Tuesday, March 20th | 4 Nisan 5778


Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

February 6, 2015 10:32 am

Poll: More Americans Support Than Oppose Netanyahu’s Congress Speech

avatar by JNS.org

Email a copy of "Poll: More Americans Support Than Oppose Netanyahu’s Congress Speech" to a friend

A recent poll revealed that more Americans support than oppose Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's upcoming address at Congress in which he is to discuss the Iranian nuclear threat. Photo: Cherie Cullen.

JNS.org – More Americans support than oppose Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s March 3 speech before a joint session of Congress on the Iranian nuclear threat and radical Islam, a new poll released by Rasmussen Reports revealed.

Forty-two percent of respondents agreed that Netanyahu “should accept Republican congressional leaders’ invitation to address Congress about Iran even if President Obama does not want him to come,” while 35 percent disagreed and 23 percent remained undecided.

Netanyahu said Thursday it was his obligation to speak before Congress, despite protests from the White House and congressional Democrats, due to the gravity of the threat posed to Israel by a bad nuclear deal with Iran.

“I can assure you that millions of Americans will be paying close attention to the prime minister’s words,” US Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told Israel Hayom.

Netanyahu said Thursday that it is his obligation to speak before Congress, despite protests from the White House and congressional Democrats, due to the threat posed to Israel by the potential for a bad nuclear deal between Iran and the P5+1 powers.

“Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said the nuclear talks with the world powers are progressing in the path Iran has planned,” Netanyahu said. “That path leads Iran to becoming a nuclear threshold state with international approval, and all the economic relief. This means Iran will be relieved from all pressure and will be able to arm itself with nuclear bombs. This is very dangerous for Israel, for the region, for peace and for the entire world, and it is my duty as prime minister of Israel to warn of this danger and do everything I can to prevent it from happening.”

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • Jonah

    More Americans support Netanyahu than Obama, that’s why Obsma is in a complete rage about Bebe addressing the congress. Obama has been feeding them slope, liberal spin, outright lies, nothing he says is the truth. Obama knows that Netanyahu’s speech is in direct contrast with his….Netanyahu speaks the truth, Obama is a serial liar. I mean look Obama has just justified burning Jordanians, people are frightened of him, realizing he is crazy. They now realize they elected someone who should be in an asylum.

  • Michael

    So “more Americans support Bibi’s speech than oppose it”. What does that mean? You can also declare that most Americans believe in God. That’s how stupid the general public is.

  • The most obvious and dangerous cause of conflict and instability in the Middle East is the so-called peace process itself

    Let me advance an interesting opinion: The most dangerous cause of instability in the Middle East is the so-called peace process itself.
    I know this is an unusual point of view. Give me a chance to describe my theory.
    By my count, there have been at least 25 major outbursts of violence between Jews and Arab-Palestinians in the Middle East since 1920.
    Every one of these conflicts ended in a similar way. Either outside powers imposed a ceasefire — or else Israel halted military operations, before the campaign was accomplished and just before a ceasefire could be imposed.
    Every one of these conflicts began in a similar way, too: with a renewed attack by the Arab side, or else (as in 1956 or 1967) by Arab violations of the terms of the previous armistice or ceasefire and a blockade in the Suez Canal.
    Think for a minute how unusual this is. Wars usually end when one side or the other decides it cannot continue fighting. The losing side accepts terms it had formerly deemed unacceptable because the alternative — continued fighting — seems even worse. Wherever have you heard the vanquished calling the terms.
    I doubt many Hungarians are delighted to have lost more than half their territory to neighbors in Romania and the former Yugoslavia. The Bolivians still remember the loss of their Pacific coast to Chile in 1884. Some in Indonesia continue to regard East Timor as rightfully theirs.
    Yet for the most part, these nations have reconciled themselves to these unwelcome outcomes.
    Exactly the opposite has occurred in the Arab-Israeli dispute.
    Egypt lost the Sinai Peninsula in 1956, but got it back by pressuring Israel. It lost the Sinai again in 1967, and again recovered it (although this time the right way, after signing a formal peace). I might mention that when Egypt gained its independence, it did not include the Sinai.
    Syria lost the Golan in 1967, it attacked Israel in 1973, lost again — and still demands the return of the territory.
    Arab-Palestinians rejected the 1947 partition, resorted to war, lost, and to this day demand compensation for their losses.
    It is like a game of roulette where the management stops the game whenever you begin losing too badly, with promises to refund your money as soon as it conveniently can. What gambler could resist returning to the tables?
    I understand why Western governments have acted as they have. They have feared that unless they somehow smooth the situation, the world oil market will be upset and radical ideologies will spread through the Islamic world. Just like the Arab oil embargo of 1973.
    What they do not see is that their efforts to contain the problem have in fact aggravated it, and accelerated the hostilities by the Arabs.
    Think of this alternative history:
    Suppose that the Western world had not intervened in 1949. Suppose the Israeli war of independence had been fought to the bitter end: Arab armies breaking apart and fleeing, as they have in the past, commanders laying down their arms, columns of refugees crossing the Jordan River.
    The 1949 war would have ended not with an armistice, but with a surrender. Arab-Palestinian refugees would have had to settle in new homes, just as the million Jews expelled from their former homes in the Arab lands resettled in Israel.
    The outcome would have squelched any hope that more fighting would have yielded a different result — and the more decisive result might have dissuaded Arab governments from any further attempts to resort to force.
    Now Think of another scenario.
    In the 1990″²s, the former Yugoslavia erupted into war. New states with new borders were carved out of the old country. Hundreds of thousands of people were displaced. Horrific atrocities were committed. Happily, the conflict end. The displaced adjusted to life in their new homes. Former enemies may still mistrust each other, but violence has faded and seems unlikely to return.
    Suppose instead the world had agreed that one of the combatant ethnic groups — the Serbs, say, but it really does not matter — retained a permanent inextinguishable right to reclaim its former homes with all its new offspring’s. Suppose the world agreed to pay displaced persons from that group billions in foreign aid on condition that they never permanently resettled in the territory to which the ethnic group had moved. Suppose the world tolerated Serbian terrorist attacks on Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo as understandable reactions to injustice. The conflict and violence would continue.
    Would there be peace in the former Yugoslavia today?
    The Middle East peacemakers for the most part act with the highest of intentions and the most exquisite patience. But instead of extinguishing the conflict, they have prolonged it. A peace process intended to insulate the Arab world from the pain of defeat has condemned the Arab world — and the Arab-Palestinian people above all — to an unending war, which is initiated by the Arabs.
    Every war must end — and end badly for at least one of the belligerents. It is time for this war to end too, and at last.

    May the victor be merciful.

    YJ Draiman

  • Moral and ethical bankruptcy
    Americans are finding a grotesque echo in the moral – ethical bankruptcy and worse of a substantial sector of American society.
    The “moral depravity” of “the Arabs” who kill innocent civilians. It is more than moral depravity. It is a culture that teaches, educates and breeds hate toward other societies that are not like them as they say “infidels”.
    There is no way this situation should be handled with kid gloves – when a poison strikes your body, you remove it and destroy it completely, leaving no trace of such poison.
    History has shown that these types of atrocities and acts of barbarism have increased in the past half a century and getting worse by the day.
    With today’s advancement in technology and telecommunications, the world has shrunk, events on the other side of the world affect everybody (like the Japanese Nuclear reactor fallout, ISIS barbaric acts, etc.) it affects our health our economy, brings fear and uncertainty to our lives.
    The financial crisis we are facing today is the price we pay for years of neglect and government abuse of power.
    Is today’s society heading toward annihilation, you be the judge?
    YJ Draiman
    P.S. The Qur’an 17:104 – states the land belongs to the Jewish people