Americans and Palestine

For a large portion of Americans, the balanced facts of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are not known, writes James Zogby*

(That would be that Americans are both illiterate and ignorant about world affairs)

A new poll out this week shows that while Israelis retain strong US public support, Americans are deeply concerned that the continuing Israeli-Palestinian conflict puts US interests at risk across the Middle East. The public, therefore, supports President Barack Obama's stand against Israel's settlement plans. These are but a few of the top line findings of a Zogby International poll of 2,471 Americans conducted 17-19 March 2010. The poll, commissioned by the Arab American Institute, had a margin of error of 2.0 per cent.

Upon closer examination of the poll's findings, observations can be made pointing to lessons that should be learned. Israeli ratings are high, but dropping; so are the Palestinians. In 2009, 71 per cent of Americans had a favourable view of Israelis with only 21 per cent rating them unfavourably. In 2010, the favourable/unfavourable ratings have shifted to 65-29 per cent. This is largely due to a significant drop among Democrats who now hold a 42 per cent favourable, 49 per cent unfavourable view of Israelis. The Israeli prime minister's rating among Democrats is an even worse 20-63 per cent.

During this same period, however, the US public's attitudes towards the Palestinians and their president, Mahmoud Abbas, have also declined. In 2009, Palestinians were viewed favourably by 25 per cent of the public and unfavourably by 66 per cent. Today the favourable/unfavourable ratio is 21-73 per cent. Abbas's ratings during the past year have also declined to where he is now seen favourably by only 14 per cent of the US public.

These abysmally low Palestinian numbers point to their continuing failure to engage public opinion in the US. While the Israelis aggressively project their story, the Palestinians -- and Arabs in general -- do not. Fault certainly can be placed on the unbalanced way major US networks and press cover the Israeli-Palestinian story, but in this age where "new media" provides new possibilities and where many sectors of the US public (young people, women and minority communities) are more open than ever before to hearing a counter narrative to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this continuing decline in Palestinian ratings is worrisome and inexcusable.

Americans are deeply concerned that the continuing conflict puts the US at risk across the Middle East. This was the one area where there was broad national consensus. With over 80 per cent of all Americans agreeing that the continuing Israeli- Palestinian conflict is important and the same number expressing the view that the continuing conflict puts US interests at risk. With American troops still in Iraq and after witnessing the destabilising consequences of repeated flare-ups in the Arab-Israeli conflict, Americans are worried. They still do not fully understand the region's history and have little awareness of the Palestinians' story. Like the famous line in a once popular Bob Dylan song, "they know something is wrong, but they don't know what it is".

In this context the warning recently issued by the US commander of CENTCOM, General David Petraeus, becomes important to consider. By observing the degree to which the Israeli-Palestinian conflict puts the US at risk in the region, Petraeus created the opening for a public discussion on the importance of a resolution of the conflict. But the outcome of this discussion is not guaranteed unless Arabs take advantage of this opportunity to engage the public, tell their story, and offer up solutions they find acceptable.

Pluralities know Israeli settlements are wrong, should be stopped, and support President Obama's efforts; but a significant number of Americans still do not understand the issue. By a margin of 40-34 per cent, Americans say Israel's settlements in occupied territories are wrong. By a margin of 40- 26 per cent, Americans say Obama should get tough with Israel to stop settlements. Some 51 per cent worry that when the US is unable to stop Israeli settlements it weakens that stature of the US in the world. While these numbers point in a positive direction and also show both Democrats and independents in support of a tougher US stance, two observations must be made.

First, there is the presence here of a deep partisan divide with two-thirds of Democrats opposed to Israeli policies compared to two-thirds of Republicans in support of whatever Israel does. This divide is not new. It developed during the Clinton administration as that president supported peace efforts only to be countered by Republicans in Congress who sided with Likud policies. The divide grew during George W Bush's first term when he so completely embraced Ariel Sharon. And now, given the hyper-partisanship of the current era, with President Obama's strong stand against settlements, the divide deepens.

The partisan split is not merely a function of leadership, it is also demographics. The pro-Israel bent of the Republican side is largely due to the preponderance of Christian fundamentalists in its coalition, while the Democratic side is increasingly made up of young voters, women and minorities (African Americans, Hispanics and Asians, who together form about one-third of the US electorate), and they are more inclined to consider a broader view of international issues.

Next it is vital to take note of the one-third of those polled that have no clear view on any of these issues. They, and even many of those who will declare their opposition to settlements or will support the president's stand, have no compelling reason to hold a firm position. The fault lies with both successive US administrations that have declared their opposition to settlements without making a compelling enough case, and once again with the Arab side for failing to tell their story.

That the Israeli narrative about settlements still dominates and defines the discussion was in evidence this past week as members of Congress defended Israel's "right to build homes for its people", or its right to "rebuild their capital", or expressed outrage at the thought that Jews should be excluded from "any part of Jerusalem" -- all false arguments that ignore the fact that the settlements in question were being built on Arab land and were not in Jerusalem but an area that Israel illegally and unilaterally declared to be Jerusalem. What these arguments also ignore is the cost in rights, livelihood and freedom of movement that this settlement enterprise imposes on Palestinians. None of this is considered in part because none of it is widely known.

The bottom line is that this poll presents a challenge to engage and inform a public that is deeply concerned but not yet certain how to respond to the continuing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is a challenge that must be met.

* The writer is president of the Arab American Institute.
ahram.org.eg