking Iran if they pursue a nuclear weapons program, supporting an Israeli pre-emptive strike against Iran, cutting off aid to the Palestinians if their schools allow textbooks that don’t recognize Israel, and letting the Palestinians know where we stand on Jerusalem by moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.”

Indeed, there’s still a significant minority (41 percent) of people less likely to vote for such a candidate. Even more people will support someone encouraging talks with Iran. But here comes the funny part: the way this poll was devised - presumably with great care - it’s impossible to know whether the “less likely” lot who opposes such a statement do so because they oppose attacking Iran, or because they object to a more firm stance vis-à-vis the Palestinians. By the way, a reliable answer to such question can be found here. It is quite clear: do not attack. But we don’t need J Street to tell us that.

3.

My friends at the Orthodox Union (I have friends all around town) were quick to note, that J Street’s PR for their poll conveniently omits mention of its findings on an issue we feel is of the utmost importance - the indivisibility of Jerusalem. Even among their respondents - who support ‘assertive peace efforts and an active U.S. role’ (i.e. pressure) and withdrawal from the West Bank - a majority do NOT believe Jerusalem should be re-divided with its eastern neighborhoods becoming part of a Palestinian state.”

While that is correct, it is only half the story. People who support “the United States exerting pressure on both the Israelis and Arabs to make the compromises necessary to achieve peace” - (81 percent) - but oppose the possibility of “neighborhoods in East Jerusalem” becoming part of a Palestinian state just don’t know what they’re talking about.

Either that, or the “compromises necessary to achieve peace” they envision are totally different from those supported by J Street.

4.

The way this poll was conducted is quite bizarre. I called poll-masters that I trust and read for them some of the questions. It made them laugh. Take this one for example, and imagine the email signaling that someone wants to ask you a question: Do you agree to this very, very, very long statement?

“I am ‘pro-Israel,’ and believe that America must consistently support our trusted ally Israel. Part of that support should be helping to promote serious efforts to advance Israeli-Palestinian peace because ending the conflict is vital to Israel’s future and security. I disagree with American politicians who make statements, such as demanding we move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, that sound supportive of Israel and make vocal activists happy, yet really undermine both peace efforts and America’s role as a mediator. I will always work to maintain the special relationship between the U.S. and Israel, and I support policies that help Israel achieve an enduring peace.”

Chances are that you:

A. Stopped reading somewhere in the middle and just wrote yes.
B. Stopped reading somewhere in the middle, regained consciousness at the end, read the final sentence (”I support policies that help Israel achieve an enduring peace”), then wrote yes. Of course you support Israel, duh!

In short, this seems like a good way to ask a question if you want 71 percent to respond yes. Look at all the very long statements in this poll and see for yourself. With barely one exception, the longer the statement, the better the chances that people say yes.

5.

“Jews firmly remain a very progressive Democratic constituency,” say the good people of J Street, but as my friends at JTA have noted in their story: “American Jews are less supportive of Barack Obama than previous Democratic nominees.”

Actually, this is not even new. I thought the more intriguing was the percentage of Jews disapproving of Senator Joe Lieberman, a Jewish American politician that set a historic precedent: 48 percent.