Peace Index: December 2004
Prof. Ephraim Yaar and Prof. Tamar Hermann
http://spirit.tau.ac.il/socant/peace/peaceindex/2004/files/dec2004e.doc

Although a large majority of the Israeli Jewish public opposes refusal to
serve by soldiers, whether refusal to participate in evacuating settlements
in the territories or, particularly, to serve in the territories at all, the
public is divided almost equally on the question of whether the refusal
phenomenon endangers the operational capacity of the IDF, and also on the
question of how the IDF should deal with refusers-whether to take harsh
measures against them or show understanding for their motives. In the spirit
of the opposition to refusal from the Right and the Left, we found, as in
the past, extremely broad support for the right of protest by citizens who
think the government's policy on the peace issue is harming Israel's
national interest, but only on condition that this be in the framework of
the law. A small minority (about one-tenth) supports the right of nonviolent
civil disobedience, and a still smaller minority supports the right of
violent civil insurrection-for example, forceful opposition to the
evacuation of settlements-and the right to use, in certain circumstances,
weapons to prevent the implementation of government policy.

On the political level, a majority of the public continues to support the
unilateral disengagement plan. At the same time, the widespread view is that
this plan is not the end of the road but just a first step toward a
far-reaching evacuation of Jewish settlements in the West Bank in the
framework of a permanent agreement with the Palestinian Authority. And in
this context, although the prevalent view is that Abu Mazen's recent "tough"
speech, in which he reiterated Arafat's positions on Jerusalem, settlements,
borders, and so on, was just an election speech, the majority believes the
chances are low of reaching a lasting peace with a Palestinian government
headed by Abu Mazen.

Those are the main findings of the latest Peace Index survey, which was
conducted on December 27-28, 2004.

On the question "Do you think soldiers from the Left have a right to refuse
to serve in the territories, as an expression of protest against the
occupation?" 18% responded positively and 76% negatively (6% did not know).
On the corresponding question of the right of soldiers from the Right to
refuse to take part in evacuating settlements in the territories, as an
expression of their belief that it is forbidden to dismantle Jewish
settlements in the Land of Israel, 27% responded positively and 68%
negatively (5% did not know). That is, the public clearly tends to reject
both kinds of refusal, though refusal from the Right receives more support
than refusal from the Left-a disparity that is connected, at least in part,
to the right-wing parties' numerical superiority over the left-wing parties.

Is the wide opposition to refusal explainable in terms of the fear that it
could endanger the IDF's operational capacity? It turns out that the rate of
those holding this view-47%-is much lower than the rate of those who oppose
refusal, and that an almost identical proportion-45%-think there is no such
danger. Furthermore, a cross-section of the answers to the two questions
shows only a weak connection between opposition or recognition of the
different kinds of right to refuse, and the view that refusal could endanger
the IDF's ability to carry out its tasks. It appears, therefore, that the
reasons for support or opposition to the refusal phenomenon lie in basic
explanations, as indeed emerges from the answers that were obtained. To the
following question: "Should, in your opinion, the IDF show understanding
toward soldiers who refuse an order that goes against their conscience, or
should it take harsh measures against them?," it turns out that about half
the public (49%) favors harsh measures, whereas 43% think the IDF should
show understanding for the refusers' motives, according to the following
segmentation: 30% believe the IDF should show understanding without
distinction between the moral nature of the refusal from the Left or the
Right, 3% say it should show understanding only toward those refusing to
take part in occupation, and 9% think it should show understanding only
toward those who refuse to take part in evacuating settlements.

An analysis of the responses to this question by party voting indicates
that, in seemingly paradoxical fashion, the parties of the extreme Right and
of the extreme Left are much closer to each other's positions than to the
moderate parties of the Right and the Left, and especially the Center. Thus,
for example, the rate of those believing the IDF should show understanding
without distinguishing between refusal from the Left or the Right comes to
43% among Meretz voters and 46% among National Religious Party (Mafdal)
voters, while the corresponding rate among Shinui voters is only 10%. In
other words, the two "ideological parties" in which there is a tendency to
support refusal-in one party, refusal to take part in occupation, in the
other, refusal to evacuate settlements-believe the IDF should also show
understanding for refusal from the rival camp, so long as the refusers who
represent their own ideology are not dealt with harshly. Yet the voters for
a party like Shinui, which does not ideologically support either kind of
refusal, can allow themselves to take an attitude of "patriotic
responsibility" on this issue, with wide support (78%) for harsh measures.

The Jewish public's clear tendency to conformity, as reflected in its
attitude toward the refusal phenomenon, is also manifested in the sharp
distinction it makes on the question of the legitimacy of types of protest
by citizens who think the government's policy on the peace-process issue is
damaging Israel's national interest. Thus, while close to 90% support the
right to protest in the framework of the law (for example, to organize mass
petitions and to demonstrate with a license), only 11% recognize the right
to use methods of nonviolent civil disobedience (for example, to demonstrate
without a license, refuse army service, withhold tax payments, etc.), with
8% in favor of acts of violent civil insurrection (for example, forceful
resistance to the evacuation of settlements). As for the most extreme form
of violent insurrection, namely, the use of weapons in "situations where
there is no choice, so as to prevent the government from carrying out its
policy," the rate of support stands at only 6%. Nevertheless, it is
important to remember that behind these percentages-however small-lie large
numbers of Israeli citizens who represent a not inconsiderable potential to
threaten the rule of law in Israeli democracy.

On the political level, there is ongoing high stability in the segmentation
between the majority that supports the disengagement plan (some 60%) and the
minority that opposes it (33%), with the rest (7%) having no position on the
matter. It is important to note that the support for the plan continues
despite, and apparently also because of, the prevalent view (67%) that the
plan will constitute a first step toward a far-reaching evacuation of Jewish
settlements in the West Bank in the framework of a permanent agreement with
the Palestinian Authority. Only about 19% believe the disengagement plan is
the final step, in the sense that there will be no further settlement
evacuations in the West Bank, and the rest (14%) do not know. No less
interesting is that the view of the disengagement plan as less than final
crosses the camps, and is held almost equally by voters for the parties that
oppose the plan and for those that support it.

In this context, it is also important to note that support for renewing the
political negotiations with the Palestinians, to which we have pointed in
the past, is in a trend of increase, so that today it is found among some
75%. At the same time, the public is not particularly optimistic about the
results of the negotiations. Thus, whereas less than one-third (32%) believe
the chances of reaching a permanent peace with a government headed by Abu
Mazen are very high or moderately high, a higher rate (57%) think the
chances of this are moderately or very low. That is, the intensity of the
wish for a permanent settlement with the Palestinians is much greater than
the belief that it is attainable.

The Peace Index project is conducted at the Tami Steinmetz
Center for Peace Research of Tel Aviv University, headed by Prof. Ephraim
Yaar and Prof. Tamar Hermann. The telephone interviews were conducted by the
B. I. Cohen Institute of Tel Aviv University, December 27-28, 2004 and
included 594 interviewees who represent the adult Jewish and Arab population
of Israel (including the territories and the kibbutzim).

The sampling error for a sample of this size is about 4.5% in each
direction.