SHIBLEY TELHAMI, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
Over the past decade, there have been some important shifts in American public attitudes on Israel/Palestine that could influence policymaking. My aim in this article is to address a few issues that are relevant to the nature of any likely outcome (one state, two state, status quo), especially in light of the Middle East plan released by the Trump administration in January.
I will begin by providing some context about American public opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The most important change taking place in American public attitudes toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the past decade has been increased partisanship on an issue that had historically escaped a high level of partisanship. In my 30 years of conducting public opinion polls on this issue, it has always been the case that a large majority of Americans, around two-thirds, wanted the U.S. to take neither side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That has not changed.[1]What has changed over the past decade has been that Republicans have expressed increased desire for the U.S. to take Israel’s side instead of being neutral, with our recent polls showing a slight majority of Republicans choosing that option. In fact, in our September 2019 poll*, 64% of Republicans responded this way. In contrast, more and more Democrats, 80% in September 2019, have supported neutrality, with those wanting the U.S. to take sides roughly evenly divided between wanting to take the Palestinians’ side and wanting to take Israel’s (8% and 10%, respectively).
When I started observing these trends during the Obama administration, I also noted[2] that the gap between elected Democrats and their constituents on this issue was increasing, with constituents growing more critical of Israel than politicians. I have wondered if this gap would be sustained. I will address this issue in the final section.
There are several issues over which American public opinion has been notable.
First, one area where we have seen increased polarization has been preparedness to take action against Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which the Trump plan proposes to bring under Israeli sovereignty. For a few years now, the polls have consistently shown a majority of Democrats wanting to take action against Israeli settlements, including imposing sanctions, while Republicans and independents want to do nothing or limit opposition to words. For example,[3] in October 2019**, 76% of Republicans compared to only 31% of Democrats wanted the U.S. to do nothing or limit opposition to words and in contrast, 66% of Democrats and only 23% of Republicans said that they wanted the U.S. to impose some economic sanctions or take more serious action.
Beyond sanctions related to settlements, the American polarization also includes the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement aimed at Israel. Until the fall of 2019, I had not asked directly about the BDS movement, as it was not on the radar screen of most Americans. However, the recent debates in Congress and elsewhere have raised the profile of the issue.
Our October 2019 University of Maryland Critical Issues Poll[4] included questions probing the extent to which respondents had heard of the movement.
Nearly half of respondents (49%) said they have heard about BDS at least “a little.” Among those who said they have heard of the movement, almost half of respondents (47%), including a large majority of Republicans (76%), said they opposed the movement. But the story was different among Democrats who said they had heard at least “a little” about the movement: A plurality, 48%, said they supported the movement, while only 15% said they opposed it.
Given that those who said they had heard “a little” about BDS are likely less informed about the movement than those who said they had heard “a good amount” or “a great deal,” we probed the better-informed respondents further. I found that a majority of the 16% of Democrats who said they had heard “a good amount” or “a great deal” about BDS supported it (66%), compared with 37% among those who said they heard just “a little.” More in depth probing of the issue[5] confirmed the results and showed even deeper polarization along party lines.
On a related issue, however, respondents appear to transcend the partisan divide, regardless of their views on BDS or boycotts of Israel broadly: Majorities of Democrats (80%), Republicans (62%), and independents (76%) indicated opposition to laws penalizing people who boycott Israel, principally over the fact that these laws infringe on the constitutional right to free speech and peaceful protest.
One State, Two States, Israel’s Democracy vs. Its Jewishness
One of the notable trends, starting with the Obama administration and continuing under Trump, has been the decrease in the number of Americans choosing a two-state solution as a preferred aim of American diplomacy. In our October 2019 poll for example, we found that Americans are evenly divided among those who back a one-state solution and those who back a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. 33% of respondents say that the United States should support a one-state solution, and 36% say it should support a two-state solution.
This was a significant increase in support of the one-state solution, as compared with the UMD Critical Issues Poll of November 2017,[6] which found that 41% of respondents favored a two-state solution, and 29% favored a one-state solution. Although this trend started in the Obama years, it strengthened under Trump, given that the two-state solution came under assault form both left and right, for different reasons and with different visions. It is noteworthy, however, that most of those who prefer a two-state solution say, if two states were no longer possible, they would then support a one-state with equal citizenship.
A strong majority of Americans support Israel’s Democracy over its Jewishness. In March 2020***, when presented with the choice of Israel’s democracy versus its Jewishness, in the event that a two-state solution is not an option, 63% of all respondents say that they favor Israel’s democracy more than its Jewishness, even if that means Israel would no longer be a politically Jewish state. More than a quarter (29%) would choose the Jewishness of Israel, even if that means that Palestinians are not full citizens.
Finally, as argued in 2018,[7] there is a growing sense that the Israeli government has “too much influence” on U.S. politics and policies: 38% of all Americans (including 55% of Democrats, and 44% of those under 35 years old), say the Israeli government has “too much influence” on the U.S. government, compared with 9% who say it has “too little influence” and 48% who say it has “about the right level of influence.” While the number of Jewish participants in the sample (115) is too small to generalize with confidence, it is notable that their views fall along the same lines of the national trend: 37% say Israel has “too much influence,” 54% say it has “about the right level of influence,” and 7% say it has “too little influence.”
When we asked this question in March 2020,[8] we see yet another increase from 38% to 42% in the number of Americans who say that Israel has “too much influence.” This includes a majority of Democrats (63%) as well as 42% of independents and 20% of Republicans.
DOES THIS MATTER FOR THE U.S. ELECTION?
As Jon Krosnick and I suggested in a 1995 article,[9] the segments of the public that matter most for the electoral process and elections are those segments that rank the particular issue in question high in their priorities. Over the years, I have thus probed how respondents rank the Arab-Israeli issue in their priorities. Over the past quarter-century, it has been the case that, while a majority of Americans favored U.S. neutrality on this issue, those who ranked the issue among their top priorities tended to favor Israel more. Has this equation changed?
In a September 2019 poll, we found that, overall, while 60% of respondents wanted the U.S. to take neither side in the conflict, 52% of those who ranked the issue among the top three issues in their priorities wanted to take Israel’s side, compared to 35% of those who ranked the issue among the top five, and 23% among those who didn’t rank the issue among the top five.
In March 2020, we probed another question as criticism of Israeli policy became more common in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2018 midterm election. We found[10] that two-thirds of Americans, including 81% of Democrats say that it’s “acceptable” or even the “duty” of members of the U.S. Congress to question the Israeli-American relationship. Examining the attitudes of the “issue public” on this question, we found some differences in the views of those who ranked the Israeli-Palestinian issue among their top five priorities, but without changing the basic results: 64% said it was either “acceptable” or the “duty” to question the Israeli-American relationship.
The bigger story about attitude change is to be found in the attitudes of Democrats.
Among Democrats in September 2019 who rank the Palestinian-Israeli issue first or top three, a large majority (62%) still want the U.S. to take neither side in the conflict, but this is lower than the 80% of all Democrats who want to take neither side. As for leaning toward Israel or the Palestinians, ranking the issue higher increases the chance that Democrats will want to take Israel’s or the Palestinians’ sides almost equally.
The bottom line is that Democrats want U.S. even-handedness on this issue, even among those who rank the issue high in their priorities. And on specific policy issues, such as sanctions on settlements, BDS, and opposing laws prohibiting sanctions against Israel, they have strong views. Will these views matter, at least in the Democratic primaries?
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is hardly a central issue in American elections, and certainly not in the 2020 presidential race, where the stakes are so high on matters that are at the core of the American political system and the future of the country. It’s improbable that a significant number of people will base their votes (or financial contributions) principally on the candidate’s position on this issue. But there are other ways in which public opinion on this issue among Democrats matters.
Candidates who reflect public opinion closely are more likely to energize their supporters, and those who take a position that’s substantially at odds with public opinion may lose credibility and appear less authentic. Among Democrats, positions on Israel-Palestine may have become part of a candidate’s authenticity check, either discounting them in the public’s mind or enhancing their stature. This is unlikely to include positions on BDS specifically, but issues like tying aid to Israel or its policy toward the Palestinians have already made their way into the Democratic campaign debates. Arguably, Bernie Sanders speaking publicly in favor of Palestinian rights (as well as Israelis’) during the 2016 campaign helped his credibility among supporters and energized his base. He is following a similar pattern[11] this time around, as are several other candidates.[12] Joe Biden, on the other hand, has chosen a different path, criticizing Sanders on this issue[13] by saying, “In terms of Bernie and others who talk about dealing with Zionism, I strongly support Israel as an independent Jewish state.” Notably, in the Democratic debate after his criticism of Sanders, Biden seemed to go out of his way to criticize Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying,[14] “Bibi Netanyahu and I know one another well. He knows that I think what he’s doing is outrageous.” The outcome of the primaries will hardly be determined by the candidates’ position on this issue, but those who stand to embrace the public’s sentiment stand to gain more, and those contradicting it risk having their authenticity questioned.
This dynamic may have been at play in the Democratic primary in the 16th Congressional District of New York in June 2020, where the challenger Jamaal Bowman[15] apparently defeated long-time incumbent Eliot Engel,[16] a top pro-Israel voice in Congress. What was telling in that primary was that the issue of criticizing Israeli policy was centrally featured, with Bowman highlighting his opponent’s unwillingness to defend Palestinian rights, and with Engel receiving substantial campaign contributions from pro-Israel groups.[17] Still, Bowman appears to have won by a wide margin.
Solidifying the mood critical of Israeli policy among Democrats has been the perception of a strong alliance between the Israeli government and President Donald Trump. This was particularly visible in the Democrats’ immediate critical reaction to Trump’s Middle East plan.[18] As the Israeli government appeared poised to annex parts of the West Bank, in harmony with Trump’s plan, but in clear violation of international law,[19] even pro-Israel Democrats found themselves warning against the move,[20] and AIPAC found itself sending a message[21] that it will allow such criticism, perhaps as a preemptive move, given that criticism became inevitable.
No matter what happens in the 2020 presidential election, the nature of the conversation about Israel and about Israeli-American relations has changed, most notably among Democrats. This is likely to reflect itself in an increasingly pronounced way in the 117th Congress, as it did after the 2018 midterm election.
***
This article is partly adapted from “What do Americans think of the BDS movement, aimed at Israel? And does It matter for the US election?”[22]
*The survey was carried out September 3-20, 2019 online from a nationally representative sample of Nielsen Scarborough’s probability-based panel, originally recruited by mail and telephone using a random sample of adults provided by Survey Sampling International. The poll was conducted among a national poll of 3,016 respondents, with a margin of error of +/- 1.78%. Overall, the sample was adjusted to reflect population estimates (Scarborough USA+/Gallup) for Americans. The survey variables balanced through weighting were: age, gender, race/ethnicity, household income, level of education, census regional division, and political party affiliation
**The survey was carried out October 4-10, 2019 online from a nationally representative sample of Nielsen Scarborough’s probability-based panel, originally recruited by mail and telephone using a random sample of adults provided by Survey Sampling International. The poll was conducted among a national poll of 1,260 respondents, with a margin of error of +/- 2.76%. Overall, the sample was adjusted to reflect population estimates (Scarborough USA+/Gallup) for Americans. The survey variables balanced through weighting were: age, gender, race/ethnicity, household income, level of education, census regional division, and political party affiliation
***The survey was carried out March 12-20, 2020 online from a nationally representative sample of Nielsen Scarborough’s probability-based panel, originally recruited by mail and telephone using a random sample of adults provided by Survey Sampling International. The poll was conducted among a national poll of 2,395 respondents, with a margin [23]of error of +/- 2%. Overall, the sample was adjusted to reflect population estimates (Scarborough USA+/Gallup) for Americans. The survey variables balanced through weighting were: age, gender, race/ethnicity, household income, level of education, census regional division, and political party affiliation.
[1] Shibley Telhami and Stella Rouse, University of Maryland Critical Issues Poll (September 12 – October 9, 2018), https://criticalissues.umd.edu/sites/criticalissues.umd.edu/files/UMCIP%20Questionnaire%20Sep%20to%20Oct%202018.pdf.
[2] Shibley Telhami and Katayoun Kishi, “Widening Democratic Party divisions on the Israeli-Palestinian issue,” Washington Post Monkey Cage, December 15, 2014, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/12/15/widening-democratic-party-divisions-on-the-israeli-palestinian-issue/?arc404=true.
[3] Shibley Telhami and Stella Rouse, University of Maryland Critical Issues Poll (October 4 – 10, 2019), https://criticalissues.umd.edu/sites/criticalissues.umd.edu/files/UMCIP%20Middle%20East%20Questionnaire.pdf.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Shibley Telhami, “What do Americans think of the BDS movement, aimed at Israel? And does it matter for the US election?,” Brookings Institution Order from Chaos, January 8, 2020, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/01/08/what-do-americans-think-of-the-bds-movement-aimed-at-israel/.
[6] Shibley Telhami and Stella Rouse, University of Maryland Critical Issues Poll (November 1 – 6, 2017), https://sadat.umd.edu/sites/sadat.umd.edu/files/Nov%202017%20UMCIP%20Questionnaire%20FINAL%20VERSION%20V2.pdf.
[7] Shibley Telhami, “Americans Are Increasingly Critical of Israel,” Foreign Policy, December 11, 2018, https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/11/americans-are-increasingly-critical-of-israel/.
[8] Shibley Telhami and Stella Rouse, University of Maryland Critical Issues Poll (March 12 – 20, 2020), https://criticalissues.umd.edu/sites/criticalissues.umd.edu/files/UMCIP%20March%202020%20Questionnaire.pdf.
[9] Jon Krosnick and Shibley Telhami, “Public Attitudes toward Israel: A Study of the Attentive and Issue Publics,” International Studies Quarterly 39, no. 4 (December 1995): 535-554, accessed July 7, 2020, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2600805?seq=1.
[10] Shibley Telhami, “Israel is about to reveal its West Bank annexation plans. How will Congress respond?,” Washington Post Monkey Cage, June 22, 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/22/israel-is-about-reveal-its-west-bank-annexation-plans-how-will-congress-respond/.
[11] Ron Kampeas, “Bernie Sanders: I’m pro-Israel, but we must treat Palestinians with dignity,” The Jerusalem Post, November 21, 2019, https://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/Bernie-Sanders-Im-pro-Israel-but-we-must-treat-Palestinians-with-dignity-608540.
[12] Alissa Wise, “The Democrats are Changing their Talk on Israel. Will They Walk the Walk?,” Newsweek, November 23, 2019, https://www.newsweek.com/israel-democrats-military-aid-debate-human-rights-1473712.
[13] AP, “Biden says cutting Israel aid ‘bizarre,’ accuses PA of fomenting conflict, The Times of Israel, December 8, 2019, https://www.timesofisrael.com/biden-says-cutting-israel-aid-bizarre-accuses-pa-of-fomenting-conflict/.
[14] TOI Staff and Agencies, “Sanders calls Netanyahu a ‘racist,’ Biden slams PM’s ‘outrageous’ behavior,” The Times of Israel, December 20, 2019, https://www.timesofisrael.com/sanders-netanyahu-is-racist-us-must-also-be-pro-palestinian/.
[15] Eric Levitz, “Engel Teaches Dems That Backing War and Apartheid Has a Downside,” New York Magazine, June 24, 2020, https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/bowman-taught-eliot-engel-a-foreign-policy-lesson.html.
[16] Danielle Ziri, “Pro-Israel Democrat Engel Set to Lose to Challenger Bowman in N.Y. Primary,” Haaretz, June 24, 2020, https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-pro-israel-democrat-engel-headed-for-defeat-in-ny-primary-partial-results-show-1.8944090.
[17] Chemi Shalev, “Engel’s Defeat in N.Y. Should Spur Netanyahu to Rethink Annexation – but It Won’t,” Haaretz, June 24, 2020, https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-engel-s-likely-n-y-defeat-should-spur-netanyahu-to-rethink-annexation-but-it-won-t-1.8945012.
[18] Chris Van Hollen, “VAN HOLLEN, DEMOCRATIC SENATORS REJECT TRUMP PLAN, URGE ADMINISTRATION TO COMMIT TO A VIABLE TWO-STATE SOLUTION,” Chris Van Hollen, U.S. Senator for Maryland, January 28, 2020, https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-democratic-senators-reject-trump-plan-urge-administration-to-commit-to-a-viable-two-state-solution.
[19] Noa Landau and Reuters, “UN Chief Warns Israel West Bank Annexation Would Be ‘Most Serious Violation of International Law,’” Haaretz, June 24, 2020, https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/un-chief-mideast-envoy-urge-israel-to-drop-west-bank-annexation-plan-1.8945045.
[20] Ron Kampeas, “Chuck Schumer, 2 other key pro-Israel Democrats warn Israel against annexation, The Times of Israel, June 19, 2020, https://www.timesofisrael.com/chuck-schumer-2-other-key-pro-israel-democrats-warn-israel-against-annexation/.
[21] Ron Kampeas, “AIPAC tells US lawmakers it won’t push back if they criticize annexation,” The Times of Israel, June 11, 2020, https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-first-aipac-gives-us-lawmakers-green-light-to-criticize-israel-on-annexation/.
[22] Shibley Telhami, “What do Americans think of the BDS movement, aimed at Israel? And does it matter for the US election?,” Brookings Institution Order from Chaos, January 8, 2020, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/01/08/what-do-americans-think-of-the-bds-movement-aimed-at-israel/.