Israeli Support Is Very Weak Among Young, Not A Good Sign For The Future.

Is it true that American support for Israel is waning?

 
 
 
 
•  32
 
•  More

By Adam Taylor July 29  

File: An Israeli soldier stands guard under an Israeli national flag during a tour made by Israeli parliament members in the Jordan Valley near the Jewish settlement of Maale Efrayim January 2, 2014. REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun

The enduring friendship between the American public and Israel is legendary, and something that often bewilders and infuriates critics of Israel's policy in the Middle East. With this most recent Gaza conflict, however, and the remarkable scale of destruction (and, thanks to new technology, the wide reach for images of that destruction), some are beginning to wonder if this could be about to change.

For example, in a post titled "The Shifting Israel Debate," Andrew Sullivan makes a convincing argument that the debate is changing for the media, and a poll published Tuesday by Pew and picked up by our colleagues at The Fix appears to show that young Americans areincreasingly skeptical of Israel's politics.

But what evidence is there of a broader, permanant shift? Here's the short answer: Not much.

Take this Pew Research Center Poll conducted between July 24-27. It finds that just one in four Americans believes Israel has "gone too far" in this recent conflict: That's a remarkably similar number to the 2009 Gaza War and the number in 2006, when Israel was targeting Hezbollah in Lebanon:

(Pew Research Center)

Another poll from Pew, conducted on July 8-14 before the Israeli ground invasion began but after aerial strikes began, found that 51 percent of Americans said they sympathize more with Israel than Palestinians, and only 14 percent sympathize more with the Palestinians. This was virtually identical to the results of the same poll in April.

A different poll, conducted by CNN/ORC poll between July 18-20, paints a slightly more complicated figure. It found that positive views of Israel had fallen since February, from 72 percent with a “very” or “mostly” favorable view of Israel to 62 percent. The poll also found a relatively high support for Israel's action in Gaza, with 57 percent of respondents saying they supported it.

"Attitudes toward Israeli military action have been extremely stable over the years," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said in a statement. "In 2012, an identical 57% thought that Israel's actions against Hamas in Gaza were justified. And in 2009, the number of Americans who felt that way was only a few points higher, at 63%."

A different take comes from Gallup's polling from July 22-23, where Israeli actions are deemed justifiable by just 42 percent of respondents – with 39 percent saying they were not. This difference could be a result of the later date, or the way the question is worded. Even so, it seems to be countered by another result from the survey: 70 percent of respondents felt that Hamas’ actions were unjustified, while just 11 percent see them as justified.

Even if the tide is actually turning for Israeli support, it still has a long way to go down. This chart from Pew, released on July 15, shows that American support for Israel is an a historical high:

(Pew Research Center)

A graphic released by Gallup in March 2013 shows a similar conclusion:

(Gallup)

What's more, even if the trend among young Americans noted in the latest Pew poll isn't a conclusive sign of a shift: Who is to say that these people's viewpoints will stay the same as they grow older? As my colleague Aaron Blake points out:

Just because young Americans are more suspect of what Israel is doing today doesn't mean they will be as suspect in a decade or two. It's well-known that Americans tend to become more politically conservative as they age; it's also quite likely that their views on Middle East politics will evolve.

This doesn't mean that there isn't some kind of change happening in American's view of Israel, and it certainly is notable that big pro-Israel names are shifting. But, so far, the evidence that would confirm a wider fall in support of Israel just isn't there.

The Post's polling analyst Scott Clement contributed to this post.

Adam Taylor writes about foreign affairs for The Washington Post. Originally from London, he studied at the University of Manchester and Columbia University.

Ironically, Liberals Are The LEAST Open To Dissent And If You Disagree They Go After You Personally. So Much For Accepting Others Opinions.

The Liberal Bigots Strike Again

April 11, 2014 by Chip Wood 

 21 9

 

 0 97

THINKSTOCK

If you support the traditional view that marriage should be between a man and a woman, could that cost you your job? The intolerant left says the answer to that question is a loud and emphatic “Yes!”

Their latest victim is Brendan Eich, an inventor of JavaScript and the co-founder of the Web browser Firefox. Back in 2008, Eich donated $1,000 to the campaign for Proposition 8 in California, a ballot measure that said, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

Recently, when Eich was named CEO of Mozilla, the company that oversees Firefox, that 6-year-old contribution cost him his job. We’re told that half of Mozilla’s board of directors resigned to protest Eich’s appointment. But that leads to a question: If half the board opposed him, how the heck did he get the job?

The wireless company Credo Mobile launched an online petition demanding that Eich either renounce his beliefs or resign. The petition quickly acquired nearly 75,000 signatures.

OKCupid, a popular online dating service, urged its followers to boycott Firefox to protest Eich’s selection. The company posted a letter denouncing the CEO, stating: “Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame and frustration are our enemies and we wish them nothing but failure.”

Those are pretty harsh words against a person who, in 15 years at Mozilla, had never been accused of demonstrating any prejudice against gay employees — or anyone, for that matter. In one of his few statements on the subject, Eich said: “I don’t want to talk about my personal beliefs because I kept them out of Mozilla all these 15 years we’ve been going. I don’t believe they’re relevant.”

How he performed on the job didn’t matter to the gay and lesbian brigade. They wanted his scalp. And they got it.

After Eich agreed to resign, Mozilla Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker issued a statement that said in part, “We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves.”

So forcing someone to resign because of a private donation made more than six years ago is how you demonstrate that you’ve “stayed true to” yourself? Remember, not a single person claims that Eich did anything on the job to demonstrate any kind of anti-gay bias. By all accounts, he was scrupulously fair to everyone.

And bear in mind that, at the time, most of the public said they agreed with him that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Proposition 8 passed easily in California, one of the most liberal States in the Nation, although it was later overturned by the courts. It won the support of a substantial majority of blacks and Hispanics.

In fact, let me mention two prominent Americans who also opposed same-sex marriage back in 2008: Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama. Of course, both now claim that they’ve had a change of heart.

More than 35,000 people donated to the campaign for Proposition 8. Thanks to a court ruling, the names of all the contributors — and in some cases, their addresses and the name of their employers — have been made public. I wonder how many more will become targets of angry and intolerant gays.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas warned of this possibility four years ago. In a 2010 dissent to a court decision requiring such disclosure, he wrote:

I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in “core political speech,” the “primary object of First Amendment protection.”

Not every gay person agrees with the angry intolerance Eich witnessed. Andrew Sullivan, a well-known gay-rights activist, wrote:

If we cannot live and work alongside people with whom we deeply disagree, we are finished as a liberal society.

…

What we have here is a social pressure to keep your beliefs deeply private for fear of retribution. We are enforcing another sort of closet on others. I can’t believe the fanaticism.

Just how bad will could this latest form of bigotry get? On Sunday, during an appearance onABC News’ “This Week,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said what we’re witnessing is the left’s “new fascism.” He warned:

This is just the most open and blatant example of the new fascism, which says, “If you don’t agree with us 100 percent, we have the right to punish you unless you’re like Hillary and Barack Obama and you recant.

…

I think the question I’d ask yourself is: Are you willing to live in an open and tolerant society, or do you have to impose your views at the cost of people’s jobs?

One of the most ironic statements on the controversy came from the gay-rights organization GLAAD. President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis said: “Mozilla’s strong statement in favor of equality today reflects where corporate America is: inclusive, safe and welcoming to all.”

Yes, the GLAAD’s leader actually said “welcoming to all.” What she meant, of course, was welcoming to everyone who will march in lockstep with GLAAD. If you dare to disagree with the gay rights brigade and they find out about it, watch out. They’ll go after you, your family, your job and your employer.

If you’re a Christian photographer who’d prefer to not to cover a gay wedding, they’ll go to court and force you to do so. If you’re a baker who has religious objections to a gay marriage, you’d better not decline to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple or you might get sued.

It seems that it is only traditionalists who must demonstrate “tolerance” these days. Apparently, the gay-rights activists can be as bigoted and intolerant as they want.

Welcome to the Brave New World of America in 2014. If you don’t like it, you’d better do something about it.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

–Chip Wood

A Liberal Gets A Taste Of Liberal Intolerance. He Doesn't Like It

This Time, Conservatives Should Side With Alec Baldwin

November 29, 2013 by Sam Rolley 

 16 11

 

 1 178

UPI FILE

Actor and momentary leftist pundit Alec Baldwin was fired from his spot at MSNBCTuesday following an off-set incident wherein Baldwin called a paparazzo harassing his family a “c*cksucking f*g” (though Baldwin claims he actually said “maggot”). Many conservatives called for Baldwin’s ouster. In doing so, unfortunately, they allowed their dislike of Baldwin’s leftist positions to blind them to the fact that they were making bedfellows with the militant gay community and political correctness police.

Baldwin has poetically fallen victim to the very sort of politically correct idiocy that Democrats so often use against conservatives: endlessly accusing people on the right of bigotry in an attempt to discredit conservative positions.

“You can’t really tell what I’m saying and we live in a world in which the phrase ‘TMZ’s enhanced audio’ exists,” Baldwin said. “There’s nothing you can do when you get thrown in this washing machine, nothing. You know? Nothing. All you end up doing is just defending yourself all day long.”

And as political correctness becomes ever more powerful thanks to the left’s efforts, Baldwin will certainly not be the last liberal burned by the very monster his allies have created.

Baldwin said in a recent interview that a public opinion campaign by militant gay advocates was to blame responsible for his firing.

“I dispute half the comment I made,” Baldwin continued. “If I called him a ‘c–ksucking maggot’ or a ‘c-ksucking mother*cker’…’faggott’ is not the word that came out of my mouth. That I know. But you’ve got the fundamentalist wing of gay advocacy — Rich Ferraro and Andrew Sullivan — they’re out there, they’ve got you.”

“Rich Ferraro, this is probably one of his greatest triumphs,” Baldwin added. “They killed my show. And I have to take some responsibility for that myself.”

Ferraro, who serves as the vice president of communications at the gay advocacy organization GLAAD, responded to Baldwin’s allegation in a statement, acknowledging Baldwin’s split with MSNBC as a win for gays.

“I consider GLAAD’s campaigns to end the Boy Scout of America’s ban on gay scouts, raise national visibility of the violence and inequality facing transgender people, and battling for marriage equality to be among my ‘greatest triumphs,’” Ferraro said. “But if a teacher, coach, local radio show host, or parent realizes that ant-LGBT slurs are outdated and unacceptable because of this Baldwin issue, I guess we’ll call it a win. Alec Baldwin’s team has not been open to turning this incident into an opportunity for public education and that’s unfortunate.”

Conservatives, who have, collectively, been in Baldwin’s position an innumerable number of times, should support Baldwin in this case — because any other reaction from the right only serves to embolden the politically correct language Nazis. And even if a liberal gets burned by liberal thinking from time to time, people on the left will always give a free hate speech pass to their fellow leftists when nasty things are being said about conservatives, or white people, or religious people.

For example, it has been widely noted that Baldwin’s former colleague Martin Bashir suffered no repercussions for suggesting that someone should defecate and urinate in former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s mouth.

Palin’s PAC wrote a letter to MSNBC to question why nothing had been done.

“You fired Don Imus for offensive language in describing the Rutgers University Women’s Basketball team, you suspended Alec Baldwin, and yet nothing has happened to Mr. Bashir,” the letter reads. “Are we to assume then, that disciplinary procedures at your network take place based on the target of the remarks rather than the remarks themselves?”

The answer to that question is: absolutely.

Earlier in the month, Bashir said that Palin deserved a “Darby’s dose, a punishment invented by Thistlewood that spoke only of the slave owner’s savagery and inhumanity” for comparing government debt to slavery.

“And he mentions a similar incident again in 1756, this time in relation to a man he refers to as Punch,” Bashir continued. “‘Flogged Punch well, and then washed and rubbed salt pickle, lime juice and bird pepper; made Negro Joe piss in his eyes and mouth.’ I could go on, but you get the point.”

Later in his segment, Bashir said that when Palin “invoked slavery, she doesn’t just prove her rank ignorance. She confirms that if anyone truly qualified for a dose of discipline from Thomas Thistlewood, then she would be the outstanding candidate.”

Imagine the backlash that would occur if Bill O’Reilly said something similar about President Barack Obama.

Conservative pundit Rush Limbaugh couldn’t even get away with calling a slut a slut after Georgetown University student Sandra Fluke wasted Congress’s time whining about how they don’t pass out condoms and birth control and provide abortions to students on campus at Catholic Universities.

If the insanity is ever going to stop or, at the very least, slow, conservatives can’t afford to play the same stupid political correctness game that liberals do when it is someone on the left being stupidly prosecuted. Relishing in Baldwin’s misfortune or applauding the firing of the next liberal who says something mildly offensive to gays (or anyone else), does nothing more than queerly align the right with the same liberal activists who constantly use bully tactics to falsely demonize conservatism.