72 percent of Israeli Jews say more military force should be used
By Ephraim Yaar and Tamar Hermann
Ha'aretz, April 4, 2001
After about six months have passed since the outbreak of the
Palestinian Intifada, with an increasing number of victims claimed on
both sides. Apparently a wide consensus has developed among the Jewish
public for a tough and uncompromising policy against the Palestinians.
Thus, a decisive majority supports the policy of closure or
encirclement of Palestinian towns, deploying greater military force
against Palestinians, and not engaging in negotiations with them as
long as the violence continues. This mood is related to the general
assessment of the intentions of the Palestinians and their leadership
toward peace and the future of the state of Israel: A large majority
believes that the Palestinian Authority does not really want to
achieve peace with Israel and that the Palestinians in general have
not accepted the existence of Israel. This lack of trust toward the
Palestinians is so profound that only a minority believes that the
Intifada is aimed at compelling Israel to sign an accord on Arafat's
terms, while the majority feels that the Intifada's aim is to wage war
against Israel, and not to reach an agreement. Against this background
of suspicion and distrust, one can explain the fact that most Israelis
reject the premise that evacuating isolated settlements like Netzarim
and Hebron would lead to an end of the violence and create the
atmosphere for resuming negotiations.
Nonetheless, there is considerable readiness among the public for
compromises like these, if indeed this would bring about an end to the
violence.
These are the principal findings of the Peace Index survey conducted
during March 28 and 29, as a series of terrorist attacks occurred,
including the murder of two young teenagers by a suicide bomber at the
Mifgash Hashalom gas station and the sniper shooting of the
10-month-old baby in Hebron.
When asked "Do you support or oppose the policy of closure or
encirclement of Palestinian cities and towns?" 71 percent of the
Jewish respondents answered that they were very supportive (46
percent) or quite supportive (25 percent) of this policy, while 16
percent were opposed and 13 percent were unsure. Among those 29
percent who did not come out in support of this policy, 37 percent (or
11 percent of all respondents) explained their stance by saying that
collective punishment is unethical and 30 percent (or 7.8 percent of
all respondents) said that this policy is ineffective. Some 14 percent
(or 4 percent of the total survey sample) cited both of these reasons
for not supporting this policy.
Thus, all in all, only about 15 percent of those surveyed believe that
ethical considerations take precedence over the security premise upon
which the closure policy is based. Even when asked about extending
economic assistance to the Palestinians to help alleviate their plight
- without regard to the question of closure - only 33 percent were in
favor, while 63 percent opposed this idea and 4 percent were
undecided. In other words, the hostility felt for the Palestinians
makes it difficult for the Israeli public to show empathy for them.
These emotions are also reflected in the firm support (79 percent) for
the current policy of Sharon to refrain from resuming negotiations
with the Palestinians as long as the violence continues. Moreover,
despite the bloody toll the violence has taken so far, most of the
public (67 percent) do not accept the assessment that Israel will
eventually be forced to abandon this policy and return to the
bargaining table if the violence continues, while 30 percent agree
with this assessment. Against this background, it comes as no surprise
that the common view is that more military force should be exercised
against the Palestinians: 72 percent of the survey recipients espoused
this view, 17 percent said that the current level of military force is
enough, and only 17 percent advocate using a lower dose of military
force. (The remaining respondents were undecided.)
Intentions questioned Beyond hardening the views of Israeli public
opinion on the question of how to cope with the violence of the
Intifada, the uprising has also significantly damaged the public's
confidence in the peaceful intentions of the Palestinians. Thus,
according to three-fourths of the Jewish public, the Palestinian
Authority is not at all interested in attaining peace with Israel. A
similar percentage (72 percent) believe that "Most Palestinians have
not accepted the existence of the State of Israel and would destroy it
if they were able." The public's skepticism regarding the intentions
of the Palestinians is so great that only 41 percent believe that the
Intifada was aimed to weaken Israel in order to force it to sign a
peace treaty according to Arafat's conditions. The majority - 53
percent - believe that the Intifada erupted in order to hurt and wage
war against Israel as an end in itself, and not as a means to arrive
at an accord.
(The rest of the respondents were undecided.)
Against this background, one can understand why the public does not
believe that a unilateral evacuation of Jewish settlements located in
the heart of Palestinian population centers - like Netzarim and Kfar
Darom in the Gaza Strip, or the Jewish enclave in Hebron - would bring
about an end to Palestinian violence and create an environment
conducive to the renewal of negotiations on a peace treaty: 67 percent
maintain this view, versus 28 percent who believe that dismantling of
settlements would lead to a cessation of violence. However, this does
not mean that there is widespread opposition to the evacuation of such
settlements under any condition. When asked: "If the unilateral
evacuation of settlements located in the heart of the Palestinian
population would indeed lead to an end of violence, would you support
or oppose the evacuation?" 47 percent said they would support the
evacuation, while 44 percent were still opposed. That is, the
consensus against evacuating settlements only exists as long as the
public is convinced that such a step would not lead to a cessation of
violence and resumption of negotiations.
The tough attitude reflected in the survey is also dominant among
those who voted for Barak in the recent elections, though the trend is
somewhat weaker than among Sharon voters. For example, 85 percent of
those who voted for Sharon support the deployment of more military
force against the Palestinians (versus 4 percent who oppose this),
while 50 percent of Barak voters support a tougher military response
(versus 14 percent who oppose this). The situation is similar in
regard to the question of conditioning the resumption of peace talks
on a cessation of Palestinian violence:
87 percent of Sharon voters support this policy, as do 65 percent of
Barak voters. Again, the picture is similar on the closure issue: 80
percent of Sharon voters agree with this form of collective punishment
(11 percent oppose it), while 53 percent of Barak voters support the
closure policy (with 25 percent opposed).
However, when it comes to the question of humanitarian aid for the
besieged Palestinian population, more substantial differences arise
between these two groups of voters: While only 20 percent of Sharon
voters support providing humanitarian assistance and 77 percent are
opposed, 58 percent of Barak voters support this type of assistance
and 36 percent are opposed.
