Media mum on Palestinian public opinion poll

The Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR) published results of its quarterly survey on March 20, 2024, less than a week ago. The questions explored the sentiments felt in the Palestinian society about Israel, the war in Gaza, Palestinian politics, and the international community.

Funny, but in spite of the media's attention to the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza as well as Judea and Samaria, and with Western leaders trying to negotiate a ceasefire and two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians who want them all dead, the survey was not covered by all of the mainstream media. This was especially the case with media outlets that tend to favor Hamas over Israel, and tend to not even mention the hostage situation.

For those media outlets outside of Israel that did cover it, (Newsweek, The New Yorker, NBC News, and USA Today) they only reported on certain results and ignored results less favorable to the Palestinians.

New poll from PCPSR regarding Palestinian opinion in the West Bank and Gaza.

PCPSR is a reputable source for Palestinian public opinion according to most experts.

This thread 🧵 will highlight the shocking resultshttps://t.co/t4VkezMidp

— Israel War Room (@IsraelWarRoom)

NBC News only highlighted how support for Hamas has dropped among Palestinians in Gaza and Judea and Samaria [aka West Bank]. They reported that Gazan support for "armed struggle" dropped while the support for the two-state solution has risen.

The New Yorker gave a similar report noting that the apparent promising results about the lower support for "armed struggle," and rise in support for a two-state solution among Gazans.

But this is what is known as misleading, crappy reporting.

See, even though support for Hamas has dropped within Palestinian society,  it is still the organization with the most support among Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank, and its support in the West Bank is still 20% higher than it was in September 2023 (before the October 7 attack and subsequent Israeli war against Hamas).

A question in the survey was also asked as to who the Palestinians would vote for if another election was held today. Guess what, Hamas still has the most support among the Palestinian electorate, and still polls higher today than it did in September 2023 (30% in March 2024 versus 21% in September).

Overall, Palestinians want Hamas back in power in Gaza, by a strong majority. pic.twitter.com/QGdQCOA5pz

— Israel War Room (@IsraelWarRoom) March 20, 2024

The mainstream media forgot to mention that.

And while it may be true that support of "armed struggle" has dropped among those surveyed, it's still supported by the majority of respondents in Gaza along with Judea and Samaria.

As both NBC News and the New Yorker noted, support for a two-state solution has risen among Palestinian respondents in Gaza.

But a two-state solution would only put the Israel-hating Palestinians within closer striking distance to Israel, and Hamas, along with other terrorist groups, have promised to never stop fighting until every last Jews is dead.

For more about the survey results, go here.

Ironically, in Gaza where support for a two-state solution has increased from 52% to 62%, survey respondents opposed restarting negotiations for a two-state solution.

It's likely that a so-called two-state solution is more like the final solution, and we know how that worked out for the Jews.

The media, in general, has failed the public by ignoring what makes them uncomfortable [aka the truth]. They need to provide them with a total picture even when it's the ugly truth.

Tweet

New Yorker makes empty allegations re Kavanaugh

Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer wrote a piece of crap for The New Yorker magazine in which they detailed a new set of unconfirmed allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and offering not one slice of evidence or corroboration to the claim.

The rag faced tough questions Monday about its report and throughout the day TV interviewers asked Ronan and Mayer actual questions about the piece on the story's disclosure that the new accuser, Deborah Ramirez, acknowledged holes in her memory and in her head of a dorm party she claimed happened in Kavanaugh's freshman year at Yale.

The so-called "reporters" also faced questions over their lack of eye-witness reports to support Ramirez's drunken recollection that Kavanaugh "thrust his penis in her face and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away." The piece cited a classmate of Ramirez's who claimed he heard about the incident shortly after it occurred and several others who attested to her character.

But they saw squat! Those are not witnesses.

On ABC's "Good Morning America" Monday, Farrow said, "We wouldn't have run this if we didn't have a careful basis of people who had heard at the time and found her credible."

But credible is an overused word in the Kavanaugh situation. It generally requires the source have both subjective and objective components to be credible. Traditionally, modern credibility has two key components: trustworthiness and expertise, both of which have the subjective and objective components. Based on what we know of Ramirez's story, as well as Ford's, we only know of one component and that is the subjective. In terms of trustworthiness, we cannot know this, especially with the lack of evidence or even corroboration of their claims.

And isn't if strange how Kavanaugh only went after future activist Democrats connected to George Soros?

Even host George Stephanopoulos [a former Bill Clinton advisor and apologist who defended the former president against myriad claims of sexual misconduct] said, "But by your own admission, no eye witnesses of the incident."

Farrow admitted that it was true but added that Ramirez considered her account carefully before going on the record [and possibly considered what a book deal might be worth if she went forward]. "This is not the behavior of someone who is fabricating something," Farrow said, without a clue as to the irony such a statement makes, coming from someone who pretends to be a journalist. What a lazy piece of verbal garbage.

The National Review's Charles C.W. Cooke wrote that he "was struggling to remember reading a less responsible piece of 'journalism' in a major outlet."

If you can't see what's really going on, i.e., the stalling tactics Democrats are using to keep a conservative justice off the Supreme Court, then you might be a liberal.


Click the "Follow Posts" button in the margin and be sure to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, please visit the ads on this page.



Tweet

The Mooch's wife files for divorce

In a blockbuster of a leak, it was learned that the wife of White House communications director and "Ax-Man" Anthony Scaramucci has filed for divorce, according to a report in the New York Post. 

Scaramucci, 53, has been married to Deidre Ball, 38, for three years and they have two adorable children together.

Deidre worked as vice president for SkyBridge Capital, a firm "Mooch" founded.

It isn't known when the papers were filed but in a tweet, as is the custom of the White House administration, Scaramucci didn't deny the story. He did, however, ask that the press not cover his family which was followed by a blitzkrieg or RTs with LOLs and happy-face avatars. 

"Leave civilians out of this. I can take the hits, but I would ask that you would put my family in your thoughts and prayers & nothing more," he said.

Rumor has it that the media is praying for Sacarmucci's family--praying they can dig up some dirt on them and get more information about why the divorce was filed.

The Mooch made news this week after being quoted by the New Yorker using vulgar language about former White House chief of some staff Reince Priebus. The "brothers" had been feuding a lot lately.

Scaramucci didn't deny the vulgar language reported by the magazine.

The announcement by President Trump came on Friday that Priebus was leaving the White House, but he had secretly turned in his resignation the prior day. Interestingly, that was never leaked, so it is thought-provoking that Priebus may have been the leaker all along.




Tweet