America is changing its mind on Israel: How Netanyahu is alienating his most essential ally

[marmar]

(Salon) The current violence in Israel-Palestine—immediately following the debate about the Iran arms deal, which revealed growing fissures in American support of Israel–has brought the conflict into the foreground of U.S. political discourse. The absence of any serious mention of Israel-Palestine during the first Democratic presidential debate thus speaks volumes. It tells us that even as polls show more and more of the Democratic base shifting its support away from Israel, the leading candidates for the Democratic nomination are reluctant to talk about Israel. It will be interesting to see if they shift their stances at all in the next few months, given the stakes that are emerging. Recent polls have shown that Latinos, a critical constituency, are lending their sympathy to the Palestinians. They join the young, progressives, Blacks, and Asian Americans. This is not only the perception of supporters of Palestinian rights, this point of view is shared by advocates of Israel as well.

Everything seems in play, and that calls for our attention. Here’s what is unfolding on the American political scene:

To begin with, let’s look at the reactions of the U.S. State Department regarding the escalation of violence in Israel-Palestine. On October 13, Secretary of State John Kerry declared “What’s happening is that, unless we get going, a two-state solution could conceivably be stolen from everybody… And there’s been a massive increase in settlements over the course of the last years, and now you have this violence because there’s a frustration that is growing.”

Upon being accused of laying the blame for the violence on the building of settlements, the State Department rushed to back off from the October 13 statement:

“State Department spokesman John Kirby told reporters that Kerry had not been ‘trying to affix… blame for the recent violence’ during a Tuesday evening address at Harvard University, when the secretary told his audience that ‘there’s been a massive increase in settlements over the course of the last years and there’s an increase in the violence because there’s this frustration that’s growing.’ The two ideas, Kirby suggested, were not meant to be interpreted causally.”

Right. It’s hard to believe anyone bought that spin. What this flip-flop indicates is precisely the fluid state of our political discourse on Israel-Palestine. ...............(more)

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/25/america_is_changing_its_mind_on_israel_how_netanyahu_is_alienating_his_most_essential_ally/

[FBaggins]

1. AmericaNS don't appear to be

[geek tragedy]

2. Democratic support has slightly decreased, Republican support has skyrocketed.

Supporting Israel is a rightwing cause now.

[oberliner]

3. Democratic support for Israel is higher now than it was throughout the 1990s and early 2000s

The percentage of Democrats siding with Israel over the Palestinians is about 10 points higher today than it was in the 1990s and early 2000s.

It climbed from the mid 30's (in the 90s) to the high 40s/low 50s and has stayed at or around that level since 2006.

[geek tragedy]

6. it was in the 60's in the early 1990's

What's really telling is how much support of Israel has become a rightwing cause, even a litmus test for Republicans.



Republicans are vastly more supportive of Israel than Democrats are.

Because Israel shares the Republicans' values, not ours.

Supporting Israel is something old, white conservatives do.

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/the-israel-project-american-hispanics-are-the-most-hostile-toward-israel-1.412851

Americans of Hispanic origin, the fastest-growing ethnic group in the United States, are relatively hostile towards Israel because they are ignorant about Middle East affairs and are influenced by traditional anti-Israeli Catholic views, according to the Israel advocacy group, The Israel Project (TIP).

In a media briefing in New York to mark the resignation of TIP’s founder, Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, the group’s Executive Director for the Americas, Allan Elsner, said that Israel is more popular among older Americans, Republicans, conservatives and Evangelicals and less popular among “liberal elites”, African-Americans and Democrats. Elsner said that the Israel Project was focusing its efforts on “groups where we have a problem.”

Of course, the spin on it from team Israel is racist bigotry.

[azurnoir]

7. thanks

[oberliner]

9. Do you know why there was a spike in 1991?

You can use Wikipedia to find the answer if you want.

[azurnoir]

10. well why don't you tell us

[Israeli]

11. I'm guessing ....scuds ?

[oberliner]

16. That's correct

Nice job!

[Israeli]

62. Was not difficult oberliner......

.....mention 1991 to any Israeli and the first thing that pops into ones mind is scuds and gas masks .

[oberliner]

65. Stumped one poster

But I do agree with you, it was not a difficult question.

[geek tragedy]

13. you could also ignore the role the first intifada had in providing the world a glimpse

into Israel's wanton brutality towards Palestinians.

During the first intifada, without a wall there to sanitize things, the IDF routinely beat the shit out of Palestinian children for the entire world to see, including the US. Israel piled up quite a large body count.

Speaking of stuff one could use Wikipedia to look up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Intifada

[oberliner]

18. But did you not notice that 1991 is an outlier year?

The percentages before and after that year were lower and stayed consistently in the high 30s/low 40s through the remainder of the 1990s and early 2000s.

Today the percentages on the side of Israel is about 10 points higher among Democrats (high 40s).

[geek tragedy]

20. that rise coincided with 9/11, when some Democrats joined the Republicans

in adopting the Neocon view that it's Christians and Jews vs Muslims in a clash of civilizations.

It's not a coincidence that pro-Israel and pro-war are highly correlated positions for politicians to take. Jerry Nadler is a very lonely exception in that regard.

Flashback to 2007, at the 'bipartisan' AIPAC conference.

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/11314-pelosi-is-booed-at-aipac

Members of the preeminent pro-Israel lobbying group booed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) yesterday after she said that the Iraq war has been a failure on several scores.

The boos, mixed with polite applause, contrasted starkly with the reception House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) received minutes earlier. Most of the crowd of 5,000 to 6,000 stood and loudly applauded Boehner when he said the U.S. had no choice but to win in Iraq.

Fortunately, the pro-Israel crowd failed in their attempt to foment a war with Iran recently.

[oberliner]

21. It's been 14 years since 9/11 and the percentage is the same now as it was then

Bear in mind that there is also a group called J Street. AIPAC is not the only game in town for Democrats who support Israel. Also remember that much of the pro-Israel crowd supported the deal with Iran. President Obama, whom I quoted below, in fact worked to make that deal a reality in order to prevent such a war. He explicitly talked about why the deal was, in fact, good for Israel (as well as the rest of the world) and has said that was one of his reasons for promoting it. J Street, the progressive pro-Israel group, rallied lawmakers to support the deal.

[geek tragedy]

24. J-Street is a pariah amongst US Jewish organizations.

who do not consider it pro-Israel because it is left of center and generally pro-peace.

http://time.com/84395/j-street-aipac-israel-zionism-2/

The leading Jewish umbrella organization in the United States voted Wednesday against admitting the liberal-leaning Israel advocacy group J Street, highlighting the often contentious rifts that exist within the American Jewish community.

The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, comprising 50 voting members of varying size, voted to deny J Street membership. Of the 42 groups represented at the vote, 17 supported J Street’s membership, 22 opposed and three abstained, the New York Times reports, citing people present because the actual count was private. J Street needed 34 votes to join.

The dovish group has ruffled feathers since its inception six years ago, when it sought to be an alternative to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the powerful pro-Israel lobby group that has dominated debate of Israeli issues in Washington. Billing itself as both pro-Israel and pro-peace, J Street has taken stances that are critical of Israeli government policy toward Palestinians and out of line with the typically lockstep stances of major American Jewish groups. J Street has, for example, backed the Obama Administration’s nuclear talks with Iran and opposed Israel’s 2008 military incursion into Gaza.

[oberliner]

26. "Of the 42 groups represented at the vote, 17 supported J Street’s membership, 22 opposed"

Sounds like J Street is supported by about half of those organizations (the more Democratic and left-leaning ones) and opposed by the other half (the more conservative/Republican ones).

[geek tragedy]

29. and the conservatives had more votes nt

[oberliner]

30. Yes, there are definitely many conservative Jewish organizations

The Conference includes groups like American Friends of Likud and Religious Zionists of America (along with other conservative groups).

The Conference also includes groups like Ameinu (whose motto is "Liberal Values, Progressive Israel&quot , Americans for Peace Now, and the Union for Reform Judaism and others.

Just as there is great variety among Democrats (as evidenced by the Hillary-Bernie arguments that can be found on this board), there is also great variety among supporters of Israel (which includes right-wingers but also includes people like Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren).

To pretend that this is not the case is simply dishonest. Again, I do not begrudge you the right to disagree with Elizabeth Warren on this issue, but I don't think you can deny that she is an honest and principled individual who is very clearly a member of the liberal wing of the Democratic party.

[geek tragedy]

32. It's always the politically safe position to support Israel unconditionally.

There's no pro-Palestine lobby. There aren't any major pro-Palestine donors like Haim Saban or Shelly Adelson.

So, once one decides to take the expedient route, one applies the appropriate liberalese mumbo-jumbo to make it appear principled.

The formula is something like [bipartisan boilerplate on shared values] + [liberal spin on bipartisan boilerplate on shared values] + [bipartisan boilerplate lipservice on two-state solution] + [bipartisan hedge/equivocation on two-state solution based on security].

Obama's position can be said to be principled only because it's been such a dismal failure as applied in policy that he wouldn't pick a position so untenable based on expedience. His espousing of liberal values re: Israelaccomplished only one thing: making Barack Obama one of the most despised figures inside Israel, convincing the non-Arab public that he's allied with Hamas and Iran.

[oberliner]

46. Or maybe they just actually believe what they are saying

I would respectfully encourage you to at least consider that possibility

[geek tragedy]

48. I'm sure they're largely sympathetic to Israel.

Their reasons are harder to determine.

[oberliner]

68. Obama has explained his reasons

He has given several speeches where he outlines exactly why he has such feelings about Israel.

[geek tragedy]

70. Indeed, he views Israel as family rather than a foreign country

Which is why his diplomatic policy w/r/t Israel and Palestine has been a complete failure.

Bush accomplished the same amount--nothing--with significantly fewer costs by simply not trying and keeping his distance.

[oberliner]

71. That's definitely not true

He views Israel both as family and as a foreign country.

He has expressed similar sentiments about other close US allies such as the United Kingdom.

[geek tragedy]

72. he doesn't talk to the UK like a junior sibling nt

[oberliner]

73. More like an older sibling who has past his prime

I come here today to reaffirm one of the oldest, one of the strongest alliances the world has ever known. It's long been said that the United States and the United Kingdom share a special relationship. And since we also share an especially active press corps, that relationship is often analyzed and overanalyzed for the slightest hint of stress or strain.

Of course, all relationships have their ups and downs. Admittedly, ours got off on the wrong foot with a small scrape about tea and taxes. There may also have been some hurt feelings when the White House was set on fire during the War of 1812. But fortunately, it's been smooth sailing ever since.

The reason for this close friendship doesn't just have to do with our shared history, our shared heritage; our ties of language and culture; or even the strong partnership between our governments. Our relationship is special because of the values and beliefs that have united our people through the ages.

http://www.newstatesman.com/2011/05/nations-rights-world-united

.

[Crunchy Frog]

75. Really? Politicians?

And maybe Santa Claus is real too.

[oberliner]

8. It was at 37 in 1994

It was at 35 in 2004. It is at 48 today.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/05/22/remarks-president-jewish-american-heritage-month

It’s particularly important to remember now, given the tumult that is taking place in so many corners of the globe, in one of the world’s most dangerous neighborhoods, those shared values compel us to reaffirm that our enduring friendship with the people of Israel and our unbreakable bonds with the state of Israel -- that those bonds, that friendship cannot be broken. (Applause.) Those values compel us to say that our commitment to Israel’s security -- and my commitment to Israel’s security -- is and always will be unshakeable.

And I’ve said this before: It would be a moral failing on the part of the U.S. government and the American people, it would be a moral failing on my part if we did not stand up firmly, steadfastly not just on behalf of Israel’s right to exist, but its right to thrive and prosper. (Applause.) Because it would ignore the history that brought the state of Israel about. It would ignore the struggle that’s taken place through millennia to try to affirm the kinds of values that say everybody has a place, everybody has rights, everybody is a child of God. (Applause.)

As many of you know, I’ve visited the houses hit by rocket fire in Sderot. I’ve been to Yad Vashem and made that solemn vow: “Never forget. Never again.” When someone threatens Israel’s citizens or its very right to exist, Israelis necessarily that seriously. And so do I. Today, the military and intelligence cooperation between our two countries is stronger than ever. Our support of the Iron Dome’s rocket system has saved Israeli lives. And I can say that no U.S. President, no administration has done more to ensure that Israel can protect itself than this one.

Supporting Israel is something that black liberal Democrats do.

[geek tragedy]

12. Politician tells audience what they want to hear. There's a shock.

Obama plays the same game most liberal supporters of Israel do, citing a bunch of platitudes that have nothing to do with Netanyahu-era Israel, acting as if this is 1965, not 2015, in order to overcome the cognitive dissonance of identifying as a liberal while supporting a rightwing, racist country (the Israeli state is racist because the voters there are racist).

Supporting Israel while purporting to champion

the kinds of values that say everybody has a place, everybody has rights, everybody is a child of God.

is like politicians who vote for war and the death penalty and to take away health care from poor people, then claiming to be "pro-life."

Obama is talking about Israel as it once was and never will be again.

It's not a coincidence that this incoherence on his part has lead to an Israel/Palestine policy that is a complete failure. All Obama has achieved with regard to the I/P dispute is to convince both sides to not trust him and to not respect him.

[oberliner]

17. President Obama has been consistent on this topic

Like many Democrats, I agree with him.

[geek tragedy]

19. he's mistaken as to his timeline.

he thinks this is 1965 or even 1975.

his I/P policy is also rather patronizing. Not his place to tell Israelis what their values are or what's good for them. He's not Israeli, not even Jewish.

He treats them like a friend instead of an ally. He doesn't keep it professional.

Bush's I/P policy was actually more consistent and defensible--"we say we support a two-state solution, but we're not going to pretend that we give a shit about either the Palestinians or Israel's future viability."

The next president will revert to that approach, not even pretending to provide more than lip service to the I/P dispute--"yeah yeah, the Palestinians are suffering injustice, so are a lot of people. Israel's future is its own business, not ours. Not our job to protect Israel from itself."

Obama is the last American president who will even pretend to give a shit about the two-state solution. US formal policy will still be two-state solution, but it's mere boilerplate at this point, since that window has already closed. Nothing to be gained, especially from the view of US domestic politics, to tilt at that windmill."

[oberliner]

22. Elizabeth Warren: "It is a moral imperative to support and defend Israel"

The U.S.-Israel Relationship and Middle East Peace

Since its founding more than 60 years ago, Israel and the United States have been steadfast, trusted, and reliable allies. I unequivocally support the right of a Jewish, democratic state of Israel to exist, and to be safe and secure. The U.S.-Israel relationship is rooted in shared values and common interests, based on a commitment to liberty, pluralism, and the rule of law. These values transcend time, and they are the basis of our unbreakable bond.

To me, it is a moral imperative to support and defend Israel, and I am committed to ensuring its long-term security by maintaining its qualitative military edge. Israel must be able to defend itself from the serious threats it faces from terrorist organizations to hostile states, including Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and others.

http://origin.elizabethwarren.com/issues/foreign-policy

Elizabeth Warren is certainly no Republican. Would you not agree that she is a liberal Democrat?

[geek tragedy]

25. and what she offers is standard boilerplate, complete with false statements

about Israeli values.

[oberliner]

27. Elizabeth Warren and Barack Obama are not "old, white conservatives"

They are liberal Democrats who support Israel.

You certainly can disagree with them if you want, but they are definitely not conservatives.

[geek tragedy]

28. there are exceptions to every generalized statement about political positions.

some Fox News viewers are liberals, etc.

[oberliner]

31. The vast majority of Democrats in Congress share their views on the subject

They are by no means exceptions among elected Democrats as far as their views on Israel is concerned.

[geek tragedy]

33. sure, they provide the boilerplate designed to keep the AIPAC crowd donating

instead of primarying them.

It's not like there's any votes to be had by talking about the Palestinians as human beings.

There's very, very little Israel could do to lose support on Capitol Hill. All they need to do is say "we want a peaceful resolution, but everything is the Palestinians' fault" and about 90% of Congress would just nod their heads dutifully.

[oberliner]

45. Neither Barack Obama nor Elizabeth Warren is in danger of being "primaried"

Obama is not running for anything, and he made these remarks just a few months ago.

It is so bizarre that you cannot even fathom the possibility that these might be their actual opinions.

[geek tragedy]

47. For Obama it is a matter of principle.

As he has unfortunately proven by shooting himself in the foot.

As someone who views her role as a national one, Warren is not inclined to rock the boat if it might detract from her core issues.

[King_David]

34. Actually no, it is YOU who is out of step with Obama

and his very consistent and real support of Israel .
Us Democratic Party members ,like half of us in this group, are perfectly in line with that thinking- in 2015.

( I wasn't even alive in 1965)

You just made up that nonsense.

There is no Democratic Party rep who espouses the anti Israel OTT rhetoric as you have here - in 2015.

?v=1435252877

[geek tragedy]

36. You and oberliner are the only two liberal supporters of Israel who participate in this group.

The rest are pretty obviously rightwingers (get all of their news from rightwing sources, deem every leftwing publication out of bounds explicit racism against Arabs and Palestinians, make Tea Party arguments against Obama's policies, etc).

There has been explicit endorsement not only of apartheid, but of ethnic cleansing. By people who call themselves liberal Democrats on this forum.


See, for example, this piece explicitly advocating genocide via ethnic cleansing, posted and supported by 'liberal' supporters of Israel:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=65930

Complete with 'liberal' supporters of Israel calling people who oppose apartheid or genocide "Arab-apologists."

Democratic elites do support Israel, but that support has nothing to do with liberal principles, but rather a combination of pandering and identity politics.

Maybe I'm wrong and there are some people who are liberals on every issue but Israel, but turn into seething wannabe genocidalists when it comes to the Palestinans.

[King_David]

37. We are all Democrats

[geek tragedy]

38. just because someone says they are a Democrat doesn't mean they are.

actively advocating on behalf of apartheid or ethnic cleansing means a person does not share the values of the Democratic party, and they should not be included or made to feel welcome, and is certainly a more powerful flaw than not liking Israel

[King_David]

39. But what you write here on Israel

is completely opposite of and Democratic Party principal on the topic.

In fact there's a few very nasty extremist right wing sites that wrote daily about Israel that would be indistinguishable from what at least one poster and probably more than one.... Posts here on Israel on a daily basis.

[geek tragedy]

40. I don't believe you are correct on that.

I'm much closer to Keith Ellison than I am to Ted Cruz or Mike Huckabee.

[King_David]

50. I'm not doubting your Democratic Party cred

I read all your posts elsewhere and agree with most but not sure what happened to your view here ...

I could never support the homophobic right wing socially backwards government of the PA or Hamas and a one state would be complete loss of Gay liberty and rights .

[geek tragedy]

52. The real question is why people

who are liberal elsewhere carry water for Israel's rightwingers.

[King_David]

54. As a Person very concerned for Gay rights

And someone who has fought and struggled for it my whole life.... Support for Israel is a no brainier....


I could never support the homophobic right wing socially backwards government of the PA or Hamas and a one state would be complete loss of Gay liberty and rights .

[geek tragedy]

55. I suspect that is not the motive of the others

who somehow never manage to agree with Obama when he disagrees with Netanyahu.

[King_David]

57. Even a government led by Lieberman or Naftali Bennett

And Netenyahu... Are 100% more socially progressive especially wrt Gay rights and Women's rights than any of the Homophobic anti Women governments of the 2 Palestinian statlets or any other government in that area....

So why would any liberal support any of them?

[geek tragedy]

58. There is no justification for apartheid. None. nt

[King_David]

59. The neighborhood is socially regressive

Homophobic and Mysoginistic to the max....my friends don't wanna be hanged or killed or burned for being gay AKA the one state solution.

[geek tragedy]

61. Then they had better turn their attention to stopping those

damn settlements. Because they are why the one-state solution looms.

[leftynyc]

41. You can disagree with me

All you like on this issue but calling me a right winger is nothing but unmitigated bullshit. I'm pro choice, pro gay rights, think every republican running for president is an imbecile and would never consider voting for any of them. You are the one out of step with the Democratic Party on his issue and it's time for you to accept that reality. And spare me tHe genocidal bullshit. Genocide would lead to a decline in numbers - not the huge annual increase that are the reality. Time for you to accept you are a tiny minority of not only Americans but Democrats on the issue of Israel. I know it pains you but ignoring reality is nobody's problem but your own.

[geek tragedy]

42. I do not need lectures from people who link to John Bolton's think tank in order

to bash President Obama as 'naive' in order to promote war with Iran.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1043628

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1043626

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1043634

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/about/


Ambassador John R. Bolton, Chairman

Nina Rosenwald, President
Naomi H. Perlman, Vice President

Board of Governors (in formation)
◾The Viscountess Bearsted
◾Baroness Caroline Cox
◾Alan Dershowitz
◾The Lord Finkelstein OBE
◾Jack Fowler
◾Robert Immerman
◾Lawrence Kadish
◾Ingeborg Rennert
◾Rebecca Sugar
◾Merryl Tisch

Amir Taheri, Chairman, Europe Board of Governors

Board of Governors, Gatestone Europe
◾Chairman, Amir Taheri
◾Anne-Elisabeth Moutet

Board of Advisors (in formation)
◾Ahmed Charai
◾Rev. Dr. Petr Heldt
◾M. Zuhdi Jasser
◾Richard Kemp
◾Michael Mukasey
◾Elie Wiesel
◾R. James Woolsey

If you had read the link I posted, it was a person claiming to be a liberal posting an article from a rightwing extremist hate site explicitly calling for Israel to do to the Palestinians what Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic did to the Bosnians.

[FBaggins]

14. Where's the corresponding graph of sympathy for the Palestinians by party?

Omitting it likely shows where the actual spin/bigotry is.

[geek tragedy]

15. Americans have never given a shit about the Palestinians.

Most Americans have heard of only two Palestinians--Sirhan Sirhan and Yasser Arafat.

Certainly Americans have not gotten fonder of Arabs over the past decade.

[oberliner]

23. I would say that is true for Arabs generally

Ask most Americans to name famous Arabs and I would imagine they would mostly name terrorists and dictators.

[shira]

43. Radical Leftwing Israel haters don't give a shit about Palestinians either.

Absolutely no sympathy for dead Palestinians in Syria, apartheid conditions for Palestinians in Lebanon, and no civil rights under Hamas.

In fact, I'd say the radical leftwing haters of Israel hate Palestinians FAR, FAR more than Americans in general.

I highly doubt Americans in general would deliberately ignore Palestinian conditions in Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza just because they hate Israel.

[marmar]

49. Huh?

[shira]

53. The argument is that Americans don't give a shit about Palestinians...

I argue they care more about Palestinians than any Israel-hating, Hamas supporting zombie pretending to be pro-Palestinian.

Americans who "don't give a shit" aren't depraved enough to be indifferent to what Hamas is doing to Palestinians in Gaza, or about the apartheid going on vs. Palestinians in Lebanon, or thousands of dead Palestinians in Syria.

I can't think of people who hate Palestinians more than that, can you? The Israel hating Zombies are indifferent to all that due to their hatred of "Zionists". This is obvious to any clear-thinking person.

[FBaggins]

63. So.. when you said "Of course, the spin on it from team Israel is racist bigotry."

What you really meant was that it's team Hamas that has to spin the support statistics as racist bigotry.

[geek tragedy]

64. No, that was a reference to the pro-Israel group smearing Latinos as ignorant because they

don't like Israel.

[FBaggins]

66. And the difference is?

You appear to be claiming that racist ignorance/bigotry is behind the low levels of support for the Palestinians - even when talking about Democrats.

[geek tragedy]

67. If the shoe fits . . .

http://www.gallup.com/poll/4939/americans-felt-uneasy-toward-arabs-even-before-september.aspx

Americans Traditionally Have Not Held Very Positive Views of Arabs

Available historical data suggest that a negative image of Arabs existed before the September 11 attacks. A March 1993 Gallup poll, conducted shortly after a terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center, showed that just 39% of Americans had a favorable opinion of Arabs, while 32% had an unfavorable opinion and 29% had no opinion. An ABC News poll, conducted during the Persian Gulf crisis in February 1991, found that 43% of Americans said they had a high opinion of Arabs while 41% said they had a low opinion. In that poll, majorities of Americans said the following terms applied to Arabs: "religious" (81%), "terrorists" (59%), "violent" (58%) and "religious fanatics" (56%).

A July 1993 Gallup poll found that nearly two-thirds of Americans believed that there were "too many" immigrants from Arab countries entering the United States, while just 6% thought there were too few and 24% thought the number was about right. The poll was conducted at a time when most Americans thought immigration on the whole should be decreased. Still, Arab countries topped the list of areas from which Americans said "too many" immigrants were coming to this country, followed closely by Latin American and Asian countries, with African and European countries well behind. Sixty percent of respondents in an April 1998 New York Times poll agreed that "Arab-Americans are more loyal to Arab countries than to the United States," while 26% disagreed.

In 1995, following the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City, many Americans believed that Arab terrorist groups were responsible before the investigation uncovered Timothy McVeigh as the perpetrator of the crime. Nevertheless, six in 10 Americans thought media coverage of the bombing had been fair to Muslims and Arabs, while 28% thought it was unfair.

Arab-bashing is also a pretty popular sport amongst politicians, and has been for some time.

[6chars]

60. If Israeli support is this high WITH Netanyahu,

just think how deep the support is overall!

[leftynyc]

4. Horseshit

Find me anybody running for office while favoring the Palestinians over the Israelis. Never happen.That graph above gels the true tale. It's like the moral majority being convinced everybody MUST agree with them silently. Both groups are just obnoxiously loud very small minorities.

[King_David]

35. Very loud tiny minority's

[oberliner]

5. Author is David Palumbo-Liu

He has been a big supporter of boycotting Israel for a while now.

[shira]

44. Palumbo-Liu incites hatred with his lies, justifying terror attacks....

....against innocents.

Therefore, he's a hero to the Global Progressive Israel-hating Left.



I'm really sick of these Hamas apologists.

[marmar]

51. I'm really sick of bullshit jingoistic phrases like 'Global Progressive Israel-hating Left'

Intellectual dishonesty on steroids.

[shira]

56. Just for you. John Molyneux of the SWP....

Here is the Socialist Workers Party theoretician John Molyneux instructing the members in the finer points of reactionary anti-imperialism:

[font color = "red"]"To put the matter as starkly as possible: from the standpoint of Marxism and international socialism an illiterate conservative superstitious Muslim Palestinian peasant who supports Hamas is more progressive than an educated liberal atheist Israeli who supports Zionism (even critically)."

And here is Judith Butler - a professor at Berkeley and one of the most influential academics on the planet – drawing the political conclusions: “Hamas and Hezbollah... are social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left, that are part of a global Left.”

[/font]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/11243168/Blaming-Israel-for-Palestinian-violence-is-racist-it-denies-that-Arabs-are-moral-agents.html

I couldn't make this up if I tried...

[King_David]

69. Hamas and Hezbollah are "progressive movements "

How do their Gay citizens feel about that statement I wonder?

[shira]

74. What other proof is needed to demonstrate a broken moral compass....

......on everything I/P, as it pertains to the so-called anti-Imperialist, Global Progressive Left?

It doesn't get more fascist rightwing than that.