Noah Pollak cites a recent poll. Palestinians, it appears, are ever less enthusiastic about Hamas. That's good. They're also not particularly interested in peace alongside Israel. Not surprising.
I continue to say it's not my job to tell about what the Palestinians think: I don't speak their language, and am not closely familiar with their culture. I may be better informed than, oh, 94% of Western media types who regularly pontificate on the matter, but that's not saying much. These numbers, however, come from a Palestinian pollster, and they fit into other long-term findings that Israelis can disregard only by making an effort.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
A more accurate statement according to that data would be that they're divided about making peace alongside Israel - overall it seems to be about 50/50. As ever, you're as disingeneous as Silverstein. In any case, here's a more comprehensive poll for you - http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2010/p35e.html
Actually, Alex, I stand by my formulation. I chose the words carefully. Still, I accept that your wording is similarly plausible. We're both interpreting in a reasonable manner.
...seems to be about 50/50. As ever, you're as disingeneous as....
You seem to forget that most of the people reading this blog are adults (at least I presume so).
You are certainly entitled to believe what you want; but your consistent misrepresentations and inaccuracies, along with the gratuitous, if farcical, insults you seem to enjoy hurling are getting rather tiresome.
Surely there are places for you to scurry to, where such embarrassments would be applauded?
Plus, on the topic of Anat Kamm, you wrote: "All were emphatic that journalists are not allowed to break the law. Not in Israel, not elsewhere. Uri Blau did, when he published a story based on Kamm's stolen documents."
Today there's this from a group of Israeli journalists: "As of today, prosecution authorities don't seek to try reporters for the offense of retaining classified information, an offense most of us are guilty of in one way or another. We believe this policy represents the appropriate balance between freedom of the press and of expression and security needs. It would be wrong to change this balance without any real public debate."
Alex
I'm sorry to say by now I've stopped to trust your quotes - would you mind providing a link so I can read the whole thing? thank you!
- that there is an ongoing debate about shield law vs securtity questions everywhere in the world where there is a free press is one thing and your quote sounds like it might be another voice on that topic instead of an effort to rally support for soldiers leaking incontinently just because of a world view that military per se can't be anything else but evil
Silke
Come on Alex, be serious.
The folks I was citing - many of them attorneys of many years standing - were addressing the law: there is no place in it which puts journalists above the law. They are citizens just like you and I, and the laws apply to us all equally.
The folks you're citing are journalists - the guild under attack, one might note. Yet even they are not saying they are above the law, merely that custom has been to give them leeway the rest of us don't have. In effect, the law and its enforcement agencies look the other way when they engage in clearly illegal acts, because there's a public interest that they (both sides) do so.
I would argue that the blatant wrong-doing of Haaretz in this case has done quite a bit to damage that practice. If the most high-falutin newspaper in the country turns a careful but delicate extra-legal practice into a blunt club with which to bludgeon not only the state but also the society, clearly the newspaper is running amok; but it also casts doubt on the delicate practice itself. This is called backlash, in proper English, and Haaretz brought it down on the entire field of journalism.
I don't think this means the paper should be legally shut down, but I was gratified to learn that significant numbers of people have joined the Lozowick family in canceling their subscriptions to the paper. Hopefully the advertisers will take note.
My boss found the following answer in the survey:
Do you accept the creation of a Palestinian state on the area of the 1967 borders as a final solution for the Palestinian problem?
Yes 51.7
No 44.7
No opinion/I do not know 3.5
So maybe things are a little better than they seem at first.
Israel has made an effort for 17 years. The Palestinians have to fix the problems in their own society. Unfortunately that means more or less Israel cannot make up their shortcomings for them. And until the Palestinians take a look in the mirror and figure out who they are and what they want, peace will remain a mirage in the Middle East.
The question right after that asks if Palestinians will accept a state on 67 borders with some small territorial exchanges - meaning Israel would retain major settlement blocks - and it's like 70% no.
The one question they didn't ask is whether the creation of a Palestinian state should be an end of conflict event (relinquishing claims of refugees, violence, etc.) I think you'd find massive disapproval for doing so among the Arabs.
This is the link to the publication of the poll cited by Noah Pollak.
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=47709
Here are the two questions, as listed by IMRA, that were cited above.
Do you accept the creation of a Palestinian state on the area of the
1967 borders as a final solution for the Palestinian problem?
Yes 51.7
No 44.7
No opinion/I do not know 3.5
Do you accept the creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967
borders with some land exchange as a final solution for the Palestinian
problem?
Yes 28.3
No 66.7
No opinion/I do not know 5.0
Now, I think Pollak is being a little less than straight forward when he lists only the 2nd question. Nonetheless, it is worth reading the entire poll. It seems the Palestinian electorate is as fragmented as the Israeli one. Also, they really hate us.
Nycerbarb
You think they should love us? Do we love them?
I think that more important to specific problems is this question:
"Do you support or reject making Jerusalem a capital for two states: Palestine and Israel?
I support 20.8
I reject 77.4
No opinion/I do not know 1.8"
Overwhelmingly, Palestinians do not want to share Jerusalem. Since there is no way that Israel would give all of Jerusalem over, Israeli leaders should make it explicitly clear that Jerusalem will not under any circumstances be divided. No point in dividing the capital for a people who don't want to share it anyway.
Polls, schmolls.
Watch their TV programs.
Listen to their preachers and their politicians.
Look at the maps they publish of the region between the Jordan and the Sea
Gaze at their official seals and emblems.
Read about those after whom they name their public squares.
Find out about their non-negotiable demands regarding the "right to return" Palestinian Refugees to pre-1967 Israel.
Examine the nature of the statements made by their leaders.
Listen to what they say about the connection between Jews and the Temple Mount, between Jews and Jerusalem, between Jews and the land between the Jordan and the sea.
Look at what they have been doing on the Temple Mount regarding the antiquities there.
Note the disputes they have been having with their "brothers" in Hamas.
And then ask yourself whether this is the best way to try to win hearts and minds of their purported partners in peace, build Israeli confidence and assuage Israel fears of their ultimate (and oft-stated) intentions.
And then ask yourself whether the previous question is, in fact, a total and utter absurdity.
Polls schmolls.
it is not about love, it is about keeping up a minimum of decent behaviour in public utterances
Silke
Post a Comment