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

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As