|
June 2003 -- The Jewish Peace Lobby, in a poll
conducted with the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research at Tel-Aviv
University, found that 65% of Israeli Jews support or very much support an
active American effort to formualte detailed peace agreements, not just for
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but for the conflict with Syria and
Lebanon as well. They want the United States to then recruit
international support in an effort to convince the parties to accept these
agreements. Only 28% of Israeli Jews opposed this approach.
Similar results were found on the same issue in a
poll conducted in September 2002. 67% of Israeli Jews supported the
United States formulating detailed peace agreements for the Middle East.
Only 28% of Israeli Jews opposed such an American approach.
Through further statistical analysis, it was
revealed that among those questioned who identified themselves as Sharon
voters in the 2001 Israeli elections, 59% supported the approach described
above. Among Barak supporters, that support climbs to 80.6%.
The following data is from research
conducted in June 2002:
A recent poll conducted by the Steinmetz Center of
Tel Aviv University, in conjunction with The Jewish Peace Lobby,
investigated the degree of support among Israeli Jews for various
non-conventional ways of reaching an agreement with the Palestinians. These
included three alternatives:
1. The United States would impose a solution (or partial solution) on
both Israelis and Palestinians.
2. Both sides would agree to binding arbitration of the final territorial
line by the United States.
3. All of Gaza and most of the West Bank would be turned over to a new
mandatory power.
With respect to all three approaches it was found that
there was significant support among Israeli Jews.
Imposing a solution: 44.2% vs. 47.9%
Two questions were asked. The first involved imposing a
comprehensive solution including the division of Jerusalem and Israel
absorbing up to 100,000 refugees. Among Israeli Jews only 28.5% favored the
United States “exerting pressure through all means” so that both sides would
agree.
The second question, restricted U.S. imposition to a
territorial line in which 95% of the West Bank, and all of the Gaza Strip
would become the Palestinian state, and the remaining 5% including 80% of
the settlers would be annexed to Israel.
This question was asked of the 71.5% who answered the
first question negatively or “don’t know” – of these 22% favored imposition
of an international boundary. This added another 15.7% of Israeli Jews to
the 28.5% that favored a more comprehensive imposed plan. Thus, in total
44.2% of Israeli Jews support the idea that the United States would impose
either a partial or comprehensive solution on both sides. In contrast some
47.9% of Jews opposed imposition, whether partial or comprehensive.
Binding Arbitration: 43.2% vs. 48%
Respondents were asked whether they supported binding
arbitration of a final territorial line that would allow at least ¾ of the
settlers to live in areas annexed to Israel, but would provide the
Palestinians with a contiguous state. 43.2% of Israeli Jews supported the
idea, while 48% opposed it.
New Mandate: 46.7% vs. 44.1%
Respondents were asked if they favored Israel turning
over all of the Gaza Strip and most of the West Bank to an outside power
such as the United States, retaining only the densely populated settlements
along the Green Line. The mandatory power would have the responsibility of
maintaining order and overseeing the establishment of a democratic
Palestinian government. The mandate would remain in effect until the
mandatory power judged that there was a Palestinian government in place that
was prepared to live in peace with Israel and was capable of meeting its
security commitments.
46.7% of Israeli Jews supported this idea. It was
opposed by 44.1%.
Summary: All three approaches were asked with
respect to similar territorial arrangements. There was virtually no
difference between overall response to imposing a line vs. going to binding
arbitration of the final line. In both cases roughly 44% supported the idea
and 48% opposed it. With respect to a new mandate within the same area,
these percentages were reversed, with roughly 47% supporting it, and 44%
opposing it. All of these ideas are relatively new to public discourse, and
the general openness of the public is striking. |
