More oddities in the U.S. "debate" over Israel/Gaza

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This Rasmussen Reports poll -- the first to survey American public opinion specifically regarding the Israeli attack on Gaza -- strongly bolsters the severe disconnect I documented the other day between (a) American public opinion on U.S. policy towards Israel and (B) the consensus views expressed by America's political leadership. Not only does Rasmussen find that Americans generally "are closely divided over whether the Jewish state should be taking military action against militants in the Gaza Strip" (44-41%, with 15% undecided), but Democratic voters overwhelmingly oppose the Israeli offensive -- by a 24-point margin (31-55%). By stark constrast, Republicans, as one would expect (in light of their history of supporting virtually any proposed attack on Arabs and Muslims), overwhelmingly support the Israeli bombing campaign (62-27%).

It's not at all surprising, then, that Republican leaders -- from ####### Cheney and John Bolton to virtually all appendages of the right-wing noise machine, from talk radio and Fox News to right-wing blogs and neoconservative journals -- are unquestioning supporters of the Israeli attack. After all, they're expressing the core ideology of the overwhelming majority of their voters and audience.

Much more notable is the fact that Democratic Party leaders -- including Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi -- are just as lockstep in their blind, uncritical support for the Israeli attack, in their absolute refusal to utter a word of criticism of, or even reservations about, Israeli actions. While some Democratic politicians who are marginalized by the party's leadership are willing to express the views which Democratic voters overwhelmingly embrace, the suffocating, fully bipartisan orthodoxy which typically predominates in America when it comes to Israel -- thou shalt not speak ill of Israel, thou shalt support all actions it takes -- is in full force with this latest conflict.

Is there any other significant issue in American political life, besides Israel, where (a) citizens split almost evenly in their views, yet (B) the leaders of both parties adopt identical lockstep positions which leave half of the citizenry with no real voice? More notably still, is there any other position, besides Israel, where (a) a party's voters overwhelmingly embrace one position (Israel should not have attacked Gaza) but (B) that party's leadership unanimously embraces the exact opposite position (Israel was absolutely right to attack Gaza and the U.S. must support Israel unequivocally)? Does that happen with any other issue?

Equally noteworthy is that the factional breakdown regarding Israel-Gaza mirrors quite closely the factional alliances that arose with regard to the Iraq War. Just as was true with Iraq, one finds vigorous pro-war sentiment among the ####### Cheney/National Review/neoconservative/hard-core-GOP crowd, joined (as was true for Iraq) by some American liberals who typically oppose that faction yet eagerly join with them when it comes to Israel. Meanwhile, most of the rest of the world -- Europe, South America, Asia, the Middle East, the U.N. leadership -- opposes and condemns the attack, all to no avail. The parties with the superior military might (the U.S. and Israel) dismiss world opinion as essentially irrelevant. Even the pro-war rhetorical tactics are the same (just as those who opposed the Iraq War were demonized as being "pro-Saddam," those who oppose the Israeli attack on Gaza are now "pro-Hamas").

Substantively, there are certainly meaningful differences between the U.S. attack on Iraq and the Israeli attack on Gaza (most notably the fact that Hamas really does shoot rockets into Israel and has killed Israeli civilians and Israel really is blockading and occupying Palestinian land, whereas Iraq did not attack and could not attack the U.S. as the U.S. was sanctioning them and controlling their airspace). But the underlying logic of both wars are far more similar than different: military attacks, invasions and occupations will end rather than exacerbate terrorism; the Muslim world only understands brute force; the root causes of the disputes are irrelevant; diplomacy and the U.N. are largely worthless. It's therefore entirely unsurprising that the sides split along the same general lines. What's actually somewhat remarkable is that there is even more lockstep consensus among America's political leadership supporting the Israeli attack on Gaza than there was supporting the U.S.'s own attack on Iraq (at least a few Democratic Congressional leaders opposed the war on Iraq, unlike for Israel's bombing of Gaza, where they virtually all unequivocally support it).

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/index.html

[mawilson 2,133]

Doesn't surprise me at all - 31-55% of Democratic voters are pussies and will oppose any war on general principle.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Doesn't surprise me at all - 31-55% of Democratic voters are pussies and will oppose any war on general principle.

[SMOKE 1,426]

Doesn't surprise me at all - 31-55% of Democratic voters are pussies and will oppose any war on general principle.

2X

[Ban Hammer 12,830]

Doesn't surprise me at all - 31-55% of Democratic voters are pussies and will oppose any war on general principle.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

The pussie in the pant suit will be there soon.

[peejay 327]

Doesn't surprise me at all - 31-55% of Democratic voters are pussies and will oppose any war on general principle.

2X

X3

[alienlovechild 75]

Not only does Rasmussen find that Americans generally "are closely divided over whether the Jewish state should be taking military action against militants in the Gaza Strip" (44-41%, with 15% undecided), but Democratic voters overwhelmingly oppose the Israeli offensive -- by a 24-point margin (31-55%). By stark constrast, Republicans, as one would expect (in light of their history of supporting virtually any proposed attack on Arabs and Muslims), overwhelmingly support the Israeli bombing campaign (62-27%).

These foreign policy polls are usually nonsense. Most Americans don't know much about geography or the details of the conflicts in the Middle East but are asked who they support. Even after five years in of U.S. involvement in Iraq War, I don't see a more educated public. Most people seem to go with general impressions unless they are truly interested or have family members in the Middle East or the military.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Doesn't surprise me at all - 31-55% of Democratic voters are pussies and will oppose any war on general principle.

Equating hawkishness with toughness is laughable, especially when you look at the number of hawkish Republicans who have shaped our foreign policy are about 99 percent chickenhawks....and look what a fine job they've done in making the world a safer place.

Edited January 2, 2009 by Mister Fancypants

[mawilson 2,133]

Doesn't surprise me at all - 31-55% of Democratic voters are pussies and will oppose any war on general principle.

Equating hawkishness with toughness is laughable, especially when you look at the number of hawkish Republicans who have shaped our foreign policy are about 99 percent chickenhawks....and look what a fine job they've done in making the world a safer place.

It's not their job to "make the world a safer place".

[peejay 327]

Doesn't surprise me at all - 31-55% of Democratic voters are pussies and will oppose any war on general principle.

Equating hawkishness with toughness is laughable, especially when you look at the number of hawkish Republicans who have shaped our foreign policy are about 99 percent chickenhawks....and look what a fine job they've done in making the world a safer place.

It's not their job to "make the world a safer place".

No sh*t. It's their job to make America a safer place.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Doesn't surprise me at all - 31-55% of Democratic voters are pussies and will oppose any war on general principle.

Equating hawkishness with toughness is laughable, especially when you look at the number of hawkish Republicans who have shaped our foreign policy are about 99 percent chickenhawks....and look what a fine job they've done in making the world a safer place.

It's not their job to "make the world a safer place".

I often wonder how it's the job of U.S. politicians to "make the world safe." We don't own the world. We do, however, own our country and therein lies the responsibility of America's politicians.

[HAL 9000 96]

Doesn't surprise me at all - 31-55% of Democratic voters are pussies and will oppose any war on general principle.

Equating hawkishness with toughness is laughable, especially when you look at the number of hawkish Republicans who have shaped our foreign policy are about 99 percent chickenhawks....and look what a fine job they've done in making the world a safer place.

It's not their job to "make the world a safer place".

I often wonder how it's the job of U.S. politicians to "make the world safe." We don't own the world. We do, however, own our country and therein lies the responsibility of America's politicians.

I do wonder why, then, do we behave like we own the planet yet want to wash our hands of its problems. Interesting dichotomy indeed.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Doesn't surprise me at all - 31-55% of Democratic voters are pussies and will oppose any war on general principle.

Equating hawkishness with toughness is laughable, especially when you look at the number of hawkish Republicans who have shaped our foreign policy are about 99 percent chickenhawks....and look what a fine job they've done in making the world a safer place.

It's not their job to "make the world a safer place".

I often wonder how it's the job of U.S. politicians to "make the world safe." We don't own the world. We do, however, own our country and therein lies the responsibility of America's politicians.

I do wonder why, then, do we behave like we own the planet yet want to wash our hands of its problems. Interesting dichotomy indeed.

I think it's because the U.S. is expected to lend a helping hand in every situation. Of course... when we do, we're often harshly criticized, but if we don't do anything, we're also criticized too. Since we'll be made out as the "bad guys" in nearly every situation, I'd say we should save our money and effort when it comes to international issues and use both at home. If the rest of the world is going to hate us no matter what we do, we might as well choose the option that benefits Americans.

Edited January 2, 2009 by DeadPoolX

[HAL 9000 96]

Doesn't surprise me at all - 31-55% of Democratic voters are pussies and will oppose any war on general principle.

Equating hawkishness with toughness is laughable, especially when you look at the number of hawkish Republicans who have shaped our foreign policy are about 99 percent chickenhawks....and look what a fine job they've done in making the world a safer place.

It's not their job to "make the world a safer place".

I often wonder how it's the job of U.S. politicians to "make the world safe." We don't own the world. We do, however, own our country and therein lies the responsibility of America's politicians.

I do wonder why, then, do we behave like we own the planet yet want to wash our hands of its problems. Interesting dichotomy indeed.

I think it's because the U.S. is expected to lend a helping hand in every situation. Of course... when we do, we're often harshly criticized, but if we don't do anything, we're also criticized too. Since we'll be made out as the "bad guys" in nearly every situation, I'd say we should save our money and effort when it comes to international issues and use both at time. If the rest of the world is going to hate us no matter what we do, we might as well choose the option that benefits Americans.

[Rollover post 1/4]

Expectations can be falsified. Just looking at our international interventions that earn us that title of bully, we can say that its not commitments that have the common good of man at stake.

One thing is to defend our democracy and another is to convince ourselves we're doing so by some rather odd logic.