Peace Index: February 2005
Prof. Ephraim Yaar and Prof. Tamar Hermann

The Jewish public is almost equally divided today on the question of whether
to react with restraint or severity to terror attacks, such as the recent
attack at the Stage club in Tel Aviv. There is a similar division on whether
or not the new Palestinian prime minister, Abu Mazen, is making sincere
efforts to put a stop to Palestinian terror. At the same time, it appears
the recent attack did not cause a change in the public's position on the
current main issues in the Israeli-Palestinian context. The broad support
for the unilateral disengagement plan from Gaza remains in place, as does
the support for renewing the political negotiations with the Palestinians.

Regarding the results of the terror attacks of recent years, a large
majority of the public seems to believe in the notion-which is not supported
by empirical studies-that "terror is blind," meaning that all Israelis are
equally exposed to the danger of an attack. At the same time, when it comes
to specific groups, this egalitarian assessment disappears in part, with a
considerable minority inclined to believe that certain groups' chances of
being hurt are higher, especially residents of the settlements (compared to
those living within the Green Line), soldiers (compared to civilians), and
Jews (compared to Arabs).

Given the continuing uncertainty on the question of the Sharon government's
future amid the crisis of the disengagement and the budget, along with the
heated debate on the question of ending the tenure of the outgoing chief of
staff and the appointment of the new one, we again checked the public's
degree of confidence in major institutions of the state. The principal
finding is that among the institutions that can be called "nonpolitical"-the
army, the Supreme Court, and the media-only the first two win broad public
confidence. As for the undeniably political institutions-the government, the
Knesset, and the political parties-confidence in them is now somewhat lower
than previous measurements, although higher than during the course of the
Intifada.

The IDF is the body that wins the highest confidence, and the common view is
that its role in shaping the national policy is appropriate, that is,
neither too strong nor too weak.

Those are the main findings of the Peace Index survey that was conducted on
Monday and Tuesday, February 28-March 1.

The suicide bombing at the Stage club in Tel Aviv after a period of relative
calm, and this time under the leadership of the new president of the
Palestinian Authority, Abu Mazen, with a possibility on the horizon of
renewing the political negotiations, raised the question of to what extent
of severity Israel should react to such attacks under the new conditions.
Opinions among the Jewish public are divided, with 50% favoring a severe
reaction and only a slightly lower rate, 42%, saying Israel should act with
restraint. We found an even smaller gap between those who think Abu Mazen is
making sincere efforts to eradicate the terror on the Palestinian side (45%)
and those who believe he is not making such efforts (42%). Nevertheless, the
attack did not erode the Jewish public's support for the disengagement
plan-62% in favor, 30% against, with the rest not having a clear opinion on
the matter. Likewise, a majority of three-fourths currently support holding
negotiations with the Palestinian Authority while only 21% oppose doing so.
This is despite uncertainty about the results: whereas about half believe
such negotiations would lead in the coming years to peace, half do not think
they would bear fruit.

The attacks' occurrence in the heart of Tel Aviv, and the fact that the
victims belonged to a single circle of friends, raised the question of to
what extent the public believes certain population groups are-because of
their respective characteristics-at a higher risk of terror attacks than
other groups. Hence, we asked: "When you think about the terror attacks of
recent years, in your opinion are all Israelis exposed to the danger to the
same extent, or do certain groups have a greater chance of being attacked
than the others?" The large majority of the Jewish public-68%-believe all
Israelis are exposed to attacks to the same extent, while 28% say some
Israelis' chances of being attacked are lower. It is interesting to note
that, though in the Arab public a majority thinks the risk of attack is
equal, the rate of those who believe this-58%-is lower than the rate of Jews
who believe it, and also is closer to the rate of Arabs who think the risk
is not equal-35%.

When we checked the perceptions about specific groups, we found that only
residents of the settlements are considered, by only a small majority, as
more exposed to attacks than others-44% say that they are, compared to 42%
who think their chances of being attacked are equal to those of other
Israelis. For all the other groups that were compared-Arabs vs. Jews,
soldiers vs. civilians, women vs. men, children and teens vs. adults, the
elderly vs. the younger, poorer neighborhoods vs. well-off neighborhoods,
new immigrants vs. veterans, and foreign workers vs. citizens-the highest
rate of respondents believe in the equality of their risk. However, among
the minority who do not see the risk as equal, 42% think soldiers are more
exposed than civilians (7%), 45.4% believe Jews are more at risk than Arabs
(2%), and 29% claim members of poorer neighborhoods are more in danger than
those belonging to well-off neighborhoods (4%). As for women vs. men,
immigrants vs. veterans, foreign workers vs. Israeli citizens, the elderly
vs. those younger than they, and children and teens vs. adults, the
widespread view is that there is no difference in risk. These perceptions
partially contradict the findings of a recent empirical study by Prof.
Ephraim Yaar and Yariv Feniger. For example, this study found that the rate
of men who have been killed in terror attacks is considerably higher than
that of women, even with regard to the civilian population only.

As noted, given the intense disagreements on the question of the
disengagement and the budget, and the disputes on the replacement of the
chief of staff, we checked the extent of the public's confidence in various
state institutions. Among the Jews, the data indicate as in the past that
the IDF wins the greatest confidence, with 73% expressing full confidence
and 21% moderate confidence in it, for a total of 94%. In second place,
though by a considerable margin, is the Supreme Court with 43.5% full
confidence and 31.5% moderate confidence, for a total of 75%. The main
political institutions all receive much less confidence: the government wins
the full confidence of 12% and the moderate confidence of 33%, for a total
of 45%; the Knesset-9% full confidence and 27% moderate confidence,
amounting to only 36% having confidence; and the parties do even worse, with
4% expressing full confidence in them and 17% moderate confidence, adding up
to 21%. Like the political institutions, the media also "enjoys" low rates
of confidence: 10.5% full confidence and 37.5% moderate confidence, or 48%
overall. Generally, when comparing the current trust level with its
measurement in December 2001, namely in the midst of the Intifada, it
appears that there has been an increase in the public's trust, though it is
still somewhat lower than the level which was recorded in January 2000,
namely a few months before the eruption of the Intifada, with the gap
particularly large with respect to the Knesset and the political parties.

The great confidence the IDF enjoys among the Jewish public is also evident
in the view that the IDF's current influence on shaping the national policy
is appropriate-49%, with 20% saying it is too strong and 17% that it is too
low. Not surprisingly, the majority of the Arab public-59.5%-view this
influence as too strong, 20% as appropriate, and only 8% as too weak.

At the same time, opinions in the Jewish public are divided today on
whether, in the current situation-with Israel still being involved in an
external conflict, but also in a process of growing economic and social
gaps-security needs should top the order of priorities in budget allocation.
Compared to 47% who say they should, 44% favor investing more in other
areas, such as welfare and social issues. In the Arab public, a large
majority of 66% prefers investing in those other areas, with only 22%
believing security needs should get budgetary priority. A segmentation of
the views on this question by voting in the most recent Knesset elections
shows that only among Likud and National Union voters is there in fact a
majority who think security should top the national order of priorities.
Shas voters are very evenly divided between the two possibilities, while for
Labor, Meretz, National Religious Party (Mafdal), Torah Judaism, and Shinui
voters, majorities of different sizes agree that there should be more
investment in social and welfare areas even at the expense of the defense
budget.

The Oslo Index for the entire population came this month to 39.9 (Jewish
sample-36.2). The Negotiation Index for the whole population stood at 59.8
(Jewish sample-58.0).

The Peace Index project is conducted at the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace
Research and the Evens Program in Mediation and Conflict Resolution at 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 on February 28 and March 1, 2005, and included 582 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.