Peace Index
By Prof. Ephraim Yaar and Prof. Tamar Hermann



Prime Minister Olmert's visit to Washington is defined as a success by a clear majority of the Jewish public. As for the basic political position he presented regarding the immediate need for permanent borders, it appears he also has considerable public support at this time. There is a broad consensus among the Jewish public that it is very important for Israel to have permanent borders, and that Israel has a moral right to decide on such borders even without coordination with the Palestinians. At the same time, there is an awareness of the limitations of power: the majority does not believe Israel has the ability to set its borders unilaterally without the support of the United States and the international community. The public is, in fact, evenly divided between supporters and opponents of the convergence plan, which includes an extensive evacuation of Jewish settlements and settlers from the West Bank. Nevertheless, a large majority believes that if the plan is adopted, Israel has the ability to carry it out, along with such a far-reaching dismantlement. The public's positions on the issue of the permanent borders, however and with what tradeoff they are attained, are apparently dictated by the desire to strengthen Israel's character as a Jewish state in the demographic sense. Thus, regarding the route the permanent borders will take, if the choice is between more territory or less Palestinian population, there is a clear preference that less Wes tBank land be annexed if this means fewer Palestinian residents in Israel. As for exchanges of territory, even though the majority does not ascribe much importance to the question of whether Israel should territorially compensate the Palestinians in return for West Bank lands that it includes in its borders, if territorial exchanges are to be carried out the public unequivocally prefers ceding the Arab-populated Triangle to giving up unpopulated areas of the Negev. In a similar spirit, there is broad public support for the Supreme Court's ruling that Israel does not have to grant citizenship to Palestinians who have married Israeli Arabs. Those are the main findings of the Peace Index survey that was carried out from Monday to Wednesday, 29-31 May. Today a majority of 58% of the Jewish public (mostly voters for Kadima, Labor, Meretz, and the Pensioners) view Prime Minister Olmert's visit to Washington as successful or very successful, 25% as unsuccessful, and 17.5% do not know. An even larger majority-75.5%-think, similar to the stance Olmert presented in Washington, that it is very important for Israel to have permanent borders. The recognition of that need is especially strong among Meretz (94%) and Labor (88%) voters; after them come voters for the Pensioners (70%), Kadima (68%), and Yisrael Beiteinu (60%). The support in Likud is lower, but still a majority supports the idea (50% in favor, 25% opposed, and the rest with no opinion). Only in the National Religious Party/National Union is there a majority of opponents (58%). How to arrive at these permanent borders is a more controversial question, since the convergence plan as presented by Olmert includes an extensive settlement evacuation. Here 47% indeed favor the plan, but 44% oppose it-a parity that did not exist regarding Sharon's disengagement plan even when support for it was at its lowest. However, support for the plan by voting is similar though not identical to the pattern of support for permanent borders. Support for the plan with its extensive dismantlement is headed by Meretz (94%) voters, followed by Labor (78%), Pensioners (73%), and Kadima (63%). Opponents have a majority among voters for Torah Judaism (92%), Yisrael Beiteinu (68%), and Shas (67%), and also among Likud voters (64.5%). At the same time, apparently inspired by the effective implementation of the disengagement plan, 67% believe that, despite the difficult experiences of the Gaza Strip evacuation and the Amona incident, Israel is capable of carrying out the plan if it decides to, even though a more extensive evacuation is involved (26% think it cannot succeed at this task and the rest have no opinion). Evidently, there is a close connection between support and feasibility assessment. Among the supporters, 89% view the plan as feasible, but only 9% of opponents see it that way. One can argue, of course, that the influence flows in the opposite direction, with feasibility assessment determining support or opposition-and in fact a connection emerges in that direction as well: among those viewing the convergence, including a widespread evacuation, as infeasible, 75% oppose it and only 16% support it.

A large majority of 70% support a position similar to the one Olmert presented-that Israel has the moral right to unilaterally decide its permanent borders. Especially interesting is that this view has wide support even among voters for the right-wing parties, whose level of support for the idea of permanent borders and, of course, for the convergence plan is lower: 90% of Likud voters affirm this moral right, 79% of Kadima voters, 67% of voters for Torah Judaism, National Religious Party/National Union, and Yisrael Beiteinu, and 60% of Labor voters. Among Meretz and Pensioners voters there is disagreement and more or less parity between those who uphold this right and those who deny it. However, unlike the high assessment of Israel's ability to carry out the convergence plan, on the issue of unilaterally setting the permanent borders there is wide public recognition of the limitations of power. Only 39% think Israel will be able to determine the borders unilaterally if this does not gain international and American support, whereas the majority (55%) says it cannot do so without such support. On that point a majority of voters for all the parties agree, with the exception of Shas.

Along with the prevailing recognition that Israel has a moral right to decide its permanent borders without consulting the Palestinians, many feel that even though this would entail annexing territories that belong to the Palestinians, it is not important that Israel should compensate them with lands of the same size within Israel. That is the view of 51% of the Jewish public, compared to 40% who think the Palestinians deserve such compensation. If, however, such a compensation is decided, a high rate-46%-favor giving territory from the Triangle, including Umm al-Fahm and other villages that are populated by Israeli Arabs, and only 15% prefer ceding unpopulated areas of the Western Negev. The rest do not know or oppose any exchanges of territory that would transfer parts of Israel to the Palestinians. Note that even among Meretz voters, for whom support for transferring empty lands-29%-is highest among all the parties, a higher rate favors giving up the Triangle-35%. The desire to increase the Jewish majority's demographic advantage in the state of Israel also emerges from the responses to two other questions. One asks what is preferable-that the permanent borders should preserve as much of the Land of Israel as possible for Jewish sovereignty, or that the Palestinian population remaining under Israeli sovereignty be reduced as much as possible even at the price of relinquishing territory. The Jewish public shows a clear preference-59%-for retaining as few Palestinians as possible even if it entails giving up territory, with one one-fourth opting for annexing more land even if that means increasing the Palestinian population that will live in Israel. A further manifestation of the strong desire to maintain a Jewish demographic majority is the Jewish public's sweeping support-70%-for the Supreme Court decision, albeit passed by a small majority, that legally the state of Israel does not have to grant citizenship to Palestinians who have married Israeli Arabs even if this means the couple cannot live together permanently in Israel or enjoy the rights of citizens. Only among Meretz voters does a minority view this decision as just, and Pensioners voters are split on the question. For the rest of the parties, a clear majority of the voters views this Supreme Court decision as right.

Indexes: General Oslo: 38.2; Jews: 33.2. General Negotiations: 51.1; Jews: 46.9. The Peace Index Project is conducted at the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research and the Evens Program in Mediation and Conflict Resolution 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 29-31 May 2006, and included 593 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 about 4.5% in each direction. For the findings of the survey, see: www.tau.ac.il/peace