Europe's Israel romance is on the wane

[TomClash]

In Europe, Israel has historically enjoyed a high level of support, not least because it was perceived as a progressive democracy in a sea of Arab backwardness. At the same time, most Europeans knew very little about the Israel-Palestine conflict: as recently as 2004, the Glasgow University Media Group found that only 9% of British students knew that the Israelis were the illegal occupiers of Palestinian land. Astonishingly, there were actually more people (11%) who believed that the Palestinians were occupying the territories.

However, according to a new poll by ICM for the Middle East Monitor, Europeans' perception of Israel has changed decisively, and their understanding of the Israel-Palestine conflict, while still giving some cause for concern, has improved significantly. The survey of 7,000 people in Germany, France, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands and Britain reveals only a small minority (10%) now believe their countries should support Israel rather than the Palestinians, while many more, 39%, think they should not.

This shift in European public opinion may owe something to an improved understanding of the conflict; 49% of respondents were now able to identify Israel as the occupying power. However, 22% still didn't know. This persistence of ignorance about issues that have been long established in international law may reflect media bias, or inadequate coverage of the conflict. It could also be a result of campaigns undertaken by the Israeli public relations machinery in Europe. Whatever the cause, the shift in public opinion is clearly not mainly due to the success of a pro-Palestinian lobby.

This decisive shift appears to be primarily a consequence of Israel's violation of international law, specifically its actions in Gaza, the 2010 attack on the humanitarian flotilla, its settlement expansion programme, and the construction of the separation wall.

more . . .

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/14/europe-israel-palestine-european-disconnect-public

[aquart]

1. "Romance," my ass.

Europe had two thousand years of Jewish blood on its hands and was hysterically relieved to channel its immediate guilt over the German mass murders of Jews into championing a Jewish homeland far away from Europe. "Romance." LOL!

[kayecy]

2. You can fool some of the people some of the time but eventually realisation dawns on them.....n/t

[Kurska]

3. Presenting your partisan view as "Fact" like in this article

is why journalism is dieing in the western world. In this case all the "correct" views are "Do you agree with me?". Does anyone really doubt there was some serious push polling going on in the questions asked?

[shaayecanaan]

4. I remember the teacher showing Leon Uris' "Exodus" video in history class

It was presented as serious history. The teacher wasn't any kind of ideologue; this was simply the way that Israel was viewed at the time (this was in the mid-1990s).

[oberliner]

6. What country was this in? nt

[shaayecanaan]

7. Australia (nt)

[oberliner]

13. Wonder if that would have happened (or did happen) in Europe

Not sure that this "romance" cited in the article was what the author thinks it was. Certainly not in early 200s, which the author uses as an apparent point where the romance was high. Surveys show the opposite.

[shaayecanaan]

15. Im not sure if you're referring to this survey...

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/mar11/BBCEvals_Mar11_rpt.pdf

but I would agree with you. I don't think the turning point was 2003 or 2004.

If I had to nominate a time, I would probably point to the 1996 Grapes of Wrath campaign. This was the first time that heretofore sympathetic press outlets (such as Murdoch's newspapers and Conrad Black's operations in Canada) were unreservedly critical of Israel.

In the case of Conrad Black's newspapers the incident resulted in a change in editorial policy. Previously, any criticism of Israel had to be immediately mollified by making some criticism against its Arab opponents. The New York Times also abandoned a similar policy at around the same time, although it was only in 1999 that the word "occupation" appeared in an editorial, and even then it was more or less an indirect quote.

[oberliner]

16. I was referencing the quote from the article: "as recently as 2004..."

The author seemed to suggest that there has been a major change between 2004 and today with respect to European attitudes towards Israel; I do not believe that to be true.

I'd be curious to see surveys from the early 1990's to see if they bear out your theory.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. What a coincedence. You didn't go to school in Canberra, did you? n/t

[shaayecanaan]

10. No, this was in sunny Queensland...

I held different political views at the time (ie "conventional" Lebanese Catholic views) and consequently it didn't bother me very much.

Concern for the Palestinians wasn't very topical back then. Ironically, this was the time of the first intifada during which stone throwers were being routinely shot by the Israeli soliders, and it was before anyone had ever heard of Hamas or suicide bombers. So you would think that if ever there was a time for Palestinians to receive sympathetic treatment it would have been then.

Exactly how and why perceptions of the conflict have changed since then is an interesting question.

[shira]

5. Yawn. The article lost me at the point it claimed Israel's occupation is illegal. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

9. Yet an article that's riddled with anti-Muslim bigotry doesn't lose you?

I'm talking about that thread from yesterday where you claimed there were valid points amongst the bigotry (and it was riddled with it, and it wasn't confined to the last paragraph)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x345154#345220

I'm wondering why if you could put up with reading bigotry to dig out 'reasonable' points from it, what makes saying the occupation is illegal worse and turns you away from reading an entire article and doing some digging for reasonable points?

[shira]

11. Fail.

See here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x345154#345542

I agree.

==============

But it's difficult taking anything you say about bigotry seriously, considering you can't think of one credible Jewish organization dedicated to fighting antisemitism that you find to be reliable...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=344739&mesg_id=345405

Imagine someone here having a hard time finding one Muslim organization dedicated to fighting anti-Muslim bigotry that they find credible.

:eyes:

In addition, you claim to not know whether fascist bigots like George Galloway or Yvonne Ridley are actual antisemites are not.

Not to mention I've never seen you once criticize the PA/Hamas for antisemitic incitement that leads to terror attacks vs. Jews.

And you wish to lecture others on bigotry?

FAIL.

[Violet_Crumble]

14. That was definately a failure in answering the question you were asked...

Also a fail when it comes to changing the subject, as there's skillful and subtle ways of doing it and that sure wasn't either...

I want you to focus on what I asked you instead of trying real hard to change the subject. I'll ask the question again, because I'm genuinelly curious to know. After posting in the other thread a claim that there were valid points amongst the bigotry and clearly taking the time to read through it all, how can it be that less than 24hrs later you've refused to read an entire article because you disagree with a technical point that's in no way bigoted. I don't understand how saying the occupation is illegal is more offensive to you than someone saying that global Islam is trying to take over the world. Could you explain how that works?

As for the rest of whatever that was supposed to be in yr post, I'm going to take them to the threads they're in instead of allowing you to use them as an opportunity to derail this thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=344739&mesg_id=345677

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=345180&mesg_id=345681

As to what you claim to see or not to say, as I've told you many times before, I don't give a shit as in the past you've 'seen' me say things I've actually said the complete opposite of....

[shira]

18. Fail.

You really need to concentrate on answering questions I ask you rather than ask me why I questioned you in the first place.

No more evasions, okay? It's pretty blatant.

But I agree with you about not wanting to derail threads so that's it for posting here...

[Violet_Crumble]

20. You seem to be trying to mimic me for some strange reason...

You really need to concentrate on answering questions I ask you rather than ask me why I questioned you in the first place.

No more evasions, okay? It's pretty blatant.

But I agree with you about not wanting to derail threads so that's it for posting here...

Unless this is some sick 'switching bodies' thing I'm not aware of, I'm the one who asked you a question (do I need to repeat it yet again or will you continue to ignore it?) and you came along and dragged things in from other threads in an attempt to change the subject. I've replied in the relevent threads so as to help you focus on the question that you were asked which you have yet to answer. So, feel free to give answering the question I try any time you feel like participating in some genuine and civil discussion. Because this habit you have of evading or even outright refusing to answer questions is getting tiring...

[shira]

23. I wish you'd stop derailing this thread and answer my questions. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

25. Um, I'm the one who asked you a question that you won't answer...

I'm not sure what the problem is here, but are you alright? There seems to be a lot of confusion and lack of focus in yr posts, as well as an inability to click on links and read what's at the end of the linky...

[kayecy]

12. A yawn but you offer no support for your belief that the occupation is illegal.......Typical....

Belief without evidence is gullibility.....Belief, in spite of the evidence, is delusion.

No doubt he Incas yawned when the Spanish told them the earth went round the sun.

[shira]

19. It's no more illegal than the US occupation of Germany or Japan.

Now everyone agrees Jordan's occupation of the WB was illegal.

You propose that Israel should have given back the WB to Jordan in order for them to continue their illegal occupation?

[Violet_Crumble]

21. What makes Israel's occupation legal while making Jordan's illegal?

I'm really curious to see what yr justification for that is...

[shira]

22. UNSCR242, which permits Israel to occupy land until it has secure, recognized borders. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

24. And how did that make Jordan's occupation illegal?

Apart from the obvious fact 242 doesn't make Israel's occupation legal.

[Violet_Crumble]

17. It makes sense that increased knowledge of the conflict coincides with less support for Israel...

Israel hasn't exactly done itself any favours in the PR stakes, what with the killing of so many Palestinian civilians in Operation Cast Lead, the killings on the Gaza flotilla, and the intransigence when it comes to settlement construction....