Indeed, the real critical question put to Americans should be: do you favor the current US government status quo that puts Israeli interests above American interests?

For instance, they didn't mention that the 2008 PIPA poll reveals that 53 percent of Americans would support a security guarantee to protect Israel if it was attacked by its Arab neighbors. (In the same poll, 50 percent opposed a similar security guarantee for Arab states)

Also, regarding the war with Hezbollah, polls–such as one conducted by Pew–reveals that 15 percent of Americans were in favor more support for Israel, while 49 percent were comfortable with the current level of support for Israel. In other words, a plurality of Americans were perfectly comfortable with the U.S. taking Israel's side, but didn't want to get further mired in the conflict, and many others favored even additional support.

Also, the the NYT poll conducted during the war with Hezbollah revealed that only 7 percent of Americans believed that Bush should publicly criticize Israel.

Not exactly strong evidence that Americans are unhappy with the direction of U.S. foreign policy toward Israel.

Also, as a side note, I'm intrigued that Walt & Mearsheimer–who routinely claim that they are not singling out Jews in their critique of the Israel Lobby–nonetheless endorse Blankfort's view that coverage of Israel is influenced by "Jewish presence at every level of every facet of the media." So professors, if you're reading this, do you really believe that?

Oh dear, Davey, I don't mean to frighten you but I'm afraid this is beyond debate. It's not a matter of opinion, but of simply reading the bylines.

http://poll4palestine.blogspot.com/2008/10/international-poll-marks-shift-in-us.html

Democracies and Kingdoms–the difference seems to be a few more
bones shoved under the table, not that that is nothing to the masses.

I find that the terms "even-handed", "fair", "equal", "neutral" are similarly loaded poll words.

They are words that most humanists cannot object to. Of course, we want America to be more even-handed.

What does "even-handed" look like? Its as useful a word as the opportunistic usage of the term "terrorist". In Walt/Mearsheimer paragraph above, the term "even-handed" has a predisposition, a should. Its NOT a "realist" statement, not a description, but an advocacy.

The 2006 Lebanon war is a sore. Different well-meaning individuals rationally bore entirely different conclusions as to cause, blame, aggression, hypocrisy.

There is a continental divide about that conflict (certainly phases of it) in which individuals that advocate for very similar outcomes as far as viable Palestinian sovereignty, conclude 180 degrees differently.

I personally believe that the US policy SHOULD be as ally (in word and in writing), and should commit to Israel's defense if attacked from without. Further, I think US policy should respect the stated obligation of the Israeli state as being primarily responsible for the safety of its civilians, and express consistent sympathy with that obligation of a state.

And, the US should distinguish the status of Palestine and Lebanon as in deferred civil war between extra-legal militias, from the status of a state that successfully and peacefully transfers administration by election, and honors the continuity of state by executing agreements made by prior administrations (unlike Hamas).

With respect for genuine defense as boundary of policy, the US should do everything that it can, asked and intuited, to enhance the prospects of peace, rather than enable aggression (as the Bush dealership enabled).

Sympathies should be MUTUAL, not either/or.
Support for civil Israel AND support for civil Palestine.

There is one problem with the above–I am assuming–outing of antisemites, you should read more carefully:

As Jeff Blankfort correctly points out, this is due in good part to the fact that Israel's supporters stifle criticism of Israel in the media, while working hard to demonize the Palestinians.

There is no trace of singling out "the Jews", although they seem to be a strong part of it. A fact that strictly can be checked. The relevant term is: Israel supporters. A very professionally organized network, if you ask me, down to the many, many foot soldiers on the net, who are easily enraged: Israel is here to stay, you better get used to it!

It's pretty easy to stifle the debate since there is a powerful weapon: anti-Israel merging with criticism of Israel = antisemitism. You just used it.

Even handed as you construe it is a German Panther tank commander rolling up to the Warsaw Ghetto.

Could you elaborate on what makes them loaded?

Would you consider these terms loaded too if they were used in opinion polls concerning any other conflict?

What specifically makes them loaded in our context?

Do you think you would object if all questions that were asked uniquely mirrored Israeli need? Would you consider that objective? Or is objectivity not the problem here. Do the polls have to mirror power relations and "fair" or "even-handed" or "neutral" seem to threaten that power position that produced the stalemate?