Monday, July 11, 2016

Pew Poll Results: Liberal Democrats Prefer Palestinian-Arabs to Jews

Michael L.

{Also published at Jews Down Under.}

When, exactly, did the Long Arab War Against the Jews of the Middle East begin?

From a modern historical perspective these are the phases of the Arab-Muslim aggression against the Jewish people as is clear from the secondary sources.

Phases of the Long Arab War Against the Jews in the Middle East: 
Phase 1, 1920 - 1947: Riots and Massacres

Phase 2, November 1947 - April 1948: The Civil War in Palestine

Phase 3, 1948 - 1973: Conventional Warfare

Phase 4, 1964 - Present: The Terror War

Phase 5, 1975 - Present: The Delegitimization Effort
Some would argue that it started with Muhammad in the seventh-century around the time that the head-chopping tradition really got fashionable on the Arabian peninsula.

Others would suggest that it was a modern racist response to the Jewish people daring to return to, and build upon, Jewish land despite the fact that it had already been conquered by the invading Muslims. In this view, the 1920s, with its Arab riots and politically grounded pogroms in places like Hebron and Jerusalem, would represent an initiation point of the contemporary conflict.

The significance of non-Jews and non-Israelis to the never-ending war is obviously important. It should not be determinative; that is, what non-Jews think about Jews in the Middle East should not determine Israeli policy, but it has a significant effect and this is particularly true of the United States.

In my opinion, as an American, the US has too much influence with Israel and I am happy to see Israel - particularly during the Age of Obama - expanding its relationships across the globe from Africa to China to Latin America so that hostile American presidents, like Barack Obama, have a diminished influence on the lives of Middle Eastern Jews.

This is particularly true given the fact that the next president of the United States, like the current one, is probably going to be a liberal Democrat and recent polling shows that, for the first time, liberal Democrats prefer the Palestinian-Arab aggressors against the Jews of the Middle East.

According to a Pew Research study, published on May 4 of this year, 40 percent of liberal Democrats favor the Arabs in their war against the Jews, while only 33 percent favor the Jews.


These statistics are fairly remarkable given that for a century the Democratic Party has had no more loyal constituency than American Jewry.

Depending upon the level of American Jewish masochism and instilled self-doubt, this may begin to change. It certainly did with me. I come out of the tradition of the Democratic Party as molded by Franklin Roosevelt and bequeathed to me, and my post-Vietnam Era friends, via the New Left and the hodge-podge of its interests.

These included, of course, the anti-war movement, feminism, environmentalism, Gay rights, ethnic rights, and so forth.

When I was coming up as a kid I was a liberal Democrat and most of my friends tended to be liberal Democrats. For most of us this was probably less out of a conscious decision then merely representing the political environment that we grew up in. Most American young people, in the 1970s and 1980s from my part of the country, New York and New England, tended toward the Left.

However, I did what little I could do in recent years to warn the Democratic Party that if they continue to hate on Israel and provide venues of support for anti-Semitic anti-Zionists they would erode the support of American Jews.

It does not require genius to untangle the obvious.


  1. The delegitimization effort is just what it sounds like, a campaign of slander, mudslinging, and stereotyping. Liberal?

    1. Well....maybe some Mike. Maybe even many. But as sure as God made little green apples, some are simply ideological propagandists who know there's a sucker born ever minute. They are the head of the snake that needs chopping off so the rest will wither.

  2. When/If Hillary finally ascends her throne of skulls there will in fact be something resembling pogroms in the US. And it will include most of the most liberal of liberal Jews no matter how hard their black/Muslim/Mexican/gay/trans street cred is. The looks on their faces as they thrown out of their jobs in the goverment and universities will be priceless.

    1. I do not think that it will be like pogroms, Trudy.

      It will be more of a subtle shunning that will undermine Jewish standing in the larger US communifty for the purpose of making it clear where we need to be politically in order to thrive socially and economically.

      This is happening now and it is coming organically from the grassroots.

      This is not a conspiracy.

  3. 40% sounds about right considering the Democrats have never purged the antisemites in their big tent. Luckily it's the 60% that has all the real power so overall, I think things will be as ok as it can be for awhile. ("as it can be," being the important concept since there is no way in hell that 60% will ever hold the terrorist Palestinians feet to the fire. Also no Republican govt ever has either.)

  4. This is true, tho I do wonder how much of this owes to having an anti-Israel Islam-sympathizer as the President repping the D party, and how much is residual blame for Iraq on the part of the left.

    It is also hopeful that the moderates/conservatives, still a majority together, still honour Israel on the same order as the nation as a whole. Perhaps if more foreign policy conservatives get on board with Hillary, they can influence her to a more pro-Israel (and hopefully more anti-Islam) foreign policy.

  5. As always though, the basic question is, can you tell, can you measure the difference between success and failure. Regarding America's political relationship with Israel, regarding the so called 'beliefs' of American Jews in the US (not in Israel) in relation to this abstract notion of a country they don't live in, don't contribute to, don't defend, the answer is, you might not. There might not be a useful distinction between success and failure here. The US is as best a fair weather friend, a mercurial Machiavellian ally when it happens to interlock with the official statement of American strategic goals today. Maybe not tomorrow but today. And even that, most of the history of that relationship has been essentially an indifferent peace barely better than a cold war. America is like a dog - man's best friend until the food runs out. Then you're dinner.

    So perhaps it's time for a leap of faith and say 'so what?' Render unto America that which is America's etc...and each can go their separate ways. American Jews and goyim alike. They can stay here and the Israelis can stay over there. Whatever happens in Israel those Americans are never going to change their stripes, they're never going to wake up one day and make aliyah. They're never going to cross the aisle. Never. Not ever. What they want is to be in permanent opposition. Tallying up their various votes and initiatives and boycotts and listening to their prattle about all the 'palestinians' they love. Who cares? Let them move to Gaza and help out. Otherwise their complaints are as valid as any random nobody.


    This is HUGE! Repubs go full pro-Israel in their platform.

    1. But, but, but, what about social justice? (Whatever that is). I can't give that up, and what will the go.., oops, progressives say?

    2. According to Hillary's speech of July 13, it has something to do with "income equality," whatever the hell she means by that. But she says that in her first 100 days in office she's going to invest jobs for the American people which I guess is supposed to lead to "income equality."

  7. The US State Dept just admitted they gave $350,000 to opposition to Netanyahu in the 2015 election and then destroyed evidence to cover it up.

    1. Yes, but will there be any consequences for this behavior?

      I will be very curious to see what percentage of American Jews vote for the Dems this cycle.

      In 2008, Obama received 80 percent of the Jews vote.

      In 2012, he received 70 percent even after supporting the Muslim Brotherhood that called quite specifically for the conquest of Jerusalem.

      If Hillary gets much less than 70 percent of the Jewish vote I will be quite surprised.

    2. There won't be any fallout from this. But that's unimportant. It simply drives home the point that the US and Israel need to go their separate ways. Moreover the new Transparency Law that the Knesset passed this weeks means that 1) it has to become public knowledge when an NGO or government NGO does this, and 2) sets the stage for legal action against those bodies and foreign government agencies if they egregiously violate the law. In this case, $350,000 is nothing. But what about $35 million?

    3. I'm sure progressives will throw a fit over the US interfering in foreign elections. They always complain about the US subverting elections to get more compliant foreign leaders who will bend to our will, do our bidding and be a US puppet. Oh wait, it's Israel. Never mind.

  8. Meanwhile, over at dKKKos, David Harris Gershon is moaning that the Democratic platform didn't adopt his masochistic obsession with Palestine. (Link not provided, as I don't want to give them any hits.)

    1. Oh, for chrissake.

      The last thing that I want to do is go over there and eye a Harris Gershon piece and the loathsome comments that it inevitably draws.


      I do sometimes wonder about what is going on with the more prominent members of the former pro-Israel dkos bunch.

      I can tell you that Paul in Berkeley is in Cincinnati.

      Kane in California is somewhere in Arizona.

      I have no idea what dhonig is up to.

      Volleyboy1 has dropped off of my radar. I liked him considerably more than he realizes, I think. I wonder what he thinks of Barack Obama now?

      And does anyone remember Jay Elias?

      He was a smart fellah for sure and the word that I got was that he was in TV working on the Sopranos, back in the day.

      I'm sure it's nothing but a rumor, tho.

      The pro-Israel presence over there, now, is pretty lame.

      The ones who stood up strong, like VB - however much I may have disagreed with him concerning the POTUS - were driven off.

  9. Evolution Mike. Some of us grew legs and climbed outta the swamp. Others drooled and stayed put.

  10. Would you seriously consider voting for this guy ? And Hillary (and Bill) have been consistent supporters of Israel, while you have no idea what Trump would do.

    1. Consider voting for him, Joseph?


      What I will not do, however, is vote for the leader of the political party that has supported the Muslim Brotherhood while undermining the well-being of Jewish people through creating venues welcoming to anti-Semitic anti-Zionists.

    2. Hillary has been a solid friend of Israel. You have no idea what Trump will do with regards to Israel, though he will be terrible for the United States. How anybody could vote for a lunatic, and an evil one at that,is beyond me.

    3. That's ridiculous.

      Clinton must appease her base, which is increasingly anti-Israel. Look at the platform. Intersectionality, you know?

      Trump, from all indications, will be very pro-Israel.

      No idea how he will be for Israel, yet so certain that he will be "terrible" for the US, that he is a "lunatic" and "evil." Can you even hear yourself?

      Get bent by Trump's tone more than the violent actions of the people that want to save us from him and make a peaceful world.

    4. Hillary's base consists of Franken, Shumer and me. Trump's base:

    5. You forgot Sidney Blumenthal, so proud of his son.

    6. You can cite any magazine you want. I don't need a journalist to analyze what I can see for myself. How many journalists abuse their platform?

      Orwell, in 1942:

      “Early in life I had noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper, but in Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which do not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. … I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what had happened but of what ought to have happened according to various ‘party lines.’”

      So, hooray for Esquire, the NY Times and most of the lot. You fall for it hook, line, sinker. What was that again...."Party Line!"

      Perhaps Franken, Shumer and you should take a refresher on ethics. You act like Clinton received equal treatment. What else has she lied about?

      Perhaps if you were less hasty to chastise that we have "no idea" about Trump and Israel, but know he will be he will be "terrible for the United States. How anybody could vote for a lunatic, and an evil one"

      There's that party line again, one that is proving itself a disaster in application. And outside party walls, an increasing number are coming to understand that Trump's bluster does not make him Hitler, and are of far less concern than Clinton's actions.

    7. Hillary is amazing. Not only was she an exeptional Secretary of State (Arab Spring, Benghazi, Ukraine, to name a few), but also had business acumen to make a personal fortune of 150 million dollars in her spare time. I feel like she really cares for the middle class. And with Max Blumenthal at her side, she'll bring real justice to the Middle East.

    8. There is a line in a Man for all Seasons, "MORE In good faith, Rich, I am sorrier for your perjury than my peril." In truth, I am sorrier for your willful ignorance than for our own peril.

    9. Joseph,

      please do not take this stuff personally.

      None of this is black-and-white.

      I am not an advocate for Donald Trump, but I have not ruled him out, either.

      We're all just sort-of weighing our understandings of political matters that are of importance to us.

      I cannot speak for anyone else, but for me it is not a matter of "Go Donald! Hillary sucks."

      The way I see it, the Democratic Party and the progressive-left have thrown my trust into the garbage through supporting anti-Semitic anti-Zionism, both at home and abroad.
      And that includes Hillary Clinton.

      Thus I ruled out supporting Democrats a number of years ago - about 5, I think - until they get rid of those who would rob the Jewish people of self-determination and self-defense.

      My problem with Trump has less to do with the notions that he is racist or sexist than it has to do with obvious fact that he is amazingly obnoxcious. He may be racist and sexist, as well, but for sure we know that he is obnoxcious.

      But when I put these considerations on the scales they do tip in Trumps favor.

      At this point, tho, I am still pondering sitting this one out.

      Unless something dramatically changes, I doubt I will be advocating for either candidate.

      And, btw, I am registered as an independent, so...

    10. There is a line in a Man for all Seasons, "MORE In good faith, Rich, I am sorrier for your perjury than my peril." In truth, I am sorrier for your willful ignorance than for our own peril.

    11. Joseph, do you use "ignorant" to signify "stoopid", or in it's proper meaning? Then enlighten us to the facts we are not aware of. Did Hillary yell for an hour at that horrible little man Bibi, and what other country's leader did she subject to the same treatment? Is her progressive base rife with Jew hatred, or are we just victims of Republican lies?
      Did you and other "smart" people enthusiastically vote for Obama twice, and are you happy with your choice?

  11. Better to be ignorant, yet have a moral compass, than smart, but with one that is severely challenged.

    Morality is better to fend off peril than brains.