portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

human & civil rights | imperialism & war

Arab- and Jewish-American Agreement on U.S. Middle East Policy

The poll demonstrates the fallacy, fostered by groups like AIPAC (the pro-Israel lobby) and believed by too many politicians, that Arab Americans and Jewish Americans are poles apart in their views of Middle East peace. They are not.
The Arab-Jewish Agreement
James J. Zogby
June 05, 2007


Dr. James J. Zogby is president of the Arab American Institute.

In the flush of excitement that greeted the 2002 release of the Geneva Agreements (a framework for Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiated by leading, though "unofficial," Israelis and Palestinians), the Arab American Institute (AAI) and Americans for Peace Now (APN) polled Arab Americans and American Jews to test their support for the terms of the agreement. We found that not only did both communities demonstrate significant support for a resolution to the conflict along the lines of the Geneva Agreements, they also agreed on a host of other issues related to U.S. Middle East policy.

Five years later our two groups undertook a follow-up survey. We commissioned Zogby International (ZI) and, during the week of May 22, 2007, we polled 501 Arab Americans and an identical number of American Jews. We found that, despite the violence and pain that bloodied the Middle East during the intervening years, the two communities still show significant agreement on almost every issue central to Arab-Israeli peace and U.S. policy in the region.

Strong majorities of both Arab Americans and American Jews still support the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both want an end to the 40 years of occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (two-thirds of American Jews and 89 percent of Arab Americans). Over 80 percent of both Arab Americans and American Jews agree that the U.S. should support negotiations between Israel and Syria, and over three-quarters of both communities favor a diplomatic approach over a military confrontation with Iran.

Furthermore, 80 percent of both communities agree with the finding of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group that "The United States will not be able to achieve goals in the Middle East unless the United States deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict" and 70 percent of American Jews and 82 percent of Arab Americans support the 2002 Arab League Peace Initiative as the "basis for negotiations."

What is striking about the results is the depth of the agreement. In many instances, the responses given by the two groups are near identical or, at least, within the margin of error of each other.

Strong majorities of both communities rate the Clinton Administration's handling of the Arab-Israeli conflict as effective, while only an identical 20 percent of each rate Bush's efforts as effective. And almost two-thirds of Arab Americans and American Jews say they would be more likely to support a 2008 presidential candidate who promised to "take an active role in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process," with nearly 60 percent of each community saying that they would be more likely to support a candidate who supported the Israeli-Syrian peace negotiations. Ninety percent of Arab Americans and American Jews agree that it is important for their two communities to work together to support a Middle East peace where "Palestinians and Israelis each have the right to live in an independent state of their own."

In fact, there were only a few areas of disagreement. When asked how the Bush Administration should pursue Arab-Israeli peace, two thirds of Arab Americans agree that the President should "steer a middle course" between the Israelis and the Palestinians. American Jews, on the other hand, are divided, with 44 percent saying the Administration should support Israel and 40 percent saying "steer a middle course."

Both communities strongly support the statement "Israelis have a right to live in a secure and independent state of their own" (98 percent of American Jews and 88 percent of Arab Americans); and the statement "Palestinians have the right to live in a secure and independent state of their own" (90 percent of American Jews, 96 percent of Arab Americans). But they don't think that about each other. Only 34 percent of American Jews believe that Arab Americans support the Israeli right noted above, while a significantly higher 60 percent of Arab Americans believe American Jews support the Palestinian right.

It can be hoped that when the results of this AAI/APN poll become better known in both communities, they can provide the impetus for joint action in support of mutually shared goals. Aside from providing the basis for better understanding and joint action, the poll demonstrates the fallacy, fostered by groups like AIPAC (the pro-Israel lobby) and believed by too many politicians, that Arab Americans and American Jews are poles apart in their views of Middle East peace. They are not.

Forty years into the occupation, both communities are saying "enough." They want the violence and occupation to end. They want a comprehensive Middle East peace, and they want the kind of U.S. leadership that will work to make that peace a reality.

The Clinton Hoax 06.Jun.2007 12:23

Harry K

While I am heartened by most of this, I am chagrined by continuing failure of my fellow citizens to recognize the role that Democrats, including the sainted ones, have played in destroying Palestinian society.


from: Interview With Chomsky
In Depth Discussion on Israel/Palestine
April 02, 2002


The goal of the Oslo process was accurately described in 1998 by Israeli academic Shlomo Ben-Ami just before he joined the Barak government, going on to become Barak's chief negotiator at Camp David in summer 2000. Ben-Ami observed that "in practice, the Oslo agreements were founded on a neo-colonialist basis, on a life of dependence of one on the other forever." With these goals, the Clinton-Rabin-Peres agreements were designed to impose on the Palestinians "almost total dependence on Israel," creating "an extended colonial situation," which is expected to be the "permanent basis" for "a situation of dependence." The function of the Palestinian Authority (PA) was to control the domestic population of the Israeli-run neocolonial dependency. That is the way the process unfolded, step by step, including the Camp David suggestions. The Clinton-Barak stand (left vague and unambiguous) was hailed here as "remarkable" and "magnanimous," but a look at the facts made it clear that it was -- as commonly described in Israel -- a Bantustan proposal; that is presumably the reason why maps were carefully avoided in the US mainstream.