POLL: Israelis 'Overwhelmingly' Favor Obama

[Ordie]

POLL: Israelis 'Overwhelmingly' Favor Obama, Mixed On Netanyahu
First Posted: 03-19-10 08:56 AM | Updated: 03-20-10 03:55 AM

(AP) JERUSALEM - A poll released Friday shows that Israelis overwhelmingly have a favorable impression of President Barack Obama, despite a grave diplomatic feud with the U.S. over east Jerusalem construction.

Between a total of three polls released Friday, Israelis sent mixed signals about their own leader. Thirty-six percent of those questioned for one poll thought Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was best suited to lead Israel, versus 26 percent for his closest challenger, opposition leader Tzipi Livni. But another poll showed Livni's Kadima Party would overtake Netanyahu's Likud by a wider margin if elections were held today.

All three polls showed a majority of Israelis supported continued construction in Jerusalem's disputed eastern sector, the issue at the heart of the U.S.-Israeli row. Support ranged from 48 percent in one poll to 70 percent in another.

Some Israelis have misgivings about Obama, who is cooler to Israel than his immediate predecessors and has made a big effort to reach out to the Muslim world.

But a Dialog survey of 499 people on Wednesday and Thursday showed that seven out of 10 Israelis share a favorable view. The poll had a margin of error of 4.3 percentage points.

More.....http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/19/israelis-view-obama-favor_n_505579.html?view=print

[BlackWarder]

I find it hard to believe...

Warder

[GiladS]

I find it hard to believe...

Warder

X2

No accurate number has been provided in the article and what the heck does having a "favorable view" mean anyway?

Most Israelis probably think that Obama has good intentions and is charismatic yet it's quite clear that he's harmed U.S-Israel relations and that's the crux of the matter.

[squidO]

Just another fake poll prepared by Haaretz.

[RoyB]

Just another fake poll prepared by Haaretz.
Where do you see Haaretz mentioned in the article?

Anyway.. I find it hard to believe also.

[squidO]

Where do you see Haaretz mentioned in the article?

Anyway.. I find it hard to believe also.
Here is the link to the origin:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1157483.html

[Octavariable]

:cantbeli:


Opinion polls measure the public's satisfaction with it's ignorance

/thread

[11 Bravo]

An article funded and commissioned no doubt by stateside Rahm types. They have to help their boy at all costs' considering what a blundering idiot he has shown himself to be. And all you tolls out there thought GW was a monkey... guess again he's been out monkeyed !.

[TallGuy]

Well, most Jews are Democrats, so this doesn't really surprise me....

[GiladS]

Well, most Jews are Democrats, so this doesn't really surprise me....

We are talking about Israel, not the US mate... p-)

[IDF_TANKER]

Where they conducted the poll, in the East Jerusalem?

[2495]

An article funded and commissioned no doubt by stateside Rahm types. They have to help their boy at all costs' considering what a blundering idiot he has shown himself to be. And all you trolls out there thought GW was a monkey... guess again he's been out monkeyed !.

GW might of been percieved as unintelligent, but Obama just took the well to new depths with his idiocy. I am however neutral as I am a citizen of neither US or Israel - Obama however is still a tool IMHO.

[FlintHillBilly]

Well, most Jews are Democrats, so this doesn't really surprise me....

Really? I figured they liked to keep their money, so they would be republican. Then again, i guess its pretty normal and consistent for Democrats to have their hands in other peoples pockets, so i guess i could see how you can say what you said.

I find this article hard to believe. I think it was just written by a moron of a journalist. I would put most of my money down that Israel is not too happy with the Obama administration. This administration is not nearly as cuddled up as the previous administration.

[Glaz]

I read this on reason.com a while back:


Is Obama Bad for Israel?

[/URL] Recently, I have seen several commentaries whose topic is something to the effect that United States President Barack Obama is bad for Israel. While I'm not here to defend Obama (or any other politician, for that matter), I do think it's a bit lacking in clarity when people say things like that. It gives the impression that other recent US presidents were "good for Israel".
Were previous US presidents any better for Israel? Let's take a look back and see if that really is the case.
The last US president before Obama was George W. Bush. Many claim that he was one of the greatest friends Israel ever had. However, he spent many years trying to divide up Israel, stating that he alone would decide the borders of Israel. In 2006, he wanted to declare an independent Arab state with provisional borders by the end of 2007. He said he was willing to commit the entire resources of the United States to do it. The state would be headed by the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority (PA/PLO). It's important to know that Fatah is a terrorist organization, founded by master terrorist Yasir Arafat and current PA/PLO leader Mahmoud Abbas. It is also the ruling party of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), one of the best known terrorist organizations in the world. A sub-group of Fatah is the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a terrorist group which Bush himself designated as a terrorist organization by presidential directive. In addition, it is on the [URL="http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/08/103392.htm"]US State Department list of foreign terrorist organizations (http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?pub=LeeU&v=250&source=tbx-250&tt=0&s=twitter&url=http%3A%2F%2Femetnews.org%2Fweblog%2Fobama-bad-for-israel.html&title=Is%20Obama%20Bad%20for%20Israel%3F%20%7C%20the%20emet%20blog&content=&lng=en). The al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades is responsible for many terrorist attacks, including several involving US citizens. However, Bush was always inclined to look the other way in these matters because he felt these groups would help him fulfill his demonic vision of dividing up Israel in order to create a country for a group of people who don't exist (http://emetnews.org/analysis/palestine_history.htm).
When Israel was in the process of wiping out the Hizb'Allah terrorist group in 2006, Bush went along with it for a while. But when it became clear that Israel wasn't doing it fast enough for him, Bush pressured Israel to stop. This not only left Hizb'Allah intact, it also created sympathy for the terrorist group around the world. They are now seen as "freedom fighters", not terrorists. In addition, the group has been embraced by the Lebanese government as an official part of the formal state military.
Bush was also instrumental in the destruction of Gush Katif, causing the removal of 10,000 Jews from their homes and creating a Hamas-controlled terrorist state in Gaza. In addition, he continually placed great pressure on Israel any time a new home was built in Judea and Samaria.
There were many other ways that Bush acted against Israel, among them were the arming and training of PLO terrorists by the US military. (Most of the weapons eventually fell into the hands of Hamas terrorists when they ran the US-trained PA/PLO army out of Gaza.)
Before Bush there was Bill Clinton. He too attempted to create peace between Israel and its Arab enemies by having Israel give away land to its sworn enemies. In one of the infamous Camp David summits, Clinton brought together Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and PA/PLO Chairman and master terrorist Yasir Arafat. Thankfully, those talks did not work out. However, they did result in the Second Intifada, costing the lives of many innocent Jews.
In addition, Clinton ordered the size of Israel's loan guarantees cut because Israel was building homes for Jewish families on land that the United States had deemed long ago to belong to Israel's enemies, the Arabs (or, better yet, to a non-existent people, the "Palestinians" (http://emetnews.org/analysis/palestine_history.php)).
Clinton, by the way, was also considered a "great friend of Israel".
Prior to Clinton taking office, Bush's father, George Herbert Walker Bush, was president. In his attempt to form a one world order (which he declared at the United Nations), Bush put together the Madrid Peace Conference in an attempt to give Jewish land to terrorists sworn to wipe the Jewish people off the map. (Bush's henchman in all of this was the infamous anti-Semite James Baker.) As a result of these talks, the PLO was further legitimized (see Reagan below), making it out to be a freedom fighting organization instead of one of the most feared terrorist organizations in all the world.
Bush had no problem in making promises to Israel and, when he didn't like what Israel was doing, breaking those promises. He had tried to blackmail Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir by threatening to withhold loan guarantees if Shamir would stop building in Judea and Samaria. Shamir did not agree and Bush made good on his threat. However, when Yitzhak Rabin became prime minister, he immediately agreed to Bush's demands and the loan guarantees were freed up.
When Bush started the first war against Saddam Hussein, and Scud missiles were raining down upon Israel, instead of offering protection, Bush asked Israel to not retaliate. He knew that if Israel did retaliate, the 22 Arab nations surrounding Israel wound attack it and the UN coalition, led by the US. It's hard to see Bush asking any other nation to just stand there and take it as an enemy fires rockets at its civilians. And there is no other nation that would do it.
Ronald Reagan was president before Bush. He also was considered a "great friend of Israel". However, as he was formalizing strategic cooperation between the Pentagon and the IDF (Israel Defense forces), he was also greatly strengthening the Arabs, sworn enemies of Israel. He sold the Arabs some of the US's most sophisticated weapons, including the AWACS radar planes. The "strategic cooperation" between the Pentagon and the IDF was actually a ruse by Reagan in order to obtain high level intelligence information from Israel it couldn't receive otherwise.
Perhaps it was due to Begin's love of Torah and his leadership in the Irgun, but whatever it was, Reagan never hid his immense dislike for Prime Minister Begin.
In 1981, when Israel destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak, Reagan was livid. He had the UN ambassador to the UN, Jeane Kirkpatrick, vote to support the UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel's actions. (Kirkpatrick, however, went one to become one of Israel's staunchest defenders, vetoing many other anti-Israel resolutions.) After the bombing, Reagan suspended the delivery of F-16 jet fighters to Israel.
Further, as Mitchell Bard (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/) writes, "While other [US] presidents privately threatened to withhold aid or take other measures against Israel, Reagan did not hesitate to publicly punish Israel. After Israel annexed the Golan Heights in 1981, Reagan suspended the strategic cooperation agreement prompting Begin to accuse Reagan of treating Israel like a 'banana republic'."
Reagan also gave a promise of protection to the PLO leadership, including Yasir Arafat, allowing them to escape to Tunis. In addition, he who authorized the US State Department to enter into talks with the terrorist organization (who had murdered many US civilians). This began the multitude of problems that Israel is still contending with today.
Before Reagan, there was Jimmy carter. I think it's sufficient to just mention his name. His hatred of Israel is very well-known.
As I had previously stated (http://emetnews.org/weblog/bush-seeks-to-create-another-terrorist-state.html), "the United States has always used Israel as its political tool in the Middle East. It's just that previously it generally chose to be a bit more friendlier as it needed the expertise of Israel's Mossad to inform it of Russian activities. Since the Cold War is over, the relationship has changed." The US no longer feels that it needs Israel, as it has its own quasi-state in Iraq. During his tenure Bush made enough headway with Arabs and Muslims around the world so that they now know that the US government — no matter who is in charge — will sell out Israel.
So, back to our original question. Is Barack Obama bad for Israel? Sure he is, but not any more than any other recent US president. The difference now is that there are mechanizations in place that will propel the "peace talks" further and faster. As Bob Dylan once said, "things should start to get interesting right about now".
One note in closing: it's always in Israel's power to tell the US to back off and decide itself how it will deal with its enemy neighbors. That, however, will take real leadership — something that Israel does not now have and hasn't had for many years.

[Motukka]

However, they did result in the Second Intifada, costing the lives of many innocent Jews.

I find it repulsive to read articles that completely omit the loss of innocent lives on the "enemys" side. It comes off as if it was only bad because Israelis died. Or in the same fashion critizising a war primarily because it cost the lives of so many soldiers. I'll bet people in Germany critizised Stalingrad because so many soldiers died.

[seraosha]

I find it repulsive to read articles that completely omit the loss of innocent lives on the "enemys" side. It comes off as if it was only bad because Israelis died. Or in the same fashion critizising a war primarily because it cost the lives of so many soldiers. I'll bet people in Germany critizised Stalingrad because so many soldiers died.

So says finlandistan.
;)

[LineDoggie]

500 People is indicative of Israels population?

My Ass.

[Glaz]

I find it repulsive to read articles that completely omit the loss of innocent lives on the "enemys" side. It comes off as if it was only bad because Israelis died. Or in the same fashion critizising a war primarily because it cost the lives of so many soldiers. I'll bet people in Germany critizised Stalingrad because so many soldiers died.
Oh, that. Yes, it's quite sad when Palestinians die. I join you in pointing a finger at that which is primarily responsible for all them deaths...


























http://infidelsunite.typepad.com/.a/6a0111685b4b71970c0120a569852b970b-800wi

[FullMetalJackass]

Why do I give a fvck what a bunch of israelis think? What matters is the opinion of Americans, and they seem to not approve of zero.......

[Climber]

Well, most Jews are Democrats, so this doesn't really surprise me....

Lol, most Jews in Israel aren't Democrats......I mean partisans of the Democrat Party of the USA........

"joke"


Why do I give a fvck what a bunch of israelis think? What matters is the opinion of Americans, and they seem to not approve of zero.......
If you give a **** about it, why posting in the thread?

[GB_FXST]

Oh, that. Yes, it's quite sad when Palestinians die. I join you in pointing a finger at that which is primarily responsible for all them deaths...


























http://infidelsunite.typepad.com/.a/6a0111685b4b71970c0120a569852b970b-800wi

Well said.


Why do I give a fvck what a bunch of israelis think? What matters is the opinion of Americans, and they seem to not approve of zero.......

You should, if you are interested in a peaceful resolution to the Israel-Palestiinian issue. No US President will be able to broker peace without the trust of the Israeli people.

Having said that, I question the validity of this poll.

[FullMetalJackass]

Anyone actually think there is a chance of peaceful relsolution to the Izzy-pali issue? I have a feeling that 200 years from now when whatever the kids are using as a communicaiton mediuim such as the intrawebs, they will still be wondering about the outcome of this issue. So no I really don't see why it matters. If those two sides cannot solve their differences after almost 50 years since the state of Israel has been created what does anyone in their right mind think zero is going to be able to do about it? This guy can't even get a consensus of his own political party to pass seemingly important matters in this country without resorting to alienation of half the country , let alone foreign lands where he is completely outmached.

[gilgoul]

yeah right
six mnth ago BHO's approval in Israel was of 6%
And suddenly he is beloved by the juices.

Only post modern liberal kykes love Obama, the rest of us, well, we're waiting for 2012

[Ordie]

500 People is indicative of Israels population?

My Ass.

I guess you fell asleep during statistics class, more specifically the sampling methodology section.

The fact of the matter is the current Israeli government is very weak highly dependent on a coalition of fringe political parties trying to advance their own agenda.

[Hollis]

I guess you fell asleep during statistics class, more specifically the sampling methodology section.

The fact of the matter is the current Israeli government is very weak highly dependent on a coalition of fringe political parties trying to advance their own agenda.


True on stats, but does this article goes into how the sampling went. If done properly it could have a very high percentage of accuracy. Huffington Post is not noted for being impartial. Unless you want to consider the Gramma as being impartial too. So on first hand, with out some sort of collaborating article by a impartial news source, I would not accept anything that the HP writes about.

A post here said the survey was done by Haaretz, does that new source mention the methodology of the survey? A good number of polls that are done in the US, are not done according to book for proper sampling and reliability. Most are done for some other reason than to actually ascertain the opinion of the public.

As you mention, the current Israeli government has problems, I doubt they would want to piss off Obama either to add to their problems. Especially after that last couple of articles and Biden's visit. I guess we will know more later.

[GB_FXST]

Anyone actually think there is a chance of peaceful relsolution to the Izzy-pali issue? I have a feeling that 200 years from now when whatever the kids are using as a communicaiton mediuim such as the intrawebs, they will still be wondering about the outcome of this issue. So no I really don't see why it matters. If those two sides cannot solve their differences after almost 50 years since the state of Israel has been created what does anyone in their right mind think zero is going to be able to do about it? This guy can't even get a consensus of his own political party to pass seemingly important matters in this country without resorting to alienation of half the country , let alone foreign lands where he is completely outmached.

While you raise some valid points, the attempt at peace making is worthwhile for all the obvious reasons. Stranger and crazier things have happened.

[deagle]

yet,


Netanyahu's brother-in-law calls Obama 'anti-Semitic'


http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?176142-Obama-anti-semitic&p=4833355#post4833355

[3rdMillhouse]

Yeah, 'Overwhelmingly' is hardly anything when your survey only covered 499 people.

[Fat Lazy American]

http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/rosner/entry/is_obama_fair_and_friendly

Probably this poll.

When given a choice of characterizing Obama as "hostile", "fair" or "friendly", the clear majority pick "fair". When those are the three choices, "fair" doesn't suggest they favor someone. It suggests they believe they're neutral. From the demographics of the poll, it's probably pretty likely that only 10 or so percent of Israeli Jews view Obama as friendly. And this is being touted as a positive result for Obama.

There is a word for suggesting that this poll shows that a majority of Israelis like Obama. It's called lying.

One also has to keep in mind that approval ratings for Israeli party leaders aren't comparable to American ones. If Netanyahu gets 25 percent of the vote in the next election, he's the **** of the walk. If Obama gets 25 percent of the vote, he makes Hoover look like a beloved president.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=iw&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.israelhayom.co.il%2Fsite%2Fnewsletter_article.php%3Fa%3D5911 Here's a poor translation of another poll. Note that it only includes Jewish Israelis, but it shows they overwhelmingly favor continued construction in Jerusalem and overwhelmingly blame either the U.S. or Obama for the recent dispute.

[FrankBooth0]

yet,


Netanyahu's brother-in-law calls Obama 'anti-Semitic'


http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?176142-Obama-anti-semitic&p=4833355#post4833355


Next it will be Netanyahu's barber's sister's boyfriends cousin, the juxtaposition really sucks bro.

[Fat Lazy American]

Yeah, 'Overwhelmingly' is hardly anything when your survey only covered 499 people.

499 is a sufficient sample size.

It's the wording and the nature of the sample that are deceptive.