31% of Israelis Are In Denial About Obama

May 18th, 2009 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags: , , ,

obamaA recent opinion poll shows that 31% of Israelis believe President Obama is pro-Israel. Considering the 44th president’s actions, associations and current approach towards the Middle East conflict, I can only conclude that these Israelis are either in denial or simply lack knowledge about what goes on in the States.

All irony aside, 31% is an exceptionally low number. Israelis tend to consider American presidents true friends and allies normally. With Obama, not so.

That does not mean they automatically consider him ‘the enemy,’ however. In fact, only 14% call him pro-Palestinian. 40%, the largest part of the population, say they think he is neutral.

Is that a bad position for a U.S. president to be in? Perhaps not. Perhaps a more ‘neutral’ approach is more effective right now than a hardline pro-Israel stance. 

Perhaps.

But we also know that the next couple of years, possibly months, could be very difficult for the Jewish nation-state. It has to find a solution for the ongoing crisis involving the Palestinians, and it rightly fears that Iran will get its hands on nuclear weapons, which would enable the extremists who rule the country to destroy or at least seriously weaken Israel (after which other countries in the Middle East could theoretically join the war and deliver the final blow).

Considering the times, Israel could definitely use a loyal friend and ally.

On the other, such a friend should be honest enough to tell Israelis that they can only establish lasting peace by accepting the principle of Palestinian statehood and by working towards the creation of such a state. This friend also has to convince Jerusalem to cooperate on destroying Jewish settlements in Palestinian territories.

The friend has to do all this, while (s)he has to support Israel and protect its interests (its survival mainly) unconditionally.

That is the kind of friend Israel needs right now.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Laurence Fromm
    May 18th, 2009 at 23:10
    Reply | Quote | #1

    The author does not expand on his viewpoints or give proof – We are asked to take opinion as fact such as “his associations”. Israeli aid has been increased. When one reads the script of the press conference, both countries viewpoints become clear. Obama is on the same sheet as Bush 41 , where both mentioned “Annapolis”. Israeli’s Government a hodgepodge coalition of the ultra right wing in unprecidented power, its weaker than Obama’s. Clearly something over there is not working. Americans know it is not working.

  2. Garland
    May 18th, 2009 at 23:56
    Reply | Quote | #2

    As an example, what Obama said regarding a strike on Iran by Israel was that he would not want to be surprised by it. Can it not be debated whether that is too much to ask between allies, even when something so serious as nukes are involved?

  3. Mike M
    June 2nd, 2009 at 02:11
    Reply | Quote | #3

    Israel is a rogue state run by fanatical extremist nutjobs.

  4. Prunella
    June 10th, 2009 at 02:22
    Reply | Quote | #4

    It seems like a myth that Palestinians will ever concede Israel is a bona fide state. Politicians talk much, but actions speak louder. I don’t think a lasting peace is possible in foreseeable future. Palestinians would prefer the Jewish state disappear; so true compromise just does not seem likely.

    Israel has many friends and allies. It is debatable just how allied the current Obama administration really is; in a showdown I’m with Israel; and will not support a US administration that does not support Israel!

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.