Palestinian Public Opinion

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 18:19


While Palestinian public opinion is often included in discussions of Israel, Palestine and the Middle East, rarely is it actually quantified. This is too bad, since there are public opinion polls in Palestine (including Gaza), and because American discussion of the region tends to be extremely abstract, airy, and quasi-mythological. Any stateside discussion of "what needs to happen" in Israel and Palestine should include references to public opinion in the region. After all, Israel / Palestine is not an American mandate, and our goal should be to continually facilitate a discussion toward a path to a permanent peace agreement supported by the majority of both Israelis and Palestinians. We have no business dictating terms, such as, for example, how Jerusalem should be administered, if there should be land swaps, or whether or not to waive the right of return.

(We can point out, however, that escalating violence will make discussion less likely and less productive. If our role is to facilitate talks, I see no problem with condemning actions that will inevitably lead to a breakdown in talks.)

Right now, public opinion in both Israel and Palestine favors a two-state solution by wide margins. Of course, the devil is in the details, and right now there are no terms for a two-state solution to which a majority of both sides can agree. This conflict of public opinion is the major reason why there is no peace agreement right now, not a failure of negotiation tactics on either side. For example, consider a late 2007 poll of 1,200 Palestinian adults on what peace terms they would accept, showing majority opposition to every current proposal offered by Israel.

(More in the extended entry))

Chris Bowers :: Palestinian Public Opinion
Palestinian public opinion is in opposition to most of the ideas routinely discussed as part of the path to peace:

  • East Jerusalem: Living quarters inhabited by Arabs in East Jerusalem should be put under the Palestinian jurisdiction, the Jewish quarters to be annexed to Israel. Would you support or oppose this?: Support 41%--53% Oppose

  • Jordan Valley: The Israeli settlements in Jordan Valley would be dismantled, but the Israeli army would remain in the Jordan Valley area for the period of five years, after which- should calm reigns over the said region during this period- the Israeli forces would be replaced by international forces. Would you support or oppose this? Support 31%--59% Oppose

  • Right of Return: Presuming that the Palestinian State would take up the Palestinian refugees. Israel, with other countries, would establish an international fund for the compensation of those refugees, who want to return under the Palestinian jurisdiction and can't return to their original homeland in Israel. Would you support or oppose such a settlement of the Palestinian refugees problem? Support 24%--68% Oppose

  • Land Swap: Israel would keep 4 % of the West Bank and Gaza Strip area, which contains 80% of the Israeli settlements. As an exchange for that, Israel would offer the Palestinians 2% of its land adjacent to Gaza Strip. Would you support or oppose this deal? Support 21%--72% Oppose

  • Old City of Jerusalem: Upon dividing the Old City of Jerusalem between Israel and the Palestinians, Israel would keep the "Wailing Wall" (Western Wall), the Jewish and the Armenian quarters. A special arrangement would be made for the area of the Temple Mount (area of Al-Aqsa Mosque). Would you support or oppose this? Support 19%--73% Oppose

Given that Palestinian public opinion is opposed to peace agreements that include these provisions, even if a peace treaty was signed then either the existing Palestinian government would be dumped in the next round of elections in favor of a government that would oppose the treaty, or anti-democratic measures would have to be taken in the West Bank and Gaza Strip by the Palestinian Authority in order to keep the pro=peace government in power. Either path makes any peace treaty a moot point, as it would lead to continued, populist armed resistance and, thus, no peace.

This isn't going to end until there is an agreement that the majority of the populations on both sides accept. Right now, no such agreement exists, even hypothetically. Until public opinion changes, I don't expect the political and military conditions in the region will improve much, either. Bombing doesn't help, but there wouldn't be a solution for a long time, even if the attacks stopped tomorrow.


Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Just a basic question... (4.00 / 1)
Does "condemning" attacks do anything?  For instance, say that Israel had not escalated the conflict in recent days, but instead just "condemned" Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel?  What exactly do they accomplish?

It doesn't seem like what Israel is doing right now is productive, but at the same time, "condemning" attacks that will surely continue anyway doesn't seem very productive either.


Just a basic question (0.00 / 0)
There is an election upcoming in Israel. The residents of southern Israel have been complaining mightily about the sporadic rocket attacks from Gaza. Furthermore there is a belief in Israel that the horrific 'blitzkrieg' of Lebanon was effective in shutting down Hezbollah. I think all of these elements played a part in prompting this attack on Gaza. The Israeli goal is to eradicate Hamas. I believe they are staging the attack now because its still Bush's watch.

Frankly, I think its time the US maintain a true neutrality with respect to the Israeli/Palestinian blood feud. There are no good guys in this fight; just two sides wanting their own way. And its going to get uglier.


[ Parent ]
This is not how negotiations work, and it's actually a bit of a dodge (4.00 / 3)
Negotiations on crucial matters of war and peace and occupation and statehood don't wait around until public opinion polls indicate some favorable agreement.

That's why we have things like internationally recognized governments & movements.

The Israeli government is under obligation to negotiate with the accepted Palestinian representatives, whether they like them or not, whether they recognize Israel or not, so as to end an illegal and unrecognized occupation.

These are the two parties technically in conflict -- not the Israeli and Palestinian people as a whole.

Around the world difficult negotiations have taken place and even been concluded despite greatly divided publics.  In fact, public opinion is highly shaped by current realities, so in the absence of any significant peace process, it's not surprising that nothing like an "agreement" has been reached by non-recognized groups of different citizens contacted by public opinion pollsters.

And if an imperfect accord is reached but issues have to be returned to later, so be it -- the international peace process doesn't present the prospect of ignoring negotiations until times seem favorable for an ideal solution.


That isn't a doge (0.00 / 0)
It isn't a doge to point out that if an unpopular peace treaty is signed, and the people who sign it will be booted from power, and replaced by people who oppose the peace treaty. I don't see how that is a dodge at all. It's just reality.

There will be no peace unless the agreements the two governments sign are popular with their people.


[ Parent ]
It's a dodge in that no peace treaty exists to be unpopular (4.00 / 1)
People have all kinds of opinions.  The dodge would be to suggest that because right now, with no public opinion consensus on a range of major topics, a negotiation toward a peace treaty would hold less value given that lack of agreement.

In the real world, majority public opinion of Israelis and Palestinians might never converge on a consensus, absent any actual peace accord to consider.  

The time until that public opinion majority consensus came about could be weeks, months, years, or never, and just as equally if no actual final state negotiations occur and if final state negotiations are begun tomorrow.

Similarly, in our elections we chose a candidate in the Democratic party once the Primaries had begun, and not by waiting until a majority consensus had been noted among the voting Democratic public.

It is the job of the two states (or state and proto-state) to produce an agreement with which they estimate the populations will passively assent, at the minimum;  whether they embrace each concluded principle in a majority is not irrelevant in the sense of shaping future events, though definitely irrelevant in terms of whether or not negotiations are to begin and conclude as obligated.


[ Parent ]
This total methodology is [bleep] (4.00 / 4)
If the choices are:  would you prefer a peace settlement that includes all of column A rather than one that consists only column B, then of course people will prefer column A.

Look at how we conduct ourselves relative to the Demoocratic Party.  We have our maximalist demands, and there's what we settle for tactically.  We didn't, for instance, refuse to vote in the last election because Obama didn't endorse our fondest desires, thus continuing Republican rule.

Likewise, if the Palestinians were presented an actual settlement that consisted of column A, it is ridiculous to think they would, en masse, then throw their support behind suicidal struggle or depose their negotiators rather than take the deal, given the ACTUAL CHOICE at that point would be column A versus the present situation.

The Palestinians aren't all little children, you know.  They might make adult choices just like we do.  But I'll be charitable and think the problem with your approach is its over-reliance on number-crunching, rather than an appalling condescension to the Palestinian people.

And our role in this?  To exert as much PRACTICAL pressure we can to get the U.S. to support column B (if there were international negotiations), and then pressure Obama and the U.S. to accept column A if that's what is put on the table.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...


[ Parent ]
... and foithermore ... (0.00 / 0)
You never go into negotiations leading with the least you would accept.  You go in with maximal demands and then the negotiations begin.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

[ Parent ]
I don't think it's an either or (4.00 / 1)
I think you and Chris are both right.  There is no question that a final peace deal will include issues that majorities on both sides disagree with. However the polling helps to understand where the two sides are really far apart.

My guess would be that any issue listed above where you already have 40% support would be pretty easy for a majority to swallow if the prospect of an actual peace deal were really on the table. But something that 80% disagree with? probably not so much.


[ Parent ]
Incomplete picture (4.00 / 3)
Unrepresented here is the likely relative popularity of having a final peace. Yes, people will pick and choose among these issues, but the value of peace would rate very high and work against any conclusion you might draw from the numbers presented here.

[ Parent ]
Exactly! (0.00 / 0)
When situations are presented as either/or, that tends to automatically skew the results.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

[ Parent ]
Another thing (0.00 / 0)
To point out. The unemployment rate in Palestine is around 25 percent. That's about what it was at the hight of the great depression. When the situation is that desperate for a generation or so you can understand.

Also the government of Israel is not seen as negotiating in good faith as that poll shows. Bombing the hell out of a country is not a good way to increase employment and faith that you want to secure a peace deal.  

It's a very tricky situation that requires a lot of things. Bombing Palestine is not a helpful thing though, IMHO.

Hamas is popular beacuse they build schools and hospitals and build goodwill. If the US, EU, UN and Arab League developed a major jobs plan to get Palestine's unemployment rate down to more bearable rate of 10 or so that would be a big step forward.


John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power


Polls don't take into account leadership (4.00 / 1)
History is full of leaders who bucked public opinion to end conflicts and bring closure.

Two that come to mind right away: Yitzhak Rabin and Michael Collins, both of whom were patriots killed by their own countrymen. One succeeded, one didn't, but those are the kind of leaders that will be needed to overcome the hard feelings and fantasy-making among their own people to reach a real peace.

For a dramatic (ie cinema) introduction to Michael Collins, check out the movie "Michael Collins." Clip below (we don't make nearly enough use of multi-media potential of the Internet around here).



Terrible polling (0.00 / 0)
For reasons others have already expressed here, and more. For a thorough debunking, see: http://blog.peaceworks.net/200...

"Palestinian public opinion is in opposition to most of the ideas routinely discussed as part of the path to peace"

There is strong Palestinian support for the longstanding international consensus on a peace treaty, such as the Arab Peace Initiative, that is in accord with UN Resolution 242. Even many in the US realpolitik wing, like Lee Hamilton and Brent Snowcroft, support this.

An AWRAD poll of Palestinians taken shortly after the poll you cite:
http://www.awrad.org/pdfs/deta... +/-2% margin of error

9. As a final settlement for the conflict, do you support or oppose the following?

A. A two state solution based on resolution 242 (a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza side by
side with Israel).

57.6% support, 14.3% support to an extent
21.4% oppose, 3.8 oppose to an extent

I do applaud your opening statement. I don't think it can be reiterated enough. Polling of Palestinians and Israelis is all too often overlooked in these discussions. Such polls are why I advocate for a two-state solution instead of the one-state option that I think would be far superior. So obviously polling certainly has to be a guide in negotiations, but also obvious is that the negotiating parties can't wait until every single detail of a peace proposal reaches majority approval from both populations.  


I don't expect it will resolve soon (0.00 / 0)
I am concerned about reports of food blockaids, malnutrition and gazans eating grass.

http://www.chron.com/disp/stor...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t...


OK, then, why doesn't Israel simply IMPOSE the above solution (4.00 / 2)
on the Palestinians? Wouldn't this be better than the current situation? Chris writes as if this were a negotiation between two states. I don't remember the last time I've read such a bad column on these pages. Look at this sentence:

This conflict of public opinion is the major reason why there is no peace agreement right now, not a failure of negotiation tactics on either side.

Just my opinion: bombing the most densely packed place on earth, where children compose half the population, is not a good "negotiation tactic" toward "peace."


Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search