This poll of Americans by The Israel Project was embargoed till 3:30 PM Jerusalem time today, which of course sets my dual-loyalty hairs on end. But having looked over the poll, the actual questions, it’s hard to quarrel with the methodology, and it shows that by 57 percent to 6 percent Americans say they support Israel over the Palestinians.
Other discouraging news for my side of this issue: And while 33 percent of the respondents say that stopping Iran from going nuclear should be a top item on the foreign policy agenda of the new President (after ending the war in Iraq, restoring economic growth worldwide, and fighting Al Qaeda), only 19 percent say resolving Israel/Palestine should be on his agenda. (And 16 percent say, Deal with unrest in Pakistan.)
2 percent of the polled were Jewish. I don’t trust Stan Greenberg especially, he did the poll, but my critics are right: Americans are for Israelis, not Palestinians.
Why? Well, because they’re not well-informed. Because the paradigm shift hasn’t taken place. Because those who speak of apartheid are railroaded out of the discourse. And because pollsters ask questions like this, from the Israel Project poll:
And, which TWO of the following are the best reasons
for the United States to stand with Israel?
Is it that…
1st Comb
35% 46% Israel
shares our values including the freedom of speech, religion, press and the
right to vote
15% 33% Israel
is under threat from Iran, a country that wants to wipe Israel off the map
12% 22% Israel
is working for peace for both sides
9% 22% Israel citizens are vulnerable to terrorist
attacks
8% 18% Israel works with America for alternative
energy solutions that can help to reduce America’s dependency on foreign oil
2% 9% Israel
uses innovation to help solve problems in the health care and technology
industries
2% 8% Israel
is America’s partner in creating good jobs
One word to Americans: No justice, no peace. Americans should be seeking a just resolution of a century-old conflict. Otherwise it will never stop. Favoring one side over the other, 57 to 6, doesn’t augur well for anybody.
Here is what Dick Cheney would say:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SypeZjeOrY4
Madness! It's like the Stockholm Syndrome has taken over the whole nation. America, you are a boob.
This appears to be a politically motivated and likely fabricated "poll". The ones conducting the poll are Republican party strategists and others hired by the Israel Project. I will believe the results when it comes from a reliable source, such as Gallup. Not that I have a hard time believing that Americans sympathize with Israel. It's unfortunate that people often don't know who their real enemies are, often until it is too late.
There are two major problems with reading too much into this poll. First, it is attempting to measure the breadth of support within the general public. This may make for 'feel good' results, but not necessarily ones that are relevant to estimating feasibility limits on potential foreign policy proposals. Second, it makes no explicit attempt to measure the 'depth' of support.
I think it's important to note that the distribution of American opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and our role in it are not necessarily the same for the general population and the subset I have heard called 'opinion makers'. The views of those in the defense and foreign policy communities who are involved in the development and especially execution of policy are of particular note. Many of these people are not fools, and some will even put American interests first.
The ugly reality is that most Americans are sheep, and will go where they are lead unless you threaten some truly fundamental basic interest. If the 'opinion-makers' are on board with changing our role in the I-P conflict, the general public will not care ENOUGH TO SQUAWK as long as they have jobs that pay enough to keep them in 6-packs and cable television. Does anyone think that the majority of the general public who have sided with Israel in this poll are going to care enough to make a fuss if President-Elect Obama pushes forward an aggressive peace plan now that they they are reaping what they have sown for the last 8 years? They want economic stability and healthcare for their children far more than they want to see settlements in the OPT expand.
The pollsters had a pretty good idea of the answers they would get ahead of time, and designed the questions with more than just an eye for gauging general American public opinion. Their primary objective is to impart to the 'opinion makers' (those who will even be aware of the poll's existence) a false notion of constraints that President-Elect Obama would face in implementing a peace plan that includes withdrawal of Israeli colonies from the OPT. The general public is not the battleground, don't let them fool you into thinking it is, and that our side is losing. They do not have justice on their side, and their perception management operations will only work if we behave like 'traditional Democratics' and roll over and let them. For the record, although I have am a stalwart support of President-Elect Obama, I am not, never have been, and likely never will be, a member of the Democratic Party.
new party in israel: link to guardian.co.uk
The questions were very poor.
For example, what does support mean?
A good poll would have investigated different meanings of support/stand with Israel, but this poll was meant to manipulate not to analyze political opinion, but what would one expect from The Israel Project?
Err, I meant 'traditional DEMOCRATS'. I really need to spend more time going over what I write before posting. No deliberate insult to members of the Democratic Party was intended by my error in using the word 'Democratics'.
Georgia's Saxby Chambliss (U.S. Senate – R) is on the advisory board of The Israel Project!
___________________________________
Focus Grouping War with Iran
Washington Dispatch: A recent Virginia focus group test-marketed language to get tougher on Iran. UPDATED.
By Laura Rozen
November 19, 2007
The following article is an updated and revised version of a piece first posted on November 19, 2007. That piece misidentified Freedom's Watch as the sponsor of the focus group described below. We regret the error.
Laura Sonnenmark is a focus group regular. "I've been asked to talk about orange juice, cell phone service, furniture," the Fairfax County, Virginia-based children's book author and Democratic Party volunteer says. But when she was called by a focus group organizer for a prospective assignment earlier this month, she was told the questions this time would be about something "political."
On November 1, she went to the offices of Martin Focus Groups in Alexandria, Virginia, knowing she would be paid $150 for two hours of her time. After joining a half dozen other women in a conference room, she discovered that she had been called in for what seemed an unusual assignment: to help test-market language that could be used to sell military action against Iran to the American public. "The whole basis of the whole thing was, 'we're going to go into Iran and what do we have to do to get you guys to along with it?" says Sonnenmark, 49……..
ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to motherjones.com
/>
I should have explained above that the focus grouping was being done by The Israel Project as the updated article by Ms. Rozen explains.
I would neither believe nor dismiss the poll.
I've coordinated some polling (on energy issues). It is VERY EASY to construct the conclusions that you wish.
The most reliable polls are the ones that are conducted for the purpose of gathering information, and usually kept confidential.
All others (left and right) have an element of push (communication in the process of polling, and loaded deck in the range and categorization of responses).
If you found out that the results of the poll were consistent, even with Americans being fully informed, what would your response be?
Americans (whether chosen or not)= stupid, and deserving of exactly what they are going to get.
Sigh.
Well we are speaking of Americans here.
You know, the ones who think that democratic party is liberal, that FOX is news and that CNN is left wing…
Oy…
Nice try Phil but no cigar. Sometimes I think you scare yourself by being too honest and then get the hebbie jebbies and search for something like this Israel Project poll to try and back yourself out of the corner you have painted yourself into with 'the tribe'. do you think the israeli groups would doing all these 'polls' if they thought the public really supported israel unconditionally? No, they wouldn't. It's feel good propaganda for themselves and their followers.
I have posted the World Opinion Poll several times ..so once more. The link with the actual data on the Univ of Maryland site is broken so Glenn Greenwald's coverage of it will have to do.
Buck up Phil and have some faith…we will protect you from the tribe's rabid dogs.
I am right, you are right and the World Opinion Poll (Globscan, the most respected poll in the universe) is always right….the majority of Americans don't support Israel and I shutter to think what they would say if they actually knew all the facts.
So once again:….the Salon link also shows the charts and the questions for poll.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/20/israel/
One of the most striking aspects of our political discourse, particularly during election time, is how efficiently certain views that deviate from the elite consensus are banished from sight — simply prohibited — even when those views are held by the vast majority of citizens. The University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes — the premiere organization for surveying international public opinion — released a new survey a couple of weeks ago regarding public opinion on the Israel-Palestinian conflict, including opinion among American citizens, and this is what it found:
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) and one is divided (India).
No country favors taking Israel's side, including the United States, where 71 percent favor taking neither side.
The worldwide consensus is crystal clear — citizens want their Governments to be neutral and even-handed in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, not tilted towards either side. And that consensus is shared not just by a majority of American citizens, but by the overwhelming majority.
Few political views, particularly on controversial issues, attract more than 70% support among American citizens. But the proposition that the U.S. Government should be even-handed — rather than tilting towards Israel — attracts that much support.
Similarly, when asked "How well do you think Israel is doing its part in the effort to resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict," citizens around the world, by a large margin, believe that:…
Israel is doing either "not very well" or "not well at all" (54% — compared to 23% that say it's doing "very well" or "somewhat well").
And there, too, that worldwide view corresponds to American public opinion as well:..
59% of Americans say Israel is doing either "not very well" or "not well at all" — compared to only 30% that say it's doing "very well" or "somewhat well." And Palestinians don't fare much better worldwide (38-49%) and fare worse in the U.S. (15-75%).
Yet not only is the view of "even-handedness" completely unrepresented among mainstream political figures in the U.S., it's deemed political death to go anywhere near expressing that view. Back in 2003, then-presidential-candidate Howard Dean expressed the exact position favored by an overwhelming majority of Americans, yet triggered an intense and even ugly controversy by doing so:
Dean's Israel troubles began at a Sept. 3 campaign event in Santa Fe, N.M. When it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he said that day, "It's not our place to take sides." Then, on Sept. 9, he told the Washington Post that America should be "evenhanded" in its approach to the region.
That's all Dean said. It's a view held by more than 70% of Americans. It ought to be completely uncontroversial — if anything, it ought to be that view that is deemed a political piety. But what happened? This, according to an excellent account of that "controversy" in Salon by Michelle Goldberg:
The media and the Democratic establishment reacted as if Dean had called Yasser Arafat a man of peace. On Sept. 10, 34 Democratic members of Congress, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, wrote Dean an open letter. "American foreign policy has been — and must continue to be — based on unequivocal support for Israel's right to exist and to be free from terror . . ." they wrote. "It is unacceptable for the U.S. to be 'evenhanded' on these fundamental issues . . . This is not a time to be sending mixed messages; on the contrary, in these difficult times we must reaffirm our unyielding commitment to Israel's survival and raise our voices against all forms of terrorism and incitement."
The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reported that Dean had badly damaged his own campaign. "Sources in the Jewish community say that Dean has wrecked his chances of getting significant contributions from Jews . . ." the paper wrote. "Many believe Dean's statement will drive more Jews toward Lieberman and Kerry, enabling Kerry to take the lead again."
Dean was roundly attacked by the political elite for uttering "anti-Israel" comments, notwithstanding the fact that Dean is married to a Jewish woman, raised his children as Jews, and, most amazingly of all, had a campaign that was managed by Steve Grossman, a former President of AIPAC. But no matter: Dean had uttered a Forbidden Thought — forbidden even though it is embraced by the vast majority of Americans — and thus Grossman and Dean had to subject themselves to abject Apology Rituals:
According to the Dean campaign, the uproar involved semantics, not substance. "Here's what I think happened," says Grossman, Dean's campaign co-chair. "Howard made some comments in someone's backyard in New Mexico that were shorthand, if you will, for some of his Middle East views. In the course of those remarks and some others in the subsequent days, he used some language that gave people consternation, and it was immediately jumped on by Joe Lieberman and John Kerry that somehow Howard Dean was breaking faith with this 55-year tradition of the United States' special relationship with Israel, which is patently absurd". . . .
If Dean's Israel position really puts him far out on the left, it proves that not showing unequivocal support for the Jewish state remains a political poison pill — for members of either political party. . . .
After all, according to Grossman, the candidate remains in sync with the goals of Bush's Israel policy. . . . No serious candidate took a position to the left of Bush. Indeed, it's precisely because there's no real leftist alternative that Dean's been cast in that role. . . . . But a campaign is always more about images and impressions than carefully formulated positions, and that's where Dean has blundered.
It was conventional wisdom that that Dean had committed some grave mistake even though, as The Nation's John Nichols highlighted at the time, Dean was expressing the overwhelming majority view even back in 2003:
More troubling is the condemnation by Pelosi and other party leaders of even a hint of "evenhandedness." That smacks of the old game of positioning Democrats to the right of the Republicans on Middle East policy — in a perceived contest for Jewish-American votes and contributions. The problem with this approach, as Middle East scholar Stephen Zunes points out, is that "this suggests you cannot be firmly committed to Israel and question [Israel's hawkish Prime Minister] Ariel Sharon's policies. If that's where Democrats put themselves, they don't leave room to debate Bush on the issue."
They'll also have a tougher time appealing to American voters — 73 percent of whom, according to a recent University of Maryland poll, prefer that the United States not take sides.
It's pretty extraordinary that in a democracy, the political elite is able to render completely off-limits a view that the vast majority of Americans support. They actually render majority-held views unspeakable and then remove the issue entirely from what is debated. No matter what one's views are, there is no denying that our policy towards Israel is immensely consequential for our country. Yet, by virtue of the fact that presidential candidates are required to affirm essentially the same orthodoxies, there's very little difference in their positions towards Israel and therefore our current policy approach towards Israel will simply not be part of anything that is debated, even though most Americans overwhelmingly oppose that course.
Again, the point has nothing to do with one's views of the best policy towards Israel.
The point is that a position which the vast majority of Americans embrace is one that, simultaneously, is forbidden to be expressed, and the election consequently will involve no debate over that issue.
That profoundly anti-democratic dynamic is by no means confined to Israel. That's just an example. A different University of Maryland poll was released in April of this year, which surveyed public opinion in Iran and the U.S. regarding the disputes between those two countries. The populations of both countries have strikingly similar views with regard to those matters, with large majorities favoring the same deal to resolve the dispute (Iran has the right to develop nuclear energy accompanied by IAEA inspections to prevent weaponization), and large majorities also favor the NPT's goal of "eliminating all nuclear weapons." More strikingly, the citizens of both countries overwhelmingly favor the same policies of rapproachment and cooperation, rather than the bluster, threats, and ongoing provocative acts engaged in by both of their governments:
Remarkably, this desire for cooperation rather than confrontation is the view of most Americans despite the Iraq-level misinformation and propaganda which our political elite has disseminated about Iran:
And while Iranian President Ahmadinejad is depicted by our political class as the Equivalent of Adolf Hitler, savagely oppressing Iranians as some sort of insane, vicious tyrant, that isn't how they see it:
Iranian public opinion distinguishes between the U.S. Government and the American people — holding favorable views towards the latter and unfavorable views towards the former ("some portrayed the American people, like the Muslim people, as victims of the American government") — and to the extent there is "anti-Americanism" in Iran, it is based on this widespread assessment:
That, too, is a belief widely held in many places in the world, yet is one that no mainstream politician in the U.S. could express.
There are all sorts of reasons why our presidential elections center on personality-based sideshows (even Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell said as much about her own paper's coverage today). Those gossipy matters are easier for our slothful, vapid media stars to digest and spout. They require very few resources to cover. The campaign consultants who run national political campaigns are experts in P.R. strategies for packaging personalities and indifferent to policy debates, etc. etc.
But one principal reason is that so many of the Government's most consequential actions are concealed behind a wall of secrecy and thus not subject to public debate. Meanwhile, those policies which are publicly disclosed are kept off-limits from any real debate and, even when they are debated, public opinion is almost completely marginalized in favor of the minority elite consensus (see, for instance, the endless Iraq war even in the face of long-standing, overwhelming support for its end).
That remarkable dynamic of debate-suppression is most conspicuous — and most urgent — when the policies favored by the political establishment are ones that are vigorously rejected by the citizenry. Thus we have the extraordinary fact that a policy that has long been favored by the vast majority of Americans — even-handedness in the Israel-Palestinian conflict — is one that no mainstream American politician of any national significance can espouse without triggering an immediate end to their political career. That discrepancy is a rather potent commentary on how our democracy functions.
>>>>>>>>>>
The public is in the right place….and like I said earlier today..our government and especially congress doesn't refelct the wishes and desires of the US public on I-P.
But congress will eventually. Because the zionist and Israel will force pissed off Americans to rub the politicans noses in their own Israeli sh*t before all is said and done on US-Isr and Pal.
One amazing thing to note if you go and study the poll results and charts…that jewish polls overlook (leave out deliberately?..LOL) is that low American opinion on Palestines, squewed as it is by our slanted media, ..still does not translate into support for Israel. The US public majority mantra is still "Even Handedness".
In other words even though Palestines are mostly shown as terrorist in the US media the public still doesn't support favoring Israel over Palestine. Imagine that!
So, as dumb as the public is, they are like that judge who said he couldn't define porno but he knew it when he saw it.
Some of the public can't yet quite 'define'what is behind what they are smelling in the US-Isr-Pal deal but they are sniffing something is rotten in the one sided view they keep seeing in the media and hearing from congress.
That's why you have so many activist on Isr-Pal coming out, famous people and ordinary people. Like the communities and people who start up divestment movements on Israel. People like those on this site and others who comment.
People become furious when they learn the truth of how they have been lied to on this issue by the media and the politicans.
I dont' agree with those on here that say they feel constrained about talking about this. As far as most of the public is comcerned the gloves are off and Israel, the zionist and the jewish lobby are fair game.
The only people who are afraid to talk about this are the politicans. And God willing, and if the zionistas keep on their same track, some day soon Washington will more afraid of Americans than they are of the jews and the Lobby.
Notice also please…how polls done by groups like the Israel project 'cherry pick'.
This "part", not whole….
And Palestinians don't fare much better worldwide (38-49%) and fare worse in the U.S. (15-75%)."
..from the World Opinon Poll is what the jewish polls strive for as their 'proof' of American support for Israel.
There are two mistakes both the non thinking and the cause fanatics make in forming their own views…the first is assuming they are always smarter than other people..and the second is assuming other people are always smarter than them.
For whatever reason the zionistas always make the first mistake.
John Dickerson,
thanks for that article…most interesting.
Heheheh….I love this one.
"8% 18% Israel works with America for alternative energy solutions that can help to reduce America’s dependency on foreign oil"
Sure they do honey…for $ 20,000,000 taxpayer dollars a year.. Taken out of the US's own Dept of Energy.
If even half of Americans had the slightest idea of how much money over and above the usual 3 billion in yearly aid the zionistas and the jewish lobby suck out of hard working Americans I doubt there would a zionist left alive in this country and there would definitely be no Israel left.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-838
Text of S. 838: United States-Israel Energy Cooperation Act
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 838
To authorize funding for eligible joint ventures between United States and Israeli businesses and academic persons, to establish the International Energy Advisory Board, and for other purposes
AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
The Secretary is authorized to expend not more than $20,000,000 to carry out this Act ..FOR EACH… of fiscal years 2008 through 2014 …from funds previously authorized to the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Who will rid us of these eternal wefare and blood and money sucking parasites? They are like an infestation of cockroaches, they are in every corner and crevice of our government. Throw a tent over government and gas them out.
The first thing to note about this poll is that it's sponsor is the hardline pro Israel Israel Project. And as other commenters have noted, pollsters can easily rig the results by concocting questions that will lead to the results the client wants. And that's what's happened here.
Don't believe anything any Israel Project poll tells you unless you verify it from a more reliable source first.
And the hamlet of seattle chimes in again. The offer still stands big guy. Lets get Samir Kuntar over to your house to discuss mideast politics and play with your children.After all, he loves Jewish kids, right
The first four reasons listed comprise 99% of the total rhetoric/verbiage incessantly parroted for public consumption on the I-P issue by every American politician to get or keep his or job.
Palin represents very well the typical American. After being selected as VP by McCain her intelligent but empty head on Israel policy was
quickly filled with this AIPAC mantra.
How about adding this poll question:
"And, which TWO of the following are the best reasons for the United States to take an even-handed [fair and balanced] stand with Israel and the Palestinians? Is it that…"
I've never taken a poll that truly extracted my opinion. My guess is that if Americans were given the choice to withold their tax dollars that are sent to Israel, or given the chance to go to Israel to fight, Israel would receive very little money and no volunteers. Of course, Americans will never be given those opportunities, so it makes no sense to call average Americans stupid or brainwashed, when they are more likely weak, intentionally ill-informed and oppressed.
DO SEE HOW THIS POLL IS BEING USED?
Poll: Only 6% of Americans think U.S. should back Palestinians in peace talks
By Natasha Mozgovaya, Haaretz Correspondent
Of those polled, only 19 percent think "making peace between Israel and the Palestinians" should be among President-elect Barack Obama's top foreign policy priorities……..
SOURCE – link to haaretz.com
THAT SHOULD HAVE READ "DO YOU SEE…."
Government political employees are always doing things for what and whom the masses are indifferent to–most people are mostly concerned about themselves and their immediate families, survival and entertainment
to recuperate for the next work day.
It does not help that the Fourth Estate never does its job of
actually giving them full information so they can act, vote as
informed citizens.
We've been funding death and destruction since the early 20th century for "freedom and democracy."
Like the record?
The current USA economic problem might actually be a boon in that average Americans now at last faintly glimmer that they
are involved. Who knows, they might even commence to school
themselves on politics and history–to survive.