Are Young American Jews Turning Their Backs on Israel?

by Liberty and Power

"Young U.S. non-Orthodox Jews are becoming increasingly lukewarm if not alienated in their support for Israel in a trend that is not likely to be reversed, according to a study released on Thursday.

"Blending into U.S. society, including marriage to non-Jews and a tendency to look on Judaism more in religious terms than ethnic ones, is part of what's happening, the study found.

"'For our parent's generation, the question that mattered was, how do we regard Israel? For Generation Y (born after 1976) the question is indeed, why should we regard Israel?' said Roger Bennett, a vice president of The Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies, which sponsored the study."

Read the full report here.

If the survey is accurate, it seems to me to be a welcome change in opinion.

And let's not forget that significant sections of orthodox Jewry have always been anti-Zionist.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Peter Lewin - 9/10/2007

I just read it. It borders on the ridiculous, full of name-calling and far-fetched theories. This is not an authoritative account, it is a disgrace. But I am sure we can trade authorities till the cows come home.

For those following this thread who may be on the fence, I will just mention that Siegman's piece repeats often-made assumptions that this conflict is about land and that Israel is basically an imperialist land-hungry power; and, by the same token, that if only Israel would allow the formation of a viable independent state, with its own armed-forces and the other accoutrements of statehood, peace would break out. This naïveté is typical of western hubris and assumes that other cultures share its open-minded peace-seeking values. It sadly misrepresents and misunderstands Middle East culture. There is absolutely no precedent in the area for the kind of miracle that Siegman thinks is possible. It is perfectly reasonable for Israel to expect such a Palestinian state to be a military threat and to seek guarantees against such a threat.
Besides this there is the much more fundamentally incorrect assumption that the Palestinians are “Israel’s problem” to solve. After WWII millions of refugees were created by the land shuffles that occurred. Among them were a few hundred thousand Holocaust survivors who were settled in Palestine. With the creation of the state of Israel, another 700,000 Jews became refugees as they were expelled from Arab countries and they too were “absorbed” by the fledgling state. The number of Arabs, later known as Palestinians, who, for one reason or another, mostly because they feared the war that was being waged on Israel by the entire Arab world, fled their homes and became refugees, was about 750,000. This number could easily have been accommodated by any of the powerful and populous Arab states – they could have replaced the Jews who had been expelled. Why are they still homeless and destitute? Not because of Israel. During the short few years of peaceful coexistence, when something approaching free trade with Israel prevailed, the Palestinian economy did better than it ever had before or since. Most Israelis would like nothing better than peaceful coexistence (as I am sure would most Arabs). Neither Israel nor the Palestinian authority has the power to “solve” this conflict for the simple reason that the Arab world does not want it solved. It is a cynical tool used to focus attention away from the corruption and abuse of the many dictatorial regimes of the Arab and broader Muslim world. That is not a mystery. The real mystery is why so many apparently intelligent people find it so easy to blame Israel for a problem not of its making and not within its ability to solve; and, at the same time, to fail to hold accountable those who would destroy it and all its inhabitants in a heartbeat.

Mark Brady - 9/10/2007

I vigorously dissent from what Peter has written and I strongly recommend that Peter and anyone else interested read Henry Siegman's The Great Middle East Peace Process Scam that appeared in the London Review of Books for 16 August. It is a powerful statement of the case against Israel's refusal to negotiate seriously. It seems to be accessible online without subscription here. Henry Siegman, the director of the US/ Middle East Project, served as a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations from 1994 to 2006, and was head of the American Jewish Congress from 1978 to 1994.

Peter Lewin - 9/10/2007

Mark writes: "If both Christian and Jewish opinion shifted away from moral and financial support for Israel, the Israeli government would surely be more likely to negotiate a comprehensive peace settlement with the Palestinians, and that would be all to the good."

I wonder if he thinks that Israeli society in general could be any more disposed to a peace settlement than it currently is, or whether the Arab world in general could be any less so disposed. I think the truth is quite the contrary to what he says. Without U.S. moral and financial support Israel's Arab neighbors (for whom the Palestinians are merely expendable pawns) would be less inclined to accept any peace terms, assuming that is possible. Let's not pretend that what stands between the Arabs and Israel is a reluctance by Israel to negotiate. To do so is to ignore the all to obvious fact that it is really the very existence of Israel that it at issue.

In the post-war, post-colonial period the super-powers carved up the Middle East establishing a number of new nation-states, for better or worse. One wonders why it is only Israel, who occupies less than 1% of the land mass, and is an even smaller percentage of the population of the area, is the focus of so much, almost unique, attention in this regard. And one wonders why while some 20 odd wars/violent conflicts existing all across the Middle East (see for example the article here http://www.utdallas.edu/~plewin/Taheri.pdf ), the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is singled out for attention. Could it be because of an effective oil-subsidized "Arab-lobby" that has confused the likes of even those on this list?

Mark Brady - 9/9/2007

Steve writes, "More seriously, Mark didn't quote this bit: 'But the study breaks new ground, he added, in finding that politics do not underpin declining support -- that it is not as many assume a response to Israel's handling of the peace process or problems with religious pluralism in the country.'"

Those are the words of Steven Bayme, director of contemporary Jewish life for the American Jewish Committee, whose organization has, of course, its own agenda, so it is not surprising that he puts a spin on the findings. Interestingly, the survey found that "only 54 percent of those under the age of 35 are 'comfortable with the idea of a Jewish State' as opposed to 81 percent of those 65 and older. That, I suggest, is significant.

Steven criticizes Reuters' use of the expression "Jewish lobby." But Reuters uses this in the context of the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948. Fundamentalist Christians were not important at that time. In recent years the pro-zionist Jewish majority has been joined by far more numerous fundamentalist Christians and this is recognized by the statement that Israel is supported by "U.S. Jews and non-Jews."

This is what Reuters wrote: "U.S. support backed by a vocal and politically powerful Jewish lobby has been a key feature of the Jewish state's success since its founding in 1948, an event that is widely backed by U.S. Jews and non-Jews."

I welcome what seems to be a change in young Jewish American opinion for the same reason that I should welcome a change in fundamentalist Christian opinion in this direction. If both Christian and Jewish opinion shifted away from moral and financial support for Israel, the Israeli government would surely be more likely to negotiate a comprehensive peace settlement with the Palestinians, and that would be all to the good.

I don't doubt there's a Zionist lobby in the U.S. although I'm in two minds how much influence it has on American foreign policy. A while ago, when we were discussing Mearsheimer and Walt's original article, I posted to links that questioned the power of this lobby. That said, the American Zionist lobby, and specifically the American Jewish lobby, is clearly important in the calculus of Israel's politicians.

Steven Horwitz - 9/9/2007

Thanks for letting US American Jews know that we've come to our senses about Israel. Much appreciated. After all, all of us who in some way "support" Israel do it blindly without recognizing its many mistakes, so any evidence that shows lessened support for Israel must be evidence of increased rationality on our part.

More seriously, Mark didn't quote this bit: "But the study breaks new ground, he added, in finding that politics do not underpin declining support -- that it is not as many assume a response to Israel's handling of the peace process or problems with religious pluralism in the country."

So what's really happening here is not an intellectual rejection of Israel or its policies (again, perhaps because most US Jews who "support" Israel are well aware of those problems but still find Israel worth "supporting" nonetheless because they think it's the best game in town in the Middle East), but rather part of a broader decline in Jewish identity as evidenced by more intermarriage and declining attendance at synagogues, that, not surprisingly, brings with it increased indifference about Israel.

Furthermore, note that the article defined such "indifference" with the question of whether they thought the destruction of Israel would be a "personal tragedy" for them. Well given the declines noted above, and that younger Jews don't have the personal and familial connections to Israel that their parents did, it's not surprising they wouldn't see it as a "personal tragedy." I consider myself a "supporter" of Israel, but I would have answered "no" to that question as well - its destruction would, in my view, be a net loss for freedom and democracy in the Middle East and the world, but it would not really be a "personal tragedy" to me.

Whether this survey means that US Jews are more indifferent about Israel as a matter of politics or the welfare of its citizenry is another question. It would be more interesting to ask if they thought the destruction of Israel would be "net gain or loss for democracy and the rule of law worldwide" and measure what it means to "support" Israel in those terms.

Let me also note Reuters' use of "Jewish Lobby." Given that not all Jews support Israel via active politics nor US policies toward Israel and the region, and that hardly all supporters of Israel are Jewish, that phrase, suffice it to say, rankles. Even Walt and Mearshimer had the good judgment to change their wording in recent work.

This survey evidence, if accurate as Mark notes, is just an epiphenomenon of the more general decline of American Jewry. I would find little to celebrate about that even if I thought it was producing more carefully considered opinions about Israel by US Jews. And given that the increased indifference does not appear to be driven by such careful considerations of Israel's policies, "welcoming" this change seems to be purely a matter of anti-Israel animus and a willingness to applaud any reduction of support for it, regardless of the reason.