i know about all the atrocities on both sides but this IS antisemitism, drawing a kkk man in using a flag of iusrael in his costume, cummon is there anything more anti semitic? ur a waste of space, all ur drawings do is polarize a problem into right and wrong when in reality there are lots of other things going on, not all israelis are children killers just as not all palistinians are suicide bombers, u do nothing but stir up hate, why not draw cartoons with the aim of bringing people together?

A slim majority of Europeans would back attacks on Iran as a last resort to stop it acquiring a nuclear bomb, according to a poll released on Wednesday. Asked to comment on the statement "we must stop countries like Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, even if that means taking military action", 52 percent said they agreed, with 40 percent against.

A majority agreed with the statement in 18 EU states including France and Britain while a majority was against it in nine others, including Germany and Spain.

Support was highest in Denmark (68 percent) and fell to 37 percent in Slovakia, the poll by France's TNS-Sofres showed.

Iran has repeatedly rejected suspicions it wants to make an atomic bomb in a years-long dispute with the West over a nuclear programme it says is intended purely for electricity. The U.N. Security Council last month agreed new sanctions against Iran.

The survey of more than 17,000 Europeans conducted last month for London-based think-tank Open Europe appeared to confirm findings of a poll last year that showed many in the West were ready to back military action if other avenues failed.

Europeans differed more on the threat to their country from Islamic fundamentalism.

While 58 percent on average agreed it was a serious threat, the span ranged from 71 percent in Britain - where 52 people were killed in suicide attacks by Islamists in London in July 2005 - to 24 percent in Latvia.
www.mrt.com.mk/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2585&Itemid=

In 50 years i have never been asked a question for a poll,nor ever met anyone who has.

MSM is controlled by Zionists, so it goes to reason that polls would be controlled by the same with the obvious effect of more Iran war mongering by Blair and Bush.

if "we must stop countries like Israel countries like Israel from possesing nuclear weapons" ?

When we know that "BBC POLL finds that ISRAEL HAS WORST WORLD IMAGE" , worse than Iran
By ASSOCIATED PRESS

"BBC Poll find Israel, Iran and the United States are the countries with the most negative image in a globe-spanning survey of attitudes toward 12 major nations. Canada and Japan came out best in the poll, released Tuesday.

The survey for the British Broadcasting Corp.'s World Service asked more than 28,000 people to rate 12 countries - Britain, Canada, China, France, India, Iran, Israel, Japan, North Korea, Russia, the United States and Venezuela - as having a positive or negative influence on the world.

-ISRAEL WAS VIEWED NEGATIVELY BY 56 PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS and positively by 17 percent;

-for IRAN, THE FIGURES WERE 54 PERCENT and 18 percent.

-The United States had the third-highest negative ranking, with 51 percent citing it as a bad influence and 30 percent as a good one.

-Next was North Korea, which was viewed negatively by 48 percent and positively by 19 percent....

JPost.com » International »

Mar. 6, 2007

 http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173115960396&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShow

The moment of truth has arrived, and it has to be said: Israel does not want peace. The arsenal of excuses has run out, and the chorus of Israeli rejection already rings hollow. Until recently, it was still possible to accept the Israeli refrain that "there is no partner" for peace and that "the time isn't right" to deal with our enemies. Today, the new reality before our eyes leaves no room for doubt and the tired refrain that "Israel supports peace" has been left shattered.

It's hard to determine when the breaking point occurred. Was it the absolute dismissal of the Saudi initiative? The refusal to acknowledge the Syrian initiative? Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's annual Passover interviews? The revulsion at the statements made by Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, in Damascus, alleging that Israel was ready to renew peace talks with Syria?

Who would have believed it? A high-ranking U.S. official says Israel wants peace talks to resume and instantly her president "severely" denies the veracity of her words. Is Israel even hearing these voices? Are we digesting the significance of these voices for peace? Seven million apathetic Israeli citizens prove that we are not.

Entire generations grew up here weaned on self-deception and doubt about the likelihood of achieving peace with our neighbors. In our younger days, David Ben-Gurion told us that if he were only able to meet with Arab leaders, he would have brought us peace in his time. Israel has demanded direct negotiations as a matter of principle and Israelis have derived great pride from the fact that their daily focus on "peace" has concealed their state's lofty ambitions. We were told that there was no partner for peace and that the ultimate ambition of the Arabs is to bring about our destruction. We burned the portraits of "the Egyptian tyrant" at our bonfires on Lag Ba'omer, and were convinced that all blame for the lack of peace lied with our enemies.

After that came the occupation, followed by terror, Yassir Arafat, the failed second Camp David Summit and the rise of Hamas to power, and we were sure, always sure, that it was all their fault. In our wildest dreams, we wouldn't have believed that the day would come when the entire Arab world would extend its hand in peace and Israel would brush away the gesture. It would have been even crazier to imagine that this Israeli refusal would have been blamed on not wanting to enrage domestic public opinion.

The world has been turned upside down and it is Israel that stands at the forefront of refusal. The policy of refusal of a select few, a vanguard of the extreme, has now become the official policy of Jerusalem. In his Passover interviews, Olmert will tell us that, "The Palestinians stand at the crossroads of a historic decision," but people stopped taking him seriously a long time ago. The historic decision is ours, and we are fleeing from this crossroads and from these initiatives as if from death itself.

Terror, used as the ultimate excuse for Israeli refusal, only helps Olmert keep reciting, ad nauseum, "If they [the Palestinians] don't change, don't fight terror and don't adhere to any of their obligations, then they will never extract themselves from their unending chaos." As though the Palestinians haven't taken measures against terrorism, as though Israel is the one to determine what their obligations are, as though Israel isn't to blame for the unending chaos Palestinians suffer under the occupation.

Israel makes a point of setting prerequisites and believes it has an exclusive right to do so. But, time and time again, Israel avoids the most basic prerequisite for any just peace - an end to the occupation. Of all the questions asked during his Passover interviews, no one bothered to ask Olmert why he didn't react with excitement to the recent Arab initiatives, without preconditions? The answer: real estate. The real estate of the settlements.

It's not only Olmert who is dragging his feet. A leading figure in the Labor party said last week that "it will take five to 10 years to recover from the trauma." Peace is now no more than a threatening wound, with no one still talking about the massive social benefits it would bring in development, security, freedom of movement in the region and by establishing a more just society.

Like a little Switzerland, we are focusing more these days on the dollar exchange rate and on the allegations of embezzlement leveled against the Finance Ministry than on the fateful opportunities fading away before our very eyes.

Not every day and not even in every generation do we encounter an opportunity like this. Although it's not for sure if the initiatives are completely solid and believable, or if they are based on trickery, no one has stepped up to challenge or acknowledge them. When Olmert is an elderly grandfather, what will he tell his grandchildren? That he turned over every stone in the name of peace? That there was no other choice? What will his grandchildren say?