Democratic & Republican Views Diverge on Israeli-Arab Peace
The American electorate is deeply divided on issues related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with voters who backed Barack Obama and John McCain holding dramatically divergent views of the conflict, what should be done to solve it, and the role the U.S. ought to play.
This is the most startling finding of a Zogby International interactive survey conducted in April, 2009, for the Doha Debates, a BBC-TV program emanating from Doha, Qatar. The survey engaged 4,230 U.S. adults, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 1.5%.
The survey found that substantial majorities (of all groups) believed: that a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is important; that the conflict negatively impacts U.S. interests in the Middle East; that both Israelis and Palestinians are entitled to equal rights; and that there should be a Palestinian state.
Overall, the survey established that, while favorable attitudes toward Israel remain strong, pluralities of Americans believe that President Obama should pursue a policy less supportive of Israel than his predecessor. They believe he ought to "get tough" with Israel on settlements, and "steer a middle course between Israel and the Palestinians."
These findings, however, mask the deep divide within the electorate.
Attitudes toward U.S.-Israeli Relations
Americans do support Israel, to be sure. But, are the interests of the two countries identical, and does its support for Israel strengthen or weaken the U.S.? Three quarters of voters who supported John McCain believe that the interests of the U.S. and Israel are identical. Nearly as many believe that the U.S. is strengthened by its support of Israel. Obama voters, however, strongly disagree with both propositions, with more than one half disagreeing that the interests of the two countries are the same. Similarly, half of Obama voters believe the U.S. is weakened by its support for Israel, with only one in five seeing the U.S. as strengthened.
When asked which is more important to the U.S.-- relations with Israel, the Arabs, or both - only 7% of Obama voters say Israel, 17% say the Arabs, and 68% say both. On the other hand, 46% of McCain voters say that the U.S. relationship with Israel is most important, only 3% emphasize relations with the Arabs, while 48% say both.
It appears from the results of the survey that the recent war in Gaza served to widen the gap between the two groups of voters. Half of Obama supporters said that war made them less supportive of Israel, while two-thirds of McCain voters actually say that the Gaza war made them more supportive of Israel.
What Should the U.S. Do?
Predictably, McCain voters saw Bush as an honest broker (by an 84%-8% margin). Obama voters disagreed by an equally overwhelming margin. But what should President Obama do? When asked, 73% of those who voted for President Obama say he should "steer a middle course," with only 10% saying he should support Israel and 6% saying support the Palestinians. Wildly different responses come from the McCain voters, 60% of whom say the current President should support Israel! Only 22% of McCain supporters say the President should be balanced in his approach to the conflict
Engage with Hamas? By a 67%-16% margin Obama voters say yes, while 79% of McCain voters say no. And should the U.S. get tough with Israel? 80% of Obama voters say it is time to get tough, with 73% Of McCain voters disagreeing.
Solving Final Status Issues
Even when it comes to solving critical final status issues, the two camps hold positions that are mirror opposites of one another. Do Palestinians have the right of return? Obama voters agree they do by a margin of 61%-13%, while McCain voters disagree, 21%-51%. Should Jerusalem be divided and serve as the capital of two states, or remain under sole Israeli control? Obama voters prefer the "divided" and "two capitals" option with McCain voters overwhelmingly supporting Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel
Similarly, a majority of Obama voters believe Israel should be made to remove its settlements from occupied Palestinian lands, while a majority of McCain voters believe the settlements should stay.
Two Observations
The depth of this partisan divide is instructive on many levels. First and foremost, it establishes that, despite the claim of hard-line supporters of Israel, traditional U.S. policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not have bipartisan backing. In fact, as the two parties have evolved over the past thirty years, and as the issue itself has evolved - since Oslo - each of the two parties have moved in different directions.
The dominant role of the religious right, which now comprises up to one-third of the base of the Republican Party, coupled with the degree to which neo-conservativism has come to define the world view of that party, have contributed to a significant reorientation of the GOP. These two strands of thought were brought together by George W. Bush, who also embraced Ariel Sharon, and, post-9/11, characterized the struggles of Israel and the U.S. as identical. As a result, it now appears that the GOP is no longer the party of George Herbert Walker Bush and James Baker, but an entirely new entity.
Meanwhile, the base of the Democratic Party, has come to be defined by progressives (including a significant number of progressive Jews) and minority communities who have grown weary of Bush's ideological approach to conflict. They have come to reject his policies and recoil from their consequences.
Obama's victory, therefore, represents not only the election of a new President, but the victory of a new coalition whose component parts support an anti-war, pro-peace and pro-human rights agenda. This coalition, our poll findings demonstrate, can provide the support the new President needs, should he decide on a dramatically different direction for U.S policy toward the Israeli-Arab conflict.
Alon Ben-Meir: The Palestinians at a Pivotal Crossroads
President Obama's push for a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict has given the Palestinians an historic opportunity to end their disastrous state of affairs.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Until and unless the United States government takes an even handed approach to the Israeli/Palestinian problem, we will never be able to arrange for some form of peaceful settlement in the Middle East. George Mitchell got a great deal of praise for his efforts in Northern Ireland and one of the reasons he was successful was that he and others took a impartial approach to the problem. All this despite the fact that there are more Irish living in America then there are in Ireland. The first and most important step is for the US government to accept that the Israeli position is not always correct and they should not get our automatic support - and for the US public to recognize that Israel's interests are not always America's interests. The Israelis are well aware of this, we should be, too.
you forgot to mention Democratic and Republican members of Congress how divergent are their views . . . that would be interesting . . .
you have told us what we know . . . we the people have to make the difference . . . like we did in ensuring Obama was elected . . . the old zenophobic ways are not the way to peace . . .
it takes two to tango
both sides are guilty. suicide bombers plus settlements equals hell
I want to end the aid to Israel too (and for that matter, Iraq and Egypt). I have an idea. Israel offered to give the Palestinians Gaza, the West Bank, and parts of E. Jerusalem plus massive amounts of aid from the west and Israel. This was called the camp David accord and was negotiated by Israel, Pres. Clinton, Dennis Ross, and Arafat (the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinians according to the Arab League). The response from the Palestinians was to launch an illegal war of terrorism resulting in over a thousand civilians killed in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa, etc. This was supported by Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Egypt. Maybe the Arabs just put aside their implacable hatred of others who are not Muslim and work to build their own futures and tell their clerics they have no time for their culture of vicitimization and intolerance. Then Israel can stop investing in weapons, the Palestinians can build their own society, and the west can stop sending aid into the ME. That would be great by me!
"Israel offered to give the Palestinians Gaza, the West Bank, and parts of E. Jerusalem plus massive amounts of aid from the west and Israel. This was called the camp David accord"
If you believe that this was what was offered at Camp David, you are either misinformed or a fool.
Or perhaps he is just correct. Go back to the text of Camp David and you'll see.
James; you know what....?
"They suffer least, who suffer what they choose..!"
I don't know about that idea. I decided to get married, does that mean I suffer less because I chose to be married? That is a scary thought.
The American Political world is bought by lobbist that are the modern day corporate Terror Squad
I have an American Message- Have Isreal fight its own wars- If the cause is so damn eager
get off the POP - culture stage and join the Army and do battle
data mining, data brokering, exploiting, trading and selling- put in a pipe and smoke that song
http://www
http://www
The World We Want
Corporate Money not more important thanthe abilty of a human to lead their life.
Hatred never dies as noticed on some posting- Arrogance and Ego- some groups are only thrive on Conflict-
thanks goodness at least in Business one can be sued in a United States District court
The phrase "support Israel" seems a bit muddy to me. People can support the idea of Israel -- the right for the Israelis to have an independent state -- and not support its aggressive stance in the region, its subjugating of Palestinians, its attempts to control US policy, its over-reliance on US money and arms, America's unjustified aid to Israel in general, or the fact that Israel has more spies in the US than and does any other country. If you asked people if they thought that Israeli settlers who routinely attack their Palestinian neighbors without provocation were right to bulldoze Palestinian homes to make room for more Israelis, I think you would find the numbers of people who support that kind of thing would be much lower.
Your posting is wrong on a number of levels.
US aid to israel is about $3 billion each year, which is around the amount sent to Egypt, les than Iraq, less than the cost of aid to Saudi Arabia, and less than the cost of US aid to a number of other nations.
Israel does not try to control the politics in the US. Yes, there are Jewish and israeli lobbyists, just as Saudi Arabia has lobbyists and Egypt has lobbyists and nost nations have lobbyists in the US. To single out Israel is wrong-minded.
You hve no idea about the number of foreign spies in the US and it is foolish to make such a concrete statement about Israel. I'd imagine China has quite a few, as does Russia.
The settlers do not routinely attack their Arab neighbors, that is fictional.
All in all your posting does not contain anything factual.
There is a big difference: US aid to Israel goes to suppress the Palestinians; US aid to Egypt goes to prop up a dictatorship against its own people.
If Israel doesn't try to control the politics in the US, explain why they've gotten hoarse from yelling "Let's you and your army attack Iran for us" for the past few years.
Israel doesn't have settlements, it has illegal colonies on Palestinian lands, and those colonists are attackers by virtue of the theft of the land itself. They also physically assault Palestinians on a regular basis, though the reporting is often skewed.
The presence of the settlers, itself, is an attack on their Palestinian neighbors.
Still with the "argument" that US aid to Israel is the same as US aid to Egypt - now you know that that is false - the truth is that US aid to Israel is approximately twice what it is to Egypt. The problem with Israeli lobbyists is that they include people like Joe Lieberman as well as registered Israeli lobbyists.
On the other hand, it is too bad for US interests that Israeli spies are not registered - we have to round them up one by one like Jonathan Pollard.
If it was put to the republicans in terms they appreciate, their opinions might be very different.
The cost of carrying Israel financially all of these years, essentially paying for the immense shortfall caused by the settlements and the occuaption has been in the trillions, if you look at the military and homeland defense costs after 9/11 and the hits that we have taken economically as the result of 9/11.
Yes, it is not ALL caused by the ill will spawned by the settlements but the CIA, the Iraq Study group, the 9/11 commission, Jimmy Carter, Bush 1 and MANY other credible sources see it as a not insignificant factor in inspiring the terrorist recruitment and support that 40 years of brutal occupation and settling has had on the region.
As usual you just can't tell the truth.
Nothing in your usually weak posting is true or honest. NOt a single thing. Your attempt to link support of Israel to 9/11 is also a lie. Osama bin Laden amde it lear the attacks were undertaken to force the "infidels", the US, out of Saudi Arabia. He later expanded the statement to include support for Israel, but only when his first statements proved to be of little propaganda value.
By the way, your use of credible is incredibly wrong.
Will the Obama adm have the wisdom to reverse our decades long policies in the region? In the past our leaders have been concerned with the defense, rights, security, welfare, etc., of only ONE particular group in the disputed region, while paying little or NO attention to all others who live there. Isn't time to be concerned with the rights & security of everyone else too? (How many more Gazas will we have to witness?) Whether the best vehicle is a one state solution, with of course equal rights for all, remains to be seen, but the two-state solution is rejected by the new Israeli govt. & is described often as something that still would not really have equal access to water, prime agriculture, electrical, technological & other infrastructure. Doesn't seem terribly viable or attractive. What is the alternative? An Aparthied state is not an option. No reasonable or moral person would want to live in it. A multi-ethnic, multi-religious state with equal rights & security for all may be the inevitable outcome, no matter how painful for those who want to maintain the status quo. The demographics & steadfastness of the Palestinians just don’t seem to quit. In the end these factors will determine the ultimate outcome, regardless of how American or the Israel politics would wish otherwise.
Your ccount of the situation in the MIddle East is flawed.
Says Bubba the settler.
When one uses terms like "apartheid" to describe the only Middle Eastern democracy where Arabs, Christians and Jews live side by side in peace it is obvious that a peaceful solution is not what they are looking for but instead is just seeking to defame and besmearch Israel---the country they wake up hating, spend the day hating and go to sleep hating.
Levy,
Israeli arabs who are not jewish do NOT have the same rights as jews in Israel. The vast majoriy of arabs in Israel that don't serve in the army have FAR inferior benefits then those who do. The vast majority of arabs who are not jewish cannot lease or rent on 93% of state owned land in Israel. There is an ENORMOUS discrepency in state funding for infrastructure in arab towns. There some 100 villages in the Negev and Galilee that have been there that are not "recognized" by the Israeli government. Essentially some 150 000 non-jews do NOT have access to the the MOST BASIC services offered by the state. Apartheid is best viewed in the West Bank where a settler population of less then 2% of the total population, control 42% of the total land mass of the West Bank and the vast majority of the resources. The West Bank is sectioned in to 6 enclaves with severe restrictions on freedom of those who are not jewish of movement from one town to the next by blocking access roads, hundreds of check points, physical barriers, forbidden-roads, curfews, closures etc...
A point of clarification Levy, I was born a christian and I consider my self arab as well. So next time you post try saying "Muslims, Christians and Jews".
Let's not start talking about Israel as if it is a fully functioning democracy. All news stories must be submitted to a military censor. When Mordechai Vununu revealed Israel's secret, illegal nuclear weapons program, the state kidnapped him, transported him to Israel, and jailed him for more than 20 years. Those who are critical of Israel's policies at times find themselves harangued by lawsuits brought by the government and publicly shamed. Israeli children of settlers throw stones at Palestinians and threaten to exterminate them. Israeli settlers routinely bully and harass their Arab neighbors. Israel confiscates Palestinian land and gobbles it up for Israelis. Recently, Israelis have drifted to an extreme right-wing position of favoring the expulsion of Arabs from Israel. Your characterization of Arabs demonstrates the lack of a willingness to understand both sides.
The election of Barack Obama offers "... a dramatically different direction for U.S policy toward the Israeli-Arab conflict."
Since 1947, all efforts to resolve the dilemma of two increasingly implacable adversaries, waging increasingly violent conflict over ever shifting boundaries between them, have failed. Their incessant conflict increasingly spills out into the international community, threatens stability in the region, and endangers all of us. It is time for "... a dramatically different direction ...".
The two state solution is doomed to fail. Draw new boundaries, separate them with concrete and barbed wire, and they will continue to fight back and forth across the dividing lines. The past 60 years offer abundant proof they will never agree to stable boundaries. Apartheid, with all the instability it entails, will persist. Homes will have to be razed, property forcefully transferred, and people uprooted and moved. Separated by physical and philosophical barriers, they will never relearn peaceful coexistence.
The one state solution, ala South Africa, with Truth and Reconciliation, ala Nelson Mandela, enforced as long as necessary by the full force of the world community, may be the only realistic solution. The potential result, a secular democratic federal state based in fraternity, equality, liberty, and justice; the end of apartheid; and no citizen forced to sacrifice his home and property to relocate to another state. In time, new generations will learn to live together in harmony as these two Semitic peoples have so often throughout history.
The One State Solution!
I have followed this situation since i was a little girl, it was what we talked about as we had family living there. after all these years, 40 plus i have come to the same conclusion you have one state! no boarders to fight over...
IN 1922 over 70% of the proposed Jewish Homeland was taken to create Transjordan as a homeland for Arabs who did not wish to live among the Jews and to serve as a kingdom for the Hashemite family. If the "palestinians" still want a homeland one already is in existence.
Some on here will arguew that Transjordan and Israel were the creation of colonial powers, which is not necessarily factual. Eretz Yisrael has been in existence for over 4,000 yers. What is true that the Arabs in one nation are not really different from Arabs in another nation. The difference is primarily religion, Shi'a vs. Sunni. So, divide the existing Arab nations among the Arabs and leave us to the small slice of the region that is Israel.
You claim the Israelis and the Arabs just can't "coexist." Nothing could be more wrong. The problem is that Arabs can't coexist with anyone. Do you think the Taliban's murderous actions in Afghanistan and Pakistan have anything to do with the Jews of Israel? Do you think the million dead in the Sudan have anything to do with the Jews of Israel? How about the India/Pakistan conflict, or maybe the half million dead in Algeria, on Lybia's killing of 200,000 in Chad, or the Iran/Iraq war, or the Shite vs. Sunni wars, or the Lebanon civil war, etc. etc. etc. etc. Before you sentence the Jews and Christians to live as minorities in your "one state solution" just ask minorities in any Arab country what it is like.
The specific point of my comment is that Israeli's and Arabs can coexist in one secular democratic Federal State, as they do in many such States today, and as they have for most of past history in the area that is now Israel / Palestine. I don't understand your point about all those other conflicts which individually and collectively have little or nothing to do with the Jews of Israel. I have first hand experience as a minority (American expatriate) in an Arab country (in Saudi Arabia since 1995), and I can tell you that in every way, except for the geography, I find life here delightful, better in fact than in the United States. My Jewish colleagues working here seem to agree, at least none of them are talking about leaving. Maybe you should reconsider before you sentence Jews and Christians to live apart in two states, separated by concrete and barbed wire, and locked in an endless cycle of violence.
Like the Jews in Iran who can't be bought off and moved to Israel for propoganda purposes. And why? Because they are happy where they are thankyou.
You don't think that the statement "Arabs can't coexist with anyone" is racist and anti-semitic? It is. The Taliban are Pashtun/Pathan tribesmen; not Arab; "India/Pakistan" conflict, similarly, not Arabs.
Yes!
totally agree with you TheBurdicks . . thank you . . .
the one state solution of a secular federal state with equal rights for all is the only real option . . . the two state solution will only mean a continuance of what has been happening for the past 60 years
Great article. The REAL irony is that despite the clear LACK of consensus in the electorate on the matter, Nearly %100 of the House and Congress would apparently do just about anything Israel asked, no matter how self destructive and pointless it might seem.
I would put it to you that if Israeli bombers started randomly strafing the US, Congress and the house, as opposed to calling out the air force, would sign an unanimous letter of support, and then entreat the people of the US to just let the Israelis continue until they achieved their objectives. As was the case in both Gaza and Lebanon, it apparently does not matter if Israel has any achievable objectives.
When Jane Harman outdoes Blago by a corruption landslide, there is NOTHING in response from the rest of her peers. NOTHING. They are seemingly all bought and paid for on these matters, regardless of the consequences for the US or the world.
All the suits on Capitol Hill are 'Blagos'.
Wheeling and dealing and wheeling and dealing.
Behind our backs.
US should stand down and let these two contries work out a solution; if they request help in mediating talks then it is time to have a panel of countries (maybe 3 countries) help mediate and that panel does not HAVE to have an America on it for the resolution ultimately affect the world.
How about the Swiss, Turkey & Canada see what they can broker
Why?
In the justification of going to Iraq it now turns out that America manipulated facts to fit the actions they wanted to take; this proves we are not objective and will only inflame any discussions; it will be some time before we can be trusted as even handed. We will only add fuel.
Zogby ~ it would be interesting to know the average age and education levels of the GOP, Dem surveyed.
It would be interesting to know the education levels and ages of Hamas terrorists,too!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
