Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: spiral3 who wrote (27158)	4/26/2002 9:26:35 AM
From: William B. Kohn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

That a very interesting poll. I'm surprised to see the intifada is ranked so low. Wonder why? Did Israel's incursion play a role in convincing Pals that it isn't as attractive as polls suggested they felt just a few weeks earlier? Also notice that if Pals don't think they can trust Arafat, how can Israeli's? Lastly, it is good to see that only 15% see the goal as either a Islamic or a pure Pal state, but notice that less than 1/2 see the goal as a two state solution. If you asked Israeli's, way over 2/3's believe in a two state solution. So, upshot. We need a Pal leader. Pals need to embrace a 2 state solution by a clear majority. Pals need to further reduce their believe that Intifada will lead them anywhere positive. My two cents.

To: spiral3 who wrote (27158)	4/26/2002 10:12:57 AM
From: art slott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Polls to Be Proud Of On the Mideast, America is right and the rest of the world is wrong. BY DANIEL HENNINGER Friday, April 26, 2002 12:01 a.m. EDT The people of the United States should take solace, even pride, in the fact that their views on the violence in the Middle East are completely at odds with the opinions of the United Nations, the continent of Europe and most of their own media. Since early April, various opinion polls have been asking Americans essentially the same questions about the blood-stained standoff between Israel and the Palestinians. Their responses, excerpted here, have held remarkably steady throughout, with answers that make clear they understand the meaning of terror and do so in numbers that make the "margin of error" irrelevant. The polling question that most strikes me asks whether people believe Israel's actions against Arafat and his army is the same as the U.S.'s against bin Laden and al Qaeda. Some 59% say it is. Since last year when Yasser Arafat allowed the girding of young Palestinians with explosives who were sent to exterminate Jews in packed discotheques, markets and other public places, Americans have overwhelmingly concluded: This is terror. This is the conscious, mass murder of innocent civilians for political ends. It is the anti-civilization that we Americans perceive as a mortal threat and have committed ourselves to defeat. To be sure, if you excavate the entire poll you also find support for the U.S. recognizing a Palestinian state (68%). Even this may be seen as American common sense, for the fact is that the intifada, for years, has been driven by the most radical, rejectionist Palestinian factions who even now summarily execute Palestinian "collaborators" just as 20 years ago they murdered, maimed and silenced any voice of Palestinian moderation. Sitting home at night, watching the news on U.S. television or C-SPAN's airing of the BBC, Americans who hold these views of the events in Israel must wonder if they're living in some alternative reality. This past week, amid the constant images of Jenin's rubble and elderly men and wailing women in scarves, came word that Amnesty International, the Red Cross and an arm of the U.N. were accusing the Israelis of "human rights abuses." The U.N. Security Council put through an Arab-sponsored resolution to investigate the fighting in Jenin, a place that in fact has been the West Bank's version of the Star Wars bar, the primary haunt and collection point for the most extreme Palestinian gunmen and suicide planners. In the otherwordly moral calculus of post World War II Europe and much media--which these polls suggest is beyond the ken of most Americans--self-evident atrocities such as the Passover suicide bombing are mere stories in the wreckage of the news. But a military counter-strike is a human rights abuse. We have arrived at a point in international affairs at which the degraded concept of moral equivalence would be a step toward the sunshine. It may well be true that Americans born after World War II lost their innocence about the world on September 11, but how fortunate that when this nation is attacked and finds itself in a long, grim war with an enemy dedicated to killing civilians, its people are not so easily diverted by the kind of casuistry, salami-slicing, needle-dancing, opportunism and moral myopia that has gripped the world's opinion-shaping institutions. The White House, meanwhile, presumably worried about its Middle Eastern allies, has over this period taken its policy through a series of flip-flops, sent Colin Powell on a mission to Arafat that about half the people polled called a failure, and yesterday took instruction in Texas on the tender sensibilities of our nominal allies from Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. One would hope that Mr. Bush knows that his most steadfast allies in the war on terror are the same people he asked for support on September 20. The war against global terror is surely far from over, and these are still dangerous times. But what the American people are discovering about themselves bodes well. Mr. Henninger is deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. His column appears Fridays in the Journal and on OpinionJournal.com.

To: spiral3 who wrote (27158)	4/27/2002 1:35:04 AM
From: frankw1900	Respond to of 281500

Any comments on the credibility of this organization would be appreciated. Can't comment on their credibility but I read the poll analysis and their description of methodology and it's conventional - basically they do the same as other pollsters. The real question is how good are their interviewers? [Is the raw data good?] I don't suppose it's an easy environment to do interviews in. Years ago, I did that kind of work and in sometimes difficult environments (jails) probably equal in difficulty or worse than that of the palestinian pollsters. My guess is they're pretty good in that leaders didn't come out looking too great. So they got themselves secure and their subjects comfortable. What is downright interesting is that the commitment to struggling against the Israelis is much greater than that toward particular leaders. This suggests that Arafat and other extremist or totally untrustworthy people are considered expendible by most palestinians. It also suggests that whoever runs a cleaner act will get good support. It also suggests that palestinians will continue to fight agaisnt the Israelis until some reasonable arrangement is come to. Post recent events, it will be interesting to see what their next poll will deliver. Friedrich Ebert Foundation is, I believe, a credible institution. Jochen may know something about them.

To: spiral3 who wrote (27158)	4/27/2002 12:11:59 PM
From: tekboy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Any comments on the credibility of this organization would be appreciated. they're entirely legit and trustworthy. I've met Khatib, and was impressed by his sincerity and (small "l") liberalism. He and Khalil Shikaki, who had the article in Foreign Affairs over the winter, are among the most dependable sources of reliable information on Palestinian public opinion. re Frank's comment that the poll "suggests that whoever runs a cleaner act will get good support [and] ... that palestinians will continue to fight against the Israelis until some reasonable arrangement is come to," that's entirely consistent with the data and conclusions Shikaki presented. That was why Shikaki concluded that for Arafat and the PA the choice was "reform or perish." and as for the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, they're also entirely legit. They're the official foundation arm of the German Social Democratic Party, and do a lot of excellent stuff both at home and abroad. (They've given tg some grant money, for example.<ggg>) Their efforts abroad are comparable to those of the National Democratic Institute (NDI), the Democratic arm of America's National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Friedrich Ebert Foundation website: fes.de National Endowment for Democracy website: ned.org National Democratic Institute website: ndi.org International Republican Institute (Rep. version of NDI) website: iri.org tb@yup.com