About Us

IMRA
IMRA
IMRA

 

Subscribe

Search


...................................................................................................................................................


Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Peace Index: Israeli Jews 59%:33% oppose transferring Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem in exchange for peace agreement, 87% oppose return of even a single refugee

Peace Index: September 2007
Prof. Ephraim Yaar and Prof. Tamar Hermann

Some two-thirds of the Jewish public think that from Israel's standpoint it
is impossible to go on indefinitely in the current state of relations
between Israel and the Palestinians, and a similar rate thinks that among
the issues on its agenda, it is urgent that the Israeli government invest in
attempting to reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians. Yet a large
majority of this public does not believe the Annapolis conference will
significantly advance the chances of reaching a permanent Israeli-
Palestinians peace, or even achieve a basic clarification of the differences
between the two sides. Given these low expectations, it is no surprise that
only a small minority reports steadily following the preparations for the
conference.

The low level of expectations for the conference is undoubtedly connected to
the perception of a wide gap between the two sides' positions. A
considerable majority of the Jewish public opposes, even in exchange for a
permanent peace agreement, transferring the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem
to the Palestinians so they can serve as the capital of Palestine. And on
the refugee issue there is a wide, across-the-board consensus that Israel
should not agree to the return of a single refugee to Israel itself. It was
also found that there are more opponents than supporters in the Jewish
public of giving the United States, should the talks reach a dead-end, the
arbitrating authority to determine what concessions each side should make to
enable reaching an agreement.

But most of all, it appears that the Jewish public does not trust its
government.

Throughout the political spectrum, an overwhelming majority thinks Ehud
Olmert and his government are not strong enough to sign a peace agreement
with the Palestinians in Israel's name, assuming such an agreement would
entail substantial concessions by Israel. Those are the main findings of the
Peace Index that was carried out from Monday to Wednesday, 8-10 October.

About two-thirds-65%-of the Jewish public think that from Israel's
standpoint it is impossible to continue indefinitely in the present state of
relations with the Palestinians (29.5% say it is possible to go on this
way), and 62% think that among the issues on the government's agenda, the
Palestinian issue is the most urgent or moderately urgent (35% see it as
moderately not urgent or not urgent at all).

Interestingly, when Jewish Israelis are asked to assess the possibility of
continuing the current situation from the Palestinian standpoint, the data
are quite similar-62% say it is impossible from the Palestinian standpoint
while 26% believe it is possible. As noted, though, a majority does not
expect the coming Annapolis conference to bring about a shift-only 39% of
the entire Jewish public see a chance that in its framework the sides will
be able to clarify the disagreements between them (57% see no such chance),
and an identical rate believes the conference can increase the chances of
reaching a permanent peace agreement (56% think it cannot). A segmentation
of the responses to the question by Knesset voting reveals that the most
optimistic-62.5%-are Meretz and Labor voters immediately followed by Kadima
voters at 54%. Forty percent of Shas voters believe in the conference's
chances to bear fruit while only about one-third of voters for the rest of
the parties are optimistic, and only about one-quarter of Likud voters, who
are the most pessimistic about the conference, think it can contribute to
achieving a peace agreement.

At the same time, about 60% think the participation of Arab states such as
Egypt, Jordan, or Saudi Arabia could raise the conference's chances of
leading to significant achievements. Interestingly, only a 30% minority
would want to see Hamas representatives at the conference. In other words,
currently the Jewish public does not perceive Hamas as a desirable partner
for dialogue even if it changes its positions and agrees to engage in direct
talks with Israel.

The low expectations for the conference are apparently the reason that only
20% reported regularly following the preparations for the event, while about
half said they follow them sometimes and 29% reported not following them at
all.

The data show that the public's readiness for concessions in the framework
of such a conference is not high. Some 59% oppose, in exchange for a peace
agreement, transferring the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem to Palestinian
sovereignty so that they can serve as the capital of Palestine (33% support
it). Even firmer is the Jewish public's position on Palestinian refugees'
return to Israel in the context of a permanent peace settlement: 87% are not
prepared for the return of even a single refugee, 6% are prepared for the
return of up to 100,000, and 3% are prepared for whatever number is decided.

We asked: if in the course of the conference it turned out that because of
the gaps between the two sides' positions they could not reach an agreement,
would it in your opinion be desirable for the United States to play the role
of arbitrator and determine what concessions each side should make to enable
reaching an agreement? Fifty-two percent opposed giving the United States
this role while 41% supported it-even though we have found more than once in
the past that the Jewish public perceives the United States as an "honest
broker."

Beyond the perception that the gaps between the sides are too large to
arbitrate in the conference and beyond the unwillingness to make concessions
on issues that the Palestinians will clearly raise as requisites for
reaching a settlement (Jerusalem and the refugees), it seems that one of the
main reasons for the Jewish public's low expectations for the conference is
the assessment of a large majority-77%-that the prime minister and his
government are too weak to sign a peace agreement with the Palestinians in
Israel's name, assuming such an agreement would entail significant
concessions. A segmentation of views of the government's and prime minister's
strength shows that there is indeed a connection between these assessment
and voting in the elections. But even among voters for Kadima-the prime
minister's party- only 27% see the government as strong enough to take a
strategic step and only 20% of voters for Labor, the senior partner in the
coalition, think so. That is, the assessment that the current government is
too weak is common to the large majority of the voters for all the Jewish
parties.

On a different issue, we looked into whether or not there is public support
to replace soldiers with civilians from private security firms at the
crossing points between Israel and the West Bank. It turns out that a large
majority of the Jewish public-69%-see such a decision as unwise and only 29%
favor it. That is, the Jewish public apparently trusts only in the IDF.
Interestingly, there was not a single party (including Meretz) for which a
majority of voters supports a decision to civilianize the crossings.

The Arab sector: this time too, on issues we checked, clear disparities were
found between the Arab public's and the Jewish public's positions. Unlike
the Jewish public, which sees it as impossible to continue the current
situation from the standpoint of both sides, a certain majority of the Arab
public thinks that from the Israeli standpoint it is possible to sustain
indefinitely the current state of relations with the Palestinians-47% vs.
42%. However, regarding the Palestinian standpoint a majority of the Arab
public sees it as impossible to continue this way-51% vs. 41% who assess it
as possible.

The Israeli Arab public's optimism about the possible results of the
Annapolis conference is slightly greater than that of the Jewish public.
Some 37.5% think it could achieve a basic clarification of the sides'
disagreements and just about the same percentage think it cannot bring this
about; 46% say the conference could increase the chances of reaching a
permanent peace agreement compared to 37.5% who do not think so. At the same
time, the extent of personal interest in the preparations for the conference
is similar in the two publics, and so are assessments about the
participation of Arab states: 62% of the Arab public (60% of the Jewish
public) think such participation can contribute to improving the results.

As expected, in the Arab public a majority, albeit not large-53%-favors
including Hamas in the coming Annapolis conference. There is also a
majority, unlike in the Jewish public but again not an overwhelming one,
that favors transferring the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem to Palestinian
sovereignty-63%, and allowing the return of Palestinian refugees to
Israel-71%. And, also unlike the position of the Israeli Jewish public, a
majority of the Arab public-53%-favors giving the United States the
authority to determine the concessions that each side should make in case
the talks reach a dead-end. Indeed, a higher rate of the Arab public than of
the Jewish public sees the Olmert government as strong, but here too the
majority-54.5%-regards it as too weak to make major concessions in Israel's
name.

As for civilianizing the crossings, here too a majority opposes the
decision-50% vs. 28%. Very possibly, though, the Arab public opposes this
for completely different reasons than the Jewish public, particularly
opposition to the checkpoints' existence in the first place.

Indexes:
General Peace Index: 54.2 (Jewish Sample: 48.3)
Oslo Index: 35.1 (Jewish Sample: 32.3)
General Negotiations: 51.6;(Jewish Sample: 49.2)

The Peace Index Project is conducted at the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace
Research and the
Evens Program in Mediation and Conflict Resolution 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 on 8-10 October 2007, and included
580 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 4.5%.

For the survey data see: www.tau.ac.il/peace

Search For An Article

....................................................................................................

Contact Us

POB 982 Kfar Sava
Tel 972-9-7604719
Fax 972-3-7255730
email:imra@netvision.net.il IMRA is now also on Twitter
http://twitter.com/IMRA_UPDATES

image004.jpg (8687 bytes)