New Poll On Israeli Reaction To A Nuclear Iran: More Would Leave

Back in January:

Some 23 percent of Israelis would consider leaving the country if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, according to a poll conducted on behalf of the Center for Iranian Studies at Tel Aviv University.

Some 85 percent of respondents said they feared the Islamic Republic would obtain an atomic bomb, 57 percent believed the new U.S. initiative to engage in dialogue with Tehran would fail and 41 percent believed Israel should strike Iran's nuclear installations without waiting to see whether or how the talks develop.

New poll:

A new poll of Israeli attitudes towards Iran found that the public is evenly split on forestalling Iranian nuclear weapons development by means of an immediate Israeli preemptive strike. Of those advocating further diplomacy, 10 percent said that Israel should engage Iran directly.

Results of the survey, commissioned by the Center for Iranian Studies (CIS) at Tel Aviv University, were published on the sidelines of the CIS's annual conference on Iran May 24-25. The polling was conducted earlier this month among 509 adult respondents representing all Israeli sectors by the Ma'agar Mochot (Brain Trust) research company.

Fifty-one percent of those surveyed expressed support for an immediate Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear sites, while 49 percent believe that Israel should wait for the results of U.S. engagement with Iran before pursuing alternative paths to preventing a nuclear-armed Iran. At the same time, a clear majority of the Israeli public (74 percent), including those advocating a wait-and-see approach, does not believe that American engagement will persuade Iran to change its course. A full 81 percent believe that Iran will, in fact, attain a nuclear bomb.

A further breakdown of the statistics shows that majority support for a preemptive attack on Iran is to be found among male, national-religious and haredi religious Israelis (61, 62 and 60 percent, respectively). A major difference exists between right-wing and left-wing Israelis regarding the appropriate Israeli policy, with 38 percent of those leaning to the left favoring attack, as opposed to 63 percent of those leaning to the right.

While the number of Israelis who believe that Iran will obtain a nuclear bomb has not changed much (85% / 81%), more are now pessimistic of the chances that US dialog with Iran will succeed (57% / 74%)  and more also believe that Israel should strike Iran without waiting for diplomacy (41% / 51%).

The most controversial question from the January poll was on the issue of what percentage of Israelis would consider leaving Israel if Iran obtains nuclear arms: In the January poll 25% said they would. In the current poll, 30% said they would.

It seems like talk about Iran gaining nuclear arms has been going on forever. At some point, the talk is going to be moot: either because Iran will have obtained nuclear arms--or because Israel will have done something to stop it (for now).

And we are getting closer and closer to that point.

Technorati Tag: Iran.

Barack Obama: Middle East Newbie

New York Times Op-Ed Have We Already Lost Iran:

Some diplomatic veterans who have spoken with him have told us that the president said that he did not realize, when he came to office, how “hard” the Iran problem would be.

This has not gone uncommented upon.

Haaretz: The distance between Gaza and the West Bank is growing

So what, after all, is the source of Obama's optimism? One prominent Palestinian commentator ventured that it stems from ignorance. "Obama still doesn't know what the Middle East is and what the Palestinian issue is," he said. "With time, he will learn."

It's still very early in Obama's term--and he is still learning on the job.

Technorati Tag: Obama.

Likud: The Next Generation

Tzipi Hotovely	Danny Danon
Gilad Erdan	Gideon Sa'ar

David Hazony gives an overview of some of the up and coming members of Likud in the context of tomorrow's conference on “Alternatives to the Two-State Outlook”:

the conference being held at the initiative of Likud MK and former TV personality Tzipi Hotovely. Hotovely, just 30 years old, is a rising star on the Israeli political scene, and represents a whole new generation of young Likud leaders, including Danny Danon, Gilad Erdan, and Education Minister Gideon Sa’ar [see here]. These under-45s are all dynamic, well-spoken people who take the grunt-work of parliament seriously. They are, in all likelihood, the future of Likud.

Hotovely has her own website (Hebrew), in addition to her Knesset website. Danon also has his own website (English and Hebrew) besides his Knesset website. Erdan and Sa'ar seem to only have Knesset websites.

There is no arguing with Hazony on the need for fresh new faces:

Part of a party’s success depends on its ability to speak to a younger generation of voters, and give them a sense of where the future lies. Don’t be fooled by campaign cameos of the likes of Benny Begin and Dan Meridor. Keep your eyes on the other Tzipi and her friends.

Tomorrow's conference will be an opportunity to do just that.

Technorati Tag: Tzipi Hotovely and Danny Danon and Gilad Erdan and Gideon_Saar.

On Iran, Israeli And Arab Concerns Coincide Just So Far

Aluf Benn writes that it is true that the Arab world shares Israel's concern about Iran--

But the concerns are not identical. Israel is worried about the Iranian nuclear program and the Arabs are worried about Iran's regional strength and its undermining of the regimes in Cairo, Riyadh and the Gulf emirates. The Saudis and the Egyptians aren't counting the centrifuges and the grams of enriched uranium the way the Israelis are. They are content with a warning that if the Shi'ites in Iran have nuclear weapons, the Sunnis in the region will obtain them, too. Otherwise they are more concerned about terror and subversion. America is trying to reassure them by reinforcing its military forces in the Gulf. The Arab governments though, like Israel, want to know what America will do on the day the dialogue with Iran fails.

The difference in concerns means that Obama can address the Arab concerns separately without having to take the kinds of measures--or provide the approval--that Israel wants. The Arab would be satisfied with strong assurances and a symbolic show of force.

--kind of like what Israel has been receiving over the years.

The question is whether the Arab world will be so easily satisfied.

Technorati Tag: Iran.

Wither Fatah?

As Ethan Bronner of The New York Times puts it, in describing the condition of Fatah: Palestinians Try to Prune Branches of Core Party

The movement has been paralyzed by competing personal alliances and a continuing identity crisis, and has not held a congress in 20 years. While the gap between the Fatah-led West Bank and the Hamas-led Gaza is widely recognized, less appreciated is that Fatah itself, which the West trains and helps, is so internally torn that it is scarcely able to negotiate or govern.

On Tuesday, Prime Minister Salam Fayyad announced a new government with greater Fatah representation among the ministers but little change in policy.

“We are on a sinking ship, and the leadership thinks it can save us by plugging a hole,” lamented Qaddoura Fares, a leading Fatah advocate of change and peace with Israel. “We have to wake up and stop lying to ourselves. We call ourselves a democratic movement, but what democratic movement hasn’t met in 20 years?”
If he and others succeed and Fatah reorganizes itself and successfully takes on Hamas in elections planned for 2010 in the West Bank and Gaza, prospects for a deal between Israel and a future state of Palestine could brighten considerably. But polls show that if elections were held now, Hamas would give Fatah a very close race.

And this the party with which Israel is supposed to negotiate the creation of a second Palestinian state?

As David Hazony points out--apparently not:

As the political dust settles in the wake of the Obama-Netanayahu meeting, the two governments’ positions are starting to come into focus. Netanyahu rejects the two-state solution; Obama affirms it. Netanyahu insists on continuing the “natural growth” of existing settlements; Obama rejects it. Netanhyahu insists that Jerusalem will remain the “eternal, undivided” capital of Israel; Obama sees Jerusalem as up for negotiations.

One would almost think from this that Israel and the United States are negotiating with one another. But they’re not. Israel’s supposed to be negotiating with the Palestinians. And there are all sorts of questions that have to do with what the Palestinians are willing to give up: the “right of return,” contiguity, Jerusalem, education, a permanent end to hostility, etc. What happened to all of these? As long as there is no Palestinian side to this negotiation, the respective positions of both Netanyahu and Obama are meaningless.

Hazony points out that there can be no Palestinian side as long as the irreconcilable split between Fatah and Hamas remains.

All things considered, even Fatah on its own cannot be considered a peace partner until they get their act together.

No wonder that Obama is expected to jumpstart the process by inviting the other Arab countries to get involved with some confidence enhancing measures.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Fatah and Hamas.

'1 in 4 Israelis would consider leaving country if Iran gets nukes'

It's called terrorism--something that Iran knows a lot about:

Some 23 percent of Israelis would consider leaving the country if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, according to a poll conducted on behalf of the Center for Iranian Studies at Tel Aviv University.

Some 85 percent of respondents said they feared the Islamic Republic would obtain an atomic bomb, 57 percent believed the new U.S. initiative to engage in dialogue with Tehran would fail and 41 percent believed Israel should strike Iran's nuclear installations without waiting to see whether or how the talks develop.

"The findings are worrying because they reflect an exaggerated and unnecessary fear," Prof. David Menashri, the head of the Center, said. "Iran's leadership is religiously extremist but calculated and it understands an unconventional attack on Israel is an act of madness that will destroy Iran. Sadly, the survey shows the Iranian threat works well even without a bomb and thousands of Israelis [already] live in fear and contemplate leaving the country."

But does anyone really want to be put into the position that they have to rely on Iran's good sense--and good graces? If Israelis are ready to run, I wonder what the Arabs living in the countries surrounding Iran are thinking--at least they have the option of appeasement. 

Leon Hadar, guest blogging at Rosner's Domain, goes a step further: Iran having the bomb is a good thing:

A nuclear Iran will have to think twice before giving a "green light" to Hizbollah to attack Israel and not because of any great love for Israel. They'll have to consider the possibility that that could lead to an overall Mideast War that could deteriorate into a nuclear war. In short, let's not get too excited: A nuclear Iran would not mean the end of Israel but instead could lead to more regional stability.[emphasis added]

(Gee, we should have encouraged Iran to get those nukes ages ago...)

So which is worse, 25% of Israelis wanting to flee the Middle East, or trying to fool ourselves that Iran having the bomb is not as bad as it appears.

...Or waiting on Obama to negotiate with the nice Iranians?

The real question is whether the tough talk coming from Israel is going to lead to action.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Iran.

Will Obama's Peace Plan Take Into Account That Olmert Is No Longer Prime Minister

Imagine how much easier things would be for Obama is Olmert was still around:

Barack Obama to unveil peace plan in Cairo

US President Barack Obama is expected to outline a far-reaching proposal for a Palestinian-Israeli peace agreement in Cairo next month that will flesh out the Saudi-initiated Arab Peace Plan proposed in 2002 in a way that makes it more palatable to Jerusalem but also requires the Jewish state to make major concessions.

Under the Obama proposal, Palestinian refugees would not be permitted to return to Israel, but they would be permitted to return to the Palestinian state that would arise on the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Those who continue to reside in Arab countries where they have been largely confined to refugee camps for 60 years would be given citizenship of those countries, ending their refugee status.

On the critical question of Jerusalem, Mr Obama will support the Arab demand that Palestinians be permitted to establish their capital in East Jerusalem, which was captured by Israel in the Six Day War in 1967. However, the walled Old City at the heart of Jerusalem, where the principal holy sites of Christianity, Judaism and Islam are located, would become an international enclave and fly the UN flag.

The Palestinian state would be demilitarised, maintaining a significant police force to keep order but not an army that might pose a security threat to Israel.

The pre-Six Day War borders between Israel and the Palestinian territories would be modified, but only by mutually agreed territorial exchanges, not unilateral annexation.

The proposal was reported by the prestigious Arab-language newspaper Al Quds Al Arabi, which is published in London. The paper said the plan would be unveiled by Mr Obama when he gives his much-touted address to the Muslim world in Cairo next month. [emphasis added]

Far be it that I contradict "the prestigious Arab-language newspaper Al Quds Al Arabi," but that's not what Netanyahu said:

Last night I returned to Jerusalem, our capital, from a very important visit to Washington, capital of the United States. It was very important for me to come back to participate in this ceremony and say the same things I said in the United States:

United Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Jerusalem has always been - and always will be - ours. It will never again be divided or cut in half. Jerusalem will remain only under Israel's sovereignty. In united Jerusalem, the freedom of worship and freedom of access for all three religions to the holy sites will be guaranteed, and it is the only way to guarantee that members of all faiths, minorities and denominations can continue living here safely. [emphasis added]

The Knesset is taking steps as well:

On the anniversary of the unification of Jerusalem, MKs from five factions representing both the coalition and the opposition submitted a bill on Thursday that would require a supermajority vote within the Knesset to enact any change to Jerusalem's borders.

Coalition chairman MK Ze'ev Elkin (Likud) submitted the amendment to the Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capitol of Israel, Thursday morning. The amendment would require a special majority of 80 MKs to approve any change to the capital's borders.

...The current law requires a simple majority - 61 votes - in order to shift the capital's boundaries. The bill's sponsors argued that the amendment would "fortify the unification of Jerusalem, to ensure its future and to maintain the security of its residents."

Likud Party officials emphasized that the current law defines the area of Jerusalem as the area determined on June 28, 1967, and forbids the transfer of any authority over Jerusalem to any foreign entity - diplomatic or administrative - without a majority approval from the parliament.

Maybe there is a new attitude after all.

Avigdor Lieberman:

We support negotiations and we are trying to come up with a solution for coexistence, but we are done groveling.

Israeli Ambassador Gideon Meir:

There is a new government that was elected by the Israeli people and it is the people who have made it clear that they are fed up. For 16 years we made concessions, giving up land for peace and peace did not come. The key word is negotiation. This means that the two parties talk and both make concessions. But what do we have until now? Israel gave up land and in return all it got was more war, more terror.
We withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 and we got Iran on our borders through Hizbollah, which is its proxy. In 2005 we pulled out of Gaza and we got Iran there through its other proxy, Hamas.

We Israelis have concluded that we want a different approach and are re-thinking government policy in this regard.

Obama may have thought that with a receptive Olmert, peace was so close that all that was necessary was a firm nudge. Now, however, he is dealing with a Prime Minister who reflects the feelings of a broad swath of the Israeli population that are fed up with making concessions--of being the only ones to make concessions.

We will have to wait to hear what Obama says in Cairo, although elsewhere I read that he did not intend to lay out his peace plan at that time.

But at some point, Obama is going to have to lay out what he is going to expect--to demand--from both Israel and the Palestinians. And that is when it will first start to get interesting.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama.

At Least Someone In The US Agrees With Israel About Iran

Remind me: Does Obama listen to his military advisers?

Iran nuclear bomb would be calamitous: U.S. military

The consequences of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon would be "calamitous" and major powers must act together to prevent it, the top U.S. military officer said on Thursday.

Admiral Mike Mullen's remarks came the day after Iran's president announced the country had tested a missile that analysts said could hit Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf, a major source of crude oil for the United States.

The United States and other Western powers are concerned that Iran could combine elements of its uranium enrichment and missile programs to create a nuclear weapon, although Tehran denies it intends to do this.

"I'm one who believes that Iran getting a nuclear weapon is calamitous for the region and for the world," Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Iran's Arab neighbors are already wary of Iran's intentions in the region--so Mullen's analysis of the consequences of a nuclear Iran seem like common sense:

"It then, in my view, generates neighbors who feel exposed, deficient and then develop or buy the capability themselves," he said, suggesting Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon likely would trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

"The downside, potentially, is absolutely disastrous."

Yet for all that, Mullen stops short of what may end up being the only effective option:

But Mullen did not suggest the United States should take military action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

He echoed the Obama administration's policy that big powers should work together to persuade Iran not to pursue a nuclear bomb and halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons generally.

"Major leaders, internationally, have got to come together to arrest this growth or the long-term downside for the people in the world is really, really tragic and drastic," he said.

Israel and the United States have not ruled out military action against Iran but the Obama administration has adopted a policy of trying to engage Tehran diplomatically to resolve differences.

So when Obama's 'dealine' is reached and Iran will have proven unresponsive, what then? By that time, Iran will have instituted every possible defense of their nuclear facilities.

Is this really going to fall on Israel's shoulders?

Technorati Tag: Iran.

One Jerusalem Conference Call With Pollster John McLaughlin

This morning I wrote a post about the results of new poll done by McLaughlin & Associates on issues related to Iran's quest for nuclear weapons, Israel's relations with Iran and the Palestinians, and general national security issues. A summary of their findings is available on their site in PDF format.

This afternoon, bloggers had the opportunity to speak with John McLaughlin about his poll in a conference call put together by One Jerusalem.

One of the points that John McLaughlin emphasized is that the American public demonstrated that it is ahead of the Obama administration on the issue of Iran and the threat that it poses--not only to the security of Israel but to the security of the US as well. Not only did terrorism rank as the number #1 greatest threat to the US (ahead of the economy) but 71% of those surveyed answered that they felt the US will not be safe froma nuclear Iran--with 79% responding that if Iran is successful in producing a nuclear weapon, Iran is likely to provide nuclear weapons to terrorists to attack an American city.

In response to a question from Boker Tov, Boulder on the indication in the poll that Americans have a positive view of Netanyahu, McLaughlin indicated that in a finding not included in the summary 66% of those polled had a negative view of Bibi's counterpart in Iran: Ahmadinejad. Obviously, it is helpful for Israel to have a leader who can represent Israel well but also project a positive image.

Rick Richman of Contentions asked about the methodology of the survey and the areas of agreement among the 4 basic groups represented in the poll: Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and those who voted for Obama. McLaughlin agreed that the base of 600 interviewed was smaller than the 1,000 he would have prefered, the survey itself had a margin of error of 4%. The areas of agreement, such as the threat posed by Iran, indicated an important area of partisan agreement--refreshing considering the multiple areas where Republicans and Democrats do not agree these days. There was similar agreement on concern for the security of Israel.

I asked a question on the use of polls not only as a measure of where people stand on the issues, but also as a tool to influence policy makers. McLaughlin indicated that on those areas where there was strong backing--where Americans were ahead of the Obama administration--there was the potential for influence on our leaders.

Check out for yourself the summary of the findings, and how the American public 'gets it'.

Technorati Tag: McLaughlin & Associates and Israel

When Jerusalem Fell To The British

From a post on Daniel Pipes's blog back in March:

Reporting on General Edmund Allenby's conquest of Jerusalem on December 9, 1917, the New York Herald announced in a headline: "Jerusalem Rescued by British after 673 Years of Moslem Rule." Subtitles then elaborate: "Great Rejoicing in the Christian World" and "Jews Everywhere in Particular See the Restoration of Palestine as Part of Allies' Programme."

The math checks out: 1917-673=1244, the year when the Ayyubids, with Khwarezmian aid, seized the city for the last time from the Crusaders.

The newspaper's second page boasts stories under headlines that read "Distinguished Jews Here [i.e., New York] Express Joy Over Capture of Jerusalem by British," "Rescure of Jerusalem Causes Joy," and "Holy City Ravaged in Many Wars by Pagan and Turk: Has Been Under the Yoke of Mohammedan Rule for 670 Years."

Technorati Tag: Israel and Jerusalem.