US Public is Fairer than US Foreign Policy

[BobbyMac]

Despite the strongly pro-Israeli tendency of the US foreign-policy elite, the American public shows a more nuanced appreciation of the complex dynamics of the Arab-Israeli peace process and the central role that Jerusalem holds for Arabs and Israelis alike. On the whole, a plurality of Americans express their support for a shared Jerusalem as well as their opposition to moving the US Embassy to the disputed city. This is one of the major findings of a national public-opinion poll undertaken this month by the American Committee on Jerusalem and conducted by the respected Zogby International of New York.

Zogby International interviewed 1,018 randomly selected, likely voters nationwide to gauge American attitudes toward the status of Jerusalem, its future, moving the US Embassy to the city, and the various claims made by Arabs and Israelis regarding their ties to the city. Two samples taken showed varying results. The first sample used the names "Israel" and "Palestine" and the second referred to "Country A" and "Country B." Overall, almost two-thirds of respondents in sample I and sample II say they are following events in the Middle East somewhat closely.

Principal findings of the survey shed light on how the US public views the status of Jerusalem, and the historical, religious, land ownership, and residential claims of each side. Firstly: a centering of American public opinion concerning the city's position. With regard to the status of Jerusalem, a plurality (45-46 percent) expressed a preference for the concept of a divided or shared Jerusalem. Support for a "shared Jerusalem" was double that favoring Israeli control over the entire city (20-23 percent). About 17-18 percent were not sure.

This majority support was most significant among 18-29 year-olds, Democrats, liberals, African-Americans, Hispanics, and union households. The young (18-29 year-olds) and Democrats are more likely to think Jerusalem should be shared than are the elderly and Republicans. The young are also more likely than the elderly to disagree with an embassy move.The young also feel more strongly about intervention in sample I than in sample II. When the terms "Israel" and "Palestine" are removed, the young increase their support of Palestine's historical claims to Jerusalem more than any other group (from 28 percent to 40 percent).

Support also increases among the young on current residency claims for Palestinians from 45 percent to 54 percent.In other words, the poll shows that youth and minority groups tend to be more open-minded and progressive on the question of Palestine. My own experience, as an academic at an American university, also reveals that youth and minority groups view the Arab-Israeli conflict in a much more complex manner than do their grandparents and parents and other older racial and sociopolitical groups. These findings call for creative strategies to connect further with these important societal segments and broaden the message to reach the rest.

Secondly, as for Israeli and Palestinian claims over Jerusalem, a majority of respondents expressed support for Israel on the basis of historical and religious claims over the city. However, Palestinian claims over the city were endorsed by a majority of respondents on the basis of property and legal claims and current residency claims. The latter, i.e. residency claims, present the Palestinians with the most convincing argument before American public opinion. The nuances of the findings are revealing.

For example, there is a drop in American support or sympathy for Israel in the second sample when the terms "Country A" and "Country B" replace "Israel" and "Palestine." The poll shows that when asking about historical claims, "overall, support for the Palestinians increases from 19 percent to 28 percent when 'Country B' is read ? and support for Palestinians' historical claim to Jerusalem increases from more than one quarter in sample I, to 40 percent in sample II." Furthermore, sympathies shift when religious ties and land-ownership claims are separated as claims. When asked about property and legal rights, there is little change in support from sample I to sample II.

However, when the questions of religious ties and land ownership rights are compared, sympathy for the Palestinians increases. In sample I, 19 percent support the Palestinians' religious claims, increasing to 35 percent on the question of land ownership/legal rights. In sample II, 21 percent support the Palestinians' religious claims, increasing to 43 percent on the question of land ownership/ legal rights. Support for Israel drops in these cases, though the numbers are less dramatic than in the increase of support for Palestine. On the question of residency claims, support for the Palestinians increases from 36 percent to 47 percent. This increase reflects a jump in almost every sub-group. Despite the nuances of the findings, the point to highlight is that the Palestinians should stress their concrete, material claims and rights over the city, which are seen to be convincing by a majority of Americans.



remainder of article at link

Edited to add link and comply with copyright rules: http://www.1worldcommunication.org/publicisfairer.htm

 

[Roudy]

Ha ha ha, it's actually opposite, American PUBLIC support for Israel is at record levels. And the govt is simply reflecting the wishes of Americans. And another sock goes pop!

Americans' Sympathies for Israel Match All-Time High

Gallup.com

PRINCETON, NJ -- As President Barack Obama prepares to visit Israel, the Palestinian West Bank, and Jordan next week -- his first trip to the region as president -- Americans' sympathies lean heavily toward the Israelis over the Palestinians, 64% vs. 12%. Americans' partiality for Israel has consistently exceeded 60% since 2010; however, today's 64% ties the highest Gallup has recorded in a quarter century, last seen in 1991 during the Gulf War. At that time, slightly fewer than today, 7%, sympathized more with the Palestinians.

Poll: Most Americans Oppose Obama, Support Israel


Jan 27, 2014
The White House's recent policies against Israel do not reflect the will of the American people, according to a recent poll.

The survey recorded the responses of over 1000 American citizens from various populations - not just the Jewish community - and was conducted by McLaughlin Associates, a well-known polling organization.

Among those polled in the representative sample, 46% of respondents were Protestant, 30% were Catholic, and 3.6% were Jewish; by ethnicity, 13% were African Americans, 12% were Hispanics, 3% were Asian, and 70% were Caucasian, according to the organization. The religious and ethnic breakdown reflects the American population as a whole.

A large majority of Americans - 59% - believe that the stronger sanctions should be imposed on Iran to convince it to stop developing nuclear weapons, as opposed to just 17% who say the West should weaken sanctions on Iran to convince it to stop developing nuclear weapons.

47% of Americans believe that Israeli Jews should have the right to live in Judea and Samaria (Shomron); among other reasons, Israel will be better able to defend itself with a large population living in that region. Only 14% of Americans believe that only Palestinian Arabs should have the right to live in the region.

An overwhelming majority of 72% of Americans oppose Obama’s plan to give the Palestinian Authority (PA) $440 million in a plan recently proposed by the President, as opposed to a mere 15% who believe that he should.

A large majority of 55% of Americans say that Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel. Just 13% believe it should not. In addition, 63% of Americans believe that the PA should recognize Israel as the sovereign state of the Jewish people, whereas only 11% believe it should not.

 

[BobbyMac]

A poll by the Zionist Organization of America vs. one by Zogby International??

 

[BobbyMac]

What is most interesting about the Zogby poll is the reaction of people when the names Israel and Palestine are replaced by country A and country B. What it says is that many believe the actions of Israel to be wrong, but let it slide once they know its Israel. I would be extremely interested in a poll of Israeli citizens where there is just a country A and a country B.

 

[BobbyMac]

Global Geopolitics, Headlines, Human Rights, Middle East & North Africa, North America
U.S.: Democratic Convention Stumbles Over Jerusalem Controversy
By Mitchell Plitnick
Reprint | | Print | Send by email
WASHINGTON, Sep 7 2012 (IPS) - The Democratic National Convention erupted in controversy this week over the removal of a clause in the party platform stating that Jerusalem should remain Israel’s undivided capital and only grew worse when the wording was hastily re-inserted.

Though party platforms are routinely ignored by presidents and members of Congress, the politically sensitive issue of Israel, which has been particularly prominent in a U.S. presidential election where foreign policy has been downplayed by both sides, has caused ripples far beyond Washington.

The Democratic Party platform had initially intended to remove the wording from 2008 which had affirmed the party’s stance on Jerusalem in order to bring it in line with long-standing United States policy, upheld by presidents of both parties, which holds that Jerusalem is a final status issue to be decided in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.


Both Republicans and Democrats, however, have routinely voiced support for Jerusalem being Israel’s “undivided capital” in their party platforms in order to gather support from wealthy pro-Israel donors and secure votes in swing states where Jewish voters are believed to be decisive.

Barack Obama, in a 2008 speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the major pro-Israel lobbying group, said that Jerusalem must remain undivided, but quickly backtracked and has since held to a policy of keeping Jerusalem as a final status issue.

Although the George W. Bush administration repeatedly stated its intent to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, it never acted to do so, the embassy remains in Tel Aviv, and the United States still has not formally recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

*Please provide link to article*

 

[Roudy]

A poll by the Zionist Organization of America vs. one by Zogby International??

No one of the polls was by Gallup, do you have reading comprehension problems?

 

[Roudy]

Global Geopolitics, Headlines, Human Rights, Middle East & North Africa, North America
U.S.: Democratic Convention Stumbles Over Jerusalem Controversy
By Mitchell Plitnick
Reprint | | Print | Send by email
WASHINGTON, Sep 7 2012 (IPS) - The Democratic National Convention erupted in controversy this week over the removal of a clause in the party platform stating that Jerusalem should remain Israel’s undivided capital and only grew worse when the wording was hastily re-inserted.

Though party platforms are routinely ignored by presidents and members of Congress, the politically sensitive issue of Israel, which has been particularly prominent in a U.S. presidential election where foreign policy has been downplayed by both sides, has caused ripples far beyond Washington.

The Democratic Party platform had initially intended to remove the wording from 2008 which had affirmed the party’s stance on Jerusalem in order to bring it in line with long-standing United States policy, upheld by presidents of both parties, which holds that Jerusalem is a final status issue to be decided in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.


Both Republicans and Democrats, however, have routinely voiced support for Jerusalem being Israel’s “undivided capital” in their party platforms in order to gather support from wealthy pro-Israel donors and secure votes in swing states where Jewish voters are believed to be decisive.

Barack Obama, in a 2008 speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the major pro-Israel lobbying group, said that Jerusalem must remain undivided, but quickly backtracked and has since held to a policy of keeping Jerusalem as a final status issue.

Although the George W. Bush administration repeatedly stated its intent to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, it never acted to do so, the embassy remains in Tel Aviv, and the United States still has not formally recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

Bunch of crazy leftists and Muslims do not represent US public opinion. Even the democrats were embarrassed over that incident. Try again. That's three fails in a row

 

[Lipush]

Despite the strongly pro-Israeli tendency of the US foreign-policy elite, the American public shows a more nuanced appreciation of the complex dynamics of the Arab-Israeli peace process and the central role that Jerusalem holds for Arabs and Israelis alike. On the whole, a plurality of Americans express their support for a shared Jerusalem as well as their opposition to moving the US Embassy to the disputed city. This is one of the major findings of a national public-opinion poll undertaken this month by the American Committee on Jerusalem and conducted by the respected Zogby International of New York.

Zogby International interviewed 1,018 randomly selected, likely voters nationwide to gauge American attitudes toward the status of Jerusalem, its future, moving the US Embassy to the city, and the various claims made by Arabs and Israelis regarding their ties to the city. Two samples taken showed varying results. The first sample used the names "Israel" and "Palestine" and the second referred to "Country A" and "Country B." Overall, almost two-thirds of respondents in sample I and sample II say they are following events in the Middle East somewhat closely.

Principal findings of the survey shed light on how the US public views the status of Jerusalem, and the historical, religious, land ownership, and residential claims of each side. Firstly: a centering of American public opinion concerning the city's position. With regard to the status of Jerusalem, a plurality (45-46 percent) expressed a preference for the concept of a divided or shared Jerusalem. Support for a "shared Jerusalem" was double that favoring Israeli control over the entire city (20-23 percent). About 17-18 percent were not sure.

This majority support was most significant among 18-29 year-olds, Democrats, liberals, African-Americans, Hispanics, and union households. The young (18-29 year-olds) and Democrats are more likely to think Jerusalem should be shared than are the elderly and Republicans. The young are also more likely than the elderly to disagree with an embassy move.The young also feel more strongly about intervention in sample I than in sample II. When the terms "Israel" and "Palestine" are removed, the young increase their support of Palestine's historical claims to Jerusalem more than any other group (from 28 percent to 40 percent).

Support also increases among the young on current residency claims for Palestinians from 45 percent to 54 percent.In other words, the poll shows that youth and minority groups tend to be more open-minded and progressive on the question of Palestine. My own experience, as an academic at an American university, also reveals that youth and minority groups view the Arab-Israeli conflict in a much more complex manner than do their grandparents and parents and other older racial and sociopolitical groups. These findings call for creative strategies to connect further with these important societal segments and broaden the message to reach the rest.

Secondly, as for Israeli and Palestinian claims over Jerusalem, a majority of respondents expressed support for Israel on the basis of historical and religious claims over the city. However, Palestinian claims over the city were endorsed by a majority of respondents on the basis of property and legal claims and current residency claims. The latter, i.e. residency claims, present the Palestinians with the most convincing argument before American public opinion. The nuances of the findings are revealing.

For example, there is a drop in American support or sympathy for Israel in the second sample when the terms "Country A" and "Country B" replace "Israel" and "Palestine." The poll shows that when asking about historical claims, "overall, support for the Palestinians increases from 19 percent to 28 percent when 'Country B' is read ? and support for Palestinians' historical claim to Jerusalem increases from more than one quarter in sample I, to 40 percent in sample II." Furthermore, sympathies shift when religious ties and land-ownership claims are separated as claims. When asked about property and legal rights, there is little change in support from sample I to sample II.

However, when the questions of religious ties and land ownership rights are compared, sympathy for the Palestinians increases. In sample I, 19 percent support the Palestinians' religious claims, increasing to 35 percent on the question of land ownership/legal rights. In sample II, 21 percent support the Palestinians' religious claims, increasing to 43 percent on the question of land ownership/ legal rights. Support for Israel drops in these cases, though the numbers are less dramatic than in the increase of support for Palestine. On the question of residency claims, support for the Palestinians increases from 36 percent to 47 percent. This increase reflects a jump in almost every sub-group. Despite the nuances of the findings, the point to highlight is that the Palestinians should stress their concrete, material claims and rights over the city, which are seen to be convincing by a majority of Americans.

The other side of the coin revolves around the ability of Israel and its friends in the United States to persuade Americans of their historical and religious claims over the city. Regardless of how much ink Arabs and Palestinians spill in their attempt to counter the Israeli historical assertions, it seems unlikely that Americans will buy the Arab counter-argument in the near future. For now, to be persuasive and effective, Arabs and Palestinians must focus their efforts on the legal, residency rights over Jerusalem. Thirdly, as for the transfer of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a majority of 55-62 percent disagreed with such a move. Only 17-20 percent agreed that the embassy should be relocated in Jerusalem.

This majority opposition to the embassy transfer was evident in all regions of the country, all political parties, all age groups, both genders, and various religious denominations. A December 2000 poll arrived at a similar conclusion. When asked whether they agreed with then-President-elect George W. Bush's promise "to begin the process of moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem" or with the position of former President Bill Clinton, who said that "no US action should be taken with regard to the embassy until the Israelis and Palestinians agree to the final status of the city," 57 percent agreed with Clinton's view. Only 23.5 percent agreed with Bush's campaign position.

The critical question that needs to be examined is, if most Americans disagree with moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, why do US politicians compete with each other and declare their support for such a move? What lies at the heart of the dichotomy between the US public and the ruling establishment? Does the latter put its vested interests ahead of national security considerations and justice as well? This central finding turns the conventional wisdom - regarding the enlightenment of the elite and ignorance of the masses - on its head.

The findings of the poll clearly show that American civil society views the Arab-Israeli tragedy more compassionately and fairly than does the US foreign-policy establishment. Arabs and Arab-American groups need to reorient their strategy in the United States by investing critical human and intellectual resources in building solid bridges to US civil-society organizations and institutions. Their traditional focus on the ruling institutions have not been fruitful or effective.

It is time that Arabs and Arab-American groups broaden their conception of the US political scene to include its vibrant and dynamic civil society and tap into its many layers and shades of opinion and beliefs. Yes, it is a long-term strategy; but at least it holds the promise of affecting real change in the making of American foreign policy toward the Arab-Israeli peace process a policy that would be based on historical reconciliation, and a just and secure peace for all.

I'm not an admin or manager or anything, but what usually is accepted here is to put part of the article and add a link to the source. What's the source of this very long post? can you please add it?

Nonetheless, some interesting points, I'll address some of them soon.

 

[Roudy]

Despite the strongly pro-Israeli tendency of the US foreign-policy elite, the American public shows a more nuanced appreciation of the complex dynamics of the Arab-Israeli peace process and the central role that Jerusalem holds for Arabs and Israelis alike. On the whole, a plurality of Americans express their support for a shared Jerusalem as well as their opposition to moving the US Embassy to the disputed city. This is one of the major findings of a national public-opinion poll undertaken this month by the American Committee on Jerusalem and conducted by the respected Zogby International of New York.

Zogby International interviewed 1,018 randomly selected, likely voters nationwide to gauge American attitudes toward the status of Jerusalem, its future, moving the US Embassy to the city, and the various claims made by Arabs and Israelis regarding their ties to the city. Two samples taken showed varying results. The first sample used the names "Israel" and "Palestine" and the second referred to "Country A" and "Country B." Overall, almost two-thirds of respondents in sample I and sample II say they are following events in the Middle East somewhat closely.

Principal findings of the survey shed light on how the US public views the status of Jerusalem, and the historical, religious, land ownership, and residential claims of each side. Firstly: a centering of American public opinion concerning the city's position. With regard to the status of Jerusalem, a plurality (45-46 percent) expressed a preference for the concept of a divided or shared Jerusalem. Support for a "shared Jerusalem" was double that favoring Israeli control over the entire city (20-23 percent). About 17-18 percent were not sure.

This majority support was most significant among 18-29 year-olds, Democrats, liberals, African-Americans, Hispanics, and union households. The young (18-29 year-olds) and Democrats are more likely to think Jerusalem should be shared than are the elderly and Republicans. The young are also more likely than the elderly to disagree with an embassy move.The young also feel more strongly about intervention in sample I than in sample II. When the terms "Israel" and "Palestine" are removed, the young increase their support of Palestine's historical claims to Jerusalem more than any other group (from 28 percent to 40 percent).

Support also increases among the young on current residency claims for Palestinians from 45 percent to 54 percent.In other words, the poll shows that youth and minority groups tend to be more open-minded and progressive on the question of Palestine. My own experience, as an academic at an American university, also reveals that youth and minority groups view the Arab-Israeli conflict in a much more complex manner than do their grandparents and parents and other older racial and sociopolitical groups. These findings call for creative strategies to connect further with these important societal segments and broaden the message to reach the rest.

Secondly, as for Israeli and Palestinian claims over Jerusalem, a majority of respondents expressed support for Israel on the basis of historical and religious claims over the city. However, Palestinian claims over the city were endorsed by a majority of respondents on the basis of property and legal claims and current residency claims. The latter, i.e. residency claims, present the Palestinians with the most convincing argument before American public opinion. The nuances of the findings are revealing.

For example, there is a drop in American support or sympathy for Israel in the second sample when the terms "Country A" and "Country B" replace "Israel" and "Palestine." The poll shows that when asking about historical claims, "overall, support for the Palestinians increases from 19 percent to 28 percent when 'Country B' is read ? and support for Palestinians' historical claim to Jerusalem increases from more than one quarter in sample I, to 40 percent in sample II." Furthermore, sympathies shift when religious ties and land-ownership claims are separated as claims. When asked about property and legal rights, there is little change in support from sample I to sample II.

However, when the questions of religious ties and land ownership rights are compared, sympathy for the Palestinians increases. In sample I, 19 percent support the Palestinians' religious claims, increasing to 35 percent on the question of land ownership/legal rights. In sample II, 21 percent support the Palestinians' religious claims, increasing to 43 percent on the question of land ownership/ legal rights. Support for Israel drops in these cases, though the numbers are less dramatic than in the increase of support for Palestine. On the question of residency claims, support for the Palestinians increases from 36 percent to 47 percent. This increase reflects a jump in almost every sub-group. Despite the nuances of the findings, the point to highlight is that the Palestinians should stress their concrete, material claims and rights over the city, which are seen to be convincing by a majority of Americans.

The other side of the coin revolves around the ability of Israel and its friends in the United States to persuade Americans of their historical and religious claims over the city. Regardless of how much ink Arabs and Palestinians spill in their attempt to counter the Israeli historical assertions, it seems unlikely that Americans will buy the Arab counter-argument in the near future. For now, to be persuasive and effective, Arabs and Palestinians must focus their efforts on the legal, residency rights over Jerusalem. Thirdly, as for the transfer of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a majority of 55-62 percent disagreed with such a move. Only 17-20 percent agreed that the embassy should be relocated in Jerusalem.

This majority opposition to the embassy transfer was evident in all regions of the country, all political parties, all age groups, both genders, and various religious denominations. A December 2000 poll arrived at a similar conclusion. When asked whether they agreed with then-President-elect George W. Bush's promise "to begin the process of moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem" or with the position of former President Bill Clinton, who said that "no US action should be taken with regard to the embassy until the Israelis and Palestinians agree to the final status of the city," 57 percent agreed with Clinton's view. Only 23.5 percent agreed with Bush's campaign position.

The critical question that needs to be examined is, if most Americans disagree with moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, why do US politicians compete with each other and declare their support for such a move? What lies at the heart of the dichotomy between the US public and the ruling establishment? Does the latter put its vested interests ahead of national security considerations and justice as well? This central finding turns the conventional wisdom - regarding the enlightenment of the elite and ignorance of the masses - on its head.

The findings of the poll clearly show that American civil society views the Arab-Israeli tragedy more compassionately and fairly than does the US foreign-policy establishment. Arabs and Arab-American groups need to reorient their strategy in the United States by investing critical human and intellectual resources in building solid bridges to US civil-society organizations and institutions. Their traditional focus on the ruling institutions have not been fruitful or effective.

It is time that Arabs and Arab-American groups broaden their conception of the US political scene to include its vibrant and dynamic civil society and tap into its many layers and shades of opinion and beliefs. Yes, it is a long-term strategy; but at least it holds the promise of affecting real change in the making of American foreign policy toward the Arab-Israeli peace process a policy that would be based on historical reconciliation, and a just and secure peace for all.

I'm not an admin or manager or anything, but what usually is accepted here is to put part of the article and add a link to the source. What's the source of this very long post? can you please add it?

Nonetheless, some interesting points, I'll address some of them soon.

The sock doesn't have 15 posts yet, in order to post their bogus source.

 

[BobbyMac]

Global Geopolitics, Headlines, Human Rights, Middle East & North Africa, North America
U.S.: Democratic Convention Stumbles Over Jerusalem Controversy
By Mitchell Plitnick
Reprint | | Print | Send by email
WASHINGTON, Sep 7 2012 (IPS) - The Democratic National Convention erupted in controversy this week over the removal of a clause in the party platform stating that Jerusalem should remain Israel’s undivided capital and only grew worse when the wording was hastily re-inserted.

Though party platforms are routinely ignored by presidents and members of Congress, the politically sensitive issue of Israel, which has been particularly prominent in a U.S. presidential election where foreign policy has been downplayed by both sides, has caused ripples far beyond Washington.

The Democratic Party platform had initially intended to remove the wording from 2008 which had affirmed the party’s stance on Jerusalem in order to bring it in line with long-standing United States policy, upheld by presidents of both parties, which holds that Jerusalem is a final status issue to be decided in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.


Both Republicans and Democrats, however, have routinely voiced support for Jerusalem being Israel’s “undivided capital” in their party platforms in order to gather support from wealthy pro-Israel donors and secure votes in swing states where Jewish voters are believed to be decisive.

Barack Obama, in a 2008 speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the major pro-Israel lobbying group, said that Jerusalem must remain undivided, but quickly backtracked and has since held to a policy of keeping Jerusalem as a final status issue.

Although the George W. Bush administration repeatedly stated its intent to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, it never acted to do so, the embassy remains in Tel Aviv, and the United States still has not formally recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

Bunch of crazy leftists and Muslims do not represent US public opinion. Even the democrats were embarrassed over that incident. Try again. That's three fails in a row

Exactly who are the crazy Muslim leftists???

Bottom line, after enough pro-Israel lobbyists sucked enough Congressional dick, they passed a law almost 20 years ago that every President, Republican and Democrat, has ignored. The US does not recognize , the illegally occupied, Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel.

 

[Roudy]

Global Geopolitics, Headlines, Human Rights, Middle East & North Africa, North America
U.S.: Democratic Convention Stumbles Over Jerusalem Controversy
By Mitchell Plitnick
Reprint | | Print | Send by email
WASHINGTON, Sep 7 2012 (IPS) - The Democratic National Convention erupted in controversy this week over the removal of a clause in the party platform stating that Jerusalem should remain Israel’s undivided capital and only grew worse when the wording was hastily re-inserted.

Though party platforms are routinely ignored by presidents and members of Congress, the politically sensitive issue of Israel, which has been particularly prominent in a U.S. presidential election where foreign policy has been downplayed by both sides, has caused ripples far beyond Washington.

The Democratic Party platform had initially intended to remove the wording from 2008 which had affirmed the party’s stance on Jerusalem in order to bring it in line with long-standing United States policy, upheld by presidents of both parties, which holds that Jerusalem is a final status issue to be decided in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.


Both Republicans and Democrats, however, have routinely voiced support for Jerusalem being Israel’s “undivided capital” in their party platforms in order to gather support from wealthy pro-Israel donors and secure votes in swing states where Jewish voters are believed to be decisive.

Barack Obama, in a 2008 speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the major pro-Israel lobbying group, said that Jerusalem must remain undivided, but quickly backtracked and has since held to a policy of keeping Jerusalem as a final status issue.

Although the George W. Bush administration repeatedly stated its intent to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, it never acted to do so, the embassy remains in Tel Aviv, and the United States still has not formally recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

Bunch of crazy leftists and Muslims do not represent US public opinion. Even the democrats were embarrassed over that incident. Try again. That's three fails in a row

Exactly who are the crazy Muslim leftists???

Bottom line, after enough pro-Israel lobbyists sucked enough Congressional dick, they passed a law almost 20 years ago that every President, Republican and Democrat, has ignored. The US does not recognize , the illegally occupied, Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel.

And what does that have to do with the high level of American public support for Israel?

Moron.

 

[BobbyMac]

You assume phenomenal support for Israel because it was Israel vs. Palestinians. Its like asking a Republican to chose between Obama and Romney. Take Obama out of the equation and ask them what they think just about Romney and you would get a much different response.

 

[Sally]

Bunch of crazy leftists and Muslims do not represent US public opinion. Even the democrats were embarrassed over that incident. Try again. That's three fails in a row

Exactly who are the crazy Muslim leftists???

Bottom line, after enough pro-Israel lobbyists sucked enough Congressional dick, they passed a law almost 20 years ago that every President, Republican and Democrat, has ignored. The US does not recognize , the illegally occupied, Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel.

And what does that have to do with the high level of American public support for Israel?

Moron.

I think American support will get even higher, Roudy, since now more and more people are seeing what these Muslims are doing -- murdering Christians and other Muslims elsewhere in the Middle East. Maybe those posting against Israel think that over 150,000 dead bodies in Syria alone is nothing.

 

[Roudy]

Dufus, American public support for Israel has always been high, both on a govt. and public level.

Seems like Abdul Mac. is a few French Fries short of a Happy Meal.

 

[Roudy]

I'm sorry to inform you that even your beloved Hussien Obama has declared Jerusalem undivided capital of Israel. Ha ha ha:

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWrvPvo8yXc"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWrvPvo8yXc[/ame]

 

[montelatici]

"Israel’s global support declining: British envoy"

“Support for Israel is starting to erode and that's not about these people on the fringe who are shouting loudly and calling for boycotts and all the rest of it. The interesting category are those members of parliament in the middle, and in that group I see a shift,” The Guardian quoted Gould, as saying.....“Israel is now seen as the Goliath and it's the Palestinians who are seen as the David,”....."The centre ground, the majority, the British public may not be expert, but they see a stream of announcements about new building in settlements and about what's going on in the West Bank, they read about restrictions in Gaza. The substance of what's going wrong is really what's driving this,"

Israel?s global support declining: British envoy

 

[Roudy]

What's driving this is Muslims invaded Europe and they brought their barbarism and anti Semetism with them.

 

[Roudy]

Read and weep:

Strong support for Israel in U.S. cuts across religious lines
FEBRUARY 27, 2014

Pew Research surveys find that similar shares of Christians (29%) and Jews (31%) say the U.S. is not supportive enough of Israel. Among white evangelical Protestants, nearly half (46%) say that the U.S. is not providing enough support for Israel.

When asked whether God gave Israel to the Jewish people, more Christians (55%) than Jews (40%) say yes (although virtually all of the discrepancy is explained by Jews’ lower levels of belief in God overall). And the share of white evangelicals saying that God gave Israel to the Jews (82%) is on par with the percentage of Orthodox Jews who believe this (84%).

When it comes to the long-standing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, asked whether they sympathize with either side, 72% of white evangelicals sided with Israel in the dispute while 4% picked the Palestinians, according to a March 2013 survey. Among U.S. adults overall, 49% sympathized more with Israel and 12% with the Palestinians. Half (50%) of white evangelicals said there is no way for Israel and an independent Palestinian state to coexist peacefully, a view held by just a third (33%) of U.S. Jews and 41% of the general public.

 

[Phoenall]

Despite the strongly pro-Israeli tendency of the US foreign-policy elite, the American public shows a more nuanced appreciation of the complex dynamics of the Arab-Israeli peace process and the central role that Jerusalem holds for Arabs and Israelis alike. On the whole, a plurality of Americans express their support for a shared Jerusalem as well as their opposition to moving the US Embassy to the disputed city. This is one of the major findings of a national public-opinion poll undertaken this month by the American Committee on Jerusalem and conducted by the respected Zogby International of New York.

Zogby International interviewed 1,018 randomly selected, likely voters nationwide to gauge American attitudes toward the status of Jerusalem, its future, moving the US Embassy to the city, and the various claims made by Arabs and Israelis regarding their ties to the city. Two samples taken showed varying results. The first sample used the names "Israel" and "Palestine" and the second referred to "Country A" and "Country B." Overall, almost two-thirds of respondents in sample I and sample II say they are following events in the Middle East somewhat closely.

Principal findings of the survey shed light on how the US public views the status of Jerusalem, and the historical, religious, land ownership, and residential claims of each side. Firstly: a centering of American public opinion concerning the city's position. With regard to the status of Jerusalem, a plurality (45-46 percent) expressed a preference for the concept of a divided or shared Jerusalem. Support for a "shared Jerusalem" was double that favoring Israeli control over the entire city (20-23 percent). About 17-18 percent were not sure.

This majority support was most significant among 18-29 year-olds, Democrats, liberals, African-Americans, Hispanics, and union households. The young (18-29 year-olds) and Democrats are more likely to think Jerusalem should be shared than are the elderly and Republicans. The young are also more likely than the elderly to disagree with an embassy move.The young also feel more strongly about intervention in sample I than in sample II. When the terms "Israel" and "Palestine" are removed, the young increase their support of Palestine's historical claims to Jerusalem more than any other group (from 28 percent to 40 percent).

Support also increases among the young on current residency claims for Palestinians from 45 percent to 54 percent.In other words, the poll shows that youth and minority groups tend to be more open-minded and progressive on the question of Palestine. My own experience, as an academic at an American university, also reveals that youth and minority groups view the Arab-Israeli conflict in a much more complex manner than do their grandparents and parents and other older racial and sociopolitical groups. These findings call for creative strategies to connect further with these important societal segments and broaden the message to reach the rest.

Secondly, as for Israeli and Palestinian claims over Jerusalem, a majority of respondents expressed support for Israel on the basis of historical and religious claims over the city. However, Palestinian claims over the city were endorsed by a majority of respondents on the basis of property and legal claims and current residency claims. The latter, i.e. residency claims, present the Palestinians with the most convincing argument before American public opinion. The nuances of the findings are revealing.

For example, there is a drop in American support or sympathy for Israel in the second sample when the terms "Country A" and "Country B" replace "Israel" and "Palestine." The poll shows that when asking about historical claims, "overall, support for the Palestinians increases from 19 percent to 28 percent when 'Country B' is read ? and support for Palestinians' historical claim to Jerusalem increases from more than one quarter in sample I, to 40 percent in sample II." Furthermore, sympathies shift when religious ties and land-ownership claims are separated as claims. When asked about property and legal rights, there is little change in support from sample I to sample II.

However, when the questions of religious ties and land ownership rights are compared, sympathy for the Palestinians increases. In sample I, 19 percent support the Palestinians' religious claims, increasing to 35 percent on the question of land ownership/legal rights. In sample II, 21 percent support the Palestinians' religious claims, increasing to 43 percent on the question of land ownership/ legal rights. Support for Israel drops in these cases, though the numbers are less dramatic than in the increase of support for Palestine. On the question of residency claims, support for the Palestinians increases from 36 percent to 47 percent. This increase reflects a jump in almost every sub-group. Despite the nuances of the findings, the point to highlight is that the Palestinians should stress their concrete, material claims and rights over the city, which are seen to be convincing by a majority of Americans.

The other side of the coin revolves around the ability of Israel and its friends in the United States to persuade Americans of their historical and religious claims over the city. Regardless of how much ink Arabs and Palestinians spill in their attempt to counter the Israeli historical assertions, it seems unlikely that Americans will buy the Arab counter-argument in the near future. For now, to be persuasive and effective, Arabs and Palestinians must focus their efforts on the legal, residency rights over Jerusalem. Thirdly, as for the transfer of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a majority of 55-62 percent disagreed with such a move. Only 17-20 percent agreed that the embassy should be relocated in Jerusalem.

This majority opposition to the embassy transfer was evident in all regions of the country, all political parties, all age groups, both genders, and various religious denominations. A December 2000 poll arrived at a similar conclusion. When asked whether they agreed with then-President-elect George W. Bush's promise "to begin the process of moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem" or with the position of former President Bill Clinton, who said that "no US action should be taken with regard to the embassy until the Israelis and Palestinians agree to the final status of the city," 57 percent agreed with Clinton's view. Only 23.5 percent agreed with Bush's campaign position.

The critical question that needs to be examined is, if most Americans disagree with moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, why do US politicians compete with each other and declare their support for such a move? What lies at the heart of the dichotomy between the US public and the ruling establishment? Does the latter put its vested interests ahead of national security considerations and justice as well? This central finding turns the conventional wisdom - regarding the enlightenment of the elite and ignorance of the masses - on its head.

The findings of the poll clearly show that American civil society views the Arab-Israeli tragedy more compassionately and fairly than does the US foreign-policy establishment. Arabs and Arab-American groups need to reorient their strategy in the United States by investing critical human and intellectual resources in building solid bridges to US civil-society organizations and institutions. Their traditional focus on the ruling institutions have not been fruitful or effective.

It is time that Arabs and Arab-American groups broaden their conception of the US political scene to include its vibrant and dynamic civil society and tap into its many layers and shades of opinion and beliefs. Yes, it is a long-term strategy; but at least it holds the promise of affecting real change in the making of American foreign policy toward the Arab-Israeli peace process a policy that would be based on historical reconciliation, and a just and secure peace for all.

Edited to add link: Untitled

So now the ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDISTS are using a neo Marxist trained Lebanese muslim with an agenda close to that of fatah. No one who is a professor at the LSE can be believed as they will LIE and ignore any requests to prove their words.

 

[Phoenall]

A poll by the Zionist Organization of America vs. one by Zogby International??

Gallup is not Zionist, try again child