I REALLY DISLIKE THIS GUY AND WOULDN'T POST ANY OF HIS OPINION

[mord]

 PIECES BUT BECAUSE I AGREE I'LL POST IT. ANOTHER THING THE POLLSTER WHO TOOK THE POOL IS BARELY KNOWN POLLSTER WHO ONLY DOES LEFT WING POLLS                http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/rosner/entry/j_street_s_survey_is   










Rosner's Domain: J Street's survey is a joke, again
Posted by SHMUEL ROSNER
Comments: 8
Decrease text sizeDecrease text size
Increase text sizeIncrease text size

I was not the only one writing quite critically on previous J Street polls, but they were not discouraged and keep publish their version of what-Jews-in-America-really-believe data. Their new poll of the American Jewish Community deals with the possibility of military strike on Iran, but also with issues with which they've dealt last year.

"The poll finds an extraordinarily strong base of 69 percent of American Jews firmly supporting active American engagement in bringing about Middle East peace", J Street announces. Last year they've made the same assertion on which I wrote this: "Can you imagine a J Street poll suggesting that most American Jews oppose a vigorous Israeli-Palestinian peace process? Can you imagine such a poll asserting that American Jews oppose any American pressure on Israel to make compromises?"

But let's dig dipper into this new survey: Let's talk about those 69% of "firm" supporters of "active" engagement.

1.

But the press release also mentions that supporters of engagement will be willing to tolerate it "even if it means publicly disagreeing with or exerting pressure on both Arabs and Israelis". That's somewhat misleading because the way the questions in this survey were framed people didn't have much choice: "Would you support or oppose the United States playing an active role in helping the parties to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict if it meant the United States publicly stating its disagreements with both the Israelis and the Arabs?" 46% strongly support, 39% somewhat support. J Street conveniently count this as 86% of support. I think that's hardly the case: the 39% who somewhat support meant to say that they support the "pressure on Arabs" but not "pressure on Israelis" part. Thus, there's a strong case to be made that they should be counted with a majority opposing pressure on Israel.

Same problem one might have with the question of "exerting pressure on both the Israelis and Arabs". 43% strongly support such pressure. Presumably on both, but it can also be: strongly support a pressure when it's justified, and are more likely to think that pressure on the Arab side is more justified. But even if you count all "strong" supporters as people supporting pressure on Israel, there's still no majority, because the conclusion regarding "somewhat" people is really questionable.

And anyway, there's also this part of the question about "compromises necessary to achieve peace?" Because I also support pressure to get the compromises that can bring about peace, I just don't think such compromises exist. Not now. Probably not ever. And since this poll doesn't specify any compromises, just tells interviewees that it's those compromises that will get us all peace - it essentially gives them the choice not between "pressure" and "none-pressure" but rather between support and oppose peace. Those who answer the question in the negative oppose peace. That's hardly a position in which a nice Jewish American wants to find himself.

2.

J Street was using the same trick last July. It was giving interviewees two statements from which to support one. That’s a great way with which to make people give you the answer you need. Take this one for example:

Choice number 1: Israel cannot rely on peace agreements with its enemies to provide security, and in the long run, Israel can only achieve real security by maintaining its military superiority.

Choice number 2: Israel must always maintain its strong military, but in the long run, Israel can only achieve real security through peace agreements that end conflicts and establish internationally recognized borders

I really think this is a question tailored to J Street needs. The fact is, that a majority, 49%, choose number two over number one. Is it because they think peace is around the corner? Is it because they think a strong military is secondary to peace. No. it's because number one gives them only the military option, while number two gives them the benefit of both worlds: Israel can "Maintain its strong military" AND "security through peace agreements".

What do you think would have happened had J Street eliminated the "strong military" from its second choice and asked Jewish Americans if they think Israel can really rely on peace agreements? I think we know the answer. I think J Street folks know the answer. That's why they didn't ask.

3.

And how many Jewish Americans were strongly opposed to Israel's Gaza op? 9%. Here’s a needed reminder, because I don't think J Street will bother reminding you this fact. J Street - supposedly representing a majority view of US Jews, was against the Gaza op.

In the press release, though, this information turns into spin in this fashion: "While Jews rallied behind Israel and approved of Israel's military action by a 3 to 1 margin, 59 percent still felt that the military action had no impact on Israel's security (41 percent) or made Israel less secure (18 percent), while only 41 percent felt it made Israel more secure". Well, maybe this means that Jewish Americans think Israel was not aggressive enough?

4.

Another spin: the press release says that "One in three believe their own connection to Israel will be diminished if [Avigdor] Lieberman assumes a senior position in the Israeli cabinet". While I don't think Lieberman's appointment is easy for American Jews, and I do believe it will damage Israel's image, the J Street press release a joke. Again, the trick is in the wording of questions. The one in three J Street refers to did not say that their "connection to Israel will be diminished" - they chose the option "Weakens my personal connection to Israel because Lieberman's positions go against my core values". The problem: those Americans who do not like Lieberman didn't have any other choice enabling them to distance themselves from Lieberman. This means that they could only make one of two choices: say that it will have no impact on their feelings, or say that it will, but this also forced them into the camp of "weakening connection".

How about: we don't like Lieberman, his appointment upsets us, but it will not weaken our support and connection to Israel? Maybe they'll have such question in the next survey, but don't bet your money on it.

5.

Bottom line: J Street is a lobby group, and believing the polls of lobbying groups is always problematic. They should have been extra careful if they want me to believe their numbers. But they're not.