News Ticker

New Poll Finds That 50% of Americans Support Cutting Aid to Israel

IMAGE: Shutterstock

By Eric Stiker | 15 September 2021

NATIONAL JUSTICE — Aid to Israel is now a highly polarizing issue, a poll conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and the pro-Zionist Israel Democracy Institute have found.

The survey taken last month found that the US government’s deferential treatment of Israel is completely out of line and unrepresentative of popular opinion.

On the question of whether to restrict US military aid to Israel, 50% of all Americans support ending such support, compared to 45% who oppose it. Among supporters of aid restrictions are 32% of registered Republicans, 62% of Democrats, and 52% of Independents. This is a drastic rise from historical opinion polls for all political persuasions right, left and center.

In respects to the Israel-Palestine conflict itself, only 32% of Americans believe the US government should be getting involved on Israel’s side.

A glaring distinction is made clear when both the US and the Jewish Israeli public were asked about potential solutions to the dispute. Last July, it was found that 56% of Americans and 69% of Israel’s Arab minority support a two state solution, which would allow the West Bank and Gaza to become an independent Palestinian state. Only 34% of Jews in Israel support this view. […]

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

4 Comments on New Poll Finds That 50% of Americans Support Cutting Aid to Israel

  1. IT DOESN’T MATTER!
    If 90% of Americans want to cut the $billions going to the Apartheid, Racist State of Israel, Jews control the PURSE of America.
    America is infested with Zionists, Jewish and Christian.
    A REAL CASE AGAINST THE JEWS
    The following is an article written by an American Jew in 1928:
    By Marcus Eli Ravage
    Reprinted from The Century Magazine January 1928
    Everyone needs to STUDY this document.
    The Christian churches, Roman, Protestant, Orthodox and Evangelical, have been brainwashed with the OPIUM OF OF THE GOSPELS.
    Likewise Muslims!
    SO, WHAT DID THE MUSLIMS DO FOR THE JEWS?
    The JC Essay
    David J Wasserstein is the Eugene Greener Jr Professor of Jewish Studies at Vanderbilt University. This article is adapted from last week’s Jordan Lectures in Comparative Religion at the School of Oriental and African Studies.

    Islam saved Jewry. This is an unpopular, discomforting claim in the modern world. But it is a historical truth. The argument for it is double.

    First, in 570 CE, when the Prophet Mohammad was born, the Jews and Judaism were on the way to oblivion. And second, the coming of Islam saved them, providing a new context in which they not only survived, but flourished, laying foundations for subsequent Jewish cultural prosperity – also in Christendom – through the medieval period into the modern world.

    This is a RELIGIOUS 3 CARD TRICK, that the Jews play.
    The Jews helped the Muslims and created the need for the Spanish Inquisition.
    Spain was riddled with Jews and Muslims.
    The Marrano & Crypto-Jew uses the system to move the ladder in society.

    See what Theodor Herzl said about the Jew:

    “However, anti-Semitism, which is a strong and unconscious force among the masses, will not harm the Jews. I consider it to be a movement useful to the Jewish character. It represents the education of a group by the masses, and will perhaps lead to its being absorbed. Education is accomplished only through hard knocks. A Darwinian mimicry will set in. The Jews will adapt themselves. They are like the seals, which an act of nature cast into the water. These animals assume the appearance and habits of fish, which they certainly are not. Once they return to dry land again and are allowed to remain there for a few generations, they will turn their fins into feet again. “The traces of one kind of pressure can be effaced only by another kind.” Speidel said: “This is a universal historical conception.” Then I drove out into the falling darkness, in the direction of Baden. As my fiacre sped …….”

    The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl (excerpts)
    Originally published in an abridged format, 1922 to 1923, titled
    “Theodor Herzls tagebücher, 1895-1904”, Volume 1 (of 3) at [archive.org/details/theodorherzlsta00herzgoog].

    Take Hollywood for instance!
    Jews will make films about the 10 Commandments and Ben Hur, but NEVER about Joshua and his genocidal acts. Read the Book of Joshua and you will understand why the Jew can slaughter the Palestinian.

    Wednesday, July 30, 2014
    “GAZA MYTHS AND FACTS: WHAT AMERICAN JEWISH LEADERS WON’T TELL YOU
    by Peter Beinart for “Ha’aretz” newspaper [www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.608008]:

    If you’ve been anywhere near the American Jewish community over the past few weeks, you’ve heard the following morality tale: Israel left the Gaza Strip in 2005, hoping the newly independent country would become the Singapore of the Middle East. Instead, Hamas seized power, ransacked greenhouses, threw its opponents off rooftops and began launching thousands of rockets at Israel….

    ISRAEL LEFT GAZA
    It’s true that in 2005, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon withdrew Israel’s more than 8,000 settlers from Gaza. (At America’s urging, he also dismantled four small settlements in the West Bank). But at no point did Gaza become its own country. Had Gaza become its own country, it would have gained control over its borders. It never did. Even before the election of Hamas, Israel controlled whether Gazans could enter or exit the Strip. Israel controlled the population registry through which Gazans were issued identification cards. Upon evacuating its settlers and soldiers from Gaza, Israel even created a security perimeter inside the Strip from which Gazans were barred from entry. (Unfortunately for Gazans, this perimeter included some of the Strip’s best farmland).
    “Pro-Israel” commentators claim Israel had legitimate security reasons for all this. But that concedes the point. A necessary occupation is still an occupation. That’s why it’s silly to analogize Hamas’ rockets—repugnant as they are—to Mexico or Canada attacking the United States. The United States is not occupying Mexico or Canada. Israel — according to the United States government — has been occupying Gaza without interruption since 1967.

    To grasp the perversity of using Gaza as an explanation for why Israel can’t risk a Palestinian state, it helps to realize that Sharon withdrew Gaza’s settlers in large measure because he didn’t want a Palestinian state. By 2004, when Sharon announced the Gaza withdrawal, the Road Map for Peace that he had signed with Mahmoud Abbas was going nowhere. Into the void came two international proposals for a two state solution. The first was the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, in which every member of the Arab League offered to recognize Israel if it returned to the 1967 lines and found a “just” and “agreed upon” solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees.

    The second was the 2003 Geneva Initiative, in which former Israeli and Palestinian negotiators publicly agreed upon the details of a two state plan. As the political scientists Jonathan Rynhold and Dov Waxman have detailed, Sharon feared the United States would get behind one or both plans, and pressure Israel to accept a Palestinian state near the 1967 lines. “Only an Israeli initiative,” Sharon argued, “will keep us from being dragged into dangerous initiatives like the Geneva and Saudi initiatives.”

    Sharon saw several advantages to withdrawing settlers from Gaza. First, it would save money, since in Gaza Israel was deploying a disproportionately high number of soldiers to protect a relatively small number of settlers. Second, by (supposedly) ridding Israel of its responsibility for millions of Palestinians, the withdrawal would leave Israel and the West Bank with a larger Jewish majority. Third, the withdrawal would prevent the administration of George W. Bush from embracing the Saudi or Geneva plans, and pushing hard—as Bill Clinton had done—for a Palestinian state. Sharon’s chief of staff, Dov Weisglass, put it bluntly:

    “The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process. And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress.”

    It’s no surprise, therefore, that the Gaza withdrawal did not meet minimal Palestinian demands. Not even the most moderate Palestinian leader would have accepted a long-term arrangement in which Israel withdrew its settlers from Gaza while maintaining control of the Strip’s borders and deepening Israeli control of the West Bank. (Even in the 2005, the year Sharon withdrew from Gaza, the overall settler population rose, in part because some Gazan settlers relocated to the West Bank).

    HAMAS SEIZED POWER
    I can already hear the objections. Even if withdrawing settlers from Gaza didn’t give the Palestinians a state, it might have made Israelis more willing to support one in the future – if only Hamas had not seized power and turned Gaza into a citadel of terror.

    But Hamas didn’t seize power. It won an election. In January 2006, four months after the last settlers left, Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem chose representatives to the Palestinian Authority’s parliament. (The previous year, they had separately elected Abbas to be the Palestinian Authority’s President). Hamas won a plurality of the vote – forty-five percent – but because of the PA’s voting system, and Fatah’s idiotic decision to run more than one candidate in several districts, Hamas garnered 58 percent of the seats in parliament….
    This doesn’t change the fact that Hamas’ election confronted Israel and the United States with a serious problem. After its victory, Hamas called for a national unity government with Fatah “for the purpose of ending the occupation and settlements and achieving a complete withdrawal from the lands occupied [by Israel] in 1967, including Jerusalem, so that the region enjoys calm and stability during this phase.” But those final words—“this phase”—made Israelis understandably skeptical that Hamas had changed its long-term goals. The organization still refused to recognize Israel, and given that Israel had refused to talk to the PLO until it formally accepted Israel’s right to exist in 1993, it’s not surprising that Israel demanded Hamas meet the same standard.

    Still, Israel and the U.S. would have been wiser to follow the counsel of former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy, who called for Sharon to try to forge a long-term truce with Hamas. Israel could also have pushed Hamas to pledge that if Abbas—who remained PA president—negotiated a deal with Israel, Hamas would accept the will of the Palestinian people as expressed in a referendum, something the group’s leaders have subsequently promised to do.

    Instead, the Bush administration—suddenly less enamored of Middle Eastern democracy–pressured Abbas to dissolve the Palestinian parliament and rule by emergency decree. Israel, which also wanted Abbas to defy the election results, withheld the tax and customs revenue it had collected on the Palestinian Authority’s behalf. Knowing Hamas would resist Abbas’ efforts to annul the election, especially in Gaza, where it was strong on the ground, the Bushies also began urging Abbas’ former national security advisor, a Gazan named Mohammed Dahlan, to seize power in the Strip by force. As David Rose later detailed in an extraordinary article in Vanity Fair, Condoleezza Rice pushed Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to buy weapons for Dahlan, and for Israel to allow them to enter Gaza. As General Mark Dayton, US security coordinator for the Palestinians, told Dahlan in November 2006, “We also need you to build up your forces in order to take on Hamas.”

    Unfortunately for the Bush administration, Dahlan’s forces were weaker than they looked. And when the battle for Gaza began, Hamas won it easily, and brutally. In response, Abbas declared emergency rule in the West Bank.

    So yes, members of Hamas did throw their Fatah opponents off rooftops. Some of that may have been payback because Dahlan was widely believed to have overseen the torture of Hamas members in the 1990s. Regardless, in winning the battle for Gaza, Hamas—which had already shed much Israeli blood – shed Palestinian blood too.

    But to suggest that Hamas “seized power” – as American Jewish leaders often do – ignores the fact that Hamas’ brutal takeover occurred in response to an attempted Fatah coup backed by the United States and Israel. In the words of David Wurmser, who resigned as Dick Cheney’s Middle East advisor a month after Hamas’ takeover, “what happened wasn’t so much a coup by Hamas but an attempted coup by Fatah that was pre-empted before it could happen.”

    THE GREENHOUSES
    Israel responded to Hamas’ election victory by further restricting access in and out of Gaza. As it happens, these restrictions played a key role in explaining why Gaza’s greenhouses did not help it become Singapore. American Jewish leaders usually tell the story this way: When the settlers left, Israel handed over their greenhouses to the Palestinians, hoping they would use them to create jobs. Instead, Palestinians tore them down in an anti-Jewish rage.

    But one person who does not endorse that narrative is the prime mover behind the greenhouse deal, Australian-Jewish businessman James Wolfensohn, who served as the Quartet’s Special Envoy for Gaza Disengagement. In his memoir, Wolfensohn notes that “some damage was done to the greenhouses [as the result of post-disengagement looting] but they came through essentially intact” and were subsequently guarded by Palestinian Authority police. What really doomed the greenhouse initiative, Wolfensohn argues, were Israeli restrictions on Gazan exports. “In early December [2005], he writes, “the much-awaited first harvest of quality cash crops—strawberries, cherry tomatoes, cucumbers, sweet peppers and flowers—began. These crops were intended for export via Israel for Europe. But their success relied upon the Karni crossing [between Gaza and Israel], which, beginning in mid-January 2006, was closed more than not. The Palestine Economic Development Corporation, which was managing the greenhouses taken over from the settlers, said that it was experiencing losses in excess of $120,000 per day…It was excruciating. This lost harvest was the most recognizable sign of Gaza’s declining fortunes and the biggest personal disappointment during my mandate.”

    The point of dredging up this history is not to suggest that Israel deserves all the blame for its long and bitter conflict with Hamas. It does not. Hamas bears the blame for every rocket it fires, and those rockets have not only left Israelis scarred and disillusioned. They have also badly undermined the Palestinian cause.

    The point is to show—contrary to the establishment American Jewish narrative—that Israel has repeatedly played into Hamas’ hands by not strengthening those Palestinians willing to pursue statehood through nonviolence and mutual recognition. Israel played into Hamas’ hands when Sharon refused to seriously entertain the Arab and Geneva peace plans. Israel played into Hamas’ hands when it refused to support a Palestinian unity government that could have given Abbas the democratic legitimacy that would have strengthened his ability to cut a two state deal. And Israel played into Hamas’ hands when it responded to the group’s takeover of Gaza with a blockade that—although it has some legitimate security features—has destroyed Gaza’s economy, breeding the hatred and despair on which Hamas thrives.

    In the ten years since Jewish settlers left, Israeli policy toward Gaza has been as militarily resourceful as it has been politically blind. Tragically, that remains the case during this war. Yet tragically, the American Jewish establishment keeps cheering Israel on.

    ZIONISTS WANT GREATER ISRAEL:
    “Greater Israel”: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East
    April 6, 2017
    Commentary — Israel Shahak and Michel Chossudovsky introduce readers to a policy paper “‘Greater Israel’: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East” written by the Israeli Oded Yinon to create a greater Israel that would extend from the Nile to the Euphrates. Such a “Greater Israel” has been a long-held, not-so-secret dream of many Zionists.
    “Greater Israel”: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East
    The Infamous “Oded Yinon Plan”. Introduction by Michel Chossudovsky
    By Israel Shahak
    Global Research, April 01, 2017
    Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc. 3 March 2013

      • Wow JS, you went all historical with this one…interesting catch.

        We just need more of WW to swing in here and take a look.

        Best,
        SC

    • Pip,

      You are wise and an excellent researcher; however, might (humble suggestion) you consider breaking up your posts a bit? To say that you give us a lot of information for our price of admission would be an understatement. Your posts have some great facts, but we might all be able to see more of you in them if you broke the quotes into sections and then added your own perspective. Then we get to see you and your intellect a lot more, which I think we could all appreciate.

      These are very respectful / humble observations my friend, it is not a criticism. You are supportive of WW, and it would just be nice to easily hear your own voice a bit more. You are smart and great at finding thematic support for a thread; however, let’s make sure to hear you with this support, if you are game to do so.

      All my best,
      Simple Citizen

Post a Comment

Winter Watch
%d bloggers like this: