Right Web

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

Poll: Evangelical Republicans are Bibi’s Biggest American Fans

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

Zalmay Khalilzad is Donald Trump’s special representative to the Afghan peace process, having previously served as ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq under George W. Bush.


Robert Joseph played a key role in manipulating U.S. intelligence to support the invasion of Iraq and today is a lobbyist for the MEK.


Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks, and one of the prime vacillators among Republicans between objecting to and supporting Donald Trump.


Elliott Abrams, the Trump administration’s special envoy to Venezuela, is a neoconservative with a long record of hawkish positions and actions, including lying to Congress about the Iran-Contra affair.


Mike Pompeo, Donald Trump second secretary of state, has driven a hawkish foreign policy in Iran and Latin America.


Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is known for his hawkish views on foreign policy and close ties to prominent neoconservatives.


Nikki Haley, Donald Trump’s first U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and is widely considered to be a future presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

François Nicoullaud, the former French ambassador to Iran, discusses the ups and downs of Iran-France relations and the new US sanctions.


Effective alliances require that powerful states shoulder a far larger share of the alliance maintenance costs than other states, a premise that Donald Trump rejects.


The new imbroglio over the INF treaty does not mean a revival of the old Cold War practice of nuclear deterrence. However, it does reveal the inability of the West and Russia to find a way to deal with the latter’s inevitable return to the ranks of major powers, a need that was obvious even at the time the USSR collapsed.


As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump appeared to recognize the obvious problem of the revolving door. But as the appointment of Patrick Shanahan, who spent 30 years at Boeing, as the Trump administration’s acting secretary of defense reveals, little has changed. America is indeed great again, if you happen to be one of those lucky enough to be moving back and forth between plum jobs in the Pentagon and the weapons industry.


Domestic troubles, declining popularity, and a decidedly hawkish anti-Iran foreign policy team may combine to make the perfect storm that pushes Donald Trump to pull the United States into a new war in the Middle East.


The same calculus that brought Iran and world powers to make a deal and has led remaining JCPOA signatories to preserve it without the U.S. still holds: the alternatives to this agreement – a race between sanctions and centrifuges that could culminate in Iran obtaining the bomb or being bombed – would be much worse.


With Bolton and Pompeo by his side and Mattis departed, Trump may well go with his gut and attack Iran militarily. He’ll be encouraged in this delusion by Israel and Saudi Arabia. He’ll of course be looking for some way to distract the media and the American public. And he won’t care about the consequences.


RightWeb
share