Just 28% of US Jews identify as Zionist
Posted on May 11 2007 by Cecilie Surasky under JVP.As efforts to conflate anti-Zionism (or non- and even post-Zionism for that matter) and anti-Semitism continue to shut down open exchanges everywhere, it’s interesting that Leonard Fein notes in The Forward:
In a forthcoming paper on American Jewish attitudes toward Israel, Steven M. Cohen and Ari Kelman find that while 82% of their broadly representative sample regard themselves as “pro-Israel,” only 28% — and fewer still in the younger cohorts — see themselves as “Zionists.” Thus, even among the Jews, even among Israel’s supporters, the word has become musty — or worse, an unwelcome evocation of the judgment of its least sympathetic critics.
Fein’s interesting essay, by the way, offers a survey of the criticisms of Zionism, and seeks to defend it by focusing on the Right of Return as a fundamental right under international law.
His acknowledgement that the Palestinian and Jewish Rights of Return are in direct conflict with each other is to be lauded. I may have misread him, but his implication, however, that a well-off Philadelphia home-owner who may have never set foot in the Middle East, and a Palestinian living in a refugee camp still holding the deed to her house behind the 67 border, have the identical moral and legal claim to the same land seems, well, less than convincing. Perhaps Muzzlewatch readers can provide a more nuanced analysis. For example, I once heard Brit Tzedek’s Marcia Freedman talk at a UN conference about the idea of a Jewish “Right of Refuge”, which I found intriguing.
Get Muzzlewatch delivered fresh daily
Print This Post
May 11th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Hmmm. I’ve said before that while I consider myself strongly “pro-Israel” I’ve never been able to call myself a Zionist. That’s not because I think it’s a bad word. It’s just not how I see my life, identity, or destiny. And it’s not crucial toward being Jewish either. If I do call myself a Zionist, it’s only if someone has asked me if I am in an accusatory tone. I’ll say yes to make clear it’s not something I think is bad.
Still, there is something to the author’s point as well. That many Jews who are pro-Israel (i.e., almost all) still consider the word “Zionist” to have negative connotations. Some people see the term as connoting an extreme pro-Israel tilt.
It reminds me of when I was in college. I knew lots of women who would say “Now, I’m not a feminist or anything, but…” and then say something like “I believe a woman has a right to choose whether or not to have an abortion” or “Women should have all the opportunities that men do in the work place” or something which was a quintessentially feminist position. But in some circles “feminism” had taken on an extremist image.
It’s a shame that the term “Zionist” has taken on the negative connotations so that even people who might be or at least sympathize with Zionists think that they shouldn’t use the word.
May 12th, 2007 at 1:48 am
Did they define the word “Zionist?”
What was the methodology of the study?
I find that the vast, and I do mean vast, majority of Jews identify as Zionist when it is defined as “support for a Jewish state in the historic land of Israel.”
In fact, the vast majority of people in America support that statement. That does not preclude disagreements about the policies of the states in that region and the large number of Zionist groups spanning the political spectrum is testament to that.
May 12th, 2007 at 3:59 am
Polls are always difficult to judge. How was the question posed? What are the details of the group being asked? What were the conditions surrounding the poll?
What is Zionist? There are differing understandings of that label. We now hear the words “New Zionist?” What does that mean?
What does “Pro Israel” mean?
Pro Zionism? Pro the Zionist movement behind the founding of Israel? Pro supporting the 1942 recognition of a State of Israel? Pro recognition of the borders of a nation? Pro the Israeli people?
Without definitions, this is not real information.
May 12th, 2007 at 6:05 am
One possibility is that American Jews feel that being “Zionist” means actually wanting or planning to move to Israel, and most don’t.
May 12th, 2007 at 7:19 am
I agree that the poll’s wording was vague. But in a way that may be the point. What it does show is two things.
1) Jewish Americans overwhelmingly sympathize with Israel.
2) People either do not identify as “Zionists” or are uncomfortable with the term. As noted above, this can be because they see “Zionism” as actually wanting to move to Israel oneself. Or because they see it as connoting either an extremism or perhaps a fervor that they don’t share, despite their sympathies.
Put it this way, although most American Jews may not call themselves “Zionists” I think they would find the term “Zionist Occupied Government” to be highly antisemitic.
May 12th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Cecilie writes:
“As the conflation of anti-Zionism (or non- and even post-Zionism for that matter) and anti-Semitism continues to shut down open exchanges everywhere,”
A dubious assertion to say the least, or perhaps just awkwardly worded, but one the author of the article she quotes rejects: “Anti-Zionism as antisemitism? Too facile a dismissal; the discredited brush of antisemitism cannot be the all-purpose riposte to every critical appraisal of Jewish expression.”
She also writes: “His acknowledgement [sic] that the Palestinian and Jewish Rights of Return are in direct conflict with each other is to be lauded.”
Actually, this is part of the downfall of Fein’s initially well-argued piece. He makes a very interesting case that the Jewish right of return already exists under International Law, and admits the same for the Palestinians. But he then falls flat on his face when he then argues that this right “makes sense only if it is a return to the country from which we were expelled — that is, a Jewish country.”
A “Jewish country” is a political construct - there is no recognized right for anyone of any ethnic or religious background to return to any particular political construct, only a geographical locale. For, if otherwise, then any group returning to any country would then have the right to force the recapitulation of some supposed facsimile of what once existed, no matter how many centuries have passed and no matter the existing situation. A recipe for disaster and endless warfare.
The country the Jews were expelled from 1500 years ago has long since turned to dust, as has the world of that era. And, frankly, I doubt many contemporary Jews would today care to live under such a regime even if it were possible to snap one’s fingers and have it return in whole. In the sense of a political construct the modern state of Israel, Jewish as it is, is no more “the country [Jews] were expelled from” than is Crown Heights or Rodeo Drive.
Nor is it logical that the claims to return of Jews and Palestinians are by necessity in conflict - they only are so if either one or both groups insist on a exclusionary right of return. Thus Fein is wrong in concluding that “Far from an illiberal, much less racist, imposition, Zionism rests on a foundation of human rights.” For he has also argued that this right only “makes sense” if it excludes the Palestinians, whom he also argues enjoy the exact same right of return, a position that by any rational discourse is “illiberal” and “racist.”
As long the right of return for either group is seen as a zero-sum game there will be no end to this bloody conflict.
May 12th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Josh, you seem to make projections and assumptions. That can often be misleading. Alas the problems with polls like this and the “results’ such polls produce, which then lead to nothing more than assumptions based on….what?
May 12th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
Ellen, we have two pieces of data. The first is that Jews overwhelmingly identify as “pro-Israel.” The second is that even the majority of those Jews that identify as “pro-Israel” do not identify as “Zionist.”
I don’t assume anything beyond that. I did posit a couple of explanations, but I’m not claiming that this is definitely the case.
I agree with you that the wording of this poll seems vague. Still, that in itself has some value. It doesn’t necessarily give a deep and detailed explanation of what the respondent feels. Most polls can’t do that. But what it does do is that it gives an impression of how some terms resonate.
May 13th, 2007 at 4:26 am
Hi Josh, my problem is this: We are not told what Pro Israel means. How is it defined? Does it mean exactly the same thing to each respondent? Ask three people what being Pro Israel means and you will likely get three very different answers.
Nations are political constructs. Nothing more. A Nation State is an abstract notion and not real. A State has no spirituality, no principals. People do.
In my opinion, the whole expression “Pro (whatever nation)” is absurd, ridiculous. The logical result of this Pro absurdity leads to pitting one abstract nation against another, which means one group of people (however they define themselves) against another.
As you know, most people do not even know what Zionism is. (There are moves to repackage the politics of Zionism under the name “New Zionism.”)
The facts are Israel is a construct of the world-wide Zionist Movement.
As for me? I utterly and completely reject Zionism as a distortion and abuse of Judaism for distorted political ends.
I am not pro any nation, and I certainly do not reject Israel. It is a legitimate nation under the laws of the international community. The laws the world community has created to organize itself.
Israel will survive and flourish just as any healthy nation when extremism and propaganda, of political movements like Zionism, do not set the agenda and honesty and the principals of a people reign.
May 13th, 2007 at 5:33 am
There are a couple of additional explanations for the phenomenon indicated in Fein essay, some mundane, some more interesting. One idea, already articulated by Joshua, is that once a political term becomes the subject of sustained attack, it becomes less appealing, particularly to younger people who have not yet chosen to name their own political identity. Thirty-years of conservatives using the term “liberal” as a pejorative has led many to substitute the term “progressive,” even as far back as when I was in college in the 1980s. For similar reasons, a younger generation of women have avoided labeling themselves “feminists,” even though they (and the rest of us) have internalized most of what the feminist movement brought into political life in the 1960s and 70s.
Given that the term “Zionist” has been the subject of an even longer, more venomous and well-funded assault for forty years, it is little wonder that even the huge majority who support the Jewish state prefer to not label themselves with this term. Given that the Zionist label is over 100 years old, there is also a generational issue of younger people generally trying to avoid political labels created by their parents (much less their grandparents or great grandparents).
Paradoxically, the success of the Zionist movement and the obsession of ridiculous numbers of people with the shortcomings of the Jewish state (real and imagined) have also added tremendous weight to the term “Zionist.” Bill has already mentioned that some Jewish supporters of Israel might avoid the term since it implies a desire to eventually live in the Jewish state, an option that many (like myself) are no longer in a position in their lives to choose.
Add to this the triumphs of 19th and early 20th century Zionist pioneers in creating, sustaining, and defending the Jewish state against overwhelming odds, and you can end up with many people – even those who dedicate a great deal of time to support Israel – feeling too small to be worthy of this title. In other words, part of the gap between the 82%+ of American Jews stand by the Israel and the 28% of those who choose not to describe themselves as “Zionist” can be seen as a demonstration of large numbers of people who feel unworthy of (not embarrassed by) that noble title.
So Fein’s “Zionist Gap” may represent nothing more than generational and semantic issues that political terminology generally. The more interesting statistic (especially for Muzzlewatchers who claim to speak for a silent majority) is that support for Israel has continued to rise to unprecedented levels during the years when political assaults against the Jewish state were at their peak. At the same time, American support for those most involved with campaigns against the Jewish state have dropped just as precipitously. Now that’s food for thought!
May 13th, 2007 at 9:34 am
I think that by calling themselves pro-Israel, it just means that most of those polled sympathize with Israel in its current situation.
May 13th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
I’m a Religious Zionist, a proud member of the Chicago chapter even I don’t support its pro-settler posture. There is nothing wrong with affirming support for Medinat Yisrael and Zionist ideals.
May 13th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Noting all the comments on how people react to a given question, there is a flip-side too.
It is true that if a pollster corners your average Jewish-American and bluntly asks: “Are you pro-Israel?” almost everyone says “yes.” But in real world terms this is more of a automatic response than an actual expression of real sympathy, or even interest.
In the real world, only a minority of Jewish-Americans are involved with Israel or Zionism at all. Then out of this minority only an even smaller portion are actively engaged in the issue on a regular basis (the remainder might make a donation to the JNF or Hadassah every now and then - mission accomplished). Of those that are actively involved the majority are Right-wingers, with a Left Zionist minority and even smaller anti-/non-/post-Zionist minority (my camp). However, with the exception of the last group, if you ask any of them they are “pro-Israel” they will say “yes.”
If you ask David Horowitz, Rabbi Lerner, Alan Dershowitz or Uri Avenery the question, they will all say they are “pro-Israel” though in so doing they all mean very different things.
So don’t read too much into “pro-Israel” comment.
May 13th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
On the contrary, the signficant dividing line is NOT between Alan Dershowitz and Michael Lerner (despite their well-documented feuds which seemed to have more to do with ego than with substance) but between both of those “pro-Israel” leaders on one hand and the “anti-/non-post-Zionist” group on the other. The assumption, of course, is that “pro-Israel” includes, as a necessary component, support for Israel’s existence as a Jewish state (I grant that depending on the as-yet-undocumented wording of the poll question, it could relate to support for Israel’s existence against the jihadist ideology of Hamas– however, as John S notes, his group probably wouldn’t even asnwer yes to THAT question).
At the end of the day, Michael Lerner and I agree on Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state– even if we disagree on the best way to preserve that existence. And that “pro-Israel” agreement is overwhelming not only among American Jews, but among all Americans. JVP will blame this phenomenon on “muzzling”; however, failure of your (very well publicized) viewpoint to gain adherents should instead be ascribed to the weakness of your position.
May 13th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
With all due respect, it was someone from Muzzlewatch who posted this poll and asked us to all look closely at the 28% figure associated with Jews who do not claim a Zionist identity, presumably because they felt this statistic was meaningful. If you are claiming that the nature of polling means we shouldn’t take the 4/5ths of Jews who claim to support Israel seriously, then you are presumably saying the entire poll is meaningless, which means this entire posting is irrelevant.
Is that the point you were trying to make? That every number in this piece should be taken with a fifty pound grain of salt?
May 14th, 2007 at 11:13 am
We must distinguish between pro Israel and Zionist, which in the end is really just a personal distinction. To some people, Pro Israel means supporting the country and it’s policies. Being a Zionist means dedication towards building the best possible society. If one subscribes as a Zionist, one also believes the Zionist dream has not yet been accomplished, because of social inequalities, racism and other internal problems, not to mention the ongoing conflict with her neighbors. There are others who believe all Jews should move to Israel and still others who see Israel as a safehaven, or a nation which has reconnected Jews across the world, even if they are not all physically connected in the land.
To individuals, the definition of Zionism ranges from the reason one lost everything that was every meaningful to him/her, the reason someone my age has spent his whole life in a refugee camp, all the way to the reason a family was able to start over after losing everything that was meaningful to him/her and the reason someone my age has spent his whole life growing up in a country where his culture was able to rebuild itself. Pretty confusing spectrum if you ask me.
May 14th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Nonchalantly, NYT Details Israeli Ethnic Cleansing
Sunday, May 13th, 2007 in News, Israel, Palestine by Jeremy Sapienza|
Today is my day off; I wasn’t even planning on looking at the news, but it’s on my Google page and when I opened my browser, there it was: “Israeli Riddle: Love Jerusalem, Hate Living There”. I’ll be brief, as the article speaks for itself. The article starts out right away matter-of-factly stating that Israel has tried to cram more Jews into Jerusalem while trying to squeeze out the natives.
For four decades, Israel has pushed to build and expand Jewish neighborhoods, while trying to restrict the growth in Arab parts of the city.
I can’t imagine the vitriol that would be packaged as journalism if some southern US state were to, say, subsidize the construction of white neighborhoods and yet refuse permits for private building in overcrowded black neighborhoods. In 2007. It would be the only news for weeks. But it’s Israel, so the New York Times shrugs.
The article goes on to document the rising air of religious fanaticism convincing secular Israels to flee to more modern, cosmopolitan cities like Tel Aviv, mainly because of the astounding birth rate of Jewish religious extremists.
Ms. Angel [who left Jerusalem after 30 years] said she was increasingly turned off by religious and political intolerance. She recalled being casually but modestly dressed one day when an ultra-Orthodox Jewish woman began yelling at her that she was not properly clothed.
Also, because the ultra-Orthodox hardly participate in wealth-generating enterprises, in addition to the conscious economic crushing of the Palestinians in their ghettoes, Jerusalem has become service-poor and opportunities have bled away to other, more liberal parts of Israel. Enlightened, upwardly-mobile Israelis simply don’t want to live there. And yet, while
More than 60 percent of Israelis said they would not want to give up Israeli control of the city’s holy sites, even as part of a peace agreement with the Palestinians…78 percent of Israelis said they would not consider living in Jerusalem or would prefer to live elsewhere in Israel.
They don’t want to live there, but they want their government to continue the ethnic cleansing of the native population of the Old City. And the New York Times just finds that yawnable.
america love her or take off…to jerusalem…
May 14th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Since that half of Jerusalem was ethnically cleansed of Jews by Jordan in 1948, including the razing of 58 Synagogues, followed by Arabs moving in, doesn’that make Jews the native inhabitants of that city?
Isn’t odd that there was no such thing as “East Jerusalem” until 1948, at which time,it instantly became “historically Arab East Jerusalem?” Coincidentally,the same time and for the same reason that”Judea and Samaria” became “The West Bank”, as to the conquering Jordanians in 1948, it was West of the Jordan River.
May 14th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Yes, before 1948 there were no such things as compass directions, so nobody referred to “East Jerusalem.”
May 14th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Yes, R, good point. We israelis should be just like the arabs if not more so. They cleansed us, we clease them. Just what judaism is all about: be like the rest of the world, only more so.
May 15th, 2007 at 6:45 am
I agree with Dan. As someone who spent most of their political life on the far left, I only recently discovered I was a Zionist when I told one of my friends that I supported Israel. “If you support Israel you’re a Zionist.” This was news to me. After all, Zionism is an ideology with a long and diverse history and I definitely did not have much knowledge of the movement. But, when I got home and picked up a dictionary and looked up the word Zionist and I fit the bill given that I was a Jew “concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel.” I’d argue that for most American Jews that’s as far as our Zionism goes.
As far as the term “pro-Zionist”, I’ve thought about that for a while. IMHO, one either supports the state of Israel’s existence and is a Zionist, one is against the state of Israel’s existence and is an anti-Zionist, or one is indifferent. There is no such thing as a pro-Zionist. I see a similarity to feminism. There is no such thing as being pro-feminist. If you support equality for women, you are a feminist.
I think the reason so many American Jews are apprehensive about calling themselves Zionists is that most of us vote Democratic and in the present context, Zionism has been linked to neoconservatism (which is very bad if you are good liberal).
John Harber writes:
“Thirty-years of conservatives using the term “liberal” as a pejorative has led many to substitute the term “progressive,” even as far back as when I was in college in the 1980s.”
I think liberal is preferable to progressive. When people identify themselves as progressive they generally are to the left of the Democratic Party. For example, communist organizations like International Answer refer to themselves as progressive because they know if they said straight up, “yeah, we’re communists,” that they would get even less support than they do now.
May 15th, 2007 at 8:42 am
A few years ago I was accused of being a “Zionist sympathizer.” It was meant in a pejorative sense. But then I realized that that term probably was a very good fit. More accurate than actually being a “Zionist” and more meaningful then simply being described as “pro-Israel.”
May 15th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
As noted earlier, the terms “liberal,” “femenist” and “Zionist” all have in common that substantial political interests have a stake in turning these words into perjoratives. This serves to make younger people shy away from such labels, but may also cause people who grew up before these were turned into slurs embrace them even more passionately.
An unintended consequence of this dynamic is that it causes some people (including myself) to see a term like “Zionist” as so powerful, important and noble that we shy away from it out of concern for seeming pretentious, or fearing that we have not yet done enough in our lives to deserve such a worthy title.
May 15th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
That rather simple minded and bigoted response gives me insight into the mentality of some of the posters here. Thank you.
May 15th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Oooooh, good come back.
May 15th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Todah
June 2nd, 2007 at 3:56 am
People don’t self-identify as Zionist in large part because the Left, the pro-Palestinians and the Palestians have turned the word into one that is perceived as worse than “Nazi.” The ignorance about Zionism, its foundations, goals and actualization in the form of Israel is astonishing and, contrary to what you would think which is that information put out there over decades has illuminated the situation, the opposite has happened and most people don’t have a clue about Zionists and Zionism.