Trending Topics:

Even as Clinton opposes sanctions over Israeli settlements, new poll shows her Democratic base is for them

US Politics
on 10 Comments

Last weekend Hillary Clinton joined the Republican candidates in coming down hard against Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel. Speaking to her financial sponsor Haim Saban as well as a D.C. audience, she described the campaign as anti-semitic and wrong, and meantime offered vague opposition to Israeli settlements.

Well there’s a good reason Clinton doesn’t want the issue politicized. If the matter were actually debated openly between Republicans and Democrats, her own base would be against her. A new poll of American attitudes on the conflict from Shibley Telhami at the Brookings Institution says that Democrats favor sanctions to counter Israeli settlement construction. Telhami reports:

It is notable that among Democrats, more people (49%) recommend either imposing economic sanctions or taking more serious action [re settlements], than those recommending doing nothing or limiting U.S. opposition towards (46%)

The poll also shows broad support for a one-state outcome among Americans. The poll at Telhami’s academic site defines one state as “a single democratic state in which both Jews and Arabs are full and equal citizens, covering all of what is now Israel and the Palestinian Territories.”

Those who advocate a one-state solution, 31%, are now comparable to those who advocate a two-state solution, 35%. The most notable change is that Republicans this year equally support a two-state solution vs. one-state solution (29% each).

This shows that Democrats support a two-state-solution over one state by 45 to 33. Still: a third of Dem voters are for a single democratic state with equal citizenship.

Dems don’t like the Israel lobby either. The poll shows that by more than a three-to-one ratio, Democrats feel that Israel has too much influence in American politics. And Americans generally also are turned off:

Overall, twice as many Americans say the Israeli government has too much influence (37%) than say too little influence (18%), while a plurality (44 %) say it’s the right level. The story once again is more pronounced in the partisan views: Among Democrats, about half (49%) say Israel has too much influence, compared with 14% who say Israel
has too little influence, and 36 % who say it’s the right level.

Netanyahu’s popularity has crashed among Dems, though he’s a heroic figure to Republicans. Notice that Democratic attitudes on blame for the recent “escalation in violence” actually track attitudes on our site. Democrats understand the Palestinian violence as a response to lack of freedom:

A plurality of Democrats, 37%, blame continued Israeli occupation and settlement expansion, followed by 35% who blame the absence of serious peace diplomacy, while 15% blame Palestinian extremists. In contrast, 40% of Republicans blame Palestinian extremists first…

And again, Americans are for a secular democracy there. Where did we ever get that idea?

Strong American majorities continue to favor Israel’s democracy over its Jewishness in the absence of a two-state solution (72% in 2015, compared with 71% in 2014).

Hillary Clinton has very different attitudes. She calls Israel “a thriving raucous democracy” and a “light unto the nations,” and is fundamentally opposed to the idea of any pressure on Israel. She said:

Some proponents of BDS may hope that pressuring Israel may lead to peace. Well that’s wrong too. No outside force is going to resolve the conflict between Israeli’s and Palestinian’s.
About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of

Other posts by .

Posted In:

10 Responses

  1. David Doppler
    David Doppler
    December 9, 2015, 11:21 am

    That’s not an appropriate use of “three-to-one,” when 51% don’t agree that “Israel has too much influence.” “Half” is accurate and makes the point: Clinton will throw the Democratic Progressives on Palestine under her bus, just as the elite establishment continues to do.

    Interesting that Trump is scheduled to visit Israel this month, and Netanyahu today is resisting calls to revoke the invitation.

    • Misterioso
      December 10, 2015, 10:25 am

      The decline of America continues: Rather than cause Bibi trouble at home, Trump has rescheduled his trip to Israel until after he “becomes president.”

  2. Mooser
    December 9, 2015, 12:28 pm

    “Even as Clinton opposes sanctions over Israeli settlements, new poll shows her Democratic base is for them”

    ROTFLMSJAO! I can’t wait for Hilary to tell us that Democratic support for intransigent Israel is the price of keeping Social Security and the ACA (“Obamacare”) for Americans.

  3. JWalters
    December 9, 2015, 8:08 pm

    Why don’t I see these poll results on TV? I thought they were all into polls!

  4. Boo
    December 10, 2015, 10:44 am

    Whatever this one-state solution turns out to be called, let’s hope it’s anything but “Israel”.

  5. Kay24
    December 10, 2015, 11:21 am

    Meanwhile certain Americans are sending millions of tax exempted funds to illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank for the last 5 years. Even Jewish terrorists benefit from this generosity. Palestinians accused of terroristic acts get their homes demolished and worse.
    Rev. Tutu was right, Israel is an apartheid nation.

    “BETHLEHEM (Ma’an) — Over $220 million has been given in tax-exempted US funds to illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank over the last five years, according to an investigative report by Israeli news site Haaretz this week.
    Haaretz published the findings after analyzing thousands of documents from filed taxes as well as official papers from dozens of US and Israeli nonprofit organizations, several of which were directly involved with raising money to support settlements.
    Around 50 tax-exempt nonprofit organizations in the US have been “massively funding” settlement residents, with nearly $224 million transferred as grants to the illegal settlements between 2009 and 2013, Haaretz reported.
    Families of convicted Jewish terrorists were among those who received funding from the US nonprofits.
    One nonprofit reportedly gave financial support to the family of Ami Popper, an Israeli who murdered seven Palestinian laborers in 1990, according to Haaretz.

  6. Kathleen
    December 10, 2015, 11:59 am

    And if Trump were to win the nomination even though all of the GOP contenders are now saying “he will not be the candidate” (what are they going to do whack him?) he has to pivot and has to focus on Clinton’s warmongering (Iraq war vote, push for military intervention in Libya, arming rebels in Syria) which birthed IS, resulted in millions of people (many Muslims) being killed injured and becoming refugees.

    Clearly Trump is a bigot however his decisions or statements have yet to result in the deaths of Muslims and others the way Clinton’s votes and influence as Secretary of State have.

    Anyone hear any of the MSM outlets ask any questions about Ted Cruz’s inference that he would nuke Syria etc “if sand can glow in the dark” This morning he was on Morning Joe’s and Scarborough conveniently did not ask him about this radical statement.

    When are we going to hear anything out of the MSM about Bernie’s lead in New Hampshire? Maddow had him on the other night for a relatively in depth interview. Waiting for Scarborough etc to do the same.

  7. genesto
    December 10, 2015, 12:26 pm

    It doesn’t matter what the public thinks – about anything! It’s all about campaign donations, which, with regard to Israel/Palestine, are coming primarily from wealthy, Jewish donors insisting that their candidate to show full support for the Israeli government. This is yet another example of the ever-growing disconnect between our government ‘leaders’ and the citizenry.

  8. Ossinev
    December 10, 2015, 2:35 pm

    I am reading elsewhere that he Trump has merely postponed his visit until the 28th December.
    And Nitay whilst “condemning” his comments will go ahead with his meeting:

    “As for the meeting with Mr. Trump that was set some two weeks ago, the Prime Minister decided earlier this year on a uniform policy to agree to meet with all presidential candidates from either party who visit Israel and ask for a meeting,” the statement read. “This policy does not represent an endorsement of any candidate or his or her views. Rather, it is an expression of the importance that Prime Minister Netanyahu attributes to the strong alliance between Israel and the United States.”

    Lying B. He simply realises that Trump has a huge following of right wing pro-Zionist freaks in the US and that he cannot afford to jeopardise that pro-Israel base by doing what is the right thing ie refusing to meet with a grotesque racist. He knows instinctively that if he cancels the meeting the Israel First lobby in the US would pay dearly.

  9. JLewisDickerson
    December 10, 2015, 5:17 pm

    RE: “Hillary Clinton . . . is fundamentally opposed to the idea of any pressure on Israel. She said: ‘Some proponents of BDS may hope that pressuring Israel may lead to peace. Well that’s wrong too. No outside force is going to resolve the conflict between Israeli’s and Palestinian’s’.” ~ Weiss

    MY COMMENT: So exactly what does Hillary Clinton believe is going to resolve the conflict between Israeli’s and Palestinian’s’? Am I missing something?
    Is she eventually going to claim that she has a “secret plan” to resolve the conflict (à la Richard Nixon’s infamous “secret plan” to end the Vietnam War)?

Leave a Reply