Analyzing Public Opinion vs. Protests: Unpacking John Mearsheimer's Insights on Palestine Support

I wanted to sort of comment on this video as just a kind of exercise in developing critical discernment when it comes to the media and what we consume online and what we consume in the media generally. I saw this video from John Mearsheimer where he's talking about the trend in public opinion with regards to the Palestinian issue.

And I think the numbers were 69% were pro Palestinian in the first six days after October 7, 69%. And I think 31% take these numbers with a grain of salt. 31 were pro Israel. Since October 13, if you look at the number of protests around the world, 95% have been pro Palestinian and 5% have been pro Israel. And what this tells you is that public opinion around the world has shifted against Israel.

But you see, what he's actually talking about here, is specifically public protests. The percentage of protests globally that support Palestine as opposed to support Israel. That that that percentage has gone from around 70% to 95%, which is great. And it's really what you would expect anyway because there's very, little support globally for Zionism, for Israel. As I've said repeatedly before, the global South is pro Palestinian.

So this is what you would expect to see. But I just wanted to point out that, the nature of public protests, doesn't actually equate to public opinion. Now he equates it in his statement, but the two are completely different things, actually. Public protests are, comprised of a certain segment of the public. It's comprised of the the the the segment of the public that's activist, the activist segment of the public, the segment of the public that feels passionately about an issue.

So by the trend numbers, what we can see, is that people who feel a commitment to Palestine, have not only remained committed to the Palestinian issue, but they have, increased in their activity. And this I think is actually more important, for us to take note of than general public opinion. While public rallies in support of Israel have declined relative to the number of pro Palestinian protests, I think this indicates that the committed segment, the activist segment of the population who supports Israel are becoming less committed and they're becoming less active. But there's also an important sort of caveat to that, which is that policy has been on their side, and therefore there's less reason for them to rally and less reason for them to protest or march or demonstrate. At this point, a pro, Israel rally would most likely only be held as a counter rally to a pro Palestinian protest.

So, by the numbers, counter rallies, are not keeping pace with pro Palestinian protests. Now this can either be because people's opinions are genuinely changing, and I think that to a certain extent that is the case. But it can also be, because pro Zionists feel that there's no need to rally since policy is on their side. And that can mean that they're becoming less committed and they're becoming complacent because they don't feel that they have to be active. And perhaps, and we hope that they're beginning to feel some level of stigma with regards to supporting Zionist genocide.

Now, let me just say one thing about people like Mearsheimer and people like, what's his name? Scott Ritter. This type of people. These are all former government people, former, military people, former intelligence people, former diplomats and what have you. Now personally, I never feel, particularly comfortable with this type of people.

I always question the extent to which they are indeed former this and former that. We have to be cognizant that it is a strategy of the intelligence services, to infiltrate opposition movements and to, appropriate opposition narratives and to articulate opposition opinion precisely so that they can control opposition opinion and direct that opinion and steer opposition movements in a way that is actually beneficial to or serves the interests of power. Now, as I've said, these types of people may be doing this knowingly and they may be doing it unknowingly. It doesn't really matter. There is a whole group of people, and you know who they are.

There's a whole group of people, who are sort of opposition type people, and they're coming from a classic leftist box, a classic sort of anti West box. They're pro Russia, pro China, pro Iran, pro Bashar al Assad, and basically pro whoever the West officially hates. They're propagandists. They choose to support whoever the West is against and whoever is against the West in any given scenario. That's sort of their function.

You know, people like, Vladimir Putin, will see these people like useful idiots. Their position is ideological, not objective. Their analysis is not objective. It's ideological. Their support for this or that cause isn't based on virtue or principle.

And notice that these types of people will always provide their audience with talking points. And then those talking points get disseminated across social media and become more or less the official position, of anyone who is on, this side of an issue, or this or or or who is supporting this country against the West. They're crafting a narrative, pure and simple, and that's the work of propaganda. I mean, while plenty of what they say may be true and may be correct, we have to be aware of what it actually is, that they're making propaganda. Because for instance, when, the same group of people, who are, for example, arguing in favor of Gaza are also the same people, who argue on behalf of Russia, or who argue on behalf of China, or on behalf of Bashar al Assad or on behalf of the Houthis, and then we are taking their talking points on Gaza.

It implicitly puts, pro Palestinian opposition in the same camp, as the pro Russians, the pro Chinese, the pro, Bashar al Assad, the pro Houthis and so on. This can get messy because we don't necessarily support all of those things. We don't necessit we don't necessarily support everyone that they support. We support Gaza. You know, it's like how the liberals in the West support Muslims and also support the LGBT and what have you.

And then we get associated with all of those other things that they support when we don't support them. So we have to make our own critical, impartial, unbiased analyses. We have to craft our own talking points. We have to build our own narratives, and we have to be our own advocates. You know, I saw Scott Riddick the other day basically demanding that Egypt and Jordan invade Israel, essentially trying to bait the Muslim lands into escalating and expanding the war when he knows perfectly well, as a former military man, he knows perfectly well that that would not in any way lower the casualties in Gaza, and he knows that it would only increase the death and destruction across the entire region.

Now, he may have been completely sincere. He may have actually meant what he said or he could have been deliberately trying to provoke war. I don't know and I don't care. The point is, people like Scott Ritter and people like John Mearsheimer are at best, they are tourists to our causes and they will move on to the next opportunity to espouse anti West talking points whenever some new issue arises, whether it's war in Iran or whether it's Taiwan or what have you. It doesn't matter.

They will just move on to the next thing. That's what they do. So we have to be discerning about what they say.