From a survey of American Jewish opinion, including everyone from the most committed Jews to the completely unaffiliated:
9. Do you think there will or will not come a time when Israel and its Arab neighbors will be able to settle their differences and live in peace? Will 37 Will Not 55 Not Sure 8
10. Do you think that negotiations between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas can or cannot lead to peace in the foreseeable future? Can 36 Cannot 55 Not Sure 9
11. Do you think that Israel can or cannot achieve peace with a Hamas-led, Palestinian government? Can 17 Cannot 74 Not Sure 9
12. In the current situation, do you favor or oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state? Favor 46 Oppose 43 Not sure 12
[Note that this is a remarkably ambiguous formulation of the question. I support the establishment of a Palestinian state, but not until a peace agreement is reached and the Palestinian government proves itself capable of establishing order. Does that mean that "in the current situation" I support or oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state? ]
13. In the framework of a permanent peace with the Palestinians, should Israel be willing to compromise on the status of Jerusalem as a united city under Israeli jurisdiction? Yes 36 No 58 Not Sure 7
14. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? "The goal of the Arabs is not the return of occupied territories but rather the destruction of Israel." Agree 82 Disagree 12 Not Sure 6
The obvious conclusion from this survey is that American Jews are moderately hawkish on Israel, very suspicious of Israel's neighbors' intentions, and very pessimistic about the prospect for peace. Overall, these positions are to the "right," of e.g., the Bush Administration, which hopes to see the establishment of a Palestinian state by the time it leaves office, undoubtedly desires that Israel compromise on Jerusalem, and believes that territorial compromise can resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict.
But according to Eric Alterman, American Jews are "impressivlely sensible," by which he means left-wing and dovish, on Israel, especially when compared with the evil "Bush/neocon agenda," apparently because about half of them support a Palestinian state. [Editor's note: The Bush Administration's most prominent neocon during its seven years in office, Paul Wolfowitz, was also an ardent supporter of the establishment of a Palestinian state.] Similarly, Glenn Greenwald somehow concludes that the poll shows that hawkish views on Israel, such as those propounded by evil "right wing neocons" (a category in which he bizarrely includes AIPAC, which in my experience is dominated by moderates who lean liberal), are supported by only a small minority of American Jews, a position not supported by the data in the poll .
Contrary to Alterman, there is no evidence discernable from this survey that mainstream Jewish organizations, which he claims have been taken over by a well-organized right-wingers, have positions far more hawkish on Israel than is reflected in mainstream Jewish opinion, much less the mainstream opinion of Jews actively affiliated with the community (who tend to be both better informed, more hawkish, and by definition more likely to be the direct constituents of Jewish organizations). On the other hand, it seems clear that Jewish popular opinion is strongly oppose to at least some positions of Jewish "peace" groups such as Brit Tzedek V'Shalom [with whom Alterman has collaborated]. For example, while only 17% of American Jews think Israel could achieve a peace deal with "a Hamas-led government," BTVS thinks that Israel should "pursue every avenue for peace and reconciliation with Hamas."
Alterman's agenda, of course, is to discredit organizations that don't share his own rather idiosyncratic perspective on Israel, by falsely portraying them as captives of right-wing extremists well out of the Jewish mainstream. But by spouting nonsense about an "unholy alliance between conservative-dominated professional Jewish organizations [such as the American Jewish Committee! Hah!] and neoconservative Jewish pundits, aided by pliant and frequently clueless mainstream media that empower these right-wingers to speak for a people with values diametrically opposed to theirs," he's only discrediting himself.
[If you don't accept the premise of the thread, which I agree assumes it matters to some degree at least just say so and don't try to hijack it.]
I think G.Greenwald is entirely correct.
Majority of Jews do not share neoconservative fear mongering, global democracy conquest, military dominance, kill them all, etc,etc,etc, BS.
Long ago Israel should have listened to its wisest elders -- Rabin and Peres, rather than to the evangelical Christian Americans who clearly have vested interests in fulfilling the book, even if the pricetag is the destruction of America. Maybe you don't want to hear that part, but clearly it is there.
Is it too late to listen now to common sense? I don't know, but you must admit that Arial Sharon's ways of promoting peace through destruction and not leaving his Palestinian enemies any way out short of the destruction of Israel was clearly a mistake.
Until Jewish Americans make up a majority of Americans, it really matters not what they think because Israel is not a territory of ours essential to defend.
I did not write the bracketed comment, as it currently appears. Really is an additional shame that you've resorted to censoring those who would criticize the evangelical Christian relationship to Israel.
Maria:
Let's start at the very beginning
A very good place to start
When you read you begin with...
Child (Gretyl):
ABC
Maria:
When you sing you begin with do re mi...
Children:
Do re mi...
I wonder if DB has ever seen The Sound of Music.
Thank you for listing questions 9-14 of the survey of "American Jewish opinion" by the American Jewish Committee, which you interpret to show that Jews are more to the right than some leftist commentators have recently suggested.
I also found questions 1-8 of interest:
1. Do you approve or disapprove of the way the United States government is handling the campaign against terrorism?
Approve 31
Disapprove 59
Not Sure 10
2. Compared to one year ago, do you feel more safe from the threat of terrorism, less safe, or about as safe as you felt one year ago?
More 5
Less 22
Same 73
Not Sure 1
3. Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?
Right thing 27
Stayed out 67
Not Sure 6
4. How would you say things are going for the United States in its efforts to bring stability and order to Iraq? Would you say things are going very well, somewhat well, somewhat badly, or very badly?
Very well 3
Somewhat well 20
Somewhat badly 33
Very badly 43
Not sure 2
5. As you may know, the United States has sent more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq. From what you have heard or read, would you say this troop increase is making the situation in Iraq better, making it worse, or is it having no impact on the situation in Iraq so far?
Better 30
Worse 16
No Impact 52
Not Sure 3
6. How concerned are you about the prospect of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons? Are you very concerned, somewhat concerned, or not concerned at all?
Very concerned 59
Somewhat concerned 33
Not Concerned 7
Not Sure 0
7. Would you support or oppose the United States taking military action against Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons?
Support 35
Oppose 57
Not Sure 8
I find comparing the answers to 6 and 7 (over 90% personally concerned about Iran's obtaining nuclear weapons but more than half not willing to have the US go to war over it) suggestive that American Jews are not quite as hawkish as some would have us believe.
I think anybody could have predicted the majority answers to all of these questions, without knowing more than that the people being questioned were American jews, and thus largely biased against Bush and in favor of Israel.
Or, more likely, that the identity of the people in charge (or at least nominally so, in Abbas's case) isn't particularly important.
This is an inverted way of saying that all the evidence I have seen points to the interpretation that those same mohammedans are passionately attached to the activity of killing Jews.
People, even Jews, are apt to notice things like that.
It's not all that subtle.
More to the point, a great many people are beginning to notice that while the objects of mohammedan animosity are quite varied -- Kashmiri and many other Hindu Indians, the Sihks, Thai and Malaysian Buddhists, Indonesian and Egyptian Christians, Sudanese bush people, Russian, Armenian and Serbian Christians and more -- that the story coming from the mohammedan side is always the same litany of claims of victimization and righteous indignation that the rest of the world does not grant them their entitled status, presumably as superiors.
The loud allegations of oppression by the terrible, booga-booga, Jooooz has been a fantastically effective distraction for the forces of jihad for generations. This is largely due to the European, and more generally Christian, love/hate facination with the Jews. And it must be admitted that the Christian world has a historically proven susceptibility to the notion of the inimical oppressive Jew -- with the notable exception of America.
So while the mass media of the globe agonize endlessly over whether or not Israel is going to "make peace" with their local antagonists, the jihad against the non-mohammedan world in general continues apace, deadly and largely ignored.
Anybody out there concerned about relatively free and predominantly Christian Lebanon lately? NEWS FLASH! It almost doesn't exist anymore! It's been disappearing for decades.
Beirut used to be the "Paris of the East".
Ever wonder why the world isn't obsessed with whether or not the Lebanese Christians are going to "make peace" with their mohammedan neighbors, Nasrallah et. al.? I thinks it's because they are losing. Dying, fleeing, disappearing. Forgotten by Europe and everyone else.
And yet for some reason the chattering classes of the world are fixedly obsessed with whether or not Israel, right next door, will "make peace".
The Christian Lebanese, the Assyrians, the Azeris, the Bahai, the list goes on seemingly without end. Massive slaughter and destruction on an international scale
But it makes the news when American Jews seem to notice?
Go figure!
You also might have mentioned that the "mohammedans," as you call them, are slaughtering each other as well as the handy neighboring infidels du jour. Algeria, Egypt, Sudan, Somalia, Iraq, Jordan (remembner "Black September"?), the Taliban-Northern Alliance war in Afghanistan, and the Iran-Iraq war provide handy examples. Are all these conflicts likely to disappear if Israel "makes peace" with the likes of Hamas? Not bloody -- and I do mean bloody -- likely.
Thank you for the acknowledgement.
BTW, I call them mohammedans advisedly.
They call themselves muslims, they call their religion islam (which you know means submission).
But the guy they talk about, their point of reference, their "prophet", their model of perfect humanity is mohammed.
So mohammedan is the proper English term for them.
I've seen it spelled mahommetan in older English texts, but mohammedan is apt enough and is modern English.
It is a gesture of deference and affection to refer to people by the name they choose for themselves.
But I will call your attention to the fact that we call Germans German, Dutch Dutch, Spanish Spanish, and Japanese Japanese to this day, whereas they call themselves Deutch, Hollanders, Castillanos and NihonJin respectively.
Given the prevailing conditions I will continue to refer to the mohammedans as mohammedans. And I recommend that others do likewise.
This is not the most apt moment for deference.
You're exactly right about the broad context of the jihad.
Not even the mohammedans themselves are exempt -- in fact, not even the jihaddis. The fighting is even amongst their own ranks.
Probably, since they criticize Muslims, they'll stay up, eh? Too bad he doesn't really believe in free discourse, and takes to editing the truths that pain him...
Not germane, I guess.
Must not point out Israeli pullout followed by massive attacks on civilian areas of Israel. Must not point out that Gaza sanctions imposed in response to massive and unrelenting attacks by elected government in Gaza against Israeli civilians.
Must not expect troll to understand that only Israel is expected to supply electricity, power and food to population that has declared itself an enemy, admits seeking Israel's destruction, and is actively purusing both military and non-military means toward that goal. Must not expect troll to give lives of Israelis same value as lives of anyone else. Must not feed troll.
Oh, hell. Bon appetit, PLR.
Yeah, I wouldn't suggest you try to sell that one either. Sorry my one sentence post and link got your keyboard overheated.
All the best in 2008.
Must not point out that Israel has no intention of compromising on East Jerusalem.
Must not point out the number of Israeli extremist settlers in East Jerusalem and teh West Bank pales in comparison to the Arabs.
Must not point out Israel is no victim but an aggressor playing an active role in keeping the Palestinians and their children oppressed with no economic hope to speak of.
Must not point out that we pray Israel is not too late in wising up and preventing further bloodshed. Must not point out they have no qualms about starving little children...
*Beep Beep Beep*
Oh come on.
Israel like to be in control that way.
If not, why did they destroy the crops, greenhouses, and set up checkpoints that make it impossible to export goods for the Palestinians to support themselves. They were only too happy to let crops rot at the borders, so the Palestinian economy goes to hell. Too bad about all the European countries contributing to help Palestine make a go of it though, eh?
When you say at a funeral, "I'm sorry for your loss" it doesn't exclude the thought for the victim "You brought all this on yourselves."
Why is it the uber-Jewish people never seem to be able to live in peace, no matter where they go?
This is a classic trick question because someone who feels the government isn't harsh *enough* would have to answer "disapprove", but the results won't get spun that way.
Quite right. DB already noted the problem with question 12, and there are other problematic questions also:
That's merely a request for a prediction. Either a hawk or a dove could be pessimistic about the prospect of peace with Olmert and Abbas.
There are even more reasons for hawks and doves to be pessimistic about that one. And yet the answers to question #12 slightly favor a Palestinian state "in the current situation" where there appears to be no suitable representative of the Palestinians.
Make the appropriate modular adjustements to reflect both sides of this and other issues, and there goes our public discourse in a nutshell.