75 % of Americans polled reject Middle East Peace Process
by Jerry Gordon, American Congress for Truth blog, October 21, 2007
This weekend we had reports out of the Jerusalem that Fatah gunmen released from Israeli jails tried to assassinate Israeli Prime Minister Olmert during an August meeting with PA President Mahmoud Abbas in Jericho. Further, that Israeli MK’s suggest that Israel’s participation in the up-coming Annapolis peace conference be stopped. I mean if PA President Abbas can’t even control his own Fatah terrorists, what’s the use of trying to see if a ‘peace deal’ can be had, right?
So why is it exactly that President Bush and Secretary of State Condi Rice are “so optimistic about a Middle East peace accord” between Israel and the Palestinians-something the Saudis and the left in the US are pushing for at the upcoming Annapolis conference? Perhaps the award of a glittering Nobel Peace prize?
Dream on. Never happen.
At least you ACT members and the vast majority of Americans in a recent Rasmussen telephone poll know better. Here are the bottom line findings from the well-respected Rasmussen poll released on October 18th:
20% of Americans say it’s likely that the Arab/Israeli conflict can be resolved by the time President Bush leaves office on January 20, 2009 - down from 27% in July.
Seventy-five percent (75%) say success is Not Very Likely or Not at All Likely to be achieved.
Skepticism about the possibility of Israel and the Palestinian people to peacefully exist side-by-side in the Middle East. Only 36% of Americans say it is possible while 37% disagree and 27% are not sure.
If progress is made that might lead to lasting peace, 63% of Americans believe that terrorists would attempt to sabotage the peace process. That figure is essentially unchanged from July.
The July survey found that 60% hold a favorable opinion of Israel while 26% have an unfavorable view of that nation. Just 23% have a favorable opinion of the Palestinians while 62% hold an unfavorable opinion.
67% of Americans consider Israel an ally. Also, a 2006 survey found strong support for the position “that the United States should not support the new Palestinian government until in recognizes Israel’s right to exist.”
So, tell us President Bush and Secretary Rice are you that delusional about trying to get a peace deal, any peace deal, because we need all that $90 a barrel Middle East oil from our ‘friends’ in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates?
We don’t.
In fact, we think it’s time you ‘dropped the veil’ on the Middle East peace nonsense, stopped the Annapolis proceedings and concentrate on something we need- a rational energy program that focuses on unleashing billions of barrels of alternative fuels from oil shale in the Rockies, liquefication of our vast coal fields and bringing more nuclear power on stream.
That’s a real Middle East peace deal.
Tags: Annapolis peace confernce, attempted Fatah assassination of PM Olmert, News, Opinion, Rasmeussen poll
October 21st, 2007 at 9:27 am
As an engineer, your ideas on freeing up the untapped energy resources and using nuclear (where appropriate) are right on track.
But one problem is that everyone is sitting comfortably around the camp-fire singing about solar and hydrogen. Neither will work. I’ve been in solar; great for agrarian India and Africa - call it appropriate technology - but it won’t fry your eggs in the morning. Nor will it run any means of transportation.
The other problem is the Bush family “relationship” with the Saudis. The expression “over a barrel” was never more appropriate.
October 21st, 2007 at 10:41 am
Shalom Keelie,
Good points - and I like the emphasis on “over a barrel”.
Yet, the oil industry is not just the goo showing up at Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (”LOOP”). It also closely involves the finance industry.
Many a personality in both the fin markets and the goo markets know what the Yiddish term “gelt” means - from early childhood.
…………
NB: In 1964,LBJ mothballed the prototype nuclear powered cargo vessel, N.S. Savannah, faster than saying “Abe Fortas”.
Kol tuv,
October 21st, 2007 at 1:14 pm
The Saudis are nuts to be pushing this deal. The new Palestinian state will be an Iranian proxy. It will be an enemy of Saudi Arabia and an evetual existential threat to Saudi Arabia. With that said Middle Eastern hatred of the US and Israel is greater than the hatred that exists between Shia and Sunnis.
Keelie
I think you are spot on about freeing up untapped energy resources and using more nuclear power. If we did this, we would have more leverage when dealing with Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries. Right now we lack any significant leverage. While the realtionship between the Bush family and the Saudis and the relationship between other American leaders and the Saudis is definitely a problem, the biggest problem is the environmntal groups. Right now they are resisting any significant effort to make greater use of nuclear power or tapping into undeveloped oil and gas reserves.
Currently these environmental groups wield significant ifluence within the US governmnet. So called big oil wields very little influence within the US government. At least their influence is no where close to the influence that the main stream media clasims they have. The main stream news media despises the major oil companies.
Mr. Gordon’s second to last sentence is spot on. Unfortunatley to do this one would hsve to fight the major environmental groups. They will never allow this without a fight and they are very powerful. It is doubtful that President Bush could do this by himself, even if he wanted to. He will need help from Congress and from the Government bueracracy. Also, the media will viciously attack anyone who opposes the environmental groups. Its a tall order to be sure, however, it can be done. The American people need to lobby their Government to do this and the politicians need to know that their constituents will have their backs when the attacks from the lackeys of the environmentalists in the main stream news media come.
Rasmusen is one of the best pollsters in the business. as such, I am reasonably certain that these poll results are accurate. I must admit I’m somewhat at a loss to explain them. The elite media has gone out of its way to malign Israel and to praise the Palestinians yet support for Israel still remains relatively strong. I think US support for Israel, to the extent that it actually exists, is best explained by America’s Judeo-Christian heritage. Unfortnately the US has largely abandoned this heritage, however, vestiges of it still remain. In other words, American support for Israel, to the extent it actually exists, is one of the few remaining vestiges of America’s Judeo-Christian founding.
There are additonal reasons to support Israel. Israel acts as the primary buffer between the free world and its terrorist enemies. Any attempts to weaken this buffer make the US and the free world harder to defend. As such, the optimal policy would encourge Israel to expand its borders to increase the size of the buffer. Unfortuatley most Americans and Westerners seem oblivious to Israel’s importance in this regard.
October 21st, 2007 at 2:41 pm
I don’t think Bush or Rice are in the least naive.
I think Bush has directed the SecState to make every attempt to delay the inevitable explosion of all-out ME war and I believe the House of Saud wants the same if for different reasons. GWB isn’t after a worthless Nobel–he wants to save lives and protect US sovereignty.
The enviroweenies are extremely well-funded but their man-made global warming garbage is being exposed for what it is. They can be defeated with facts.
Second, we need to build some refineries–none have come on line since the ’70s. Then we need to open ANWR and exploit more of the Gulf of Mexico for oil and methane. And ram through legislation for building nuke and coal plants.
Oh my, did I leave out first? First we have to overturn congress and get an administration that can communicate the big ideas to a nation that’s been lost in the babble.
October 21st, 2007 at 7:37 pm
keelie,
A question, not a challenge: If solar conversion reaches 40+ percent efficiency, would that be sufficient to challenge oil at $100 a barrel? If not, what is the crossover point to make photovoltaics competitive with oil?
Also, what about thermophotovoltaics? What is the crossover point to make that competitive with oil?
October 22nd, 2007 at 4:12 am
Photovoltaics will always be limited to the storage capacity needed for off peak production usage periods.
There is no getting around that oil is the most fungible of energy products. The US government should declare a national energy emergency, then: drill for oil and gas around our coasts and in ANWR; build up coal production and coal liquifaction; build new refining plants, power stations (including nuclear); and, invest significant dollars in R&D to find real alternatives to oil, gas and coal.
Oil and to some extent gas should be used, as much as possible, for transportation only.
Hasn’t anyone noticed that all the scares about polution and global warming seem to be directed at removing basic fuels from the picture. Fuels that have existed in nature and been used by mankind for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Remove the basics and even the most povery stricken nations will have to purchase expensive alternate fuels instead of what may be sitting in their back yard.
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Turn
You absolutely can defeat the environmentalists with facts, however, it is extremely difficult to get those facts out. The amin stream media makes this very difficult. With that said the facts are sllwly but surely getting out. The US has a vibrant free press, even if it is dominated by the anit-American left. The power of freedom is what the US and Israel represent. This is what the left hates about them.
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:18 pm
davod
Well said. To implement this we will need to break the backs of the enviro-whackos. They arne their allies in the news media will do all they can to block the implementation of such plans. We should be able to do this after “nuclear 911″, however, the Islamic Terrorists/Marxist adversary is growing stronger by the day. By the time “nuclear 911″ happens it may be too late. I hope and pray not but it seems clear that the current strategies are not working.