Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Poll: Evangelical Republicans are Bibi’s Biggest American Fans

A new poll has revealed that evangelical Christian Republicans are significantly more supportive of Israel and Israeli influence in U.S. politics than non-evangelical Republicans.

LobeLog

Despite his renewed courtship of Democrats (including an embarrassingly eager-to-please Center for American Progress), Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has widened the increasingly striking partisan divide over his popularity in the United States. However, there is one bloc of American voters on whom the Israeli prime minister can rely for consistent support—self-described evangelical Christian Republicans.

The percentage of Democrats who view Netanyahu unfavorably rose from 22% to 34% over the past year, according to a new survey of U.S. opinion towards Israel, Palestine, and the Middle East released Friday at the Brookings Institutions by Shibley Telhami, the Anwar Sadat Chair of the Peace and Development Program at the University of Maryland, and the University’s Program for Public Consultation. Favorable views among Democrats fell from 25% to 18%.

And if Netanyahu hoped to compensate by increasing his support among Republicans, through his strident and much publicized opposition to the Joint Comprehensive Program of Action (JCPOA) between the P5+1 countries and Iran, he has to be disappointed. Favorable views of his leadership remained within the margin of error of last year’s results (from 51% to 49%) in 2014, while unfavorable views actually increased from 9% to 13%. Evangelical Republicans, on the other hand, gave Netanyahu a 66% approval rating.

Those were among the key findings of the survey, which was based on interviews with 875 adult respondents, and an additional 863 self-described evangelical or “born again” Christians, between November 4 and 10.

Picking Sides

The divergence between evangelical Republicans and other voters, including non-evangelical Republicans, was most striking on the question of whether America should pick sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. When asked whether the United States should lean toward one of the two sides, or neither side, when mediating the conflict, 30% of respondents overall said that the U.S. should lean toward Israel, as compared to 66% who believed the U.S. should remain neutral. Among all Republicans, 45% believe the U.S. should support Israel over the Palestinians. But when you remove evangelicals from that group, the number goes down to 36% (with 60% saying the U.S. should remain neutral), consistent with the general public.

A full 77% of evangelical Republicans, on the other hand, want the U.S. to support Israel over the Palestinians. As Telhami noted, “much of the difference between Republicans and the national total disappears once one sets aside Evangelical Republicans…the Israel issue in American politics is seen to have become principally a Republican issue, but in fact, our results show, it’s principally the issue of Evangelical Republicans.”

Evangelicals differed from non-evangelicals, even non-evangelical Republicans, on virtually every question in the poll. When asked, for example, what they believed the U.S. should do if the UN were to take up a resolution creating a Palestinian state, 60% of evangelical Republicans said the U.S. should vote against it, compared with 27% of all respondents and 38% of non-evangelical Republicans.

Asked whether the Israeli government exerts too much, too little, or about the right level of influence on U.S. politics, 37% of the all respondents said too much, 18% too little, and 44% the right level. But 49% of Democrats said it was too much, compared to 25% of Republicans, 52% of whom believe that Israel exerts the right amount of influence on U.S. politics. A plurality of over 39% of self-identified evangelical Republicans, however, said that Israel exerted too little influence on U.S. politics.

Political Impact

Although evangelicals may hold views on Israel that place them outside the American mainstream, those views nonetheless have a sizable political impact. Evangelical Christians make up over a quarter of the U.S. population, according to a 2015 Pew Research poll on religion and public life, and their influence is heavily weighted toward the Republican Party, which concentrates their political influence. Moreover, evangelicals weigh a candidate’s Israel policy more heavily than non-evangelicals. Telhami’s survey, for example, found that 55% of evangelical Christians consider a congressional or presidential candidate’s position on Israel “a lot,” compared with only 23% of non-Evangelical Christians.

Telhami’s findings suggest a link between evangelicals’ religious views and their views on Israel-Palestine. Among the subset of respondents who said that they believe “Christ will return” at “the end times,” just under two-thirds of evangelicals said that “it is essential for current-day Israel to include all the land they believe was promised to Biblical Israel in the Old Testament.” This would include the West Bank, or “Judea and Samaria” to use the preferred Likudist nomenclature.

The survey tends to confirm the results of other recent polls that have found a growing partisan divide—albeit one that appears to be driven by religious affiliation—on almost all issues relating to Israel. This is a trend that no doubt provokes serious headaches at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which, despite Netanyahu, has labored hard to retain a veneer of bipartisanship.

Asked who or what they hold most responsible for the current escalation of violence between Israelis and Palestinians, for example, Democrats and Republicans offer almost a mirror image of each other. Among Democrats, 37% blame continued Israeli occupation and settlement expansion, 35% blame the absence of serious peace diplomacy, while 15% hold Palestinian extremists responsible. Among Republicans, by contrast, a 40% plurality cites Palestinian extremists, followed by 27% who blame the absence of diplomacy, and a mere 16% cite Israel’s occupation and settlement expansion.

Asked how the U.S. should react to Israeli settlement construction, 27% recommended that Washington do nothing. Another 31% said it should limit its opposition to words, while 27% recommended imposing economic sanctions, and another 10% called for stronger action. A strong plurality of all Democrats (49%), however, urged either economic sanctions or more serious forms of pressure on Israel.

Telhami’s poll also echoes similar polls in finding that support for Israel tends to be greater among older respondents than among younger ones. Only 8% of respondents aged 18-24 agreed that Israel has too little influence on American politics, but that number rose to 17% among respondents aged 25-44, 20% among respondents aged 45-64, and 22% among respondents aged 65 and up.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


Falsely demonizing all Muslims, their beliefs, and their institutions is exactly the wrong way to make Americans safer, because the more we scare ourselves with imaginary enemies, the harder it will be to find and protect ourselves from real ones.


Division in the ranks of the conservative movement is a critical sign that a war with Iran isn’t inevitable.


Donald Trump stole the headlines, but the declaration from the recent NATO summit suggests the odds of an unnecessary conflict are rising. Instead of inviting a dialogue, the document boasts that the Alliance has “suspended all practical civilian and military cooperation between NATO and Russia.” The fact is, NATO was a child of the Cold War, when the West believed that the Soviets were a threat. But Russia today is not the Soviet Union, and there’s no way Moscow would be stupid enough to attack a superior military force.


War with Iran may not be imminent, but neither was war with Iraq in late 2001.


Donald Trump was one of the many bets the Russians routinely place, recognizing that while most such bets will never pay off a few will, often in unpredictable ways. Trump’s actions since taking office provide the strongest evidence that this one bet is paying off handsomely for the Russians. Putin could hardly have made the script for Trump’s conduct at the recent NATO meeting any more to his liking—and any better designed to foment division and distrust within the Western alliance—than the way Trump actually behaved.


RightWeb
share