Despite public pronouncements and public actions, a closer look at trends among the American population will show that a conceptual change may be taking place in full view. The view of unbreakable American support may be a political mantra that may be true now, but also may not be as "unbreakable" as some may think. There may be a "conception" that needs to be looked at.

A few "red flags" are out there. The most glaring is the repeated mantra and data regarding the precipitous increase in antisemitism. The ADL cites a 361% rise in antisemitic incidents. A recent gathering of Jewish leaders in Washington noted "the urgent need for the government to take strong and aggressive action to stop the antisemitic murders, attacks, violence, and harassment." Hillel reports a 700% increase in antisemitic incidents against Jewish students. If these data are correct, and conventional wisdom says it is, the "rock solid" commitment of the political leadership may not be shared by a growing portion of the population they represent. The recent overt acts of violence resulting in Jewish deaths, such as in Washington and Boulder, lend credence to these sentiments.

Antisemitic and anti-Israel action and sentiment do not occur in a vacuum. The inconvenient truth may be that the data the "red flags" represent reflect what at least some in the population actually think and believe. And if the people are moving toward having less of a favorable attitude towards Israel, it is only a matter of time before the politicians that represent them do the same.

Among the "squad" of progressives such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, this is nothing new. Their constituencies have not pulled their support from them despite their clearly less than "rock solid" commitment to Israel. On what has been called the "woke right," there also are politicians whose feelings regarding Israel are not consistent with their party's political leadership. Fringe figures such as Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massie may still be outliers, but the popularity of alternative media figures that lend them platforms may signal a growing tolerance for the thinking they promote.

The concern for future popular American support for Israel is not without backing from the data. A recent CNN poll showed that, among Democrats, there is a marked shift in sentiment regarding Israel, showing that Democrats now sympathize more with the Palestinians by a net 43 points, a 56% swing in the last eight years. Among Republicans, a recent Quinnipiac poll showed sympathy for Israelis dropped 14% among Republicans over the last year. While polls by some pro-Israel groups dispute this trend, other published research confirms it.

The data have shown, in repeated polls over the last year and a half, a consistent finding where sympathy for Israel over Hamas is indeed significant, but also a finding that when "Palestinians" is substituted for "Hamas," this support wanes meaningfully. There is also a large swath of the population that is ambivalent on the matter, citing equal support for "both sides."

Ultimately, no one can have it both ways. If we believe there is a jump in antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiment, we can't believe that support for Israel is as strong as some Jewish organizations would have us believe. The data we see all point to behaviors that don't support sympathetic attitudes toward Israel. These behaviors are all related to a perceptual-cognitive framework that has been created in the general population. As time moves on, if the factors responsible for these attitudes and the behavior we see stemming from them continue, the resultant popular support for Israel will likely decline. And if the political balance in the United States swings over from what we see today, the policy ramifications may be grave.

Whether the "rock solid" support by the politicians that represent the people will continue is anybody's guess, but the conception of an impervious "unwavering" support needs to be questioned before that support is irrevocably damaged. Politicians will eventually follow the people, and initial signs of that are already appearing.

Taking today's America for granted may be understandable, but taking tomorrow's America for granted may be simply foolish.

The post Red flags everywhere: How US public opinion is tilting toward Palestine appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

When former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett was asked by ABC's Linsey Davis why he does not support a two-state solution, he answered, "Because they'll kill us." Davis, a bit bemused, seemed to argue that Hamas does not represent "the will of the Palestinian people." When Bennett pointed out that Hamas was in fact elected and chosen by "the people," Davis was stunned and seemed to be searching for the right words with which to respond.  What we saw here was a perfect example of the psychological barrier of Western ideology, a consciousness that fails to grasp the depth of a culture that does not accept a Jewish state in its midst.

The past few weeks have seen Hezbollah's middle management decimated, its top leadership eliminated, and Iran's ballistic attack largely thwarted, a result of technological wizardry taken straight from the plot of a fictional thriller. But another incident, headlined in Israel but mostly under the radar internationally, is the real story, and one that brings a sobering truth to the forefront. The truth that ideology, the fuel for behavior, is central to this conflict and central to the existential threats that Israel will continue to face. It is an ideology that Linsey Davis, along with many others, does not yet understand or appreciate.

As Iranian missiles were raining down, two Palestinians armed with machine guns exited a tram in Jaffa, adjacent to Tel Aviv, systematically killing seven civilians, including one young woman clutching a baby to her chest. Despite Israel's massive technological and military superiority, two lone wolves managed to pierce defenses that multi-million-dollar ballistic missiles could not. They likely knew they would not survive their rampage to kill as many Jews as possible, but far from deterring them, it probably raised motivation even higher, presenting them with a prize of "shahada" martyrdom and a place in the hearts of family and community who celebrated rather than mourned their deaths.

To Western minds, this all sounds rather unbelievable, perhaps a figment of a racist approach that fails to acknowledge that we are all alike, that we all want the same things, and that we all just want peace. Some in the West see the lone wolves as victims, exceptions to the rule spurred on by circumstances that we can understand, if not actually justify. It is the same thinking that glorifies "resistance" as legitimate and fails to recognize that internal belief systems are far more responsible for behavior than any external environmental factors. Certainly, "most" Palestinians do not support such attacks, and "surely" most want to live in peace with Israel.

This noble but naive approach, based on wishful magical thinking and fostered by liberal and progressive values, absolves the putative "victim" of any responsibility and assumes that a "fair" solution would solve everything. As with any ideology, this thinking is hard to crack, despite the test of reality. A reality where Palestinian leadership rewards terror, including the lone wolves of Jaffa, with stipends if they survive in prison and subsidies for their families if they are killed. A reality where Palestinians educate children that Jews have no history in the land and have no rights to exist as a state. A reality where, far from being separate from the Palestinian people, Palestinians themselves chose and continue to support Hamas. A reality where Hezbollah, against whom Israel has no territorial claims or aspirations, and Iran, a country with no common border, both seek to eliminate it.

The inability to recognize the defining role of ideology in the culture of the Middle East has incapacitated much of Western thinking and has tilted policy towards solutions that impose Western-based values on a culture that views things very, very differently. Instead of policy shaped according to what the Middle East believes, a generation of Westerners pursue policies consistent with what Westerners believe.

The ideology of the Middle East is no secret. It is preached in mosques, taught in schools, published in newspapers, and disseminated on social media. It is said out loud by leaders of Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, and Iran. It is heard in cafes and markets of Ramallah and Nablus and spoken among the Palestinian demonstrators in the West. It is an ideology that has been adopted by the noblesse oblige of academia voiding the legitimacy of Jewish nationhood.  While it is there for all to see, the perhaps well-meaning but ultimately distorted "we are all the same" ideology of Western liberals and progressives continues to perpetuate an asymmetry that paints the victim as an aggressor and encourages policies that, rather than promote peace, prolong suffering.

Once ideology moves beyond theory to stand behind strategy and become policy, it moves from hypothetical to real. The ideology of Islamist culture has long ago become a reality that most Israelis have come to recognize as behind the terror they have been facing for decades. We don't know when liberal progressive thinking will recognize that reality as well, but until that switch takes place, real peace between Israelis and Palestinians will remain a pipe dream.

And no technological wizardry can solve that.

Irwin J. (Yitzchak) Mansdorf, PhD., is a clinical psychologist and a fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs specializing in political psychology.

The post The psychological barrier of Western ideology appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The events surrounding the taking of hostages at a synagogue in Colleyville, Texas, on Jan. 15 by Malik Faisal Akram, a 44-year-old British Pakistani armed with a pistol, received considerable attention and live coverage in the United States.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Following the escape of the hostages and the subsequent storming of the synagogue by law enforcement – which resulted in the death of Akram – dialogue and discussion ensued regarding issues of antisemitism in the United States, synagogue security and the Jewish community's general sense of safety.

We undertook two simultaneously administered surveys of Jewish and non-Jewish Americans between February 1 and February 6, 2022, close enough to the Colleyville events for them to remain "fresh" in people's memory and far enough away to allow for reflection and internalization of the ramifications of the experience.

Our data, on the whole, suggest the following:

1. While Jewish Americans, as well as Americans in general, still see right-wing ideology as primarily responsible for the hate-related activity of white supremacist groups, there appears to be increased concern over Islamic extremist activity as well as a trend of increased attribution of anti-Jewish and other hate-based activity to what can be identified as progressive or "woke" sources.
2. Jewish Americans differ from "general" Americans in attributing greater responsibility for hate-based incidents against Jews to left-wing ideology and in perceiving a greater threat from white supremacists and Islamic extremists. They also showed higher levels of feeling that the Democratic Party tolerates Islamic extremist activity.
3. antisemitism is seen as primarily based on verbal or offensive language or threats and very little on physical violence against Jews. Moreover, the subjective intensity of antisemitism in the daily lives of Jewish Americans may be less than it appears to be based on media reports and not very different from the hate-based activity against other groups.
4. Both Americans in general and Jewish Americans in our survey essentially offer support for Israel but feel that Jewish Americans should maintain political and ideological independence and distance themselves from policies and behavior they disagree with.
5. Both our "general" American and Jewish American samples are overwhelmingly unaware of any specific efforts to "combat" antisemitism by any Jewish organization.
6. The threat to Jews from the hate-based or extremist activity is perceived to be similar, but generally midway between the perceived threat to Christian (less threatened) and Muslim (more threatened) communities.
7. Both the Jewish American and "general" American samples hold Donald Trump's administration and supporters as responsible for increased antisemitism, but both, especially our Jewish American sample, attribute substantial responsibility to progressive "woke" ideology.
8. Some consideration should be given to the data – especially among a significant minority in the Jewish American sample – showing a cognitive differentiation between "anti-Jewish" and "anti-Israel" behavior, as well as the notion that such differentiation and the rejection of a distinct Jewish national identity may enable anti-Semitic activity masked as "anti-Zionism."

The underlying trend in our data appears to show, in contrast to conventional wisdom and our previous research, an increased recognition that the ideology of left-leaning sources – specifically "woke" ideology, and especially in the Jewish American sample – bears some responsibility for antisemitism in the United States. What makes these data more convincing is that this behavior is not a "shift" away from blaming right-wing ideology and especially Trump-associated sources, but rather an expression of additional responsibility.

This would be consistent with a recent study we conducted on US campuses: Israeli campus professionals assessed that liberal and progressive groups represent the most significant source of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel sentiment on campuses, rather than more conservative groups, who are viewed as generally supportive.

The relationship between Israel and the Jewish American community remains somewhat vague. While expressing general "support for Israel," Jewish Americans still wish to exercise choice in distancing themselves when they disagree with Israeli policy or behavior. That alone may seem reasonable, but when combined with our data showing that most also see support for Israel as a reason for antisemitism, and a sizable minority (20%) do not equate anti-Israel behavior with anti-Semitic behavior – a claim made by many anti-Israel organizations and individuals – what "support" actually means is unclear.

This finding is consistent with the conflict some see between support for Jewish nationalism in Israel, namely Zionism, and aversion to the concept of seeing Jews as a whole as a national identity, or as noted by James Loeffler, "the obvious presence of Jewish nationalism in America coupled with the putative absence of a Jewish nation."

Gol Kalev touches on how anti-Jewish behavior is expressed today in his conceptualization of "Judaism 3.0," where he posits the transformation of Judaism from a more religious element to a more national one (as in Zionism). As societies have evolved, so has the expression of anti-Jewish behavior. As Judaism has moved more into the national realm with the establishment of Israel, so has anti-Jewish behavior. Our data show that a sizable portion of people, including Jews, see a separation between anti-Jewish and anti-Israel behavior, even though a much lower amount calls for an unconditional separation from actual support for Israel.

So, it is possible to claim no apparent or stated objection to the Jewish "religion" while expressing anti-Jewish attitudes through objection to the Jewish national entity, namely Israel. By denying a Jewish connection to nationhood, one can declare immunity from charges of antisemitism. Both secular and religious Jewish and non-Jewish "anti-Zionists" have made and debated that claim. By institutionalizing the separation between religious and national definitions of Judaism, "national"-based anti-Jewish behavior is given a free pass and can claim not to be anti-Semitic, as we see in statements made by the BDS movement.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

All this only amplifies the striking finding in our data regarding the widespread lack of awareness among Americans, including Jewish Americans, of any specific programs or efforts targeting antisemitism. This is despite the stated concern regarding antisemitism from Jewish organizations. While many Jewish and Israeli advocacy organizations claim to undertake these efforts, the impact on public consciousness remains low. We cannot offer a definitive explanation for why this is so, but one possibility that needs to be considered is that if such programs exist, they are not effectively applied in practice or carried out as efficiently as they should be.

As noted earlier, the interpretation of data is variable, but the data themselves are not. Our respondents were anonymous, which may account for the open expression of sentiment that is not always acceptable in some social circles – for example, among those who may self-identify as "liberal." Anonymity can sometimes create the opposite problem in survey research; for example, if group sentiment is present to intentionally mislead, as claimed in the case of Israeli elections. Our samples had no such motivation, and the consistency of their responses would lead one to conclude that they are, in fact, both valid and reliable. As such, this research is agnostic towards the data and ultimately apolitical, representing neither a "right-wing" nor "left-wing" orientation or analysis.

Featured on JNS.org, this article was first published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

The post Jewish Americans and left-wing antisemitism appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

What we saw was a total collapse of common sense. And while the latest restrictions have created fewer opportunities for this frivolous behavior to continue, we need to understand what to do if and when that same lack of common sense reappears on the flip side of this crisis, that is, when restrictions are gradually lifted.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

What we saw in a number of communities, but especially in religious communities, was a phenomenon of denial over reason and mindlessness over logic. While it appears that most people did indeed "get it," there was a stubborn and determined group who did not.

Endangering themselves is one thing, but putting others in danger is quite another. And while we can understand that some people may behave that way, when community leaders act irresponsibly, as they did, it is time to take a closer look.

We did see some changes. Some leading rabbis belatedly came out with strong messages urging people to stay home, avoid improvised outdoor services and pray individually. But while most of the ultra-Orthodox world finally woke up, other rabbis continued in a dangerous slumber, refusing to categorically prohibit the holding of public prayer services outdoors.

Well-meaning, intelligent people were organizing and participating in "pop-up" services, sometimes keeping to the 2-meter rule, but often not. And even those who kept the group to 10 and tried to keep 2 meters from each other could not guarantee that there wasn't any inadvertent contact, a passerby joining in or an accidental cough or sneeze that traveled beyond the 2 meters.

In other words, they took a chance, not only with their lives and the lives of their families but also with your life and mine. Even if they somehow felt the risk is small, why in the world would anyone play with fire in today's reality?

That reality is not pretty. Reports from Jewish communities around the world of people getting sick and dying in staggering numbers should have hit us all like a ton of bricks. It should have been a wake-up call, but instead, psychological denial continued. Ignorance may be bliss, but what of those that continued in that bliss despite not being ignorant?

Those that knew what was happening, knew what happened elsewhere, knew the risk factors, knew the chances they were taking but continued to march on as if they possess a spiritual immunity that sets them apart.

The Talmud tells us of the "pious fool" who insists on keeping religious stringencies even when these results in violating a more important value. The pious fool will not save a drowning woman who is scantily clad, and we saw those pious fools who wouldn't stop praying outdoors even though common sense and common decency said this was risky. Better to pray in a quorum than to save a life. Fools indeed, but they are not only pious fools, they are dangerous fools.

Psychologically, we always choose education over coercion and explanation over intimidation. That, however, requires time, something we do not have now as we try to clamp down on the carriers of sickness and death walking in our midst.

No one is immune. Not our friends or neighbors, not our families or coworkers, and certainly not those who aspire to be our spiritual leaders.

And as our sages have said (Avot 2:15) when the day is short and the work is plentiful, when the workers are lazy but when the reward is great, the master of the house, God, is insistent. Insistent on keeping the most important precept we have – the sanctity of life.

So while we would like to educate, now we need to coerce and while we would prefer to explain, now we need to intimidate. And that is why now have stricter restrictions.

Let's hope those who now see greater restrictions imposed on us, do not revert back to the same poor judgment if it is decided to eventually relax some restrictions. If they do it will be a mitzva to shame them. To shame those that are selfish. To shame those that are stubborn. To shame those who will be frivolous and to shame those who will be foolish.

If you do see this behavior again, decide that saving lives comes first. Decide to do the right thing. Do a mitzvah – shame someone.

The post Sometimes, shaming is a mitzvah appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.