The Saban Forum, held at the Brookings Institute during the weekend, put a lot of focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (even though the official topic is “Israel and the United States: yesterday, today and tomorrow”). And it told us many things that we already know: Not all Israelis agree with the Netanyahu government. The state of the peace process is not wonderful. And, generally speaking, when officials and politicians feel the need to say something interesting, the result is often confusing.
A new poll by the Brookings Institution on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was also published on this happy occasion and told us many things that we already know: Republicans are more supportive of Israel that Democrats. Israeli West Bank Settlements are hard to explain. And it also told us that when questions are asked about a topic in which Americans have little interest and little understanding, the framing of the question pretty much determines the answers.
A.
I begin this post with the survey – not because the survey is important, but rather because the survey reveals how the conversation is manipulated in certain ways. This is not the first time I am writing about the Brookings survey on Israel-Palestine. And this will not be the first time in which I say that this survey is – well, “problematic” would be a polite way of describing it. In the past I called some of its findings a “spin.” A survey that is wasted on a spin is a missed opportunity, and the new survey certainly misses out on an opportunity to make us more knowledgeable about the way Americans view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Look at the questions. Always look at the questions – not just the summary of answers. The questions tell you how the spin is developed and marketed.
The authors of this study tell us: “Strong American majorities continue to favor Israel’s democracy over its Jewishness in the absence of a two-state solution (72% in 2015, compared with 71% in 2014).” That's nice – but it is only the result of a decision by the authors of the study to contrast Israel's Jewishness with Israel's democracy. There is a premise here: the only way to have a Jewish and democratic state is the two state solution. There is an implied threat: If Israel does not pursue the two state solution, it risks losing the support of Americans. The goal is not to study the views of Americans so much as to utilize the response of Americans to specific questions to curb Israel’s policies.
And certainly, some of Israel’s policies might need curbing. And of course, it is possible that Israel is going to lose the support of some Americans because of this or that policy. But the study does not tell us which policy is going to make Israel less appealing to Americans. The study sells the opinions of its authors by presenting a limited basket of options to respondents and essentially making them choose the answer in which the authors have interest.
They do it by using a right choice, a wrong choice, and a threat. The right choice is the two state solution. The wrong choice is a non-democratic Israel. The threat is a democratic one state. The way the question was framed and the answers available to respondents determine the outcome. These and the fact that most Americans have little understanding of the nuances of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Look at the wording of the possible answers to the Brookings survey (the question is what would you choose if your first choice for an Israel-Palestinian solution is no longer viable):
1. Maintain occupation of both the territories Israel captured in 1967 and the Palestinian inhabiting them indefinitely.
2. Annexation without legal citizenship: Israel would annex the Palestinian territories, but keep a majority-Jewish state in the expanded territories by restricting the citizenship rights of Palestinians.
3. A one state solution: A single Democratic state in which both Jews and Arabs are full and equal citizens, covering all of what is now Israel and the Palestinian territories.
Such framing is misleading. It is intellectually dishonest. It is a spin.
It is misleading in three ways.
1. It uses language aimed at leading the respondent in a certain direction. For example, using the world indefinitely in the first option, or using restricting in the second option.
2. It omits many other available options. For example, what if instead of suggesting Maintain occupation of both the territories Israel captured in 1967 and the Palestinian inhabiting them indefinitely the questionnaire would include the similar yet hardly identical Maintain occupation of both the territories Israel captured in 1967 and the Palestinian inhabiting them until the situation in the Middle East stabilizes – would that make a difference?
3. It gives a false impression of the available scenarios. For example. What if instead of suggesting A one state solution: A single Democratic state in which both Jews and Arabs are full and equal citizens, covering all of what is now Israel and the Palestinian territories – the survey would include the much more likely A one state solution: A single state in which Jews and Arabs will constantly use violence against one another, with the likely result of a civil war between two communities – would that make a difference?
I could list at least another five or six questions that aim to have a specific answer, or to generally make the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seem more important than it is, or to create an impression of a problem where it does not necessarily exist. JTA's Ron Kampeas, hardly a hawk on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, noticed that another question in the survey – the one on which the headline about how many Americans support sanctioning Israel was based – is also “loaded for a negative response,” as he wrote on his Facebook page.
In fact, the whole survey is built on lofty questions and loftier options for answers. Just take a look at this amusing conclusion: “Twenty nine percent of Americans say they are very concerned about events in Israel and the Palestinian territory.”
Of course they are! When you ask someone “are you concerned by this or that” – and the topic of discussion is one that is supposed to be concerning (from global warming to the fishing of whales to Boko Haram) – that is the answer to be expected from at least some of the respondents.
Since the survey is filled with such nonsense, I see no point in elaborating further. Just remember: you have been warned.
B.
Now let's turn to the Forum, and its distinguished guest, Secretary Kerry, and his fiery speech in which he addressed Israel and Palestine, among other things.
The “one state solution” is no “solution” at all for Israel, the Secretary said at the Forum. Quote: “The one state solution is no solution at all for a secure, Jewish, democratic Israel living in peace.” His predecessor, and possibly future Commander in Chief, Hillary Clinton echoed these words the next day: “a one state solution is no solution, it is a prescription for endless conflict.”
They are right: The one state solution is a straw man, created by proponents of the Palestinian cause to frighten Israelis and others from the supposed consequences of not letting the Palestinians establish their own state. If it isn't quite working – that is to say: if it doesn't frighten Israelis into submission – it is because Israelis, unlike the majority of Americans, are familiar with the complications that make the establishment of a Palestinian state at this time unviable and are aware of the fact that a one state solution is impossible to create.
In a survey of Americans, this or that number of repondents can say that it is the best option in case another option fails. If they are asked about it – if their Secretary of State talks about it – then it must be an option. But really, it isn’t. In no survey of Israelis is such an option going to be desirable by more than a handful of delusional radicals. In no imaginable reality is such an option going to be desirable, except by those who want even more bloodshed. Still, Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon, also at the Saban Forum, was asked repeatedly about the one state solution. His ultimate response was apt: “I am not afraid of this one state solution.”
The Brookings survey is a builder of strawmen. The Brookings Saban Forum is also a builder of a strawmen. I suppose the intentions of its initiators are good: to bring about peace between Israelis and Palestinians. But the result is problematic. It puts before the public a false dichotomy between two “solutions,” both of which are currently a mirage: the two state solution and the one state solution.
That Kerry is right and the one state solution is no solution at all – and I think he is right – does not necessarily mean that the two state solution is a solution. And that the two state solution is in trouble, as the Secretary believes – and I agree – doesn't mean that the only other option is a one state solution (because, as Kerry says, it is no solution at all…).
C.
As mentioned, Hillary Clinton also spoke at the Saban Forum. And she put her finger on a serious problem. “Let’s be honest here,” she said, “the alternative” to the Palestinian Authority “could be the black flag of ISIS.” And, of course, she is right. The power that the Palestinian leadership currently has is the power of the weak. The ultimate threat for Israel – much worse than the threat posed by a dysfunctional Palestinian Authority, or even by a belligerent Hamas – is the threat of chaos.
For Clinton, such a threat should make Israel more conciliatory toward the current leadership and more willing to compromise with it. But her argument cuts both ways. It serves both proponents and opponents of advancing toward the two state solution at this time. On the one hand: Israel must create a Palestinian State under Abbas and his faction because the alternative is much worse. But on the other hand: Israel mustn’t allow a Palestinian State to emerge because such a state could easily become a stronghold of ISIS.
Gaza is proof: in Gaza, following Israel’s withdrawal, the Palestinian Authority was cast aside without much fanfare by Hamas. The rest of the Middle East is also proof: only the strongest regimes are able to somehow withstand the assault of radicalism, and the Palestinian Authority would not necessarily become such a strong regime.
Clinton stated that “Israelis deserve security, recognition and a normal life free from terror, and Palestinians should be able to govern themselves in their own state in peace and dignity.” And we should wonder what she means when she says “recognition” – because recognition was the key idea in Prime Minister of Israel Binyamin Netanyahu’s Saban speech. Netanyahu was clear about Israel’s goal in negotiating with the Palestinians: “I have said, and I continue to say, that ultimately the only workable solution is not a unitary state, but a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state. That's the solution.”
And you might say: this is a non-starter for the Palestinians. Because of the demand for a “demilitarized” state, or, more likely, because of the demand for “recognition” of a Jewish State. Fine. But a “unitary state” – that is, a one state – is also a non-starter, for Israel. Netanyahu was trying to sell his listeners an idea which Israeli voters are already sold on: the conflict with the Palestinians is not essentially territorial, it is conceptual. Israel cannot live in peace alongside its most intimate neighbor as long as that neighbor will not accept Israel as a permanent reality. And when Netanyahu says “Israel” – he means the real Israel, the Jewish State. Not an imaginary “unitary” or “binational” Israel.
Netanyahu said that everything begins “with the recognition of the right of the Jewish people to have a state of their own.” The threat of the one state solution should be understood in that context: the threat of a binational state is not a threat to transform Israel from one situation to another, from one political system to another, from one social arrangement to another. It is a threat to cancel Israel, to eliminate Israel, to take away “the right of the Jewish people to have a state of their own.”
Thus, it is a grave threat. Thus, it is not a solution to anything. It is recipe for a war much bloodier than the limited skirmish we have now.
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.