It's come to this: Israelis have less favorable view of Obama than do Iranians
President Hussin Obama's campaign to endear himself to Iranians is paying off. He is now
more unpopular in Israel than he is in Iran.
The poll, conducted by the World Independent Network of Market Research and Gallup International Association, asked residents of 65 countries to indicate whether they had a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable opinion of each of 10 world leaders.
President Obama scored highest with a 59 percent favorable rating worldwide, followed by Merkel with 42 percent, British Prime Minister David Cameron with 37 percent, French President Francois Hollande with 35 percent and Russian President Vladimir Putin with 33 percent. Iranian President Hassan Rohani placed last at 19 percent, just behind Saudia Arabia's King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud with 20 percent.
Each leader was also given an unfavorable rating, as well as a net score comprised of the difference between the first two ratings. Obama had by far the best score worldwide with +30 percent, followed by Merkel and Cameron with +13 percent and +10 percent, respectively. Putin evoked strong emotions, being the third most unpopular leader with a net score of -10 percent, just behind King Salman (-11 percent) and Rohani (-13 percent).
Israelis clearly view Obama much less favorably than most people around the world, giving him a net score of -22 percent. Israel's net score for Obama was 61st in the world, one spot behind Iran, which gave him a -21 percent net rating.
Obama's net score in Israel placed him in between Putin (-20 percent) and China's Xi Jinping (-22 percent). In contrast, Israelis gave Merkel a +38 percent net score, far ahead of Cameron, who got +15 percent.
Yeah, we know, the feeling is mutual.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Gallup, Hassan Rohani, Iran
Yowza! Poll shows Bush more popular than Obama
Could it be that the American people have finally figured out what it means to have a
community organizer as President?
In a Gallup tracking poll released Tuesday, former-President George W. Bush currently stands with a favorability rating of 49%, compared to 46% who see the 43rd president unfavorably. Meanwhile, another Gallup poll shows President Obama with only a 47% approval rating, with 44% disapproving.
If you think about it, this makes perfect sense.
After all, Obama fooled everyone when he ran as the anti-Bush in 2008.
Everyone thought Obama meant he would be less hawkish than his
predecessor. But as we have seen, Obama apparently has no problem
killing American citizens via remote control with drones or greatly
expanding upon Bush's surveillance state. This, even though Obama told
us he had pretty much won the War on Terror.
Therefore, it appears that what Obama meant by promising to be the anti-Bush is that, unlike George W. Bush, Obama would not
get us out of a recession and into many years of economic prosperity.
There would also be successful terror attacks on American soil during
Obama's watch and a litany of scandals unseen in almost a half-century.
Heh.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Gallup, George W. Bush
Hmmm....
A study of Gallup polls for the last 25 years shows that
American support for Israel is highest when there is no 'peace process' and lowest when it is pursuing concessions to the 'Palestinians.' Evelyn Gordon explains why.
This may seem counterintuitive, but it actually shouldn’t surprise anyone. The Oslo years were when Israel most enthusiastically endorsed the Palestinians’ narrative that they, not Israel, are the ones with a “right” to the territories. Because the Palestinians, not being public-relations morons, never reciprocated the favor, what Americans essentially heard from both sides was that Israel is a thief, depriving Palestinians of the land and statehood they deserve. Unsurprisingly, that caused pro-Israel sympathy to decline.
Certainly, Americans care about peace. But they care even more about justice. So if Israel is to maintain America’s sympathies, it must resume pushing the justice of its cause – from its historic and legal claim to the territories to the international guarantees of defensible borders it has received over the years – rather than that of the Palestinians. As the Gallup data shows, downplaying its own rights for the sake of “peace” turns out to be the worst strategy Israel can pursue.
Sounds good to me.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Gallup, Middle East peace process
Gallup: Maybe Israel is better off without a 'peace process'?
A new Gallup survey out this week shows that
most Americans support Israel over the 'Palestinians.'
Americans' views toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict held fairly steady over the past year, with a near record-high 63% continuing to say their sympathies lie more with the Israelis. Seventeen percent sympathize more with the Palestinians.
In measuring Americans' sympathies toward the disputants in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since 1988, Gallup has found support for Israel consistently exceeding support for the Palestinians. However, the percentage who are neutral -- saying they sympathize equally with both, sympathize with neither, or expressing no opinion -- has shifted, with corresponding changes in support for Israel. While the reasons for these changes are not always evident, public neutrality was generally higher in the 1990s as the Palestinians and the Israelis often met at Clinton administration-sponsored peace summits.
Conversely, support for Israel increased during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, as well as immediately after the 9/11 attacks in 2001 and during the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war -- all events that may have enhanced Israel's perceived value to the U.S. as a Mideast ally. Sympathy toward Israel was also higher in polling conducted shortly after Hamas' victory in the 2006 Palestinian elections compared with the year prior, perhaps for the same reason.
The new results are from Gallup's Feb. 2-5, 2011, update of the annual Gallup World Affairs survey, conducted as the citizen uprising in Egypt was unfolding.
Read the whole thing.
I find it curious that support for Israel jumps whenever there is no 'peace process,' while support for neutrality jumps whenever there is one. For example, support for Israel fell from 2004 to 2005 (when we were giving away Gaza and getting 'peace'), rose from 2005 to 2007 (when it was clear that we did not get peace by giving away Gaza, but before Annapolis started), was flat from 2007-09 (while Annapolis was going on), and rose starting in 2009 (when the 'Palestinians' slammed the door on direct negotiations). See the chart below.
Maybe we're better off without a 'peace process'?
Quick -
someone tell Bibi.
Labels: Annapolis process, Binyamin Netanyahu, direct talks, Gallup, Gaza expulsion, Middle East peace process
