Half of Americans oppose unilateral creation of 'Palestine'
The survey, conducted last week among 800 registered voters, suggested that support for Israel remains strong among Americans, particularly among older, more conservative voters in the South and West of the United States.
“The key targets for us to grow our support are Democrats, younger voters, women and minorities,” pollster Neil Newhouse said on a conference call on the poll Monday, adding that while those groups do support Israel, their support tends to be “softer.”
...Fifty-one percent of voters polled said they would oppose the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, with 29% of those responding that they would strongly oppose it, whereas 31% of voters polled said they would support such a unilateral declaration, 12% of those stating they would strongly support it.
Opposition to unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state cuts across party lines in the US, according to the poll’s data. Some 66% of Republicans opposed it as did 44% of independents and 48% of Democrats.
Without a peace treaty in place between Israelis and Palestinians, 54% of respondents believe the US should not recognize a Palestinian state, whereas 33% of respondents feel that the US should recognize a unilaterally declared state.
Republicans are generally more skeptical than Democrats or independents of the Palestinians’ intentions to make peace with Israel...
Is 800 a representative enough sample?
^
Posts
8 comments:
What's bad about an unilateral declaration of a palestinian state?
The creation of an "independent arab state", along with an "independent jewish state" should take place before october 1, 1948, according to the UN-partition plan.
So why shouldn't they finally create it? Why shouldn't the UN and individual states recognise it?
When Israel was created, the arabs did not agree either, and the state was created in spite of their opinion.
You see, I think that this kind of rhetoric is not very clever, especially on your part.
I would recognise the right for a palestinian state to come into existence (in fact it exists more or less), would deplore the fact that the Jordanians & Egyptians did not found it back in 1948, and would concentrate the arguments on economic issues, around the topic: how could a palestinian state be viable without peace with Israel, which is an interesting market & employer, could help put in place the necessary infrastructure, etc.
Particularly in the settler issue I would focus on the economic aspect of a dismantlement, with palestinians losing work & economic opportunities if the settlers leave.
Then I would try to dig out figures about the economic situation in Gaza before & after dismantlement of the settlements, same for the territories in general before and after 1987, 1994, etc...
I suppose that this kind of argumentation could be taken much more seriously than what you say.
There is no need to argue that the palestinians forfeited the right to a state, and it will hardly convince anyone.
"You see, I think that this kind of rhetoric is not very clever, especially on your part."
(Assuming you refer to the anonymous commenter above your post) Who cares if his rhetoric is "clever"? Why is everything supposed to be evaluated according as it is smart or not? "Clever" or not, his rhetoric is spot on: There is no reality to this "Palestinian" set of grievances except the Arab imperialist desire to rob the Jews of their one and only state. It's about truth vs. falsehood.
"There is no need to argue that the palestinians forfeited the right to a state,..."
Correct. There is need to argue that they never deserved a state in the first place. Because, in case you've been suckered by the deceptive narrative, the Arab settler-colonists in the Land of Israel are not a nation in their own right; portraying themselves as such is nothing but a propaganda ruse, for the purpose of marketing Arab imperialism, which in bare and truthful form is an injustice that no non-Arab/Muslim person could support.
Well, I think there is not a question whether palestinians "deserve" a state. It was promised to them in the UN partition plan from november 1947, which announced the creation of "independent jewish and arab states", i.e. one jewish state and one arab state between the Jordan river and the mediterranean sea.
Israel accepted the partition plan, its very existence & international recognition is based on this UN-Resolution.
So it would not be very wise for Israel to argue that they do not want to recognise this resolution.
Meanwhile, Israel gained some territory and even the palestinians themselves do not claim the borders of 1947, only those of 1967, which is much more, ensures territorial continuity for Israel and ends territorial continuity for the palestinians.
So I think that the creation of a palestinian state in the borders of 1967 is a quite good deal for Israel, more than was expected & agreed in 1947.
As far as the method is concerned: what the palestinians do now (ask the UN to recognise their state) is exactely what Israel did back in 1947: The local arabs, who would have to "give up territory" did not agree to the creation of Israel. The UN outvoted them and Israel was created. So if the UN now decides to recognise the palestinian state in the borders of 1967 and Israel does not agree: too bad for Israel, that's exactely what they themselves did in 1947.
As far as the peace & security guaranties are concerned: I think it would be in the interest of all parties, first and foremost of the palestinians to establish relationships of good neighbourhood with Israel, in order to ensure a certain permeability of the borders, so that Israelis can live in palestine, if they choose to, and Palestinians can work in Israel, if they want.
If hostilities continue from the palestinian side, this would simply be a state of war between two states. In this context, of course, the military forces could intervene. I suppose that in this case, the situation would stay as it is, more or less, practically speaking.
a) " it would not be very wise for Israel to argue that they do not want to recognise this resolution" - but Israel bases its independence not solely on that resolution but that resolution was based on historical right which was acknowledged by Balfour Declaration which was acknolwledged by San Remo that was guaranteed by international law at League of Nations.
no such promise or right for Arabs of Eretz-Yisrael was ever made. so they don't "deserve" a state and since they tried to stop Jews from getting one, they certainly have no right.
2) "I think that the creation of a palestinian state in the borders of 1967 is a quite good deal for Israel" - ridiculous. all they want a state for is to better kill Jews and that's not a good idea.
"[Israel's] very existence & international recognition is based on this UN-Resolution."
No. The U.N. did what was right for once, and there it ends. The Jews' right to political sovereignty on Palestine is irrevocable.
"...and even the [Arab settlers] themselves do not claim the borders of 1947, only those of 1967,"
How very naive. You fail to realize that 1967 is just the first stage of a two-stage plan:
1) Ethnically cleanse Judea, Samaria and Gaza of all Jews by invoking international "law" (resolutions 242 and 338).
2) That done, eviscerate Israel's existence as a Jewish state the same way as for Lebanon and the states of Western Europe: Through multiculturalism, "One Man One Vote," "Palestinian Right of Return," demographic overpowerment of the indigene (the Jews, in this case) by the invader (the Arabs). Also called the Rwanda Solution by Steven Plaut, as that's the most likely consequence (God forbid).
"If hostilities continue from the palestinian side, this would simply be a state of war between two states. In this context, of course, the military forces could intervene."
Shades of August 2005: "We'll evacuate Gaza and if then the hostilities continue, we'll retaliate with the world's full support." But reality, alas, went its own way.
"One Man One Vote,"
What a strange concept. Who invented this one?
Miller,
I don't know who invented it, but I prefer an improved one: "One Nation One State." Or phrased differently, "The State As Its Nation's Castle."
Democracy per se is not a bad idea (the best we have until HaShem changes human nature), but plain, free-for-all democracy is a recipe for disaster. Plain, unrestricted "One Man One Vote" is a ladder for tyranny to climb through (see Weimar 1933, Iran 1979 or Egypt right now), or a suicide pact in which the indigenous can be dispossessed of their country simply by swamping it with immigrants (see Britain or Sweden right now).
I believe in the nation-exclusive state: Political rights for members of the nation only. And, for the sake of fairness, in case you're asking: I believe every nation has that right, not just the Jewish nation. But the status quo cannot endure. It is nothing but naive idealism which only opportunist imperialists can love--imperialists such as the Muslims, who spare no effort in taking advantage of it.
Post a Comment