Sympathy for the Devil

Four days after Israel tanks rolled into the Gaza strip, the Pew Research Centre for People and the Press conducted a poll of 1503 Americans, asking, ‘In the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians, which side do you sympathize with more, Israel or the Palestinians?’. Their principal finding was that 49% sympathised more with Israel, and 11% with the Palestinians. Another 5% volunteered that they didn’t sympathise with either side, and 15% with both, while a remarkable 20% didn’t know. Since Pew did not offer ‘Neither’ and ‘Both’ as response options, but only recorded them when respondents insisted, some, possibly all, of those who ‘Don’t know’ may actually have sympathised with both or neither.

As always, there are problems with the question, although in my view they are far from the most egregious I’ve seen in recent opinion polls. It suggests that there is some kind of parity between ‘Israel’ and ‘the Palestinians’, without actually presupposing or even implying it. Indeed, by naming the country in the case of Israel, and the group of people in the case of the Palestinians, there is almost a hint that there may be some difference, at least in status, but I’m dubious that respondents would have been terribly sensitive to the distinction, except insofar as they might think that being an actual country confers some special legitimacy on Israel. What I suspect would have influenced their answers most is a warm visceral reaction to ‘Israel’ and a corresponding aversion to its perceived enemies. I doubt many respondents would have interpreted ‘the Palestinians’ as incorporating those with Israeli citizenship or in the diaspora.

Now people who read blogs like this are well aware that there was nothing defensive about ‘Operation Cast Lead’, but I’m not entirely confident the same can be said about those who rely on the mainstream media for ‘information’. Since virtually every article about Gaza incorporates a compulsory reference to Israel’s wish to end rocket attacks, casting Israel in the role of victim, I find it surprising that there wasn’t even more support for Israel. But even given the propaganda environment, even for those who firmly believe the hasbarists’ claims about the lengths the IOF went to in avoiding civilian casualties, it’s appalling that only 11% found it in their hearts to sympathise with the mangled orphans on their television screens.

The Pew report, which uncharacteristically omitted to mention the ‘margin of error’, compares the results of the 7-11 January poll with polling results for six European countries from April-May 2007, during the period of the Hamas-Fatah unity ‘government’ in the West Bank and Gaza, concluding that there was ‘more support for the Palestinians than the Israelis’. Under such different conditions, the comparison isn’t really valid. But it seems likely that support for Palestinians in Europe would be higher now than it was in 2007, before the abortive June Fatah coup in Gaza. What they found then was that in Britain, France, Italy, Spain, and Sweden, there was a significant margin of support for the Palestinians over the Israelis, while in Germany more supported Israel. Half of those polled in Italy volunteered, ‘Neither’. Overall, among the six countries, 22% supported Israel, 27% the Palestinians, and 32% volunteered ‘Neither’.

I remain very sceptical of self identification as an indicator of political orientation, but there is a clear correlation between orientation, as measured by Pew, and sympathy to Israel over the Palestinians. Sixty percent of ‘Conservative’ respondents, 50% of ‘Moderates’, and 33% of ‘Liberals’ sympathised more with Israel, while 8% of Conservatives, 11% of Moderates, and 21% of Liberals sympathised with the Palestinians. In every group, there was significantly higher support for Israel than for the Palestinians,

Overall, sympathy for Israel over the Palestinians in the US has increased by 9 percentage points since a poll conducted just prior to the destruction of the World Trade Centre in September 2001, but declined from 52% in August 2006, immediately after Israel’s depredation of Lebanon. It would have been interesting to see the movements in sympathy for the Palestinians over time, but Pew doesn’t report them.

Meanwhile, for the first time, a group of US academics have launched a campaign for the academic and cultural boycott of Israel. Eight days into the initiative, it appears that only 52 have endorsed the call for

1) Refraining from participation in any form of academic and cultural cooperation, collaboration or joint projects with Israeli institutions that do not vocally oppose Israeli state policies against Palestine;

2) Advocating a comprehensive boycott of Israeli institutions at the national and international levels, including suspension of all forms of funding and subsidies to these institutions;

3) Promoting divestment and disinvestment from Israel by international academic institutions;

4) Working toward the condemnation of Israeli policies by pressing for resolutions to be adopted by academic, professional and cultural associations and organizations;

5) Supporting Palestinian academic and cultural institutions directly without requiring them to partner with Israeli counterparts as an explicit or implicit condition for such support.

As I’ve written before, I think it weakens the initiative considerably to exempt institutions that ‘vocally oppose Israeli state policies against Palestine’, because it ‘would put them in the invidious position of taking action to undermine their colleagues without being willing to accept the consequences themselves’. Furthermore, while a selective boycott like this may provide an incentive for universities to express vocal opposition, while sectors outside academia remain untouched. Still, you have to start somewhere, and I certainly encourage any American academics who happen to read this to sign on by emailing the campaign at ‘uscom4acbi [at] gmail.com’.

In contrast, when Alan Dershowitz called on ‘Academic and Professional Colleagues From Around The World’ in June 2007 to endorse this statement

"We are academics, scholars, researchers and professionals of differing religious and political perspectives. We all agree that singling out Israelis for an academic boycott is wrong. To show our solidarity with our Israeli academics in this matter, we, the undersigned, hereby declare ourselves to be Israeli academics for purposes of any academic boycott. We will regard ourselves as Israeli academics and decline to participate in any activity from which Israeli academics are excluded. "

4568, including some who were themselves Israeli or affiliated with Israeli institutions, responded within the first 11 days or so. Although the petition was relaunched last May, it, too, has now closed. The total now stands at 12,113, well short of their goal of 20,000 signatories, but still rather intimidating. I hope that the USACBI initiative will soon overtake Dershowitz’s, but I’m not holding my breath.

In another encouraging recent development, a Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) delegates meeting in Western Australia on Tuesday adopted the following resolutions, among others:

1. This delegates’ meeting of the WA branch of the MUA [hereafter this meeting] calls on the Rudd government to denounce the latest Israeli aggression against Gaza, and to cut all economic, diplomatic, cultural and political ties with the Israeli state until this aggression and the Israeli siege of Gaza ends.

…

4. We will participate fully in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign when it is initiated and support actions related thereof when they are called by either Friends of Palestine WA or other interested parties (including other trade unions). We call on the ACTU and Unions WA to join us in supporting the BDS campaign and specific actions related thereof

5. In furtherance of resolution 4, this meeting recommends State Conference adopt a position of boycotting all Israeli-registered vessels, and all vessels known to be carrying either goods destined for Israel or goods sourced from Israel. [Hat tip to Amy Thomas]

There’s not a great deal of trade between Israel and Australia, but what there is would almost certainly pass through Western Australian ports. While these resolutions are just a first step to the MUA actually blacking Israeli goods, it’s hard to exaggerate the move’s significance as a gesture. If wharfies in Europe and the US were to follow the WA MUA delegates’ lead, they could cripple the Israeli economy. Which just goes to show, when push comes to shove, it’s the ordinary working people who can really make a difference.

Higher education

A telephone survey conducted 30 May to 3 June by Pew Research Center for the People & the Press of a sample of 1503 American adults reveals that 51% now think ‘the U.S. made the wrong decision in using military force against Iraq’. Fifty-six percent ‘think the U.S. should bring its troops home as soon as possible’, which is comparable to the 55% who want the number reduced reported in the Washington Post-ABC News Poll about the same time. But while only 15% in the WP-ABC poll wanted troops removed immediately, 20% gave that response in the Pew poll.

Interestingly, every population separately tabulated has shown a significant increase in the proportion saying bring the troops home since June 2006. Even 29% of identified Republicans held this view, an increase of six percentage points in the last year. Apart from Republicans, every population but three had a majority favouring withdrawal. Pluralities of 49% of both men and White Evengelical Protestants wanted the troops out, with 46% and 45% saying they should stay in Iraq. The only population with a plurality that favoured keeping troops in Iraq was College graduates – 46% said bring them home, 48% said let them stay. Fifty-two percent of those with ‘some college’ and 64% of those with ‘High School or less’ wanted the troops out.

In a rather more disturbing development, 49% of the half sample asked whether ‘the United States has a responsibility to do something about the ethnic genocide in Darfur’ said it did, while 45% of the other half favoured ‘the use of U.S. troops in Darfur as part of a multinational force to help end the ethnic genocide there’.

What’s truly appalling is the wording of the question. It certainly does not go without saying that what’s going on in Darfur is ‘ethnic genocide’ and there is an interesting argument about this on lenin’s tomb. The argument revolves around the issue of whether it is in fact genocide and more significantly whether the characterisation of the situation in Dafur as genocide is a diversion from Iraq. Given the leading question, though, it’s disturbing that less than half think ‘something must be done’ – 34% said it’s not the US’s responsibility and 37% opposed sending troops. It’s also disturbing that even after all the blatant lying and scandals and corruption and cronyism and stolen elections and the completely unjustified decimation of Iraq, that a majority say was wrong, so many American adults still think that the US, and even US troops, can act as a force for good and rescue the suffering Fur. It’s as if they’ve forgotten Somalia and so many other US ‘humanitarian interventions’. Perhaps the large number of refusals – 17% and 18% - are an encouraging sign.

A good idea

The other day, I mentioned the high level of inequality in the land of the free. On Alternet today, Barbara Ehrenreich puts a bit finer point on it than just the Gini Coefficient.

Recent findings shed new light on the increasingly unequal terrain of American society…the rising tide in executive pay does not lift all yachts equally. The latest pay gap to worry about is the one between the CEO and his -- or very rarely her -- third in command.

According to a just-reported study by Carola Frydman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Raven E. Saks at the Federal Reserve, 30-40 years ago, the CEO's of major companies earned 80 percent more, on average, than the third-highest-paid executives. By the early part of the 21st century, however, the gap CEO and the third in command had ballooned up to 260 percent.

Now take a look at what's happening at the very bottom of the economic spectrum, where you might have pictured low-wage workers trudging between food banks or mendicants dwelling in cardboard boxes. It turns out, though, that the bottom is a lot lower than that.

On May 16, a millionaire couple in a woodsy Long Island suburb was charged with keeping two Indonesian domestics as slaves for five years, during which the women were paid $100 a month, fed very little, forced to sleep on mats on the floor, and subjected to beatings, cigarette burns and other torments.

This is hardly an isolated case…Some of America's slaves are captive domestics, like the Indonesian women in Long Island. Others are factory workers, and at least 10,000 are sex slaves…

…Top-ranked college professors, for example, enjoy salaries of several hundred thousand a year, often augmented by consulting fees and earnings from their patents or biotech companies. At the other end of the professoriate, you have adjunct teachers toiling away for about $5000 a semester or less, with no benefits or chance of tenure…adjuncts who moonlight as waitresses or cleaning ladies are legion.

…law firm partners billing hundred of dollars an hour, now has a new proletariat of temp lawyers working for $19-25 an hour in sweatshop conditions...temp lawyers report working 12 hours a day, six days a week, in crowded basements with inadequate sanitary facilities.

Shaun at Hollowpoint linked to my post about ‘the other 0.001%’, including this great old graphic, which I’m copying over here for your delectation.

Meanwhile, a Pew survey carried out in December and early January of 2,007 adults reveals that only 38% of Americans agree that ‘Business corporations generally strike a fair balance between making profits and serving the public interest’, while 58% disagree. No doubt corporations disagree about what is in the public interest, because the LA Times’s Henry Weinstein reports,

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a suit Wednesday that accused a Boeing Co. subsidiary of helping the Central Intelligence Agency facilitate "the forced disappearance, torture and inhumane treatment" of three men the government suspected of terrorist involvement.

"This is the first time we are accusing a blue-chip American company of profiting from torture," ACLU lawyer Ben Wizner said at a news conference in New York City.

Since at least 2001, Jeppesen Dataplan Inc. of San Jose "has provided direct and substantial services to the United States for its so-called 'extraordinary rendition' program,"…the suit said that Jeppesen provided flight and logistical support services for more than 70 extraordinary renditions over a four-year period… a spokesman for Chicago-based Boeing, declined to confirm whether Jeppesen worked for the CIA. "The services Jeppesen provides are provided on a confidential basis for all its customers," he said.

According to Clive Stafford Smith, ‘a British lawyer who has been…serving as co-counsel on the ACLU suit, ‘Corporations should expect to get sued where they are making blood money off the suffering of others’. Smith has clearly failed to absorb the true spirit of capitalism.

And neither, apparently, do a lot of Americans, 76% of whom agree that ‘There is too much power concentrated in the hands of a few big companies’, while 65% think ‘Business corporations make too much profit’. Now in a real democracy like the US, the government is responsive to what the citizens think. So you’d surmise that these crazy attitudes are some kind of fluke or a recent development. It transpires, however, that Pew has tabulated their responses to these questions over the last 20 years and over that period, the proportion who think corporations have too much power has never dropped below 72% (May 1993) and has reached as high as 84% in February 1989, when 72% also thought they made too much profit. The proportion with this peculiar attitude dropped as low as 56% in September 1999.

Some democracy!

Also on Alternet today, Margaret Kimberley of Black Agenda Report writes

The terror attack that took place on September 11, 2001 was an aberration in more ways than one. Muslims were the perpetrators, but that is usually not the case. The purveyors of hate and violence in America are almost always Christians… Muslims are constantly asked to denounce their members who are terrorists. Why is there no similar demand of Christians? Will the good Christians, the peaceful ones, ever speak out against their co-religionists who carry bombs in their cars or drop them on civilians in Iraq?

…few commentators pointed out what Christians tell pollsters about their urge to maim and kill. Most Christians, 65 percent of Protestants and 72 percent of Catholics, believe that torture is justifiable under certain circumstances. Nearly half of Americans, 46 percent, believe that it may be acceptable to deliberately target civilian populations in war time. An average of 75 percent of Muslims in Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia and Morocco believe that such attacks are never acceptable.

Just as it is unfair to smear all Muslims with the legacy of bin Laden, it would be unfair to smear all Christians as disciples of Jerry Falwell. Muslims are constantly asked to denounce their members who are terrorists. Why is there no similar demand of Christians? Will the good Christians, the peaceful ones, ever speak out against their co-religionists who carry bombs in their cars or drop them on civilians in Iraq?

While Americans have been told to fear Islam and all things Muslim, Christians are riding around with home made bombs…The threat from Christians who publicly express a willingness to die for their faith goes unreported…Mark Uhl, a student at [Jerry Falwell’s] Liberty University, was in possession of homemade bombs when he was arrested at Falwell's funeral. He reportedly planned to use them against any protesters who might disrupt the festivities. Uhl had this to say…’The fear of death shows you don't believe…God needs soldiers to fight so his children may live free…’

Christians perpetrated the crusades, the inquisition, the slave trade and imperial adventures too numerous to mention. It may be comforting to pat ourselves on the back and consign those behaviors to past centuries. We are living in the 21st century after all. Who would use the name of the Christian God to justify mass killing? A majority of modern day American Christians, that's who.

Today’s NY Times carries a report by Julia Preston that a study by three law professors of 140,000 decisions by immigration judges on asylum cases between January 2000 and August 2004.

“Oftentimes, it’s just the luck of the draw,” said Cheryl Little, a lawyer and executive director of the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, a legal assistance group in Miami that represents many asylum seekers. “It’s heartbreaking,” Ms. Little said. “How do you explain to people asking for refuge that even in the United States of America we can’t assure them they will receive due process and justice?”

So things are actually worse than they seemed when I wrote about ‘expedited removal’ back in February. ‘…Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me…’ Yeah, right.

In one of the starker examples cited, Colombians had an 88 percent chance of winning asylum from one judge in the Miami immigration court and a 5 percent chance from another judge in the same court.

Curiously, ‘the three professors did not examine the judges’ political affiliation or the administration that appointed them’, even though.

Monica M. Goodling, a former aide to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales,…testified last week that she had “crossed the line” in applying political considerations to candidates for nonpartisan legal jobs. Immigration judges are appointed by the attorney general, and 49 of 226 current judges were appointed during the tenure of Mr. Gonzales

The study also examined 76,000 decisions by the appeals board from 1998 through 2005. The proportion of successful appeals by applicants represented by lawyers declined from 43% in 2001 to 13% in 2005.

American civilisation…‘that would be a good idea’.