Arab Public Opinion Videoized

EOZ made this video based on  the recent public opinion poll I reviewed.

It's here:




And on YouTube.

^

'The Jews are being scapegoated again', He Writes

And today's must read item:

Israel and the Surrender of the West by Shelby Steele.

Excerpts -

...At every turn "world opinion," like a school marm, takes offense and condemns Israel for yet another infraction of the world's moral sensibility. And this voice has achieved an international political legitimacy so that even the silliest condemnation of Israel is an opportunity for self-congratulation...White House correspondent Helen Thomas, in one of the ugliest incarnations of this voice, calls on Jews to move back to Poland. And of course the United Nations and other international organizations smugly pass one condemnatory resolution after another against Israel while the Obama administration either joins in or demurs with a wink.

...this [is] almost [a] complete segregation of Israel in the community of nations...There is a chilling familiarity in all this. One of the world's oldest stories is playing out before our eyes: The Jews are being scapegoated again.

...Today the world puts its thumb on the scale for the Palestinians by demonizing the stronger and whiter Israel as essentially a colonial power committed to the "occupation" of a beleaguered Third World people...it is bad manners to be outraged at Hamas's recent attack on a school because it educated girls, or at the thousands of rockets Hamas has fired into Israeli towns—or even at the fact that Hamas is armed and funded by Iran. The world wants independent investigations of Israel, not of Hamas.

One reason for this is that the entire Western world has suffered from a deficit of moral authority for decades now...the irony: In the eyes of a morally compromised Western world, the Israelis looked like the Gestapo.

...The West also lacks the self-assurance to see the Palestinians accurately. Here again it is safer in the white West to see the Palestinians as they advertise themselves—as an "occupied" people denied sovereignty and simple human dignity by a white Western colonizer. The West is simply too vulnerable to the racist stigma to object to this "neo-colonial" characterization.

...We don't want to lose more moral authority than we already have. So we choose not to see certain things that are right in front of us...The problem is not me; it is them. And in my victimization I enjoy a moral and human grandiosity—no matter how smart and modern my enemy is, I have the innocence that defines victims. I may be poor but my hands are clean. Even my backwardness and poverty only reflect a moral superiority, while my enemy's wealth proves his inhumanity.

In other words, my hatred is my self-esteem...this recalcitrance in the Muslim world, this attraction to the consolations of hatred, is one of the world's great problems today—whether in the suburbs of Paris and London, or in Kabul and Karachi, or in Queens, N.Y., and Gaza. The fervor for hatred as deliverance may not define the Muslim world, but it has become a drug that consoles elements of that world in the larger competition with the West. This is the problem we in the West have no easy solution to, and we scapegoat Israel—admonish it to behave better—so as not to feel helpless. We see our own vulnerability there.

(Kippah tip: TG)


- - -

Ignoring Is Not A Tactical Option

Over here, is a piece on Israel's hasbara (public diplomacy) problems that someone sent me.

Called, "The anger, angst, anguish and frustrations of an Israel advocate: A novel technique for combating the vilification of Israel", a Israel Zwick makes some good observations.

Like this:

When I enter search terms [into Google] such as “war, ethnic conflict, liberation movements, refugees,” this is what I discover.
· There are about 5000 different ethnic groups living in 190 countries, some of which number in the millions and make up a large percentage of the host country. Many of these groups are suffering from oppression and denial of civil rights.
· There are a number of wars going on right now in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. Most of these involve Muslims. The wars and conflicts are causing large numbers of deaths and injuries among civilian populations. Everyday innocent civilians are killed in conflicts, usually by Muslims. Children are dying from disease and starvation.
· There are scores of active liberation movements struggling for self-determination
· There are millions of refugees and internally displaced persons around the world living in deplorable conditions.

However, if I search Google News for the terms “war crimes, war atrocities, humanitarian crisis, and violation of human rights,” I get thousands of articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This is what I read:

· Israel is an oppressive, racist, apartheid state that consistently violates Arab rights
· Israel is responsible for 60 years of suffering of the Palestinian people
· The Palestinians are struggling for liberation from the brutal, illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands
· Israel violates international law by establishing settlements on “occupied
Palestinian lands.” The established Jewish communities are “obstacles to peace.”
· Israel is guilty of vicious war crimes and atrocities against the Palestinian people
· Israel is committing ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Palestinian people
· Israeli military forces continuously commit brutal aggression against the suffering Palestinian people
· Israel is responsible for the horrid humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the West Bank
· Israelis grab precious natural resources for themselves while denying them to the Palestinians
· Israeli military occupation is responsible for the economic hardships in Gaza and the West Bank
· Israel is a gross violator of human rights
· Israel deserves to be boycotted commercially, militarily, culturally, and academically for its violations of human rights and international law.
· Israel’s illegal occupation of Arab lands is responsible for most of the strife in the Middle East

He also deals with responding to condemnations and writes:

So how should a frustrated advocate for Israel respond to all of these vile and vitriolic condemnations? The conventional wisdom is to refute and discredit them by presenting factual evidence...

...I worked as a school psychologist for about 17 years. One of the basic rules that a school psychologist learns is that if an intervention isn’t working, then it needs to be modified or replaced by a new intervention. So if responding to accusations only seems to invite more of them, then a different strategy is in order. Again we can take a clue from school psychology. A common intervention that is used for inappropriate attention-seeking behavior is “tactical ignoring.” This strategy is used when a child displays inappropriate behavior to gain a reaction, even if the response is a negative one, like causing the teacher to get angry. The child’s behavior may be rewarded by the extra attention that he is getting from the teacher or he may get satisfaction from seeing the teacher being annoyed. Similarly, the media will publish articles accusing Israel of unethical behaviors, precisely because they know that advocates for Israel are sensitive to these accusations and will respond to them, thereby prolonging the discussion and increasing the controversy. That suggests that a lack of response will reduce the incentive for publishing the vitriolic accusations.

Tactical ignoring is not a quiescent response. It makes a strong statement to the accusers. It says, “Your accusations are based on ignorance, bias, or self-serving needs. They are malicious lies that don’t deserve my time and effort to respond.” This is a much stronger, more contemptuous response than a defensive response that cites contrary evidence. If the accusations “fall on deaf ears” then the incentive for repeated accusations is removed.

I’m sure that many readers are skeptical about utilizing this strategy...

I have a problem with this.

You see, with the constant repetition of their anti-Israel, anti-Zionism and anti-Jewish propaganda, the longer it goes on, the more different the numbers of people are exposed. There is a greater number of persons and target groups involved.

"Tactical ignoring" is a major strategic mistake. This isn't a tactical problem.

I tried leaving a comment at his article but it's closed.

I do, however, like his ending:

There is one indisputable fact that belies the vile condemnations against Israel. If Israel is such an “oppressive, racist, apartheid state,” then it would be logical to assume that the Arabs should be eagerly lining up to emigrate to any of the 21 nations of the Arab League where they would presumably have more freedoms and civil liberties. But they are not. The Arab populations in the Galil and Jerusalem are actually increasing. Their communities are expanding...

That Darn "Public Opinion" Again

...on the question: “In your opinion, who among the following individuals — Ehud Barak, Ehud Olmert, Bibi Netanyahu, Tzipi Livni, Shaul Mofaz, and Avi Dichter — can best advance the peace process between Israel and Syria and the Palestinians while safeguarding Israel’s vital interests?” the results obtained were in this order: Netanyahu — 27%, Livni — 17%, Barak — 8%, Mofaz — 6%, Olmert — 5%, Dichter— 3%.

Source

Olmert in a Downward Spiral

But most of all, it appears that the Jewish public does not trust its government. Throughout the political spectrum, an overwhelming majority thinks Ehud Olmert and his government are not strong enough to sign a peace agreement with the Palestinians in Israel's name, assuming such an agreement would entail substantial concessions by Israel. Those are the main findings of the Peace Index that was carried out from
Monday to Wednesday, 8- 10 October.

But are Israelis politically well-informed?

only 20% reported regularly following the preparations for the event, while about half said they follow the news sometimes and 29% reported not following the news at all.

However,

that the public's readiness for concessions in the framework of such a conference is not high. Some 59% oppose, in exchange for a peace agreement, transferring the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem to Palestinian sovereignty so that they can serve as the capital of Palestine (33% support it). Even firmer is the Jewish public's position on Palestinian refugees return to Israel in the context of a
permanent peace settlement: 87% are not prepared for the return of even a single refugee, 6% are prepared for the return of up to 100, 000, and 3% are prepared for whatever number is decided.

Public Opinion

An overwhelming majority—72%—think the Olmert government currently lacks sufficient public support to enter negotiations on a comprehensive settlement, somewhat similar to the views on the Barak government’s lack of a mandate to enter the negotiations in Taba late in 2000, close to the elections in which Barak lost to Ariel Sharon. An especially interesting finding is that the view of Olmert as lacking a mandate for such negotiations cuts across the political parties. This is the dominant perception among voters for all the parties, including Kadima.

Here.