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

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

When Finance Drives Destruction

Tackling climate change means stopping the funding of rainforest destruction, says a significant study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund.  The UK's financial services have provided directly over £8.7 billion to 167 different traders, processors, and buyers of forest-risk commodities (cocoa, rubber, timber, soy, beef, palm oil, pulp & paper) from 2013 to 2021.   With direct and indirect investment,  the figure rises to a staggering £200 bn.  Whilst not all that investment is in destructive projects,  the study concludes there is little transparency on the risk.  Finance is the oil in the economic machine.  But it also drives decisions. We all know the importance of money. We borrow to invest. So much depends on it, such as company pensions.  Do we really know what our pension pots are doing? We invest for the future. But what kind of future? Is all investment good?  Much investment is bad. Investment drives the nature of our economy. It drives our decisions as individuals,