Skip to main content

Young Israelis shift to the right?

Hope for a better future for both the Palestinians and the Israelis appear have taken a knock with an analysis that shows young Israelis have shifted to the right, with 53.9% voting for right-wing parties. But is it the full story?

Seventy per cent of Jewish Israelis define themselves as right-wing. And less than 30% support a two-state solution.   For those hoping for a generation shift that would give impetus to a peaceful solution that recognised the rights of Palestinians, it gets worse.

Forty per cent of young Jewish Israelis according to the poll would support a complete annexation of the West Bank.   The poll shows little sympathy for the Palestinians.

Those of us who had hoped for a generation shift can take some comfort from the reasons given by young Israelis for their position.   Many more would support a two-state solution if security for Israel could be guaranteed.  Security is the primary concern of voters, young and old.  Hope also lies elsewhere in their thinking.

The 'two-state' solution isn't a solution.  It isn't because it doesn't exist as a reality.   It is as if the younger Israelis really want to rip the old peace process up and start again, perhaps by establishing new principles.  Drafting new pillars for peace might enable Israeli concerns about security to be addressed.   The peace process, in any event, is dead.

One of the respondents in the poll summed it up by saying


It’s more complicated than right, left and center. I don’t think it’s possible to really define these terms.

Indeed, that is true.  The problem isn't defined by a left-right positioning, and nor is the solution.  A solution can only come from reaching across the old political divide.  And there lies real hope for the future.

It is clear from the opinions of young Israelis that they are far more socially liberal and egalitarian. What is needed is a political process that can reflect their concerns.  
















Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to

Ethical considerations of a National DNA database.

Plans for a national DNA database   will be revealed by the Prime Minister this week. This is the same proposal the Tories and Liberal Democrats opposed when presented by the Blair government because they argued it posed  a threat to civil liberties. This time it is expected to offer an 'opt-out' clause for those who do not wish their data to be stored; exactly how this would operate isn't yet clear. But does it matter and does it really pose a threat to civil liberties? When it comes to biology and ethics we tend to have a distorted view of DNA and genetics. This is for two reasons. The first is that it is thought that our genome somehow represents the individual as a code that then gets translated. This is biologically speaking wrong. DNA is a template and part of the machinery for making proteins. It isn't a code in anything like the sense of being a 'blueprint' or 'book of life'.  Although these metaphors are used often they are just that, metapho