A poll of registered voters from the end of the year shows that on the issue of the UN Security Council resolution against settlements of December 23, there are sharp splits between Democrats and Republicans and between Jews and African-Americans/Hispanics.
There’s a huge partisan divide in the data released by Politico/Morning Consult. Democrats support the UN resolution, by 47 to 16 percent. Among Republicans, it’s the opposite: 43-24 percent against.
And the Democratic Party is divided between traditional blocs: Jews were against the resolution by 47-42 percent. But Hispanics are 44-17 percent for the resolution. And African Americans are 39-18 percent for the resolution. Religious nones/atheists are also strongly for the resolution.
Here’s the raw data, of 2000 registered voters. The UN Resolution question is at page 180. Let’s drill down a little bit into the numbers.
Registered voters support the resolution, overall, 35-28 percent. Good news for those who oppose settlements: the voters have the politicians’ backs. Break out whites, they support the resolution: 34-31 percent. Though bear in mind, in each of those categories, there are large numbers who are indifferent.
Jews and Protestants stand out as being against the resolution.
Jews: 47 oppose, 42 support. Only 12 percent don’t know. That’s the indifference quota, very low.
Evangelicals: 36-27 percent oppose it. But 37 percent don’t know.
Protestants oppose the resolution, 41-28. But Catholics support, it 39-30.
Here’s the big kahuna in the poll: Atheists/Agnostics/Nones: 43-16 percent support the UN Resolution. That’s whopping. Notice that the Nones/Agnostics/Atheists now make up 478 of the sample of 2000 — nearly a quarter. Jews are only 63. Talk about punching above your weight! Those Nones are what gave Bernie Sanders his oomph on this issue.
More of the partisanship. Clinton voters: 49-14 percent support the resolution. But Trump voters: 46-23 percent oppose it.
The more education, the more support for the Resolution. It’s 46-34 percent support for the resolution among those with post-graduate education. No college, just 32 percent support. And those with a college degree: 37 percent support the resolution.
Change the script. On page 174 of the data, the pollsters ask a different question: Do you see the settlements as a legitimate security measure in a hostile region, or illegal? And there are some interesting results.
The partisan split is the same. Republicans regard settlements as a security measure, 40-18. Democrats go the other way, and see them as illegal, by 38-19.
But on political ideology, the differences are huge. Liberals 42-17 say illegal over a security measure. Conservatives flip the other way, 46-17.
Young people don’t buy the security argument. From ages 18-44, the numbers are about 30-20 percent saying that the settlements are illegal. Between 45 and 55, it’s even. The numbers only start going the other way, for the settlements as a security measure, above age 55.
The religious difference is even more pronounced when you ask whether settlements are a security measure or illegal. Jews go 52-32 percent for them being a security measure, with 16 percent having no opinion.
And while evangelicals line up more or less with Jews, by 35-19 saying it’s a security measure, 47 percent don’t know/have no opinion.
So much for the fervor of the evangelicals. Again: Jews know about settlements. Only 16 percent of Jews don’t know or have no opinion. But among other religions the no opinion numbers are all 39 or higher. Nones/Agnostics/Atheists say they’re illegal, 35-18. But 47 percent have no opinion.
This is important because it shows that while Jews are just 3 percent of the sample, they care more than any other group. They know the story. And they’re conservative on the question.
Bottom lines.
The Democratic Party is fractured. The party blocs of Nones, Higher Educated, African-Americans, Hispanics are against the settlements. Only Jews are for them. That divide is not going away. It’s getting rawer. Norman Finkelstein is surely right that the conflict is politically quiescent/sewn up in Israel/Palestine. But it’s not sewn up here. No: things are busting out all over. Wait till Republicans work to expose the differences. Wait till Keith Ellison and Tom Perez square off over this issue inside the Democratic Party.
Something else. The liberal Zionists constantly tell us that American Jews oppose the settlement project, so Obama was pushing on an open door in the Jewish community. No. Maybe attitudinally they do, but when it comes to our government taking action, the numbers don’t support the liberal Zionist claims. The numbers support the Jewish establishment, which has castigated the Obama administration for the vote. The young Jews are against settlements vociferously; but why do you think the Democratic Party establishment is so against Obama, as we reported the other day? It’s not just the sclerotic leadership, it’s the community. Jews are against Obama on this; and you can bet older Jews overwhelmingly so. Older Jews are donors.
This is why Barney Frank once told Jeff Halper after witnessing the horrors of the settlements: I’m with you, but I won’t commit political suicide till you produce the names of 5000 Jews in my district who support you. He knew the Jewish street, in Newton and Brookline! The Jews were the ones who cared, and they were not really against the settlements. Now can we go forward?
Thanks for publishing raw data that don’t make liberal zionists happy as they like to portray themselves as the silent Jewish moral majority. However, some of your reported data gives me pause. For example, the 47-42 Jewish opposition to the resolution. This Judaism does not include Jews who classify themselves as nones or non-practicing. And as you point out, the nones overwhelming supported this resolution and Jewish people in particular were the least likely to have a “Don’t know” response to the question. So in essence, if the complete Jewish community were asked, different results would have been obtained suggesting a significant majority support for the resolution.
There are 2 separate issues: a Palestinian state on the west bank and settlements on the west bank. . I think the two issues overlap in many Jewish minds. I think retaining military occupation of the west bank, from a purely military point of view is safer than having a Palestinian state there. The settlers present themselves as being the obstacle to a dangerous military situation: the Palestinians control the mountain Ridge overlooking the narrow coast.
Of course there is no such thing as purely militarily, the Palestinians are political beings, humans, with needs and demands that are festering wounds. The occupation is as corrupting as yeshayahu leibowitz asserted. His conclusion: the occupation is more dangerous or indeed toxic, than a Palestinian state.
The lame duck out of the door, flipping of the bird on the way out, might not bother your average person of color democrat, but it certainly made an impression on Jews. Norm finkelstein’s impression is widespread and not a cause for much Jewish cheer in the mainstream.
I’m going to use this space to point out a technical problem, no doubt caused by Russian hackers.
Over the past few days I have repeatedly received “Server stopped responding … Time out” messages when trying to view MW.
This may be a local problem in whatever chain of thingies lies between my modem in Brisbane and the pulsating core of MW in the land beyond the stars, but, if it is at MW’s end, could you please give the server another bottle of gin or whatever is necessary to keep it going?
Maybe your Congressperson is shamelessly giving Israel the green light to continue breaking international laws and stealing lands for illegal squatters. Rep. Engel who should be in the knesset and not in the US congress, and others, have gone against their own President, once again, to kiss up to Israel, and defy the official stance of their own nation. For shame.
U.S. House Votes to Condemn UN Over Israel, but Two-state Solution Clause Irks Hardliners
Resolution, which enjoyed bipartisan support, calls on Obama to prevent any additional international moves against Israel while he is still in office.
“The Royce-Engel resolution expresses opposition to UN Security Council Resolution 2334 and calls for it to be repealed or altered significantly. It also calls on the Obama administration to prevent any future decisions of this kind before his term ends in two weeks’ time. The resolution stressed that international forums like the UN were not the appropriate venue for solving the conflict, and that the United States should focus its efforts on promoting direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
The resolution said that “a durable and sustainable peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians will come only through direct bilateral negotiations between the parties resulting in a Jewish, democratic state living side-by-side next to a de-militarized Palestinian state in peace and security.”
read more: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.763310
THE SUPPORT FOR A VIOLENT OCCUPYING NATION IS EMBARRASSING.
I consider the “settlements” to be such an assault upon basic human rights (as they are land-grabs by armed people against disarmed victims) that I fail to understand how anyone with sentient feelings can possibly see such actions as “security measures”. To me, it is the human rights struggle of our age and to aid the “settlers” is to voluntarily don a “brown shirt”. Indeed it was the prime reason for this Progressive to develop an intense hatred of Hillary Clinton as she was willing to go along with the “settlements” for the sake of political contributions.
This article points out the general unconcern of most American voters on this issue, but it should also be understood that many of us are very passionate about it. The Zionists are taking serious risks thinking that this issue can continue to be waffled about.