Jeff Blankfort responds to the Israel Project's poll of Americans' love for Israel:
judge to what extent they have imbibed the propaganda dished out by the
mainstream media and the questions are constructed so that the
parameters of the possible responses fit within a desired outcome, e.g,
the acceptance of the bombing of Iran. As for the low percentage in favor of the Palestinians, that should be no surprise since the media which is either Zionist
controlled or Zionist influenced is totally loaded in Israel's favor,
whether it is on the op ed pages of the NY Times, Washington Post,or Boston Globe, whose columnists are syndicated all over the country, or from the talking heads on every network or cable news show, or NPR.
You'll recall that Bill Graham told Richard Nixon
that when he was re-elected, he should destroy "the Jewish stranglehold
on the media." "Do you really think that?," tricky Dick replied. When
Graham responded in the affirmative, Nixon said,"So do I," but you
can't talk about (as I generally recall the exchange). When the tape
was revealed and he was accused of Aunty Semitism, Graham wept and
asked forgiveness while the deceased Nixon resisted all attempts at
resurrection. There was no public figure
who, at least publicly, suggested that these two men were certainly in
a position to know who runs the media although I am sure there were
many who nodded in agreement. At that point I took it upon myself to
make a list of Jews in the media based on what I already knew and from
what I read in the Forward and the business pages of the NY Times. I
quickly had a list of four pages and then gave up. The proof of a
Jewish presence at every level of every facet of the media proved quite
overwhelming and while most of the Jews working in these positions are
not hard-core Zionists
and some not Zionists at all, and probably came to journalism as you
and I have (I used to work for the LA Examiner), they know on which
side their bread is buttered. When it comes to the media, the
Palestinians and consequently, truth, don't stand a chance.
I generally agree with Blankfort–having made similar observations myself–but I also think the analysis is a little mechanistic. I like to think that love of Israel is a mood of orthodox thinking that has been thrown down over the Establishment like a blanket, and that the edge of the blanket are now pulling away, and the mood can change. My sense of Jews in the media, and yes we are a predominant group, is that most of them have gone along docilely with their more virulent cousins, they are sheep, and they are waiting for the mood to change. Even David Remnick at the New Yorker is in this category, I bet.
Also, I don't think we should underestimate the effect on American Zionism of the Iraq war. Though I don't know history, I once read that the Catholic clerical presence in the French establishment was shocked and broken by the Dreyfus affair, and I believe the Iraq war is having the same effect on our Establishment. The neocons are now gone, or going. Their only slightly less virulent cousins, the neolibs, are going to be all over Obama's braintrust, but they will have to share the space with realists and even some closet progressives. But I'm a cockeyed optimist.
I think that love of Israel is unconditional, but like of Israel is conditional.
There are still objective conditions that give some aspects of the neo-conservative analysis credibility.
The structure of Iran's governance, theocracy in fact, makes the civilist approaches that western states apply (imperfectly) somewhat inneffective.
If you are a patriot and VALUE the American system of governance (checks and balances originating in consent of the governed), then there is a conflict of cultures, that meets in the frontier.
I'm not sure what you mean by mechanistic, Phil; to me, Blankford's analysis is really dead on. Especially what he says about polls. Not just that they reflect zionist bias, but what they represent in general. Polling is the weapon of choice in the propaganda war for American hearts and minds. It really recalls an authoritarian communist society with a state-coordinated ministry of propaganda, the way that Americans are constantly told what they think, how they feel, etc. That's the result of the mass-consolidated corporate-two party media.
There goes Witty again with his unconditional love for zionism. Which at its bedrock level really translates into unconditional suspicion of the goyim. It's sad, and a little bizarre, for those of us without an ethnic nationalist valueset.
Its a love of a parent to a child, a brother to a brother.
One can be extremely angry with one's brother, and refuse to visit his home, but still be more than available in an emergency.
If my son ever goes on a 60 year genocidal rampage I do hope they throw the book at him (and me too).
One can also administer tough love to a child, brother, etc. Israel is a
state that demands like a child its entitlement. If you don't give the child a blank check, you are hated by the child, all full of self and nothing else.
We live in a Nanny Nation of children, that's that sense of entitlement, with Israel being one of them.
And look where it has got us morally and economically.
It didn't use to be that way–in fact it was too far contrary, that is the old children should be seen and not heard mentality, and daddy's right, and you're either with me or against me.
Time to set Israel straight. Teach it responsibility. Take those training wheels off the Israel bike.
No child ever asked to be born. The Jews didn't ask for the Shoah
(although that's not quite good analogy since a child is a child but
the Jewish collective is as old as the proverbial hills, and set its own precedent when it attacked Jericho and slayed all.)
Uh, did anyone stop to consider that Americans aren't terribly fond of Hamas? Do you really need to resort to the "Jews control the media" conspiracy theory to understand why Americans aren't gushing in sympathy for a theocratic government whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel (and blames Jews for the French Revolution)?
Support for Palestinians reached an unprecedented low following the election of Hamas. (However, according to Gallup, 44 percent of Americans would support U.S. engagement with Hamas, if it recognized Israel.)
Also, I'm amused by this quote from Philip Weiss in 2006:
"If you ever needed a reminder of how important the realist intellectuals' spring assault on the Israel lobby is, today's Times bore it out. Its polls show that most Americans feel that Israel's indiscriminate destruction in Lebanon will lead to a wider war, and that we don't have a dog in that fight and shouldn't get involved. "Support for the president's staunch backing of Israel goes only so far…" intones the Times: 39 percent say they approve it, but 40 percent say we should be neutral on its latest conflict. We are all realists now… Most of us anyway."
So, when Weiss sees a poll that he likes, it's evidence of a growing awakening in U.S. society; but when he sees a poll he doesn't like, it's because Americans have been duped by the "Jewish-controlled media."
Seriously, isn't there something elitist about this argument? The idea that most Americans are too dumb to perceive media bias, except for the few enlightened who can discern the truth?
"Uh, did anyone stop to consider that Americans aren't terribly fond of Hamas?"
When I tell friends that Hamas is first and foremost a social service organization, providing food, care, and education to the poor; that many of its ministers are women; that those Christians remaining in Palestine overwhelmingly support its program, they ask, "Why has no one told me this?"
isn't there something elitist about this argument? The idea that most Americans are too dumb to perceive media bias, except for the few enlightened who can discern the truth?
– there would be, if that was the argument. My argument is that because it is psychologically impossible for most people to grasp the extent of class loyalty among media employees, most people simply cannot believe that 'no one would give the game away'. This is certainly what most people actually say.
International Poll: Most Publics—Including Americans—Oppose Taking Sides in Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Israeli, Palestinian, American and Arab Leaders All Get Low Marks On Efforts to Resolve Conflict Most Favor UN Playing Robust Role in Peace Enforcement For Release: 14:01 GMT July 1 st , 2008 Contact: Steven Kull, 202-232-7500 College Park, MD—A new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll of 18 countries finds that in 14 of them people mostly say their government should not take sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Just three countries favor taking the Palestinian side (Egypt, Iran, and Turkey). No country favors taking Israel’s side, including the United States, where 71 percent favor taking neither side. World publics give low marks to Israel, the Palestinians, the United States and the Arab countries when asked how well they are doing their part in the effort to resolve the conflict. Publics in most countries think the United Nations should play a greater role in the conflict in the Middle East. Majorities say the UN should offer to send peacekeepers tothe region not only to enforce an eventual agreement but also to guarantee the security of both Israel and its Arab neighbors. “Publics around the world are not cheering for either side and want their governments to take an even-handed approach,” said Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org. “All of the key actors are seen as failing to do their part to break the impasse and most want the UN Security Council to step in and offer peacekeeping forces and even security guarantees to help resolve the conflict.” The poll of 18,792 respondents was conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org, a collaborative research project involving research centers from around the world and managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University ofMaryland. Interviews were conducted in 18 countries, including most of the largest nations–China, India, the United States, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Russia—as well as Mexico, Peru, Great Britain, France, Spain, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, Thailand and South Korea. The Palestinian Territories were also polled. The nations included represent 59 percent of the world population. Not all questions were asked in all nations. The survey was fielded between January 10 and May 6. Margins of error range from +/-2 to 4 percent.
Page 2
On average 58 percent of those polled around the world say that they believe their country should not take either side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Only 20 percent say their country should favor the Palestinians and just 7 percent say the Israelis. Large majorities of about 70 percent or more prefer a neutral stance in eight countries, including the United States (71%), as well as Mexico (88%), South Korea (82%), Great Britain (79%), France (79%), Peru (76%), China (74%), and Ukraine (69%). World publics give low marks to international actors when asked to evaluate how well they are “doing their part in the effort to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” Israel receives the worst ratings. In thirteen out of the fifteen countries asked thisquestion, majorities say the Israelis are “not doing very well” or “not doing well at all.” On average, 54 percent say Israel is not playing a positive role while just 22 percent say it is. Those giving Israel poor grades include three out of five Americans (59%). Only in India do more view Israel’s role positively (35%) than negatively (25%). The Chinese are divided. Palestinians do not fare much better than Israelis. In 10 out of 15 countries, most say the Palestinians are not doing their part in the effort to resolve their conflict with Israel. On average, 47 percent view the Palestinians’ role negatively while 28 percent view itpositively. Americans have the largest majority with this negative view (75%), followed by South Koreans (74%) and the French (66%). Those viewing the Palestinian role mostfavorably are the Palestinians themselves (75%), followed by Egyptians (63%), Indonesians (49%) and Nigerians (46%). Twelve of the countries polled say the United States is not doing its part very well. On average, 59 percent view the US role negatively while only 20 percent view it positively. In the United States itself, only 44 percent say their country is doing its part well while 46 percent say it is not. Evaluations of the Arab countries are negative in 11 out of the 15 publics asked. On average, 48 percent say they are not playing a constructive role while just 23 percent saythey are. A majority of the Palestinians (57%) also rate efforts by their Arab neighbors negatively. Publics around the world think the UN Security Council should take a robust role in resolving the conflict. In 16 of 17 countries asked about this issue, majorities or pluralities think that if Israel and the Palestinians reach an agreement, the UN Security Council should send peacekeepers to enforce it. On average, 67 percent favor this idea while just 20 percent oppose it. Most UN Security Council members support sending UN peacekeepers to enforce an eventual Israeli-Palestinian agreement, including majorities in China (81%), France (74%), Great Britain (67%), the United States (61%), and a plurality of Russians (47%).
Page 3
Predominantly Muslim publics in the Middle East also support this proposal, including Turks (65%), Egyptians (64%), and Palestinians (63%). Most publics polled would support an even higher level of UN commitment: that if Israel and the Palestinians reach a peace agreement, the UN Security Council should offersecurity guarantees to both Israel and its Arab neighbors. Eleven of the 16 countries polled said the Security Council should make a commitment to protect Israel if it is attacked by its Arab neighbors, while 13 of the 16 thought it should do the same for Arab countries in case of an Israeli attack. On average, 45 percent favor providing such guarantees to Israel and 55 percent providing them to Arab countries. For more information, visit: http://www.WorldPublicOpinion.org. ###
I, unconditionally love Hamas.
Anyway,
"The structure of Iran's governance, theocracy in fact, makes the civilist approaches that western states apply (imperfectly) somewhat inneffective."
That particular point also explains why Israel is allowed to starve and murder 1.5 million people in Gaza and withhold medicine from babies and other extremely worthwhile pursuits.