New Poll: Nearly 70% Of Americans Say "No" To Palestinian Arab State

[drdon326]

New Poll: Nearly 70% Of Americans Say "No" To
Palestinian Arab State And Expulsion Of Jews From Territories

http://www.zoa.org/pressrel2004/20040123a.htm

The poll's findings:

By 67% To 19%, Americans Oppose Giving The Palestinian Arabs A State: 67.4% of Americans say that the Palestinian Arabs have not met President Bush's conditions for statehood, such as fighting terrorism, halting incitement to murder, and respecting human rights. Only 19.3% say they have met those conditions.

By 66% To 17%, Americans Oppose Expelling Jews From The Territories: 66.6% of Americans disagree with the Arab position that all Jewish residents of the Judea-Samaria-Gaza territories should be expelled; only 17% agree with that demand.

By 65% To 18%, Americans Say Palestinian Authority Can't Be Trusted: 65.2% of Americans say the Palestinian Authority "cannot be trusted to fulfill peace agreements that it signs with Israel"; only 18.6% say it can be trusted to fulfill them.

By 55% To 21%, Americans Say Palestinian Arabs Seek Destruction Of Israel: 55.7% of Americans say that the Palestinian Arabs' goal is "the eventual destruction of Israel"; only 21.3% say their goal is "to have a small state living in peace alongside Israel."

By 73% To 15%, Americans Oppose U.S. Aid To The Palestinian Arabs: 73.6% say the U.S. should stop sending $200-million each year to the Palestinian Arabs; only 15% say the aid should continue.

...................................................................

i find that hard to believe.:eyes:

[WillParkinson]

1. ...met President Bush's conditions for statehood...?

The majority of people can't name a Democratic contender for President and we're expected to believe that they follow the Israel conflict enough to know the 'conditions for statehood'?

Sure. Right.

[forgethell]

2. I think the main 'condition'

would be cessation of terrorist activities in Israel and the occupied territories.

[tinnypriv]

4. Which naturally

Would have excluded the Zionists from meeting the "conditions for statehood".

[forgethell]

13. Quite true, but

they are there now. We have to live with the facts on the ground, not some academic's, or other fuzzy-headed thinker's idea of the perfect world.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[forgethell]

21. No,

I believe the Israelis are entitled to defend themselves. There is a considerable differnece between civilians being killed as 'collateral damage' and as 'targets'. Bombing buses, schools, and hospitals, the only tactics the Palestinians have is terrorism. Targeting leaders of death cults is not.

Here's a fact for you: The Palestinians will not win. The Israelis will not give up.

[tinnypriv]

26. Not sure what "no" refers to, but nevertheless...

<< I believe the Israelis are entitled to defend themselves. >>

So do I, and I'm not sure where I ever indicated otherwise.

<< There is a considerable differnece between civilians being killed as 'collateral damage' and as 'targets'. Bombing buses, schools, and hospitals, the only tactics the Palestinians have is terrorism. Targeting leaders of death cults is not. >>

It seems you're unaware of Ariel Sharon's murderous record as a terrorist, slaughtering innocent Arabs in order to instill fear, wholly unrelated to any retaliation. He may not be doing that now, since he has the resources of a state, but that isn't what I said (I referred to his record as a terrorist).

It also seems that you're unaware that terrorist atrocities are celebrated as glorious examples of Zionist heroism in Israel, even with regard to acts which killed Jews (mostly carried out by the Irgun and LEHI, but occasionally by Haganah).

When I say "celebrated", I choose my terms carefully. You may wish to look up the examples of Shomolo Ben-Yosef, Deir Yassin (Givat Beth), and many others, included international terrorists such as those who firebombed Egypt-American installations several decades ago.

In addition, you may wish to note that former terrorist commanders have also risen to the highest levels of office in Israel, including the army, as well as Zionist institutions such as the Jewish Agency.

That being the case, it may be appropriate to state whether or not you think it would be legitimate to "target" those people, given that their terrorism is well known. If you conclude that it would not be legitimate, again, your position is sheer hypocrisy.

In my case, I acknowledge my hypocrisy, given that I have advocated on many occasions the liquidation of Palestinian terrorists, whilst simultenously rejecting such action against Israeli terrorists (one example being Rehavam Ze'evi).

<< Here's a fact for you: The Palestinians will not win. The Israelis will not give up >>

Irrelevant, but for the record, I've repeatedly pointed out that I believe Palestinian terrorism to be totally unjustifed, even going so far as to chastise those who only refer to it as "counterproductive".

I've also stated many times that I believe it is the Palestinians who are the more likely to "give up" (in fact, go the way of the American Indians), whilst praising the resiliance of Israelis (noting the per capita ratio of their casualties).

None of the above changes what I said in the previous posts in the slightest, and every word remains accurate in any case.

[forgethell]

41. OK

"It seems you're unaware of Ariel Sharon's murderous record as a terrorist, slaughtering innocent Arabs in order to instill fear, wholly unrelated to any retaliation. He may not be doing that now, since he has the resources of a state, but that isn't what I said (I referred to his record as a terrorist)."

I won't argue with you about Sharon's record. I may, or may not, agree; but let it ride. What he is doing NOW is important. I mean Sharon on his worst day isn't the terrorist Arafat is when he's sick with the flu in bed.


"It also seems that you're unaware that terrorist atrocities are celebrated as glorious examples of Zionist heroism in Israel. ...

When I say "celebrated", I choose my terms carefully. You may wish to look up the examples of Shomolo Ben-Yosef, Deir Yassin (Givat Beth), and many others, included international terrorists such as those who firebombed Egypt-American installations several decades ago."

Actually, if terrorists in a successful revolt didn't rise to the top of the government they created, well there would be a lot of unemployed leaders in numerous third-world countries. But they were successful, so everybody forgets their bloody backgrounds and welcomes them as leaders. check out the difference in how, even today, Hitler and Stalin are thought of. Hitler lost, bad man. Stalin won, and even now there are people who cannot admit what a monster he was.

Let 'em celebrate. Who does that kill? I read "Exodus" by Leon Uris when I was about 11. Even then I thougt, "These are some evil guys." And I included both the Jews and the Arabs in that judgement. I loathed Menachem Begin as the murdering bastard that he was. Nevertheless, I thought his policies were the right ones for the Jewish state at the time that he was in charge.

Now, as for "targeting" the Israeli leaders. In a war, yes, I believe that it would be legitimate. But it would also be legitimate for the Israeli leaders to target those trying to kill them. What is not legitimate is targeting civilians, which is what the Palestinians are doing. And not, so far as I have been able to determine, the Israelis. At least if they do, they don't brag about their 'glorious martyrs".

So, I'll cut the BS. Just so long as the Palestinians continue with their murderous activities, just exactly so long do nothing that they have to say move me in the slightest. They could have a state, they could probably have some sort of compensation for giving up their imaginary 'right of return'. they do not want that, they want the destruction of Israel. I hate to say it, I really do, because I am not generally unsympathetic. But the Palestinians bring most of their troubles on themselves, with help from their Arab "brothers".

[Gimel]

29. The British

weren't neighbors. They decided to give up the Mandate, and the UN voted for partition. Some of the Arabs still haven't recognized Israel as a state. Read the latest hudna offer. No recognition of Israel is involved.

[tinnypriv]

32. And

Up until the very recent past, no Israeli government, opposition, or significant figure offered recognition of the Palestinians, whilst simultaneously demanding they end their "terrorism" (in that case referring to the first Intifada, largely non-violent).

Note that Israel still refuses to recognise the areas the Palestinians currently inhabit as land that they are entitled to, rejecting the principle of self-determination.

In fact, Israel continues to reject even the minor label of 'occupied' with regards to those lands, constantly and consistantly (across the entire political spectrum), referring to them as "Judea and Samaria".

Moreover, the entire Arab league recently voted to recognise Israel in the context of a peace agreement, simply repeating a stand they have taken since at least 1976.

[plurality]

3. sorry civil rights don't work the same way as American Idol

Most Americans couldn't locate the occupied territories on a map, and the world is supposed to listen to the American populace on whether the Palestinians deserve a state?

[forgethell]

14. Who should they listen to,

seeing as they are the ones actually being asked to impose a settlement? Just curious as to who should control American might, the Palestinians or the Americans?

[plurality]

17. no actually the Palestinians are asking the entire world to bring peace

The US simply continues to act like it alone is allowed to decide by continually vetoing any Security Council Resolution on the situation no matter how reasonable it may be. Personally I would prefer the US fully disengage from the situation (that included cutting aid to all sides) and let the participants solve it of their own accord.

[forgethell]

22. But, but ,but

the Security Council is always right. So if one of the permanent members vetoes something it must be wrong. This seems to be the way many people here think, why change your opinion when it is the US that does the vetoing?

That being said, yes, the US could withdraw all aid to both sides. However, it would probably be a disaster for the Arabs, not the Israelis.

[plurality]

28. actually i'm against the veto no matter who does it

It was bullshit when the Soviets abused it and it's bullshit when we abuse it.

And I don't think withdrawing aid would be that disastrous. I think it would actually make the Israelis negotiate in earnest as they wouldn't have the US to prop them up anymore.

[forgethell]

42. You may be right,

but if everybody, not just the US, kept out of the fray, the whole Arab world could not lick Israel in a stand-up fight. They might lose by attrittion, but they would know that, wouldn't they, and I think they would try to settle the issue before they were sufficiently weakened.

Of course this is just an opinion, and might be wrong. But in any event, do you really think that the USA will change its foreign policy in regard to the Mid-East? I think that the events of 9/11 hardened attitudes. And would the Democratic Party really be willing to sacrifice Israel and the Jewish vote? I don't think so, but I don't know.

[beanball]

5. That poll

where was it taken?I wasen't polled,were you?

[Lithos]

6. Truthfully I do find it hard to believe

It sounds more like a push-poll to me considering the rather large lack of knowledge by the average US citizen on the I/P situation and the Middle East in general.

L-

[legin]

7. It's ZOA

They probably make it up as they go along. ;-)

I'm sure this a recycled press release too, I'm think I have seen something along these lines before on their website, although I could very easily be wrong.

[IndianaGreen]

9. It's Brooklyn!

Blecht!

[drdon326]

10. So whats your point ??

you got some damn problem with Brooklyn ??

[Jack Rabbit]

12. Agreed -- to a point

There is nothing in the piece about methodology. The piece accompanying the poll results is a press release, not analysis. The specific questions asked of respondents are not even listed. This is highly suspect.

On the other hand, when one considers how badly informed Americans are about the Iraq invasion, one should not be surprised that poll results on these matters would also reflect ignorance. A Palestinian state is not desirable because the Palestinians have "earned" one by stopping terrorist tactics. It is desirable because it is the only way to bring a just peace to the region in which Israel survives as both a Jewish state and a democracy. The Palestinians have "earned" a right to a state by living in the West Bank and Gaza as a people. It is almost a natural right and not one that needs to be "earned". What they have to earn is an end to Israeli occupation. That, I agree, they have not done.

[Lithos]

23. Yes, you are correct

I was not addressing the bigger picture, only the fact that this poll dealt with very specific issues which I feel the average American is ill-informed. And given the complete lack of methodology and question sampling, I felt the likely way that such specificity could be reached was through push polling where the questions were misleading.

But for the bigger picture, I do agree with you.

L-

[JasonDeter]

8. I find this easy to believe.

Number one Americans will not negotiate at the point of a gun and they don't expect Israel to either. After 9/11 they understand Israel's sorrow and pain everytime a terrorist blows up innocent Israeli's. Terrorists just piss off Americans and terrorists will not win in the long run.

[drdon326]

11. Sadly...youre right....

The palestinian people deserve better than to be lead
by the palestinian terrorists. The palestinian terrorists
should not even be part of theiir society....call these
terrorists what they are....terrorstinians.

[Aidoneus]

16. indeed--both prefer *holding* the gun while negotiating

The American regime murdered thousands of innocent people in Iraq in just a couple months' time, and this toll rises every week as the occupation forces and their lackeys continue their killings. How could Hamas ever be in the same league as that so as to receive praise from you such as this?

[JasonDeter]

20. Well I just can't get past you saying the U.S. is more evil than hamas!!

to answer your other question. I ponder your thesis and I'm practically speechless.

[Aidoneus]

25. I don't use words like "evil"

if I had a nickel for every evasion I get around here, Bill Gates would be shining my shoes.

[JasonDeter]

27. Does not using 'evil' mean you don't think it exists?

[Aidoneus]

31. you'd have to define what you mean by the term

besides another evasion, do you have any response to what I have to say above?

[JasonDeter]

38. hamas and or hezbollah and or arafat

straping a bomb to a gullible man or woman and walking into a group of innocent Israeli's just enjoying life and a meal or a family gathering or celebrating a childs special day and blowing them to bits. Pre-meditated murder. What the hamas, hezbollah and arafat and his cabal have done for so very long and will continue to do in the future unless civilized people kill or jail them for the rest of their natural lives.

[Aidoneus]

39. you need to be more honest

By "evil", you really mean "somebody I don't like"; by "civilized", do you mean people who look and think like you or act under a flag that you approve of? There is no good reason to hide behind these euphemisms. Such is the reason why I look upon people who tend to do so as ridiculous, and avoid doing so myself in favour of more directly spelling out what I mean to say.

When has Hizbullah ever done these things? I'm not aware of any such time and I know their history well. If you don't know the subject that you are speaking on, I advise you to avoid doing so until you are well prepared to speak without making these mistakes.

How do you reconcile the fact that the people you support have done all of the things--and far more of them--that you hold against the people you now hurl curses at? For example, Israeli landmines alone planted in Lebanon (numbering in the hundreds of thousands, and still remain) have killed more people than Hamas has in its entire existance--to say nothing of the thousands more killed by bombings of cities by air/land/sea--, yet I don't hear you complaining about anything like this, if you are even aware of such things.. More contemporarily, the conduct in the other occupied territories tends to resemble much of what you project onto those you oppose.

Is it really the principle that you object to? It occurs to me that it is rather the "us/them" mindset that you obviously have.

[JasonDeter]

43. Quite the contrary! And thank God! 70 percent of Americans and I agree!

Moral and intellectual clarity at least on the Israeli/Palestinian issue rule. You may not agree with it, thats your prerogative. Another huge difference between Israel/United States and the terrorist thugs that rule the innocent Palestinian people.

[Aidoneus]

47. if you're not going to acknowledge a single point that I make,

there's not much point in replying..

[JasonDeter]

49. Again, thats your perogative.

[JasonDeter]

36. I refuse to wipe out a whole history of good the US has done

simply because the United States is now occupied by a moron. The nice thing about American democracy is bush* policies can be reversed. Now if bush* is re-elected I'll start worrying. But even with the United States now occupied, the United States is NOT a brutal force in the world. The United States has been, is now and will always be a force for good and it would be a horrible world without the US presence. Iraq is an aberration, an act of an abhorrent tiny minded little man*.

[Aidoneus]

40. these policies, these actions, and these tendencies are nothing new

Rather than being any aberration, such tendencies are, in fact, a very consistant policy stretching back many decades. It is baffling to me that you refer to this has a "history of good".. are you aware of some of our the history that you are vaguely referring to? I can see that sort of thing being said if one has been told nothing else in their lives and do not glance at anything that would suggest the contrary (like that monkey covering his eyes), but I would have to question your motives and values if this conclusion is reached from any reasonably balanced look.

If I give some girl $50 then slash her throat, which deed will the cops focus on when they get there?

[tinnypriv]

19. Do you extend the same curtesy to Iranians?

Since they have to "negotiate" at the point of a gun ("coercive diplomacy").

If not, why not?

[JasonDeter]

24. The Iranian gov't is funding terrorism! Suppressing their people!

Creating WMDs with the sole purpose of threatening their neighbors NOT as a deterent as is the case in Israel. Israel is not funding terrorism, not suppressing their people and possess nuclear as a deterent only. Give me a choice between the two countries, which one of the two having unfettered access and ability to create WMDs and point them at their neighbors and I'll trust Israel anyday over Iran and its supressive regime. After all it comes down to trust doesn't it? You honestly say you trust Iran to do the right thing over Israel?

[tinnypriv]

30. So

If I understand you correctly, it is appropriate for a country to force other countries to negotiate at the "end of a gun", if they meet the following condition:

They're a democracy.

Thanks for clearing that up.

The obvious point which occurs immediately is that you therefore must believe that it would be legitimate for the U.S. to threaten Israel with "coercive diplomacy".

[JasonDeter]

48. I'm sorry. I made the mistake of drawing a distincting

between Democratic Govts like Israel and the United States and terrorists or gov'ts who support terrorist groups like hezbollah. My bad.

[Aidoneus]

15. the same pro-Iraq invasion 70%?

assuming this Zionist Organization's findings are even accurate (a leap of faith), perhaps there is a trend here to be noticed.

I don't see what business they have in dictating such, anyway.

[bemildred]

33. I dunno, I just took a poll here in my family room,

and as a result I can say: "100% of Americans favor
Israel getting the fuck out of the occupied territories."

Of course, the sample size is a bit small and I'm not sure
that it was a completely random selection of Americans, but
I thought it was a very representative sample.

[Gimel]

34. All polls

are subject to error, internal and external validity problems. No one poll gives an accurate picture. But there is no indication that it is not done with reasonable methodology. It was commissioned by the ZOE, but carried out by the firm of McLaughlin & Associates. By the way, the article also says that only 1000 people were questioned, but from throughout the US. So a rather small number for the total 300 million Americans.

[bemildred]

35. There is no indication about methodology at all.

The questions themselves are quite "loaded" though, and that is
one of the standard methods of slanting polls, you frame the
debate to suit yourself, and filter out respondents that won't
stick to the debate as you have defined it.

If you think McLaughlin & Associates makes their living by pissing
off their clients, I must disagree.

One thousand is small, but there are other issues, the one that
annoys me the most is the assumption that the population of the
USA is a sort of homogenous herd that can be sampled and understood
in such a simple-minded way.

[Gimel]

44. The loaded questions

The European poll which comes to mind in comparison, asked questions about the Holocaust and whether the Jews have overplayed this. That is something al Jazeera played up to in claiming that Europeans are urging Jews to drop the Holocaust as an issue.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=116&topic_id=3424

Or in Haaretz, the same poll:
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=387236&contrassID=1&subContrassID=8&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y


35 percent said Jews should stop "playing the victim" for the Holocaust.

So therefore, one can surprise that approximately 65% think that Jews should not stop "playing the victim" for the Holocaust. This is of course, the more significant finding. Yet, al Jazeera points out that
"Jews urged to stop playing Holocaust victim" for the title of their article on the survey.

Not only is the question leading, but the presentation is reversing the results to make an impression that is misleading.

[bemildred]

46. I found that poll annoying too, if that helps.

But my conclusion is simply that they all are propaganda
tools and that they do not signify much.

To ask if "the Jews should stop playing the Holocaust victim"
is to silently assert that they are, rather like the "have you
stopped beating your wife yet?" question. But it you want to be
intellectually honest, you cannot object to that type of question
as a matter of convenience, you have to object to them all, and the
"Arab position that all Jewish residents of the Judea-Samaria-Gaza
territories should be expelled" question, for example, definitely
falls in the same category.

[Jackie97]

37. Consider this....

America has a limited media that often doesn't let the truth about the other side of the ME crises come out (whether if it's with Israel or anything else). They often show the Israeli side and not the Palestinian side for the purpose of promoting Israel as our friend to root for. So, Americans are brainwashed by the media to think that Israel is in the right.

Also, Americans are typically more ignorant than many of Europe and even possibly Israel itself. They have classes for kids designed to keep them from questioning whether our country does wrong.

The United States have a lot of Christian fundamentalists. That means that the US has a lot of Christian Zionists who will be for Israel and against Palestine no matter how oppressive they are towards the Palestinians. I'm from the US, particularly the southern part. Believe me when I say that I understand this subject well.

What's so funny is that Israelis were polled a couple of years back to be in favor of a Palestinian state if the violence stopped.

Actually, I just looked at this poll.

It claims that Arabs are for expelling the Jewish residents. I demand proof that this is the case. I'm sure that some for expelling them, but is that the general position? I demand proof of such a horrible accusation.

I also demand proof of the accusation that the Palestinian Arab's goal is to destroy Israel. I don't m ean that I want proof that Hamas wants to destroy Israel. I mean I want proof that the Palestinian Arabs in general are for destroying Israel.

[Gimel]

45. The closest proof

There can be nothing absolute, but consistent results show that about 50% of the Palestinians support Hamas in its attacks against Israel. They support suicide attacks agings Israeli citizens, and the most recent poll results show that 59% of the Palestinians support the suicide attacks. It may be a measure of their anger at Israeli actions, it may also be a measure of their oppression by Hamas. They may fear being charged as collaborators and so they take the attitude that the Hamas actions are justified.

[Jackie97]

51. Yes, they could fear getting charged as collaborators.

Another idea to consider is that some of the Palestinians are for the group that helps THEM in their cause. Their cause might not be to destroy the Israeli state, but it sure is to stop the occupation and to get their freedom. They have no army or any other means of fighting back....except through the terrorist groups.

In other words, just because a Palestinian supports Hamas doesn't mean that they necessarily support destroying Israel. They might just support killing civilians in the hopes to make Israel leave them alone.

[Gimel]

52. Are they slaves?

That they should need their "freedom" from Israel seems absurd. They have worked in Israel for good wages, they have had business partnerships and opportunities to increase profits. Unfortunately, some of the Jewish partners were murdered by terrorists, they torpedoed all cooperative businesses, and still want to come in by the thousands to work. Israel needs workers, but the government needs security for the citizens.

Some of the Palestinians do want to live peacefully. They are the victims in this, Peace is the victim. Itzhak Rabin always said, you can murder people, but you can't murder peace. We may have to rethink that idea.

[tinnypriv]

53. Rabin

Also said "break their bones", so I wouldn't invoke him when appealing to the Palestinians.

[Gimel]

54. I'm not appealing

The Palestinians can condemn every Israeli leader for three words here and there in some personal diary or letter.

Rabin broke his own earlier promises about giving land to the Palestinians and about the Golan. He contradicted himself repeatedly, if you look at his speeches as a military man and as a politician.

I wouldn't invoke Arafat when speaking to the Israelis either.

[Fight_n_back]

50. Lucky for the world

that it is not up to the people of the US. US citizens would give Clay Aikens a homeland before anyone else.