Poll: American public backs Israel firmly in war with Hamas

[Emit]

WASHINGTON — As Palestinian casualties mount in the Gaza Strip, the American people are squarely behind Israel and overwhelmingly think that using force against Hamas is appropriate, according to a new McClatchy/Ipsos poll.

Forty-four percent of Americans support Israel's use of force, while only 18 percent considered Hamas' use of force appropriate. Fifty-seven percent think that Hamas is using excessive force, while only 36 percent said Israel was.

Nearly 1,000 Palestinians have been killed in the violence — soldiers and civilians — and at least nine Israeli soldiers and four civilians have died.

When it comes to who's to blame for the latest Middle East crisis, Americans blame Hamas hands down: Forty-four percent said Hamas, 14 percent said Israel and 29 percent said they weren't sure. Nine percent said both, and 4 percent said neither.

~snip~

The Hamas-Israel battle appears to have given Americans pause about the creation of an independent Palestinian state, which was the goal of the Bush administration and leading lawmakers of both parties.

When those polled were asked whether the United States should favor a Palestinian state, 45 percent said it shouldn't, 31 percent said it should and 24 percent said they didn't know.

Americans aren't sure that President-elect Barack Obama will be able to achieve peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Some 51 percent said they weren't confident that he could, while 32 percent said they were somewhat confident and 10 percent very confident that he could resolve the conflict.

The McClatchy/Ipsos Poll was conducted from Jan. 6 through Monday with a nationally representative sample of 1,054 adults 18 and older. The margin of error was plus or minus 3.02 percentage points.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/59628.html

Think they polled only the red states?
:shrug:

I'd like to see the poll questions they asked...

[Idealism]

1. They only polled the Neocons and the DLC'ers?

"Fifty-seven percent think that Hamas is using excessive force, while only 36 percent said Israel was."

Yeah... sure pal

[Emit]

2. It concerns me that the 1,000 + folks polled are not paying attention

and have not done their homework. 'Course, it all depends on how the questions were asked, and what responses were made available, but my first thought was they landed on a bunch of red staters.

[aquart]

5. You know what? We are.

And we still back Israel over Hamas.

Hamas is allowed to hate Israel, but Israel is supposed to love Hamas? I know DU believes that, but some find the logic lacking.

[Emit]

6. Israel is supposed to love Hamas? And DU believes that?

How do you figure that? I don't follow.

[aquart]

3. Hell, they didn't even ask me.

[Idealism]

4. Maybe they see that you post on DU?

You get disqualified from certain surveys if you do that, no matter what you believe

[LeftishBrit]

25. How would they know? - very few of us use our real names

[bdamomma]

30. me either. This poll does not reflect my feelings on this whole thing.

[RC]

8. "...using excessive force..."

Using home made slings and rock from the rubble against bullets and fighter jets. Yeah, that's excessive force alright.

[Shaktimaan]

10. If Hamas were merely using slingshots then Israel would not have invaded.

You aren't serious though. You don't actually think that Hamas is fighting off the IDF with slingshots, do you?

Really, what is up with the hyperbole I've been reading lately? It's as if the facts of the matter have become totally fluid and people just make up "facts" as they post them.

[Idealism]

11. There is no hyperbole when you look at death counts.

[Shaktimaan]

14. ?????

Point being?

Does it make all of the other hyperbole irrelevant? Like, since the death ratio is disproportionate making up facts about the conflict is justified? Because that was a mighty big topic shift you just initiated there.

Me: I don't think people should invent lies about the conflict just because they're angry.

You: But Israel has killed far more people than Hamas has.

I fail to see why anyone would defend falsehoods regardless of their position on this war.

[Idealism]

17. My point is you can ignore whatever people try to make up supporting their side

But when you look at the hard facts, the numbers, you can't claim there is hyperbole being used when it is being described as a massacre.

[Shaktimaan]

22. OK, I understand.

Yes, Israel has killed exponentially more Palestinians than they have Israelis. "Massacre" is a loaded term that I'd personally not use.

But we would expect Israel to overpower Hamas in any kind of direct conflict. Hamas is outgunned and Israel has far better defensive capabilities for its citizens. I don't think that this fact gives us very much information as to anything else though. I don't see it as evidence of a sinister Israeli motive or a lack of ethics or anything like that.

Yes, the Israelis have killed more people than the Palestinians have. But that single fact, removed from any other kind of context, doesn't really mean anything. Some people tend to view it as some kind of ironclad evidence of Israeli guilt. (Guilt of what I am not sure.) It is not the ONLY relevant fact in this conflict, by far. So when people make up facts about the other elements involved I feel that it matters. The facts of the matter are all crucial, as they tell us the history and are the key to finding a solution.

I still don't get your point exactly. You seem to be saying that there is only one fact that we all need to know. Everything else we can ignore if it isn't right, it's just fluff relatively speaking. None of it matters as long as this single piece of data is accurate.

I happen to think that it is very important not to pretend that the Qassam rockets were actually rocks. To do that is no different than altering or even inverting the death ratio. A massacre implies that the Palestinians were not able to fight back... that they were completely defenseless. If they were armed solely with rocks then it would undoubtedly be a brutal massacre. But if they are armed with rockets, as they actually are, then it is a fight. It may be a one sided fight, sure. But Israel is not bombing people who threw rocks at them. They are bombing people who have been firing rockets at them. And regardless of the semantics involved, there is a big difference between those two situations.

[Idealism]

31. You are narrowing this down to one such incident

I was not trying to do that. If you look at the past couple big incidents in the I/P time line, the picture becomes a bit more clear as far as labeling the things Israel has done as a massacre.

Palestinian deaths in the First Intifada by the IDF: 1,100
Israeli deaths in the First Intifada: 160

Palestinian deaths in the Second Intifada by the IDF: 5,300
Israeli deaths in the Second Intifada: 1,000

Gaza "War":
Palestinian casualties: 1000+
Israeli casualties: 13


These numbers include friendly fire deaths (which the IDF has many of).

[Indenturedebtor]

24. It's a groupthink frenzy. Many are busy "out-liberaling" each other

It's the same psychological phenomenon that led to the Bay of Pigs in fact.

[RC]

27. Read and comprehend post # 7

[iconicgnom]

7. That poll result is as anyone would guess it would be, given the overwhelming propoganda.

It would be closer to 100% were only the leaders of the major political parties polled.

Descriptions from the neocon extremist vocabulary are almost universally adopted by commentators, even by those few "progressive" commentators, and by posters to DU. These descriptions make it impossible to support Palestinians (or in fact any of the Arabic/Persian peoples) in a meaningful way - since the descriptions explicitly or implicitly categorize their governance/defence organizations as virtually inhuman enemy forces.

Even the description of this "war" found in the OP is unquestioned neocon vocabulary, asserting that it is a "war with Hamas", rather than an attack on and slaughter of the people of Gaza. This is the identical propoganda line as the 2006 so-called "war with Hezbollah". Both of which are, of course, officially classified as "terrorist organizations". The vocabulary, the descriptions, make the carnage easy.

Regarding the adoption of this kind of propogandist vocabulary, and of course the accompanying world view, recall that the leader of the officially "terrorist ANC" was eventually honored with the Nobel prize, and is e.g. the only person given honorary Canadian citizenship while still living.

[IndianaGreen]

9. Invoking the Holocaust to Defend the Occupation

A relevant commentary on The Holocaust Is Over; We Must Rise From its Ashes by Avraham Burg, which explains Israel's bipolar view of the world, a view which unfortunately is also shared by the American public and that is reflected in this poll, a poll on public perceptions grounded in mythology and ignorance.

Invoking the Holocaust to Defend the Occupation

By John Mearsheimer - December 9, 2008, 5:29PM

Burg makes it clear that he is not equating Israel's past behavior with what happened in Nazi Germany, but he does see disturbing similarities between Israel and "the Germany that preceded Hitler." This raises the obvious question: could Israel end up going on a murderous rampage against the Palestinians? Burg thinks it is possible. He writes, "The notion that this cannot happen to us because our history as persecuted people makes us immune to hatred and racism is very dangerous. A look inside Israel shows that the erosion has begun." He even raises the possibility that there might be a civil war inside Israel, which "will be not a war between members of the Jewish people of different shades of beliefs, but an uncompromising struggle between good people and bad people anywhere."

Burg is aware that many American Jews will dismiss his arguments because they are so at odds with the picture of Israel that they have in their heads. Accordingly, he reminds the reader: "I come from there, and my friends and relatives are still there. I listen to their talk, know their ambitions, and feel their heartbeats. I know where they are headed." And where they might be headed worries him greatly. Again, he fears that Israel will end up following in the footsteps of Germany, where "slow processes altered the perception of reality to the degree that insanity became the norm, and then we were exterminated. It happened in the land of poets and philosophers. There it was possible, and here too, in the land of the prophets. The establishment of a state run by rabbis and generals is not an impossible nightmare. I know how difficult this comparison is, but please open your ears, eyes, and hearts."

Many American Jews think that Israel is in trouble today because of anti-Semitism or because it is surrounded by dangerous adversaries who threaten Israel's very existence. Israelis themselves, Burg reminds us, love to emphasize that "the entire world is against us." He dismisses these wrongheaded beliefs: "Today we are armed to the teeth, better equipped than any other generation in Jewish history. We have a tremendous army, an obsession with security, and the safety net of the United States ... Anti-Semitism seems ridiculous, even innocuous compared with the strength of the Jewish people of today."

For Burg, Israel's troubles are self-inflicted. Specifically, he maintains that the principal cause of Israel's problems is the legacy of the Holocaust, which has become omnipresent in Israeli life. "Not a day passes," he writes, "without a mention of the Shoah in the only newspaper I read, Ha'aretz." Indeed, Israeli children are taught in school that "we are all Shoah survivors." The result is that Israelis (and most American Jews for that matter) cannot think straight about the world around them. They think that everyone is out to get them, and that the Palestinians are hardly any different than the Nazis. Given this despairing perspective, Israelis believe that almost any means is justified to counter their enemies. The implication of Burg's argument is that if there was less emphasis on the Holocaust, Israelis would change their thinking about "others" in fundamental ways and this would allow them to reach a settlement with the Palestinians and lead a more peaceful and decent life.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/12/09/for_american_readers_the_great/

[LynnTheDem]

12. Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

[Arrowhead2k1]

13. Of course they do. We've been conditioned from birth to think Israelis good, arabs bad.

But slowly more and more people are waking up every year. It's only a matter of time before we see a significant change in this kind of thinking.

[Shaktimaan]

15. conditioned since birth?

Where did you grow up?

[Idealism]

16. I would suggest you review the 08 election

"Muslim" was a popular slur, and thousands and thousands of people believed Obama was a secret Islamic fascist.

[Shaktimaan]

18. OK, but the folks who bought into that were clearly retarded.

Those are the people in America who were raised on xenophobia and clearly lack any sort of real education. And I doubt that most of those people are particularly fond of the Israelis/Jews either.

There's clearly racism against Arabs in this country. But the record of Jew-love is not exactly any kind of gold standard either. And I seriously doubt that many in America were conditioned since birth to hate Arabs but specifically support Israelis.

I'll agree that most Americans feel a closer affinity for Israel than most Arab states. But I think that's because of a host of reasons, most of them legitimate, or at least understandable from a rational perspective.

[Idealism]

20. I dont know how rational many of those sentiments towards Israel are

Many people seem to care about Israel in the US because they are:

Fundies who think the end of days will occur there
Of Jewish descent
Racist against Muslims
Love war and violence
Ship their tax dollars there


I don't really find any of these reasonable, except perhaps Jewish heritage. You can't help but feel nationalistic to where you perceive yourself to be from, so that is excusable.

The world is a very hateful prejudiced place, and to argue who is lower on the totem pole in public opinion is pretty moot, although I would have to say it is definitively Muslims. Most Americans still believe that Saddam was linked to 9/11... blind hatred just to hate something.

[Shaktimaan]

23. I think the reasons people identify more with Israel are more complex than that.

America is primarily a Christian country. As a result of that they see the story of Israel as part of a continuing narrative that they themselves are a part of. That accounts for their interest in Israel more than their affinity for Jew over Muslims.

That can be chalked up to a large extent by the fact that Israel as a western state shares much more in common with the average American than Arab cultures do. This is not necessarily xenophobic either. There are certain core similarities in terms of ethics and social ideals that Arab states do not share with America. These include feminism and gay rights, freedom of speech, democracy and a dedication to the ideals of the enlightenment, ie: rational and scientific thinking as opposed to a blind faith in God as well as an emphasis on the individual (and individual rights) as opposed to that of the tribe. Arab culture differs in some fundamental ways from Western culture and people tend to favor those whom they can best relate to.

Not to mention the fact that this culture rift has expressed itself in ways that directly impact Americans. I'm talking about terrorism, of course. Now I realize that terrorism is not a tenet of Arab society however the war against America has these cultural differences at its root. After all, Israel has never attacked America. We never see images of Israelis burning American flags. Israel never refers to us as the Great Satan. It does not help that many Arab and Muslim states lump Israel and America together in their criticism, seeing both as symbols of contemporary imperialism and colonialism. Both Israel and America are currently targets of terrorism that originates from the same place. And for somewhat similar reasons.

I'm not saying that these are all entirely rational "reasons" to identify with one side over another. But they can be rationally understood as triggers for our collective emotional reactions. There is a cultural and political rift between the Arab/Muslim world and the West. No such rift exists with Israel.

There are other reasons too. The cold war is over, but for decades it was the primary force that shaped our middle eastern policy. Israel was our ally against the Soviet backed states that it fought against.

Finally, there is just the actual history involved. It's complex and few Americans have bothered to really learn it in depth. I myself was far more critical of Israel until I took the time to learn the history of the conflict. I consider myself pro-Palestinian. But I tend towards supporting Israel more now than I ever did before. Other people come to different conclusions. But in my opinion, Israel has a right to exist and the cause of this conflict is less the fault of Zionism than it was an unreasonable Arab reaction to it. But I don't think that is a major reason for American support of Israel over the Arabs, that's just my own.

[Idealism]

32. Decent assesment

My reasons listed were a bit tongue in cheek, but I do my list makes the top 10 for reason people support Israel. I don't have a side I support, I just want the needless violence to end. Israel is doing their population no favors by killing off Hamas when you have thousands of civilians whose lives have been ruined by this campaign want their revenge. They are creating more Hamas-minded Arabs than they are killing.

[azurnoir]

21. Not so much where as when

and most of us that are actually old enough to remember the '67 war were brought up that way me I was born during the Sinai campaign

[coruscate]

19. The topic title is EXTREMELY misleading

When you've got numbers *UNDER* 50% you're not talking about "firm" or "overwhelming," Freepers claimed that for Bush's "mandate" (REMEMBER THAT?) and we all rightly laughed it off.

To say they outnumber the other parties is true, but these numbers are far less supportive than what I expected to see when I clicked the link to read this thread. That these numbers for support are so low and the numbers pointing "the opposite" are running so high, it's only a matter of time (and shamefully, genocide) before those numbers climb and grow.

Israel has basically walked into a kindergarten clad in a trenchcoat and flashed the class; they've damaged their PR in a way that they may never recover from.

Even Israeli diplomats are reporting it...
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1055222.html

[LeftishBrit]

26. It seems to depend a lot on the question asked

There was a consistently more positive response to questions about Israel than those about Hamas, but not all responses were overwhelmingly supportive of either.

The most surprising response to me is that only 9 per cent thought both parties are to blame for the crisis; but again it may depend how the question was asked.

At any rate, it does indicate that, rightly or wrongly, for whatever reason, most American voters tend to support Israel; and therefore politicians' pro-Israel stances may have more to do with a simple desire to please the voters, than with some sort of sinister foreign influence.

(FWIW, my own responses would have been that both are using excessive force, both are to blame for the crisis, and yes, there should be a Palestinian state.)

[bunnies]

28. "Fifty-seven percent think that Hamas is using excessive force"

That right there proves this poll worthless. Hamas doesnt HAVE excessive force to use.

At any rate - thankfully a huge majority of Democrats oppose Israels actions. At least *some* people think straight.

[bdamomma]

29. excuse me, but I do not support the killing of Gaza civilians