Gallup national poll: widening partisan gap on Israel/Palestine

[Mr. Morden]

From Gallup:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/181652/seven-americans-continue-view-israel-favorably.aspx?utm_source=POLITICS&utm_medium=topic&utm_campaign=tiles

Americans sympathize more with Israelis than Palestinians:



But with a partisan gap emerging since ~2001, and getting even wider just this year (though 2010 was about the same):

[Vosem]

Eh, Democratic sympathies have been that low before (and they were even lower in the '90s). It's balanced out by Republicans going from being barely more sympathetic than that to near-unanimously pro-Israel.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

It's kind of surprising that the change is that low when an American President is basically waging a diplomatic offensive against Israel. Good news in the long run.

[ag]

It's kind of surprising that the change is that low when an American President is basically waging a diplomatic offensive against Israel. Good news in the long run.

From the outside it looks like the American president is as strongly supportive of Israel as ever. I guess, when the competition is on who supports the Israeli right wing more, then going from 12 to 11.9999 on a 10-point scale sounds like treason, but it would be worthwhile to remember, that it is still a pretty much unqualified support of a foreign government: something no other US ally remotely enjoys.

[bedstuy]

Eh, Democratic sympathies have been that low before (and they were even lower in the '90s). It's balanced out by Republicans going from being barely more sympathetic than that to near-unanimously pro-Israel.

It's too bad.  I think you can attribute some of the decrease in support for Israel to Netanyahu basically endorsing Mitt Romney and inappropriately commenting on US politics.  Hopefully, that will correct itself soon.

[Thunderbird is the word]

It doesn't translate much into political support in the Democratic Party, which is surprising. I could see a Democratic congressional candidate from a district with a substantial Muslim population trying to win support on that issue by promising to be a voice for Palestine in congress.

[Zioneer]

It doesn't translate much into political support in the Democratic Party, which is surprising. I could see a Democratic congressional candidate from a district with a substantial Muslim population trying to win support on that issue by promising to be a voice for Palestine in congress.

I think Keith Ellison is the only one who would have any opportunity for that, since he represents Dearborn.

[MalaspinaGold]

It doesn't translate much into political support in the Democratic Party, which is surprising. I could see a Democratic congressional candidate from a district with a substantial Muslim population trying to win support on that issue by promising to be a voice for Palestine in congress.

I think Keith Ellison is the only one who would have any opportunity for that, since he represents Dearborn.

What no.
Dearborn is in Michigan. Ellison's from Minnesota.

[Indy Texas]

It doesn't translate much into political support in the Democratic Party, which is surprising. I could see a Democratic congressional candidate from a district with a substantial Muslim population trying to win support on that issue by promising to be a voice for Palestine in congress.

Even if you gerrymandered the hell out of the Dearborn, MI area, you still wouldn't have a substantially Muslim district in the way that some legislative constituencies in Western European countries are 30%+ Muslim.

The only people in Congress who occasionally thumb their noses at AIPAC do so less out of an organized pro-Palestinian position and more because they have little need to appeal to pro-Israel donors/lobbyists. The usual suspects tend to be non-Muslim Arab-American legislators (Nick Rahall; Justin Amash - though his foreign policy views are as much informed by his Paulist Republicanism) or members from mostly rural, homogenous districts with no politically active Jewish community.

[Mr. Morden]

It doesn't translate much into political support in the Democratic Party, which is surprising. I could see a Democratic congressional candidate from a district with a substantial Muslim population trying to win support on that issue by promising to be a voice for Palestine in congress.

I think Keith Ellison is the only one who would have any opportunity for that, since he represents Dearborn.

There's a Dearborn in Minnesota?

[Panda Express]

It doesn't translate much into political support in the Democratic Party, which is surprising. I could see a Democratic congressional candidate from a district with a substantial Muslim population trying to win support on that issue by promising to be a voice for Palestine in congress.

I think Keith Ellison is the only one who would have any opportunity for that, since he represents Dearborn.

There's a Dearborn in Minnesota?

There's a lot of deer born in Minnesota, son

[Mr. Morden]

It doesn't translate much into political support in the Democratic Party, which is surprising. I could see a Democratic congressional candidate from a district with a substantial Muslim population trying to win support on that issue by promising to be a voice for Palestine in congress.

I think Keith Ellison is the only one who would have any opportunity for that, since he represents Dearborn.

There's a Dearborn in Minnesota?

There's a lot of deer born in Minnesota, son

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Az83wgx3dwg

[SWE]

It's kind of surprising that the change is that low when an American President is basically waging a diplomatic offensive against Israel. Good news in the long run.

lmao what are you talking about

[Zioneer]

Did I seriously mix up where Dearborn is and where Ellison represents? Yeah, I have no defense for mixing Minnesota and Michigan up. My bad, guys. I even checked the Dearborn Wikipedia page and Ellison's page to make sure I knew what I was talking about before I posted. Must have been really tired or something.

It's kind of surprising that the change is that low when an American President is basically waging a diplomatic offensive against Israel. Good news in the long run.

Still not as dumb as this though.

[TNF]

It's kind of surprising that the change is that low when an American President is basically waging a diplomatic offensive against Israel. Good news in the long run.

Please acquaint yourself with reality with all due haste.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

It's kind of surprising that the change is that low when an American President is basically waging a diplomatic offensive against Israel. Good news in the long run.

lmao what are you talking about

In 2009, he unilaterally changed the US' definition Israel's borders, declared Jewish homes in Jewish areas of Jerusalem to be "settlements", and then spent weeks publicly denouncing Israel. It took his own party telling him to stop demonizing a US ally to get him to stop, and he's held a grudge ever since.

[ag]

It's kind of surprising that the change is that low when an American President is basically waging a diplomatic offensive against Israel. Good news in the long run.

lmao what are you talking about

In 2009, he unilaterally changed the US' definition Israel's borders, declared Jewish homes in Jewish areas of Jerusalem to be "settlements", and then spent weeks publicly denouncing Israel. It took his own party telling him to stop demonizing a US ally to get him to stop, and he's held a grudge ever since.

And when did the US - or anybody else outside Israel - have any other definition of Israeli borders?

Since when is restating an old policy - and, for that matter, one reiterated by pretty much every US president (including, for instance, both Bushes) - called a "change"?

[King]

One thing I notice on all Gallup historical trends is that in late 2000/early 2001 we were pretty much on the cusp of Americans having FF opinions on everything, and then 9/11 came and turned everyone into a HP.

[Boston Bread]

One thing I notice on all Gallup historical trends is that in late 2000/early 2001 we were pretty much on the cusp of Americans having FF opinions on everything, and then 9/11 came and turned everyone into a HP.

I saw a study that suggested feeling of fear increased conservatism, it might have some truth to it?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Any chance that this could allow Republicans to peel off a few more Jewish voters?

[King]

Any chance that this could allow Republicans to peel off a few more Jewish voters?

All the Jews who make Israel their top issue moved to Israel already.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

One thing I notice on all Gallup historical trends is that in late 2000/early 2001 we were pretty much on the cusp of Americans having FF opinions on everything, and then 9/11 came and turned everyone into a HP.

I saw a study that suggested feeling of fear increased conservatism, it might have some truth to it?

I always thought that this was kind of the obvious interpretation of that period.

[ingemann]

One thing I notice on all Gallup historical trends is that in late 2000/early 2001 we were pretty much on the cusp of Americans having FF opinions on everything, and then 9/11 came and turned everyone into a HP.

I saw a study that suggested feeling of fear increased conservatism, it might have some truth to it?

I'm not a supporter of the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians. But maybe the whole Muslims bombing civilian westerners (no matter the reasons) suddenly changed into another context after 9/11.

[MaxQue]

It's kind of surprising that the change is that low when an American President is basically waging a diplomatic offensive against Israel. Good news in the long run.

lmao what are you talking about

In 2009, he unilaterally changed the US' definition Israel's borders, declared Jewish homes in Jewish areas of Jerusalem to be "settlements", and then spent weeks publicly denouncing Israel. It took his own party telling him to stop demonizing a US ally to get him to stop, and he's held a grudge ever since.

To be truthful, it's because Democrats were blackmiled by AIPAC, not because they were an ally.