DataPDF Available

Abstract

Data from two UMD Critical Issues Polls conducted in September and October 2019 (Questionnaire: https://criticalissues.umd.edu/sites/criticalissues.umd.edu/files/UMCIP%20Middle%20East%20Questionnaire.pdf) (Full PowerPoint: https://criticalissues.umd.edu/sites/criticalissues.umd.edu/files/UMCIP%20Middle%20East%20PowerPoint.pdf)
1
Shibley Telhami, Director
Stella Rouse, Associate Director
American Attitudes toward the Middle East
Survey Methodology
(September 2019)
The survey was carried out September 3-20, 2019 online from a nationally representative sample
of Nielsen Scarborough's probability-based panel, originally recruited by mail and telephone
using a random sample of adults provided by Survey Sampling International. The poll was
conducted among a national poll of 3,016 respondents, with a margin of error of +/- 1.78%.
Overall, the sample was adjusted to reflect population estimates (Scarborough USA+/Gallup) for
Americans. The survey variables balanced through weighting were: age, gender, race/ethnicity,
household income, level of education, census regional division, and political party affiliation.
Valuable assistance was provided by Scott Willoth, Tisha Jett, Lauren Morris, and January Lee
from Nielsen Scarborough. Brittany Kyser, Connor Kopchick, Tamya Anderson, Molly Schreier,
and Anthony Richardson were particularly helpful.
Note: Percentages may not always add to one-hundred due to rounding.
2
Middle East Policy
Now we would like to ask you specifically about American foreign policy toward the Middle
East.
Q38. Do you approve or disapprove of the way the U.S. government is handling Iran?
[RANDOMIZE]
Rep Dem Ind Total
1. Approve 76% 13% 33% 42%
2. Disapprove 21 82 58 53
Refused 3 5 9 5
Q39. In comparison to three years ago, do you think the odds of the U.S. going to war with Iran
are higher, lower, or the same? [RANDOMLY REVERSE]
Rep Dem Ind Total
1. Higher 27% 65% 32% 45%
2. Lower 16 3 5 9
3. The same 39 14 30 26
4. Unsure/Don’t know [FIXED] 18 18 30 19
Refused 1 1 3 1
Q40. What do you believe the Trump administration’s most important goal in its policy toward
Iran is currently? [RANDOMIZE]
Rep Dem Ind Total
1. Prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons 53% 13% 18% 30%
2. Change Iranian behavior in the region 13 2 6 7
3. Change the regime 3 2 3 3
4. Undo Barack Obama’s policy 13 45 16 28
5. Look tough at home 2 14 12 9
6. Please key Middle Eastern allies such as 4 10 8 7
Israel and Saudi Arabia
7. Other/Don’t know [FIXED] 11 14 35 15
Refused 1 1 4 1
3
Q40b. Which one of the following is closest to your view? [RANDOMIZE]
Rep Dem Ind Total
1. To achieve its current goal vis-à-vis Iran, 34% 9% 21% 21%
the U.S. should be prepared to go to war.
2. The current goals of U.S. policy do not warrant 63 89 70 76
waging war. The U.S. must rely on other means
short of war.
Refused 4 2 9 4
4
Shibley Telhami, Director
Stella Rouse, Associate Director
American Attitudes toward the Middle East
Survey Methodology
(October 2019)
The survey was carried out October 4-10, 2019 online from a nationally representative sample of
Nielsen Scarborough's probability-based panel, originally recruited by mail and telephone using
a random sample of adults provided by Survey Sampling International. The poll was conducted
among a national poll of 1,260 respondents (958 for the Syria question), with a margin of error
of +/- 2.76%. Overall, the sample was adjusted to reflect population estimates (Scarborough
USA+/Gallup) for Americans. The survey variables balanced through weighting were: age,
gender, race/ethnicity, household income, level of education, census regional division, and
political party affiliation.
Valuable assistance was provided by Scott Willoth, Tisha Jett, Lauren Morris, and January Lee
from Nielsen Scarborough. Brittany Kyser, Connor Kopchick, Tamya Anderson, Molly Schreier,
and Anthony Richardson were particularly helpful.
Note: Percentages may not always add to one-hundred due to rounding.
5
Afghanistan ALL RESPONDENTS
55. If you had to guess, which would you say is the longest war in American history? [Open-
ended text box]
Rep Dem Ind Total
1. Afghanistan/Taliban 39% 44% 35% 41%
2. Vietnam 11 11 8 11
3. Civil War/ War Between the States 5 7 4 6
4. World War II 4 5 7 5
5. War on Terror, Terrorism (unless specified 6 3 4 4
other country)
6. Iraq 3 4 0 3
7. Middle East 4 3 2 3
8. Cold War <1 2 2 1
9. Current War, one we’re in now (only if they 1 <1 2 1
give no other specification)
10. Iran/Persian (War) 1 2 1 1
11. Revolutionary War 1 <1 0 1
12. Korean War 2 2 1 2
13. World War I 2 1 4 2
14. War on Drugs 2 1 4 2
15. Gulf War, Desert Shield, Desert Storm 2 1 0 1
16. Iraq and Afghanistan 1 3 2 2
17. Wars following 9/11 (including “9/11”) 1 0 0 <1
18. Iran/Iraq <1 1 0 <1
19. Native American (including “War with a Native 1 0 0 1
American Tribe,” “fighting the Apache Indians,”
“Indian Wars”)
20. Other 6 5 10 6
21. None <1 0 0 <1
Refused 8 6 15 8
6
Q56. As far as you know, which of the following best describes the role of the Taliban in
Afghanistan currently? [RANDOMIZE]
Rep Dem Ind Total
1. They control the Afghan government. 11% 9% 11% 10%
2. They are part of the Afghan government. 10 7 6 8
3. They are rebels fighting the Afghan government. 55 57 51 55
4. They are just a key party in Afghanistan which 22 25 26 24
is not part of the government.
Refused 1 2 6 2
Q57. Do you think the U.S. should increase troops, maintain current troop levels, decrease
troops, or remove all troops from Afghanistan in the next year?
Rep Dem Ind Total
1. Increase troops. 2% 5% 1% 3%
2. Maintain current troop levels. 34 38 22 34
3. Decrease troops. 23 21 26 23
4. Remove all troops by the end of the year. 23 19 28 22
5. Don’t know. 18 18 23 18
Refused <1 1 0 1
Q58. As you may know, the U.S. has started the reduction of military presence in Afghanistan,
with about half of the approximately 14,000 U.S. troops there set to begin returning home in the
near future. Based on what you know, do you support or oppose this action?
Rep Dem Ind Total
1. Strongly support 40% 23% 37% 32%
2. Somewhat support 31 31 21 30
3. Somewhat oppose 16 25 13 20
4. Strongly oppose 6 8 6 7
5. Don’t know/No opinion 8 14 23 12
Refused 0 <1 1 <1
7
Q59. Looking back, do you think it was a mistake or the correct choice to send U.S. troops to
Afghanistan in 2001?
Rep Dem Ind Total
1. Mistake 27% 47% 29% 36%
2. Correct choice 49 29 31 38
3. Not sure 24 24 40 26
Refused <1 <1 0 <1
Q60. Do you think America’s military involvement in Afghanistan has been successful or
unsuccessful in obtaining America’s strategic objectives?
Rep Dem Ind Total
1. Very successful 4% 3% 4% 3%
2. Successful 24 11 7 16
3. Neither successful nor unsuccessful. 38 38 41 38
4. Unsuccessful 19 28 18 23
5. Very unsuccessful 6 13 13 10
6. Don’t know 9 6 17 9
Refused <1 1 0 1
Q61. [IF Q60= 4 OR 5, ASK Q61] Which of the following factors do you think is MOST
important in explaining the reason for failure in Afghanistan? [RANDOMIZE]
Rep Dem Ind Total
1. It was futile to send troops to fight the 8% 16% 14% 14%
war on terrorism under any circumstances.
2. The threat of terrorism from al-Qaeda requires 2 5 9 4
principally non-military means.
3. The threat posed by al-Qaeda did not require an 13 8 16 11
all-out war on Afghanistan.
4. The intervention in Iraq, which reduced the American 15 19 16 17
ability to fight in Afghanistan effectively.
5. Our inability to build effective alternative structures to 34 39 28 36
the existing political and social order in Afghanistan.
6. The U.S. should have never stayed this long and should 25 11 16 16
have left immediately after the collapse of the Taliban
regime in Afghanistan.
8
Refused 3 2 0 2
Q62A. Regardless of whether our intervention in Afghanistan was justified or not, do you
believe that the U.S. has an obligation towards the Afghan government and the many segments
of society who were impacted by that intervention?
Rep Dem Ind Total
1. Yes 30% 60% 36% 44%
2. No 42 18 36 30
3. Not sure 27 23 28 25
Refused <1 <1 0 <1
[IF Q62A=1, THEN ASK Q62B] Q62B. What form should our responsibility take?
[RANDOMIZE CODES 1-4]
Rep Dem Ind Total
1. A limited military role 38% 28% 27% 30%
2. Using our leverage in the negotiations to 46 43 45 44
protect the interests of affected parties in Afghanistan
3. Continued financial support 6 13 6 10
4. Other/don’t know [FIXED] 11 15 22 15
Refused 1 2 0 1
Q63. Do you think the U.S. military should be responsible for ensuring that Afghanistan has a
liberal democratic government, one that protects things like fair and open elections for all
citizens, equal rights for women, and equal access to education for all?
Rep Dem Ind Total
1. Yes 22% 33% 14% 26%
2. No 63 40 49 51
3. Not sure 14 26 35 22
Refused 1 1 1 1
9
Q64. If the central government of Afghanistan in Kabul, the capital, does not have control over
all of the territory of Afghanistan, does that pose a threat to the safety of the United States?
Rep Dem Ind Total
1. Yes, it does pose a threat. 46% 41% 28% 42%
2. No, it does not pose a threat. 24 28 23 26
3. Not sure. 29 29 49 31
Refused 1 2 0 1
Q65. How strongly do you agree or disagree with the opinion that the U.S. should negotiate with
the Taliban to end the war in Afghanistan?
Rep Dem Ind Total
1. Strongly agree. 12% 12% 15% 12%
2. Somewhat agree. 28 35 19 30
3. Somewhat disagree. 22 18 16 19
4. Strongly disagree. 28 17 22 22
5. Not sure. 11 18 27 16
Refused <1 <1 0 <1
Q66. [IF Q65= 1 OR 2, ASK Q66] On a scale of 1-5, do you support the following forms of
relations with the Taliban? Indicate your support below, with 1 indicating “strongly oppose” and
5 indicating “strongly support.”
Q66A (1). A full peace agreement and normal relations.
Rep Dem Ind Total
(1) Strongly oppose 2% 10% 2% 6%
2 8 7 10 8
3 32 23 20 27
4 31 27 25 28
(5) Strongly support 27 32 43 31
Refused 0 2 0 1
10
Q66B (2). Inviting the Taliban to the United States.
Rep Dem Ind Total
(1) Strongly oppose 56% 48% 45% 51%
2 20 23 16 21
3 14 21 25 19
4 9 5 10 7
(5) Strongly support 1 1 0 1
Refused 0 3 4 2
Q66C (3). Being prepared to provide financial assistance to Afghanistan even with the Taliban
being part of the government.
Rep Dem Ind Total
(1) Strongly oppose 46% 16% 40% 30%
2 24 19 6 19
3 21 35 36 30
4 8 25 13 17
(5) Strongly support 1 3 0 2
Refused 2 3 4 2
11
Q67. It was recently revealed that a meeting had been planned at Camp David between senior
Taliban representatives, Afghan government officials, and the U.S. President and his staff, to
occur on September 8, 2019 (later canceled). Which of the following comes closest to your
initial reaction: [RANDOMIZE]
Rep Dem Ind Total
1. I support an agreement with the Taliban if possible 40% 42% 36% 41%
but do not support the Taliban being honored on
American soil given their role in hosting al-Qaeda.
2. I am opposed to an agreement with the Taliban whether 32 29 35 31
or not they come to the U.S.
3. I am open to the Taliban coming to the U.S. if that’s 7 12 9 10
what it takes to reach an agreement but object to the
timing so close to the anniversary of 9/11.
4. I am open to the Taliban coming to the U.S. if that’s 18 15 12 16
what it takes to reach an agreement, and have no
problem with the timing.
Refused 2 2 9 3
Q69. Assume that a peace agreement between the U.S. and the Taliban is reached, and the U.S.
withdraws all troops from Afghanistan. If the Taliban continues their war with the Afghan
government and emerge victorious, capturing Kabul and other major cities, how much do you
support the following actions? Indicate your support below, with 1 indicating “strongly
disapprove” and 5 indicating “strongly approve.”
Q69A (1). Military action.
Rep Dem Ind Total
(1) Strongly disapprove 20% 24% 22% 22%
2 13 16 14 14
3 25 31 38 29
4 18 14 10 16
(5) Strongly approve 21 11 9 15
Refused 3 5 7 4
12
Q69B (2). Impose economic sanctions on the Taliban.
Rep Dem Ind Total
(1) Strongly disapprove 6% 5% 7% 5%
2 2 7 3 4
3 15 24 34 21
4 15 18 9 16
(5) Strongly approve 59 43 42 50
Refused 3 4 6 4
Q69C (3). Engage in international diplomatic efforts
Rep Dem Ind Total
(1) Strongly disapprove 13% 6% 6% 9%
2 5 3 5 4
3 24 16 26 20
4 24 21 22 22
(5) Strongly approve 32 50 35 40
Refused 3 5 7 4
Q69D (4). Do nothing.
Rep Dem Ind Total
(1) Strongly disapprove 38% 37% 31% 37%
2 19 18 12 17
3 23 26 34 26
4 7 8 9 8
(5) Strongly approve 9 7 9 8
Refused 4 5 4 5
13
Middle East Policy
Now we would like to ask you specifically about American foreign policy toward the Middle
East.
ALL RESPONDENTS
Q75. How much have you heard about BDS, or the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions
movement aimed at Israel? [RANDOMLY REVERSE]
Rep Dem Ind Total
1. A great deal 8% 4% 6% 6%
2. A good amount 17 12 11 14
3. A little 33 28 17 29
4. I have not heard about it 42 55 64 51
Refused 1 1 1 1
[Ask only if Q75 = 1, 2, or 3]
Q76. Based on what you have heard, do you support or oppose BDS, or the Boycott, Divestment,
and Sanctions movement? [RANDOMLY REVERSE]
Rep Dem Ind Total
1. Support strongly 2% 14% 10% 8%
2. Support somewhat 6 34 15 18
3. Neither support nor oppose [FIXED] 15 37 40 26
4. Oppose somewhat 9 11 4 9
5. Oppose strongly 67 4 31 38
Refused 2 0 0 1
14
[Ask Q77A, Q77B, and Q78 if Q75 = 1, 2, or 3]
Q77a. Tell me how much you agree or disagree with the following statement:
BDS is a legitimate, peaceful way of opposing Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories.
Inspired by the South African anti-apartheid movement, BDS urges action to pressure Israel to
comply with international law. Opposing Israeli policy does not equal anti-Semitism.
Rep Dem Ind Total
1. Strongly disagree 55% 6% 22% 32%
2. Somewhat disagree 14 8 10 11
3. Neither agree nor disagree 17 22 27 20
4. Somewhat agree 9 24 10 15
5. Strongly agree 4 38 31 21
Refused 1 1 0 1
Q77b. Tell me how much you agree or disagree with the following statement:
Regardless of how BDS defines itself, it is an anti-Israel organization attempting to weaken
Israel and to undermine its legitimacy. Some of its supporters are opponents of Israel’s very
existence and may even be anti-Semitic.
Rep Dem Ind Total
1. Strongly disagree 3% 30% 21% 16%
2. Somewhat disagree 4 19 4 10
3. Neither agree nor disagree 16 29 36 23
4. Somewhat agree 13 17 19 15
5. Strongly agree 63 3 19 34
Refused 2 2 0 2
Q78. Now tell me, which of the following is closer to your view? [RANDOMIZE]
Rep Dem Ind Total
1. BDS is a legitimate, peaceful way of opposing Israeli 13% 77% 48% 42%
occupation of the Palestinian territories. Inspired by
the South African anti-apartheid movement, BDS urges
action to pressure Israel to comply with international law.
15
Opposing Israeli policy does not equal anti-Semitism.
2. Regardless of how BDS defines itself, it is an 85 19 42 54
anti-Israel organization attempting to weaken
Israel and to undermine its legitimacy. Some
of its supporters are opponents of Israel’s very
existence and may even be anti-Semitic.
Refused 2 4 10 4
ALL RESPONDENTS
Q79. Which of the following is closer to your view? [RANDOMIZE]
Rep Dem Ind Total
1. We should SUPPORT laws that penalize people who 31% 14% 16% 22%
boycott Israel because these laws help protect Israel.
2. We should OPPOSE laws that penalize people who 62 80 76 72
boycott Israel because these laws infringe on the
Constitutional right to free speech and peaceful protest.
Refused 7 6 8 7
Iran ALL RESPONDENTS
Q80. Do you approve or disapprove of the way the U.S. government is handling Iran?
[RANDOMIZE]
Rep Dem Ind Total
1. Approve 71% 13% 32% 40%
2. Disapprove 24 86 59 56
Refused 5 1 9 4
Q81. In comparison to three years ago, do you think the odds of the U.S. going to war with Iran
are higher, lower, or the same? [RANDOMLY REVERSE]
Rep Dem Ind Total
1. Higher 30% 63% 33% 45%
2. Lower 16 7 5 10
16
3. The same 39 16 26 27
4. Unsure/Don’t know [FIXED] 16 14 36 17
Refused 0 <1 0 <1
Q82A. What do you believe the Trump administration’s most important goal in its policy toward
Iran is currently? [RANDOMIZE]
Rep Dem Ind Total
1. Prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons 45% 8% 20% 25%
2. Change Iranian behavior in the region 17 4 11 11
3. Change the regime 2 1 4 2
4. Undo Barack Obama’s policy 16 53 18 33
5. Look tough at home 2 13 10 8
6. Please key Middle Eastern allies such as Israel 5 9 9 7
and Saudi Arabia
7. Other/Don’t know [FIXED] 12 11 28 13
Refused <1 1 1 1
Q82B. Which of the following is closer to your view? [RANDOMIZE]
Rep Dem Ind Total
1. To achieve its current goal vis-à-vis Iran, the 32% 10% 17% 20%
U.S. should be prepared to go to war.
2. The current goals of U.S. policy do not warrant 64 88 76 76
waging war. The U.S. must rely on other means
short of war.
Refused 4 2 7 4
17
Q83. On September 14, an attack on Saudi Arabia’s oil fields cut Saudi oil production by half,
accounting for 5% of the world’s oil supply, for several weeks. Yemen’s Houthi rebels, fighting
Saudi Arabia, took responsibility for the attack, and the United States and some European
countries blamed Iran. Which one of the following is closest to your view about the evidence
presented to the public so far about Iran’s responsibility?
Rep Dem Ind Total
1. Very convincing 35% 8% 14% 20%
2. Somewhat convincing 43 42 41 42
3. Somewhat unconvincing 13 30 17 21
4. Very unconvincing 4 17 20 12
Refused 4 3 8 4
Q84. If sufficient evidence emerges that Iran is responsible, should the U.S. consider a military
action in response?
Rep Dem Ind Total
1. Yes 45% 21% 25% 32%
2. No 53 77 70 66
Refused 2 2 5 2
Q85. Tell me how important you think the following factors are in explaining the escalation in
the Gulf region that has endangered the oil trade:
Q85A (1). The nature of Iran’s regime
Rep Dem Ind Total
(1) Not important at all 2% 3% 3% 2%
2 4 9 7 7
Neither important nor unimportant 17 34 46 28
4 37 34 26 34
(5) Strongly approve 36 15 15 24
Refused 4 6 4 5
18
Q85B (2). The war in Yemen
Rep Dem Ind Total
(1) Not important at all 6% 6% 3% 6%
2 6 7 16 8
Neither important nor unimportant 45 36 39 40
4 31 39 28 34
(5) Strongly approve 7 8 10 8
Refused 5 4 4 4
Q85C (3). The U.S. withdrawal from the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal (the JCPOA)
Rep Dem Ind Total
(1) Not important at all 14% 6% 4% 9%
2 6 5 9 6
Neither important nor unimportant 31 25 46 30
4 21 26 27 24
(5) Strongly approve 24 33 11 27
Refused 4 4 4 4
Q85D (4). U.S. imposition of new sanctions on Iran,
including on its oil exports
Rep Dem Ind Total
(1) Not important at all 3% 2% 1% 3%
2 5 5 6 5
Neither important nor unimportant 21 25 35 25
4 34 40 36 37
(5) Strongly approve 32 23 19 27
Refused 5 5 4 4
19
Q86. Now tell me, which one of the above do you think is most important? [KEEP IN SAME
ORDER AS Q85]
Rep Dem Ind Total
1. The nature of Iran’s regime 31% 14% 23% 22%
2. The war in Yemen 4 5 6 5
3. The U.S. withdrawal from the 2015 20 51 24 35
Iran Nuclear Deal (the JCPOA)
4. U.S. imposition of new sanctions on Iran, 40 26 41 34
including on its oil exports
Refused 5 4 7 5
Q94. As you may know, the United States has recently announced the withdrawal of its forces
from northern Syria, ahead of a Turkish military campaign there. President Trump explained the
move by saying: "it is time for us to get out of these ridiculous Endless Wars, many of them
tribal, and bring our soldiers home." Critics have argued that it was the wrong move because it
leaves our Kurdish allies in northern Syria vulnerable and gives the upper hand to Turkey which,
although a member of NATO, is considered by some as a foe whose aims have been questioned.
Tell me how you feel about the move to withdraw U.S. forces from northern Syria:
Rep Dem Ind Total
1. I support it 42% 8% 22% 24%
2. I oppose it 23 66 32 44
3. I'm indifferent 24 11 13 17
4. Don't know 11 15 33 16

File (1)

Content uploaded by Shibley Telhami
Author content
... When polled again in 2017, even fewer respondents had a favorable view of Arabs (35 percent) and Muslims (34 percent) (Zogby Analytics 2017). Muslims and Islam are also perceived the least positively of any religious group or tradition in the United States (Pew 2017a;Sides and Mogahed 2018;Telhami 2015). Moreover, since the beginning of the American war against Iraq in 1991, majorities of Americans-an average of 80 percent across thirty years of surveys-have held unfavorable views of that country (Gallup 2021). ...
Book
Full-text available
The American war against Iraq has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and displaced millions of people. Between 20 March 2003 and 30 September 2017, more than 172,000 Iraqis resettled in the United States. This book explores the experiences of fifteen Iraqis who resettled in the US after 2003. It examines the long war against Iraq that began in 1991 and the decisions some Iraqis made to leave their homes and seek refuge in the United States. The book also delves into the possibilities for belonging and cultural exchange for this cohort of Iraqis and their political engagement with non-profit organizations, advocacy, and activism against the 2017 Travel Ban.
... Among those who were familiar with BDS, 63 percent strongly or somewhat agreed that BDS was a peaceful and legitimate method of opposing Israeli occupation, and it was not tantamount to antisemitism. Similarly, the exact opposite sentiments were expressed by Republicans (Telhami and Rouse 2019). ...
Article
This study conceptually develops and analytically examines the role and function of diasporas as audiences in the securitization process by examining the American Jewish Diaspora in Israel's securitization of Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS). It argues that Israel's use of antisemitism as a metanarrative for the securitization of the BDS movement incorporates diasporic Jews as internal audiences in the securitization process. Audiences, however, are not monolithic. While homeland Jews, including both elites and the public, tend to support Israel's securitization process, American Jews are split; the elite support the process but public opinion is far less sympathetic to Israeli constructions of BDS as a threat. The disparity between audiences’ reactions weakens the support for Israel's counter-BDS policies and undermines its securitization process.
... If the two-state solution were off the table, polling suggests that many Democrats would favor a one-state solution that theoretically preserved Israel's democratic character while compromising on its Jewishness. 49 In 2020, the liberal American-Jewish pundit Peter Beinart, 50 a previous supporter of the two-state solution, called for the adoption of a one-state outcome. Support for this idea remains negligible among Israelis and Palestinians themselves, even as support for two states is declining, so the chances for the US mediation of such a solution range from extremely low to non-existent. ...
Article
Full-text available
Since 2015, there has been a sharp turnaround in US Democrats’ sympathies for Israel and the Palestinians. The percentage of Democrats with a preference for Israel is more or less tied with those preferring the Palestinians, wiping out Israel's historic advantage. Long‐term processes of liberalization and secularization have generated a more difficult environment for Israel and a more favorable one for the Palestinians, but they alone do not account for the shift. Rather, the fusing of these trends with changes in Israel triggered the change. The formation of a narrow right‐wing government in 2015 played a significant role. However, the primary cause of the collapse in sympathy for Israel was the way in which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Republican‐first strategy to block the Iran nuclear deal turned Israel into a highly salient motif of partisanship at a time of unparalleled hostility between the two major US parties. While the fall in sympathy for Israel spans both wings of the Democratic Party, the sharp increase in sympathy for the Palestinians has occurred primarily among liberal Democrats. It is intertwined with the growing political salience of Black Lives Matter, which helps to generate a narrative associating racial discrimination in America with the plight of the Palestinians.
... About half of the total respondents claimed that they saw a decline in tolerance towards them right after the security issues came to the fore in public discourse since the 9/11. A study on the similar issues in the USA concurs with the finding whereby 46 per cent of Americans opposed accepting refugees because they were concerned about perceived links to terrorism (Esses, Hamilton, & Gaucher, 2017;Telhami, 2016). ...
Article
Full-text available
Xenophobia has not received sufficient attention although anti-migrant sentiments and practices have been on the rise in receiving countries. This study attempts to inset xenophobia in the migration debate by examining the growth of this phenomenon in host countries in the GCC. It provides short accounts of xenophobia experienced by migrants. We argue that the maltreatment the migrants are subjected to is largely due to xenophobic than merely professional factors. For this research, 61 (Qatar 8; Kuwait 9; UAE 11; Bahrain 7; Saudi Arabia 21, and Oman 5) migrants were selected on snowball basis for interviews. Xenophobic attacks/outbursts result in an increasing act of hostility and violence. Xenophobic maltreatment towards foreign workers could be marked as a gross human rights violation. ARTICLE HISTORY
... The next two blocks of variables capture the opinion climate of individuals' discussion networks and the interaction effect with their perceptions of Uber's response to the case. Using items from Telhami's (2016) survey of American's attitudes on refugees, we created a measure of respondents' opinion climates. Responses to the items measured the proportion of discussants who held pro-refugee and antirefugee views. ...
... The next two blocks of variables capture the opinion climate of individuals' discussion networks and the interaction effect with their perceptions of Uber's response to the case. Using items from Telhami's (2016) survey of American's attitudes on refugees, we created a measure of respondents' opinion climates. Responses to the items measured the proportion of discussants who held pro-refugee and antirefugee views. ...
Article
Scholars have extensively theorized how citizens’ political discussion networks have implications for elected political actors and can affect political and civic participation and knowledge. We shift the focus to another important political actor—corporations—to examine whether political discussion networks affect citizens’ perceptions of a politically involved corporation and their intentions to engage in consumer activism. With social network influence perspective and an egocentric design, we examined the influences of one’s network characteristics, opinion climate, and network heterogeneity. We found that the ethnic diversity of discussion partners and heterogeneity of opinions substantially influenced perceptions and behavioral intentions.
Article
Full-text available
In 2015, the UN Human Rights Committee reported that the number of refugees in the world was 21 million. In response to the rapid rise in the number of refugee applicants, from 2011 the Japanese government has lowered the approval rate; in 2014, the number of applicants was only 0.2% of the total number of applicants. The following year, the rate rose to 0.4%; however, this level was by far lower than in developed countries such as Germany, the United Kingdom, and Canada. Despite international criticism, the Japanese government has not indicated any change in its refugee policy. While other countries have conducted public opinion polls on refugees, Japan has yet to gather such basic information. Compared to the numerous surveys and analyses of refugees conducted in the U.S. and Europe, the Japanese government has little data. Given the rapid increase in the number of refugee applications in recent years, it is imperative to gauge public sentiment and opinion. This study attempted to gauge attitudes and understanding of "refugees" by surveying students at a Japanese prefectural university. Survey results indicated that the majority of students were unable to correctly define the term and were largely unaware of the existence of refugees, making it difficult for them to empathize with them. Furthermore, many students indicated that Japan, despite being a developed country, had no obligation to accept refugees. Finally, while a portion of respondents pointed to the practical impact of refugees (labor force and population reduction measures), more than 70% of students indicated that the rationale for accepting refugees related to humanitarian and moral reasons. Citation = Ostman, D. (2018). Rescuing the Other: A Survey of Student Attitudes towards Refugees. Kumamoto University Studies in Social and Cultural Sciences [社会文化研究], (16), 159-182.
Article
Why do warring parties enter negotiations during an ongoing war? This article builds on previous scholarship that has argued that the onset of wartime negotiations does not always exclusively represent a genuine will by belligerents to arrive at a settlement, but that alternative motives may also drive their decision to negotiate. The article identifies and distinguishes four alternative political and military motives and argues that belligerents may come to the table at times when they need to establish their status vis-à-vis an opponent, establish or safeguard domestic as well as external support, or when they need to buy time if they can no longer uphold levels of violence on the battlefield. This article examines the utility of this argument for the early round of talks between Russian and Ukrainian delegations, which took place during Russia’s ongoing war of aggression against Ukraine in February and March 2022. Triangulating information from semi-structured interviews with country experts, case studies, news sources, and statements by the warring parties, the analysis particularly underlines findings put forward by past research on the costs of war as a determinant for entering talks and shows that entering talks helped Ukraine’s government establish agency and status as a bargaining partner while also serving its broader strategic communication with external actors. There is no evidence, however, supporting proposed mechanisms on belligerents coming to the table in order to establish domestic political support or buy time on the battlefield for the case under analysis.
Article
Full-text available
Do security concerns lead to more restrictive immigration policies? In this article, we contend that transnational influences can shape legislative output on immigration at home. Terrorist attacks in a neighboring country affect the salience of security concerns in the focal state, the policy solutions for addressing them, and the political will to implement these changes. In proximity of countries targeted by terrorism, politicians have specific incentives to manipulate immigration regulations following pressure from public opinion, for political opportunism or in anticipation of their neighbors' policy choices. Using data on 33 OECD countries, we find that proximity to targeted countries leads to the implementation of a more restrictive migration policy regime. The public's common perception of a linkage between migration and terrorism thus has important policy consequences.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.