The frequent reports about the approaching Annapolis conference have not changed the Jewish public's expectations: As we found last month, only the rate of those who think the conference can yield a basic clarification of the disputes between Israel and the Palestinians, or significantly advance the chances for a peace agreement, is lower than the rate of those who think it might bear fruit. Indeed, compared to last month's survey, the public was more interested in reports about the conference, but the large majority continues to follow them only sometimes, or not at all.
The limited interest in the conference does not stem from public apathy about the need to renew the peace process. Although many say this need is more urgent for the Palestinians than for Israel, those who say it is more important to Israel and those who see it as equally important for both sides comprise a critical mass. This view is certainly linked to the prevailing assessment that the Palestinians now constitute a serious security threat to Israel; many perceive peace as a means to reduce the threat. Today, as in the past, a large majority also believes most of the Palestinians have not accepted the existence of Israel and would destroy it if they could. This climate may well explain the wide support for the government's decision to respond to the Qassam fire with measures that harm the civilian population, such as cutting off electricity and limiting the supply of fuel.
Nevertheless, it appears that the Jewish public does not fear the Palestinian threat will make it collapse. A large majority believes that if the present situation continues, Israeli society can hold out longer than Palestinian society can. Similarly, a significant percentage believes that now, seven years after the outbreak of the second intifada, Israeli society is in better shape than Palestinian society. Along with the confidence in Israeli society's resilience, the prevailing view is that to reach a peace agreement, Israel will have to make larger concessions than the Palestinians - which may explain the disagreements on renewing the peace process.
 |
Advertisement |
|
As for choosing between possible concessions on Israel's part, the Jewish public appears to have a clear order of preferences. It clearly favors keeping Israel democratic and Jewish and reaching a peace agreement, as opposed to preserving the Greater Land of Israel. And it clearly prefers maintaining the state's democratic character to maintaining its Jewish character, though the gap is smaller than for the previous choice, and also is smaller than it was in the past.
Those are the main conclusions that emerge from the Peace Index survey carried out on October 29-30, 2007.
Low interest
A large minority of the Jewish public - 40 percent - thinks the Annapolis conference could yield a basic clarification of the disputes between Israel and the Palestinians, while a majority of 50 percent does not think so. The rest do not know. A similar segmentation emerged on the question of whether the conference can significantly advance the chances of reaching a permanent peace agreement: Only 40 percent said yes, while 51 percent said no. These findings are very similar to those from September: Time has not increased expectations for the approaching conference. The public's interest in the conference preparations also remains quite low, though it increased slightly over the previous month. Currently, 27 percent steadily follow the reports about the conference, 47 only sometimes, 23 percent not at all, and the rest had never heard of the conference or did not answer (the corresponding rates last month were 20 percent, 48 percent and 29 percent, respectively).
On the question of who more urgently needs to renew the peace process, 37 percent said it was the Palestinians, 29 percent chose Israel, and 29 percent said both (3 percent said neither, and the rest do not know). However, even though the public somewhat tends to view the Palestinians as having a greater need to renew the peace process, combining those who think Israel has a greater need and those who see it as urgent for both sides yields a clear majority (57 percent) for the view that Israel, too, needs peace. The limited interest in the preparations for Annapolis does not necessarily mean the public does not see peace as important.
The assessment that peace is important to Israel could be linked to the widespread view (68 percent) that the Palestinians constitute a serious security threat (29 percent do not think so). Indeed, a correlation was found between seeing the Palestinian threat as high and seeing peace as vital for Israel. Among those who think the Palestinians constitute a threat, the same number - 33 percent - view peace as more important to Israel as those who believe it is more important to the Palestinians. But among those who do not think the Palestinians constitute a threat, the rate of those viewing peace as more important to the Palestinians (49 percent) is much higher than the rate of those who consider it more important to Israel (20 percent).
Meanwhile, there is wide agreement among the Jewish public (65 percent) with the statement, "Most of the Palestinians have not accepted Israel's existence and would destroy it if they could." Note that this finding is not exceptional; similar rates have been found in the Jewish public since the mid-1990s. The widespread fears of the Palestinian threat, combined with the ongoing Qassam fire from Gaza, may well explain the wide support for the government's decision to respond to the attacks with measures that also harm the civilian population, such as cutting off electricity and limiting the fuel supply. Seventy-one percent support such measures, while only 12 percent oppose them. Among the opponents, a slightly higher rate say this is due to humanitarian concern (harming the civilian population) than for utilitarian reasons (these measures will not stop the Qassam fire). Among voters for all the parties, a majority of only Meretz voters opposed to the government's decision.
Social resilience
Nevertheless, as opposed to Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, who says Israeli society is weaker than a spider web, the Jewish public has high regards for Israeli society's resilience in the conflict with the Palestinians. Seventy percent say that if the present situation continues, Israeli society can maintain its inner strength better than Palestinian society can, while only 12 percent think the opposite. Similarly, in response to the question, "Seven years after the outbreak of the second intifada, when you think about the state of Israeli society and of Palestinian society, which of the two, in your opinion, is doing better?" 63 percent chose Israeli society and 14 percent Palestinian society (14 percent responded that the two are doing equally badly, 2 percent that they are doing equally well, and the rest did not know).
Along with its confidence in Israeli society's resilience, most of the Jewish public (58 percent) thinks that if the peace process is renewed, Israel will have to make larger concessions than the Palestinians will, while only 20.5 percent say the Palestinians will have to concede more. This may partly explain the disagreements on renewing the peace process. In any case, the public appears to have clear preferences regarding concessions. Between preserving the Greater Land of Israel and preserving a Jewish majority in the country, 27 percent prefer the first objective, 56 percent the second, and 11 percent see them as equally important (2 percent think neither is important and the rest do not know). Similarly, when the choice is between preserving the Greater Land of Israel and signing peace agreements with Arab states and the Palestinians, 54 percent prefer the latter alternative and 31.5 percent the former (9 percent view them as equally important, 1.5 percent ascribe importance to neither, and the rest do not know). However, between maintaining the Jewish character of the state and maintaining its democratic character, 48 percent prefer the second and 34 percent the first (14.5 percent see them as equally important and the rest do not know).
Although these indeed show a clear gap in favor of democracy, it is smaller than the two preceding disparities. Furthermore, when we looked into this question more than a decade ago (June 1996), the same gaps emerged regarding the choice between the Greater Land of Israel and preserving the Jewish majority and between the Greater Land of Israel and signing a peace agreement, but the gap in favor of democracy was larger: At the time, 57.5 percent favored preserving democracy and 29 percent preferred maintaining the country's Jewish character. In other words, democracy is still in the lead but, whereas its status has declined not inconsiderably, the status of Jewish nationality has strengthened.
The peace indexes: Oslo Index: 40.7 (Jewish sample: 37.6)
Negotiations Index: 53.3 (Jewish sample: 49.4)
The Peace Index Project is conducted at the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Studies and the Evans Program for Conflict Resolution Research of Tel Aviv University, headed by Prof. Ephraim Yaar and Prof. Tamar Hermann. The telephone interviews were carried out by the B. I. Cohen Institute of Tel Aviv University on October 29-30, 2007 and included 599 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 percent. For the survey data see: http://www.tau.ac.il/peace
|
