|
Thursday Oct 08, 2009
Rosner's Domain: Why Jews support attack on Iran? because they trust ObamaPosted by SHMUEL ROSNER
Comments: 31 Follow Rosner's Domain on Twitter! / Join me on Facebook! J.J Goldberg wrote an interesting analysis on AJC's survey of Jewish public opinion (on which I wrote here and here).The problem one might see with it: Goldberg accuses AJC for conducting "a public relations exercise", and not a serious poll. But his tone sometimes suggests that his frustration with AJC has more to do with the outcome of this survey that with the professionalism of it. In other words: Goldberg's attack is also some kind of public relations exercise aimed at proving that American Jews are more in agreement with his own views than this poll might suggest. And he is wrong when he writes that "a plurality of American Jews agreed with Israel's pragmatic middle, which favors Palestinian statehood not as a guarantee of peace with the neighbors but as a way to separate from them". Yes, American Jews probably want a two state solution, but as far as Israel's "pragmatic middle" goes, things are much more complicated and Goldberg's assertion looks more like wishful thinking than like a valid description of Israel's public opinion. True, according to some polls Israelis do support a TSS. However, according to other polls they don't. It all depends on the way one asks the question (you can see good example for such differences in wording in the polls done by the Harry Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace). And since Israelis have a more nuanced knowledge of possible agreements, they tend to answer according to their view of the specifics offered by the poll. Asking them about non-specific "two state solution" really makes no sense unless the question offers some kind of explanation: is this a demilitarized state? what happens in Jerusalem? with Gaza? with refugees? with settlement blocks? Tell me how the agreement will look like - and I'll tell you what Israelis think. Believe me - it is not the two state solution Palestinians have in mind. And judging but the outcome of the most important poll - recent Israeli election - one wonders where exactly this "pragmatic middle" is hiding. Anyway - my idea was to compliment Goldberg for some very good points he was making in his analysis, and I ended up criticizing him. So let me say it again: he wrote an interesting piece, that I highly recommend. Here is one of the more intriguing arguments he's making: So what did the 2009 survey find? Its headline finding - Harris called it the "biggest change" from past surveys - involves views toward hypothetical American military action against Iranian nuclear sites. A hefty 56% of respondents would back an American strike; 36% disagreed (the rest were unsure). In last year's survey, Harris noted, Jews opposed such American military action, 47% to 42%. Back in 2006, the last time the question was asked, opposition was even stronger: 54% against, 38% in favor. Presumably, Jews have now woken up to the Iranian threat. Curiously, support for Israeli military action hasn't changed at all. This year found 66% favoring an Israeli strike and 28% opposed. In 2006, despite strong opposition to American action, respondents favored Israeli action by 57% to 35%. American Jews, it turns out, have consistently supported military action. What's changed is that they now support American military action. The difference, in other words, is not how Jews view Iran but how they view Washington. Last year we had a commander-in-chief who couldn't be trusted playing with guns. Now there's a grown-up in charge, which changes the equation. Am I stretching things? Not at all. The surveys are crystal clear. In 2006, respondents were asked if they "approve or disapprove of the way the United States government is handling the situation with Iran's nuclear weapons program." Only 33% approved; 54% disapproved. In 2009, asked about "the Obama administration's handling" of it, 49% approved and 35% disapproved. Support for American military action, then, follows trust in the president. Blind partisanship? More likely, Jews were deterred by the previous administration's incompetence. And I will add to Goldberg's analysis one layer: it can also help explain the recent Pew poll, showing that not just Jewish Americans but rather Americans in general are now more supportive of an attack on Iran.
1 | Mike Feldman Canada, Friday Oct 09, 2009
The survey does not take important things into account. There are differences between the American-Jewish and Israeli view of the Iran now and Iran in 2006. In 2006 it was thought that the Iraq war was being lost. Now it is felt that the troops can be reduced on an orderly basis. Simply put, American Jews did not have their eyes on Iran 3 years ago, and they do now. I don't think this has anything to do with the perceived competence of Obama, or the perceived imcomptetence of Bush. If Bush had listened to Obama, the US would have left Iraq with their tails between their legs. I can think of no reason why an American strike of Iran's nuclear faciliies has a greater chance of success because of President Obama.
2 | Tom, US, Friday Oct 09, 2009
The real reason why the jews want to attack Iran has absolutely NOTHING to do with nuclear weapons. Iran used to be an excellent trading partner with Israel. In fact, some of the missiles that will be impacting Israel were probably sold to Iran by Israel. The jews are pissed because they no longer have a puppet totalitarian regime in Iran that buys all their worthless junk. It is just that simple and the reason why the mossad was training Iranians in norther Iraq for 3 years to try and depose Ahmadinejad in this last election.
3 | Sean Alabama, Friday Oct 09, 2009
Actually I agree with Goldberg's analysis of American Jews willingness to support military action taken by the Obama Administration and the apprehension of further military escalation taken by the previous Bush administration. When your leader is perceived to be competent and has shown himself to deploy rationality and prudence toward delicate and extremely complicated matters such as international affairs rather than fear and confusion then of course one is more likely to listen and perhaps ultimately trust.
4 | Sean Alabama, Friday Oct 09, 2009
Also to address my most unfortunate fellow 'Mike Feldman of Canada'; to say that had then-President Bush listened to then-Senator Obama, "the U.S would have left Iraq with their tails between their legs". I must say, funny you should bring up the hypothetical notion of what might have occurred if Bush had taken Obama's strategic advice in regards to military action in Iraq. And I submit to you and your fellow ilk: WE NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN IN IRAQ. They were already isolated, military might decapitated from the Gulf War and sanctions, there was NEVER a threat of Al Qaeda in Iraq as Bush believed
5 | Sean Alabama, Friday Oct 09, 2009
Does it bother you Mike even a itsy bit, as it certainly annoys and disturbs most people of functional faculties that America had a president that engineered a war on fear of being attacked by WMDs just after being brutally attacked on our own soil. We were in panic mode and confused and he used that same fear and confusion to illicit anger and distrust towards a nation we thought not only hated us but the means to destroy us if we didn't act. We were in survival mode. Then all of sudden the message alters after finding in fact there were no WMDs to freeing the Iraqis of tyranny. That bothers me
6 | Sean Alabama, Friday Oct 09, 2009
But then again, why would I care what a Canadian thought about our President anyway!! Wow, now I sound like a Bush supporter..... smug.
7 | Daniel-Atlanta, Saturday Oct 10, 2009
Sorry, Mike, it has everything to do with competence. Bush was incompetent in both Afghanistan (at the end of his term) and in Iraq (from the start). The American people had come to see Bush as an empty suit. The American people, even those who are not too keen on Obama, see him as intelligent and cool under pressure. In other words, Obama is seen as competent, so there is more trust. The American people also see that Obama will not rush into a war without making sure it is in America's interest, and that we have a plan to win. Bush spoke without thinking. Obama thinks before speaking.
8 | Chris USA, Saturday Oct 10, 2009
Dear SHMUEL ROSNER: While I agree with the conclusion, the details are a bit fuzzy. It's not clear from the Q&A's whether american jews favor a US strike against Iran because the threat assessment has increased or because of confidence in the Obama Administration. This leads to the possibility of an alpha error: American jews favor a US trike against Iran because they trust Obama.The difference is motivation - trust vs fear - and the difference in how these emotions are expressed leads in two very different directions (caution vs confidence)
9 | Sally - U.S.A., Saturday Oct 10, 2009
In my opinion, & the poll results listed here support my belief, many of the poll's questions & polling samples are inadaquately done & for that reason you have such mixed results. For example, the questions are asked in order to receive a "certain" response & not to receive an actual opinion. If a question is just asked in order to receive a yes or no response, the questioner does not know how the person is interpreting the question. Nevertheless, the analizers jump to conclusions without the person's interpretation & thoughts. Also, it doesn't take into account what is plastered before the
10 | Sally - U.S.A., Saturday Oct 10, 2009
people by the media. In 2006, the focus was on Iraq without almost any mention of Iran. So the pollers are not even aware of how knowledgable the individuals were who were polled about the situation. It also doesn't reveal where the individuals polled go to in order to become informed. So, I think the polling should be redone because there is only a snapshot of questions & not analysis of the people polled.
11 | Gastone Ciucci Neri - Monaco, Saturday Oct 10, 2009
At the next meeting of 5+1 and Iran , it will be agreed that Iran will be able to enrich uranium at 19% in Russia , he will abide to all UN resolutions regarding his nuclear program and that will allow the verification of his nuclear plants by the IAEA.
The Western nations will describe this agreement as the breakthrough that has saved the world from a catastrophic war in the Middle East. President Obama will show to the world that his peace Nobel prize was well deserved and the rest of the world will rejoice at the avoided peril.
Even Iran will rejoice. He avoided crushing sanctions and the destructions by military means of his nuclear facilities. He will have all the time at his disposal to improve in secret facilities his knowledge for building nuclear devices.
Under these circumstances Isreal will never have the will to attack alone Iran and afterwards to confront the animosity of the whole world.
It is game over for Isreal !
12 | Gil Guillory United States, Saturday Oct 10, 2009
Actually if former President Bush had listened to President Obama when Obama was in the Senate, there would not have been a war in Iraq as Obama voted against military action in Iraq. There would not have been opportunity for the US to leave "Iraq with their tails between their legs".
13 | julie, Saturday Oct 10, 2009
If you ask a simple question like a surgical strike-if that is even possible you will get a higher number that say yes. But, if you ask the details of how long would you be willing to send troops to secure clean up operations, keep the channels of transportation open to ships, and stay there for who knows how long to secure victory from a likely agreesive united front, those numbers would go down. It is in the details and the complexities you are forgetting to ask. A simple surgical strike on a single target like in Iraq or Syria is not the case here . More like another Iraq.
14 | Ronald USA, Saturday Oct 10, 2009
The 600 pound gorilla in this poll is the absolute fact that Americans WILL NOT support a US attack on Iran (or anyone else). If total victory is not assured within one week, American support for any war will erode faster than Philippine farmland in a typhoon. These polls are nothing more than snapshots of what plays a bunch of armchair quarterbacks would call from their environmentally controlled living rooms. As soon as the deaths inevitably happen and the spending rises, public support for war will be very hard to find.
15 | Jan, US, Saturday Oct 10, 2009
I hope the Jews do not make the same mistakes they always seem to make. Don't listen to Obama and the left, they want to destroy you. Don't sign a 7 year peace treaty, it will be the beginning of the end. Peace, peace, when they say peace and safety, their destruction is at hand. Destruction of Israel will come as peace and safety. Take your security in your own hands, the world system only wants your destruction.
16 | Padraig, Saturday Oct 10, 2009
Thanks for the "support", but Americans don't want to attack Persia.
We are the greatest debtor nation in history due to "world's poilicperson" tasks and thievery by Wall Street types.
We encourage Israel to send its own attack force, and not use American boys as for more cannon fodder.
Good luck.
17 | David usa, Saturday Oct 10, 2009
I can't believe this poll is accurate - but if so ,how stupid of so many Jew wanting to bomb Iran. If it has the inevitable dire consequences, it's going to be the "Jewish warmongers" who pushed the US into it.
18 | Stuart Creque, USA, Saturday Oct 10, 2009
It's pretty simple: American Jews feared that if they had supported American military action under George Bush, President Bush would have obliged them with an attack on Iran. Now, under a President Obama who can't even prosecute the war in Afghanistan that he declared to be a war of necessity, there's no risk that supporting American military intervention in Iran will spur Obama to actually do it.
For fans of Obama's dilatory style and indecision: If Iran or Hezbollah attacks Israel, how long will it take for Obama to decide whether to provide Israel with assistance?
19 | lydia, Sunday Oct 11, 2009
18 Obama inherited the wars from Bush but even Bush wasn't daft enough to 'oblige' Israel and attack Iran. It might put the Mullahs in a better frame of mind however if Israel start coughing up the $$$gazillions, money still owing to Iran from the 'secret' Haifa pipeline 'sell on' deal. A lucrative little scam until the Mullahs turned off the oil spigots. Israeli Madoffs always welshes on debts, swindles the Iranians and hopes the US will oblige and wage war on Iran. Our new POTUS is a highly educated law professor and is no cheer leader for Israel warmonger and he is nobody's fool.
20 | delbertino/ usa, Sunday Oct 11, 2009
It won't be a strike of fighters; but it will be effective;
21 | coinman san francisco, usa, Sunday Oct 11, 2009
Why is it that we are to accept Israel's silence about its own nuclear arsenal, and its presumed responsibility in using it, while we are to attack Iran with only minimal evidence of "wrongdoing"? What if Iran indeed sought a balance with Israel, would that be such a shock after "Operation Cast Lead" forever stained Israel's foriegn policy, (yes, the people of Gaza are a separate nation)? Israeli policy is rife with hypocracy and irony, yet although this is clear to the world, only the powerful in Israel cannot see "the forest for the trees". And this becomes more tragic every day...
22 | Jerry, Sunday Oct 11, 2009
#2 - Tom - this is exactly what the real political realm exist at the moment! +1
23 | Jerry, Sunday Oct 11, 2009
#2 - Tom - this is exactly what the real political realm exist at the moment! +1
24 | Mike Feldman Canada, Sunday Oct 11, 2009
Sean, I hope your blogs made you feel smart. If the did that where it stops. First of all, I am not unfortunate. Quite the opposite.If reference to Bush taking Obamas's advise on Iraq. I did not say anythung about Bush taking Obama's advise about going to Iraq, I referred to Bush taking Obamas's advice while IN Iraq. One would not have to be too intelligent to know I was speaking about the debate over the surge. Obama was against it and would not refer to the possiblilty of victory in Iraq. This says nothing of whether or not I feel Iraq is a "righteous"war. Then you go on to say CONT
25 | Mike Feldman Canada, Sunday Oct 11, 2009
Sean Part 2 - quite immaturely that I as someone without functional facilities had helped sell the Iraq war. Then you go on to describe the state of mind that affected Americans prior to going to war. I did not indicate that I thought that the U.S. should have been in Iraq, I was merely pointing out that it was a factor in people's thinking in 2006. I think if you're going to shout out schoolboy replies, you should at least read what you're reply to more carefully. Finally, Sean, Canada and Canadian are two different words. I am an American. #12 GIL. Bush would have had to wait until 2004 to start the war he started in March 2003, to get Obama's advice from the Senate. He wasn't elected until November 2004.
26 | andy-london, Sunday Oct 11, 2009
Iran will never be allowed to attack Israel as they too would be anihilated as Israel would just retaliate in kind,BUT with these crazies in power and looking for their mahdi to come[or should I say maddie as their diety is all for bloodlust ]you just need to look at their al Qaeda capital P A K I S T A N where their killing in a frenzy, even their school kids aren't exempt.Imagine that lot getting their hands on pakistan#s nuclear weapons!!Not one western nation has ever threatened another nation with their nuclear weapons and iran has never stopped .who then is the uncivilised nation?
27 | GEORGE TORONTO .CANADA, Sunday Oct 11, 2009
THE STRIKE ON IRAN NUCLEAR FACILITES IS A MUST AND A MOST URGENT ACT TO DO. ISRAEL MUST NOT TRUST THE US . AMERICA LONG YEARS PLAYING NONSENSE WITH NORTH KOREA. AND IRAN AS WELL. THE US A PAPER TIGER AND THE WORLD NOT TAKING THE US SERIOUS ANYMORE!!!!
28 | mick justice, United States, Sunday Oct 11, 2009
It is true that Americans are supportive of action against Iran, but Israel should not confuse that with support for Israel by Obama. Obama supports Hamas and other nations who wish ill of Israel AND the United States. The "change" that Obama promotes is a socialistic US and no support for your nation. Given the opportunity, he would stand by and watch your enemies reduce you and your existance. Given that popular opinion will not allow for that, his polices will quietly step aside any support. Be careful, we are..
29 | Mordechai, NY, Sunday Oct 11, 2009
18 | If Obama was actually an American president loyal to America the question would be much better worded, how long would it take him to nuke Israel ? ? ?
30 | Frank, Monday Oct 12, 2009
It is absurd to argue that Jews support attacking Iran because they "trust Obama". Those are clearly unrelated, and ridiculous since Obama is the most anti-Israel president in history, an appeaser, who intends to allow Iran to get its nukes, and to stop Israel from attempting to protect itself against a second Holocaust. JJ Goldberg and the Forward are virulently anti-Israel "Jews", who regularly libel Israel, and are allied with Soros and arab funded "J Street" (supported by Obama) that lobbies against sanctions on Iran, and seeks to destroy American Jews' and American support for Israel .
31 | Daniel-Atlanta, Monday Oct 12, 2009
To #30 Frank ... It was George W. Bush who allowed Iran to go nuclear, not Obama. For the past eight years, he let Iran develop it's capability unchallenged. Obama is just stuck with trying to unravel the Bush mess. Face up to facts.
|
Search this blog
The Israel Factor, Sep. 2009: Obama is rapidly losing favor with panel of Israeli experts
Tags:
Blogroll |