|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
Majority of Israelis see settlements as against national interest |
Current rating: 0 |
by Ha'aretz, via gehrig
(No verified email address) |
05 Jun 2002
|
|
Interesting opinion poll. "A total of 54 percent of Jewish respondents replied that the settlements considerably or greatly weaken the national interest, while only 35 percent felt that they considerably or greatly strengthen it, (about 11 percent didn't know)." |
Haaretz, 6/6/02
A fence, yes - but not in Jerusalem
A majority of Israeli Jews now favor unilateral separation and evacuating settlements, but don't want to repartition the capital
By Prof. Ephraim Ya'ar and Dr. Tamar Hermann
A majority of the Israeli-Jewish public now perceives the settlements as weakening Israel's national interest instead of strengthening it, and is prepared to evacuate them within the context of a unilateral separation program, in order to create an effective buffer between Israel and the Palestinians. But only a minority agrees to the repartitioning of Jerusalem under such an agreement by means of a fence or other separation measures aimed at significantly decreasing terror attacks in the city.
The use of unilateral separation to protect security enjoys stronger support than a return to negotiations with the Palestinian Authority (PA); the prevailing opinion of the Israeli-Jewish public is that a fence or other means of separation could reduce the number of attacks to a significant extent, but not prevent them altogether.
Concurrently, as in previous months, the public in principle supports conducting negotiations with the PA. But a return to the negotiating table to discuss the Clinton Plan of December 2000 has not raised much sympathy among the Israeli-Jewish public, of which a majority declares that it will oppose this plan, should it again be placed on the agenda.
These are the principal findings of the Peace Index for May 2002, conducted on Tuesday-Thursday, 28-30 May 2002.
Respondents were asked: "In today's reality, do the settlements contribute to Israel's national interest, or weaken it?" A total of 54 percent of Jewish respondents replied that the settlements considerably or greatly weaken the national interest, while only 35 percent felt that they considerably or greatly strengthen it, (about 11 percent didn't know). These figures are practically the reverse of the opinions voiced on this issue in a previous index carried out in June 2001, some nine months after the outbreak of the second intifada. At that time 58 percent felt that the settlements contributed to the national interest, and 33 percent felt that they harmed it.
A real increase has concurrently come about in the numbers prepared to evacuate the settlements under a unilateral separation program, in order to create an effective buffer zone between Israel and the Palestinians: 65 percent are ready to do so today (compared with only 27 percent who oppose an evacuation and 8 percent who have no opinion on the issue). These figures compare with 54 percent who supported an evacuation last July (38 percent were opposed and 8 percent didn't know).
As anticipated, an evaluation of whether the settlements contribute to or harm Israel's national interest is closely linked to the support of or opposition to their evacuation under a unilateral separation agreement. Thus, 71 percent of the supporters of such an evacuation feel that the settlements damage the national interest, and 21 percent believe that they contribute to it (8 percent don't know), while 75 percent of the opponents of an evacuation believe that the settlements contribute to the national interest, against 18 percent who feel they are harmful (7 percent don't know.)
Religion and politics
Respondents' stands on the settlement issue are influenced by various characteristics - above all, by their degree of religiousness and political affinity. Thus, while 64 percent of self-styled ultra-Orthodox or Orthodox feel that the settlements contribute to the strengthening of Israel's national interest, this feeling is shared by only 40 percent of those who say they are traditional and 23 percent of secular Israeli Jews. Politically speaking, 87 percent of Barak voters perceive the settlements as detrimental to the national interest, against 6 percent who feel they contribute to it (7 percent don't know). The majority (49 percent) of Sharon voters feel that the settlements contribute to the national interest, but a sizable minority (39 percent) believe that they damage it.
Segmentation of stands on this issue according to votes cast for the four large parties reveals that only Shas can boast of a sweeping agreement (78 percent) that the settlements contribute to the national interest, with only 17 percent who consider them harmful and 6 percent who don't know. Diametrically opposed are the Meretz voters (0 percent consider the settlements a positive contribution, while 95 percent believe they are harmful) and Labor (13 percent feel they contribute and 85 percent believe they are damaging). Likud voters are almost evenly divided between a small majority (47 percent) who feel that the settlements contribute to the national interest, and 43 percent who believe that they damage it.)
A similar reply pattern, based on the degree of respondents' religiousness and their Knesset votes was obtained to the question of whether the settlements should or should not be evacuated under a unilateral separation plan.
Respondents were asked to choose with which of the following two claims they agreed more: 1) Given the events of the last 18 months, it would be futile to renew the negotiations and Israel must therefore opt for unilateral separation by erecting a fence in order to defend its security; or 2) negotiations should be renewed forthwith, since a unilateral step will not avail. Given that the other side is not a partner to fateful decisions, no solution to the conflict can ever be achieved, nor can genuine security be attained. Here, 51 percent supported a unilateral separation, against 36 percent who favored an immediate resumption of negotiations (13 percent were unable to choose between the two).
It is worth noting that only 14 percent now believe that a fence or wall could totally prevent the attacks. Sixty percent feel that physical means could reduce them significantly, while 24 percent do not believe that physical means of separation will affect the terror. Support for unilateral separation is seemingly prompted by the confidence in its ability to decrease the terror, and does not reflect a general stand on the strategy that should be employed vis-a-vis the Palestinians, since the previous two months, as well as this month have indicated a majority - 62 percent - who are in principle in favor of negotiations with the Palestinians.
It should be noted that - contrary to the obvious willingness to evacuate settlements under a separation agreement - a decisive majority of the Jewish public (69 percent) are opposed to the division of Jerusalem by a fence, wall or other physical object in order to significantly lower the terror attacks. Only 25 percent agree to a division of the city for these reasons, and 6 percent don't know. Seemingly, therefore, the Jewish public's stands on Jerusalem are not affected by security considerations alone, nor does this public believe that terror attacks in the city can be prevented or significantly decreased by erecting a physical buffer.
Opposition to U.S. pressure
We attempted to ascertain whether public opinion in this country had genuinely changed with respect to the Clinton Plan to resolve the conflict, compared with December 2000 when the plan was first raised. We provided respondents with the main points of the plan (Jerusalem, the Temple Mount, refugees and borders), and 57 percent of Jewish respondents were opposed to Israel's signing a peace plan along these lines; 35 percent were in favor, and 8 percent didn't know.
In other words, there has scarcely been any change on this issue when comparing the stands with those held 18 months ago, when 59 percent were opposed and 31 percent agreed to the plan's acceptance as a basis for an agreement.
Most of the Jewish public (64 percent) is moreover opposed to any attempt by the United States "to use every means at its disposal to exert pressure on the sides" to sign an agreement based on the Clinton Plan (29 percent support this and 7 percent didn't know) - despite the fact that, according to last month's findings, a U.S. intervention in the Israel-Palestinian conflict was acceptable to almost the entire Jewish public (87 percent), while it rejected the intervention of other international bodies in the conflict, other than Britain.
For comparison purposes, the majority of Israeli Arab respondents - 63 percent - support the plan, against 27 percent who oppose it and 10 percent who have no clear opinion on the subject. Concurrently, these respondents are also inclined to support the use of U.S. pressure to implement the plan: 56 percent in favor and 40 percent opposed, notwithstanding the fact that a U.S. intervention in the conflict is not particularly acceptable to the Arab public in Israel: this month only 46 percent stated that they perceived such an intervention favorably, whereas 54 percent rejected it.
The peace indices for this month are as follows:
General Peace Index: total sample: 54.7. Jewish sample: 52.6
Oslo Index: total sample: 29.2. Jewish sample: 27.6.
Syria Index: total sample: 38.4. Jewish sample: 33.7.
The Peace Index Project is conducted by the Tami Steinmetz Institute for Peace at Tel Aviv University, headed by Prof. Ephraim Ya'ar and Dr. Tamar Hermann. The telephone interviews were conducted by the B.I. Cohen Institute of Public Opinion Research at Tel Aviv University on 28-30 May 2002, and comprised 576 respondents, representing the adult Jewish and Arab populations of this country (including Samaria, the Gaza Strip and the kibbutzim). Maximal margin of sampling error is estimated at 4.5 percent.
|
